PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

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

FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT

Thursday, 17 October 2013

Subject Page MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 3393 Business Confidence ...... 3393 Ports Strategy ...... 3393 Tabled paper: Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning: Queensland Ports Strategy—Draft for Consultation...... 3393 Treasury Corporation, Global Roadshow ...... 3394 Legionella Review ...... 3395 Tabled paper: Department of Health—Review of the prevention and control of legionella pneumophila infection in Queensland: Chief Health Officer’s Report, September 2013...... 3396 Carers Week ...... 3396 Heritage Conservation, Grants ...... 3396 Mining Industry ...... 3397 Energy Strategy; Water Strategy ...... 3398 Ecotourism ...... 3398 ABSENCE OF MINISTER ...... 3398 STATE DEVELOPMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE ...... 3399 Reports ...... 3399 Tabled paper: State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee: Report No. 30— Subordinate legislation tabled between 5 June 2013 and 10 September 2013...... 3399 Tabled paper: State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee: Report No. 31— Annual Report 2012-13...... 3399 EDUCATION AND INNOVATION COMMITTEE ...... 3399 Reports ...... 3399 Tabled paper: Education and Innovation Committee: Report No. 26—Annual Report 2012-13...... 3399 Tabled paper: Education and Innovation Committee: Report No. 27—Subordinate legislation tabled between 6 August 2013 and 19 September 2013...... 3399

FS SIMPSON NJ LAURIE LJ OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER

Table of Contents – Thursday, 17 October 2013

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 3400 Attorney-General ...... 3400 Legislation, Consultation ...... 3400 Queensland Economy ...... 3401 Tabled paper: Property Council of Australia media release titled ‘Qld: The tide is turning: Property industry sentiment climbs’...... 3401 Legislation, Consultation ...... 3402 Infrastructure Planning ...... 3402 Tabled paper: Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning: Infrastructure for Economic Development, October 2013...... 3403 Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative ...... 3403 Railway Stations, Accessibility ...... 3404 Correctional Facilities ...... 3404 Queensland Health, Financial Management ...... 3405 Screen Queensland ...... 3406 Education Reform...... 3406 Wellcamp ...... 3407 Youth Boot Camps ...... 3408 Rural Fire Service ...... 3409 Social Housing ...... 3409 Floods, Infrastructure ...... 3410 Youth Crime ...... 3411 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 3411 School Group Tours ...... 3411 PARLIAMENTARY CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMITTEE ...... 3412 Report, Motion to take Note ...... 3412 EDUCATION AND INNOVATION COMMITTEE ...... 3412 Report, Motion to Take Note ...... 3412 MOTION ...... 3415 Suspension of Standing Orders; Vacancy in Senate of Commonwealth of Australia ...... 3415 Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to...... 3418 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3418 NORTH STRADBROKE ISLAND PROTECTION AND SUSTAINABILITY AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3418 Introduction ...... 3418 Tabled paper: North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Another Act Amendment Bill 2013...... 3418 Tabled paper: North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Another Act Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes...... 3418 First Reading ...... 3421 Referral to the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee ...... 3421 Portfolio Committee, Reporting Date ...... 3421 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (FAIR WORK ACT HARMONISATION NO. 2) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3421 Introduction ...... 3421 Tabled paper: Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013...... 3421 Tabled paper: Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes...... 3421 First Reading ...... 3424 Referral to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee ...... 3424 Portfolio Committee, Reporting Date ...... 3425 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3425 Second Reading ...... 3425 Tabled paper: Open letter (email) to parliamentarians from Kerry Splatt—resignation from LNP Law and Justice Committee and from the LNP...... 3428 ETHICS COMMITTEE...... 3433 Report ...... 3433 Tabled paper: Ethics Committee Report No. 137—Matter of privilege referred by the Speaker on 8 August 2013 relating to an alleged deliberate misleading of the House by a member...... 3433 CHILD PROTECTION (OFFENDER REPORTING) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3433 Introduction ...... 3433 Tabled paper: Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Amendment Bill 2013 ...... 3433 Tabled paper: Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes...... 3433 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 21 September 2012, from the member of Yeerongpilly, Mr Carl Judge MP, to the Minister for Police and Community Safety, Hon. Jack Dempsey...... 3434 Tabled paper: Submission, dated 28 June 2012, by Mr Ross Barnett, Deputy Commissioner, Queensland Police Service to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee, titled ‘Criminal Law—Two Strike Child Sex Offenders (Submission 016)’...... 3434 First Reading ...... 3435 Referral to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee ...... 3435 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 3435 Noosa Council, Election ...... 3435 Currumbin Estuary ...... 3436 Belmont and Gumdale Scout Groups ...... 3436 Table of Contents – Thursday, 17 October 2013

Independent Public Schools ...... 3437 Mackay Cutters Rugby League Football Club ...... 3438 South East Brisbane Chamber of Commerce ...... 3438 Online Diets ...... 3439 Morayfield Electorate ...... 3440 Nursery Road Special School...... 3441 Collinsville, Memorial Service ...... 3441 Algester Electorate ...... 3442 National Family Business Day...... 3442 Hervey Bay, Sesquicentenary ...... 3443 Centenary and Districts Chamber of Commerce ...... 3444 Helensvale State High School ...... 3444 Brisbane Central Electorate ...... 3445 North Stradbroke Island...... 3445 Stretton Electorate ...... 3446 Longreach, Scouts ...... 3446 Maryborough Speedway ...... 3447 Pumicestone Passage ...... 3447 Rural Fire Service ...... 3448 Abbot Point, Priority Port Development Area ...... 3449 Bundaberg Arthritis Support Group; Arthritis Queensland ...... 3449 KRANK School Holiday Program ...... 3450 Aquis Great Barrier Reef Resort ...... 3451 Mental Health Research Alliance ...... 3451 Wynnum and Bayside Carer and Family Expo; Wynnum Relay for Life ...... 3452 Special Schools ...... 3452 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3453 Second Reading ...... 3453 Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Queensland state election 2012, Features: Members’ issues brought to political heads’...... 3462 Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time...... 3508 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3508 Consideration in Detail ...... 3508 Clause 1, as read, agreed to...... 3508 Clauses 2 and 3, as read, agreed to...... 3508 Clause 4— ...... 3509 Division: Question put—That clause 4, as read, stand part of the bill...... 3509 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3509 Clause 4, as read, agreed to...... 3509 Clauses 5 to 11, as read, agreed to...... 3509 Clause 12, as read, agreed to...... 3509 Clause 13, as read, agreed to...... 3509 Clause 14, as read, agreed to...... 3510 Clauses 15 and 16, as read, agreed to...... 3510 Clause 17—...... 3510 Tabled paper: Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes to Mr Curtis Pitt’s amendments...... 3510 Question put—That the amendment be agreed to...... 3511 Resolved in the negative...... 3511 Non-government amendment (Mr Pitt) negatived...... 3511 Division: Question put—That clause 17, as read, stand part of the bill...... 3513 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3513 Clause 17, as read, agreed to...... 3513 Clauses 18 to 28, as read, agreed to...... 3513 Clause 29—...... 3513 Tabled paper: Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes to Hon. Jarrod Bleijie’s amendments...... 3513 Clause 29, as amended, agreed to...... 3513 Clauses 30 to 47, as read, agreed to...... 3513 Clause 48, as read, agreed to...... 3514 Clauses 49 to 58, as read, agreed to...... 3514 Clause 59, as read, agreed to...... 3515 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3515 Allocation of Time Limit Order ...... 3515 Division: Question put—That motion be agreed to...... 3516 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3516 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3516 Consideration in Detail ...... 3516 Clauses 60 to 68, as read, agreed to...... 3516 Insertion of new clause— ...... 3516 Amendment agreed to...... 3518 Clauses 69 to 81, as read, agreed to...... 3518 Clause 82, as read, agreed to...... 3519 Clauses 83 to 92, as read, agreed to...... 3519

Table of Contents – Thursday, 17 October 2013

Insertion of new clause— ...... 3519 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 16 October 2013, from the Queensland Law Society regarding the Worker’s Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013...... 3520 Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to...... 3520 Resolved in the negative...... 3520 Non-government amendment (Mr Pitt) negatived...... 3520 Clauses 93 to 97, as read, agreed to...... 3520 Clause 98— ...... 3521 Clauses 98 to 122 and schedules 1 and 2, as amended, agreed to...... 3521 Third Reading ...... 3522 Long Title ...... 3522 CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (PUBLIC INTEREST DECLARATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3522 Allocation of Time Limit Order ...... 3522 Second Reading ...... 3522 Tabled paper: Speaking list for the Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) Amendment Bill 2013...... 3533 Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time...... 3539 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3539 Consideration in Detail...... 3539 Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to...... 3539 Clause 3, as read, agreed to...... 3540 Clauses 4 and 5, as read, agreed to...... 3540 Clause 6— ...... 3540 Question put—That clause 6, as read, stand part of the bill...... 3543 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3543 Clause 6, as read, agreed to...... 3543 Third Reading ...... 3545 Long Title ...... 3545 PRIVILEGE ...... 3545 Ethics Committee Report No. 137 ...... 3545 SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT ...... 3545 ADJOURNMENT ...... 3545 St Patrick’s Church, 50th Anniversary ...... 3546 Ashgrove Electorate, Safety and Security ...... 3546 Maroochydore Electorate ...... 3547 Newman Government, Performance ...... 3548 Bohlevale State School ...... 3549 Everton Electorate ...... 3549 Physician Assistants ...... 3550 Redlands Electorate, Community Organisations ...... 3551 Member for Nicklin; Rural Firefighters ...... 3551 Burleigh Electorate ...... 3552 ATTENDANCE ...... 3552

17 Oct 2013 Legislative Assembly 3393

THURSDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2013 ______

The Legislative Assembly met at 9.30 am. Madam Speaker (Hon. Fiona Simpson, Maroochydore) read prayers and took the chair.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Business Confidence Hon. CKT NEWMAN (Ashgrove—LNP) (Premier) (9.31 am): The new opportunities in Queensland are being recognised with increased confidence from business both here and overseas. We are seeing results from being an unashamedly pro-business and pro-investment government, starting from a position of saying yes when companies come here to do business. Last night we passed new legislation to lift unnecessary restrictions and burdens on company directors that further demonstrate our pro-business stance. I spoke yesterday about the signs of confidence we are seeing in recent labour force, consumer confidence, state taxation and business investment figures. We are also seeing signs of a sustained recovery in the housing market, with 16 straight months of dwelling approval increases. ABS lending finance data shows the value of loans for buying existing homes in the August quarter was 6.1 per cent higher than last year. There is more good news out today about confidence in the Queensland property market that I would be very pleased to take a question on later. The trade mission I recently led to the UAE, China, Japan and Singapore provided further evidence of confidence in Queensland. We have got major international investors lining up to undertake projects and do business in Queensland. If we are to see this investment confidence and demand convert into business opportunities and jobs for Queenslanders, we must have timely, less costly approvals for major projects. The duplication that business currently faces between the state and the Commonwealth on environmental approvals under the EPBC Act is unnecessary and a huge burden on business. I confirm again today that streamlining project approvals is the Queensland government’s No. 1 priority to be addressed in partnership with the new Abbott federal government. We are working closely with the Prime Minister to make sure he understands the importance of getting this sorted out quickly and getting on with the job. This government’s getting on with the job approach is why we are seeing business confidence returning and strong signs of economic recovery and growth in Queensland. We will continue getting on with it, doing what is right for business and what is needed to create confidence, jobs and new economic opportunities for Queenslanders.

Ports Strategy Hon. JW SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning) (9.33 am): Our government is focused on driving the economic growth the future generations of Queenslanders will need in an environment that all Queenslanders want to see protected. The two aims are certainly not polar opposites and certainly not mutually exclusive. Our government is working constructively to ensure that any projects do not proceed without proper and due environmental considerations. Today the government is releasing its draft Queensland Ports Strategy and, with your permission, Madam Speaker, I table a copy. Tabled paper: Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning: Queensland Ports Strategy—Draft for Consultation [3783].

3394 Ministerial Statements 17 Oct 2013

The Queensland Ports Strategy will be the state government’s blueprint for managing and improving the efficiency and environmental management of the state’s port network over the next decade and, more importantly, ensuring that those critically important ports are able to develop in the future. The draft Queensland Ports Strategy will be open for public comment until 13 December 2013. Along Queensland’s 6,973-kilometre coastline there are 20 ports, including 15 trading ports, two community ports and three gazetted non-trading ports. What the government is proposing in the Ports Strategy that I have released today is the declaration of five priority port development areas, PPDAs, for the state’s leading, long-established ports where, as the name would suggest, development of port facilities will be a priority. It will be a priority to develop those areas as the economic growth ports of the future. Development will not just be allowed in those priority port development areas, but will be encouraged and facilitated. It is proposed the PPDAs will be created for the ports of Brisbane, Mackay-Hay Point, Gladstone, Townsville and Abbot Point. This strategy will also prohibit capital dredging for the development of other deepwater port facilities outside of PPDAs for the next 10 years. We are working to have legislation in place next year to deliver both of those commitments: to prohibit further deepwater port facility dredging and to ensure the development of the five PPDAs. This will ensure the protection of the balance of the Queensland coastline. The proposed Queensland ports bill will also require ports declared to be PPDAs to prepare leading practice master plans, including an environmental management framework meeting both Queensland and Australian government environmental assessment standards. The requirement will also be there for those PPDAs to demonstrate their ability to deal with the growth pressures that will be necessary for Queensland’s economic development. This strategy preserves and builds on the state’s commitment in the Great Barrier Reef Ports Strategy to restrict any significant port development within and adjoining the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area to within port limits to 2022. We need to find a sensible way forward and work within the existing port networks to ensure the future economic prosperity of our state does not put at risk our greatest natural asset, the Great Barrier Reef. Equally we must ensure that ports can develop and that ports can grow to ensure the economic growth for future generations of Queenslanders is assured. In 2011-12 these proposed PPDA ports handled 87 per cent of the state’s $54.5 billion worth of exports and were responsible for 98 per cent of the state’s imports. Coal is still the state’s predominant commodity export, representing 63 per cent of the volumes going through our ports, followed by bauxite at 15 per cent and petroleum products at six per cent. The state government will also continue the review of port governance and improve supply chain infrastructure coordination. We will delivery sustained economic growth across the state’s port network. Our Ports Strategy will ensure that the critical economic infrastructure that is essential for Queensland’s future can be built in a sensitive environment that all Queenslanders want to see protected.

Treasury Corporation, Global Roadshow Hon. TJ NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (Treasurer and Minister for Trade) (9.38 am): Earlier this month I returned home from a Queensland Treasury Corporation global roadshow that included the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States. The focus of this mission was to meet representatives from key financial institutions to promote QTC bonds, which are fully guaranteed by the Queensland government. As the guarantor for QTC bonds, my presence at these roadshows is regarded as critical for maintaining and strengthening Queensland’s relationships and reputation in international markets. The meetings also provide an opportunity for investors to ask me direct questions about the state’s economic and fiscal outlook. I might also add that I took the opportunity to engage in a number of trade functions in each of these areas as well. QTC borrows funds in global financial markets to fund the state’s public sector entities. As at 31 August, QTC had more than $83.5 billion of debt on issue. While some of this debt is on behalf of local governments, universities and other entities, the majority of it is held by the Queensland government. There are more than 5,000 organisations across the globe that issue debt and therefore it is critically important for Queensland to maintain a presence in global markets. Of all the Australian states, QTC bonds are the most widely held offshore. QTC estimates that approximately 50 per cent of its bonds are held by international investors. To put it simply, more investors and more investor interest in Queensland government bonds mean a lower cost of funds for the state and taxpayers.

17 Oct 2013 Ministerial Statements 3395

In each of the markets that I visited, I met with and briefed major existing and potential fixed income investors from organisations including central banks, insurance companies, pension funds and institutional asset managers. In London and New York, I met with and briefed members from the 15 global banks who distribute Queensland government guaranteed bonds in financial markets on behalf of QTC. I also met with senior head office personnel from rating agencies Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s to brief them on the Newman government’s plans to stabilise debt and move the budget back into a surplus position. I was also able to outline how we are tracking against our previously outlined targets for fiscal repair. The Newman government is stabilising debt at around $80 billion in 2014-15. This is $5 billion less than forecast by the previous government and more than $6 billion less than the comparable estimate in the independent Commission of Audit. We have brought expenses growth under control, with general government expenses in 2012-13 estimated to be only 1.1 per cent higher than in 2011-12—the lowest rate of growth since accrual accounting began in 1988-89 and compares to the decade average under the previous Labor government of almost nine per cent a year. We have brought unforeseen expenditure under control. Gone are the days of $9 billion budget blow-outs, as experienced under Labor in 2010-11. We are well on the way to restoring the state’s financial credibility, but the job is not over. There is worldwide pressure on governments to prudently maintain their balance sheets or risk further credit rating downgrades. Western Australia’s credit downgrade by Standard & Poor’s last month is just one example of this. The Newman government is focused on restoring Queensland’s finances while also stimulating economic growth, and we have seen some reports of that from the Premier this morning. But we are also determined to promote Queensland because Queensland is undoubtedly the best place in Australia to invest, employ and grow. The QTC roadshow was an opportunity to promote Queensland to the rest of the world. We have a fantastic story to tell and I was delighted to be able to tell it.

Legionella Review Hon. LJ SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Minister for Health) (9.41 am): In June this year I asked the Queensland Chief Health Officer to investigate the circumstances surrounding legionnaire’s disease in two patients and the subsequent death of one of those patients at the Wesley Hospital. I also asked the Chief Health Officer to make recommendations regarding the future management of legionella pneumophila in Queensland. The scope of the review grew further to include sampling, testing and treatment of water supplies in all public, private and day hospitals. Interim sampling and testing guidelines were supplemented by further advice on selecting specific sampling sites and appropriate sample numbers. Protocols for responses to positive test results for water management and the management of vulnerable patients were issued. This was a massive task and the workload and cost burden cannot be underestimated—267 facilities reported more than 5,000 test results, and of these 83 public and 76 private facilities did not detect any legionella. Costs received to date from hospital and health services range from $20,000 to about $100,000. Metro South Hospital and Health Service employed the state’s most comprehensive testing regime at a cost of $102,000, with the small number of positive samples returned being treated quickly and successfully. The South West Hospital and Health Service have spent a similar amount as they continue to tackle highly persistent legionella problems, particularly at Charleville Hospital, Waroona aged-care facility and Quilpie Hospital. Charleville and Waroona have to date undergone nine separate rounds of testing and retesting and have engaged a specialist consultant. By way of comparison, completed testing within the Townsville and Sunshine Coast hospital and health services cost around $35,000. In regard to the specific cases at Wesley Hospital, the Chief Health Officer’s review has concluded that the hospital did not specifically breach any legislation or regulation. There was no evidence of negligence or intent on the part of the Wesley Hospital resulting in harm to visitors, patients or staff. There were, however, administrative issues identified in regard to the Wesley’s management of and response to the outbreak of legionnaire’s disease. Deficiencies were also detected in the laboratory information system and supporting procedure documents at Sullivan Nicolaides Pathology. These deficiencies resulted in their failure to notify Queensland Health of the first positive legionella test result from the Wesley. Fortunately, in this case the failure had no impact on future risks to other patients given the prompt and comprehensive actions undertaken by the Wesley Hospital.

3396 Ministerial Statements 17 Oct 2013

The Chief Health Officer’s review identifies numerous areas to be improved to ensure a more robust approach to preventing and controlling legionella and legionnaire’s disease in Queensland. These include: regulation; water supply to health and residential aged-care facilities; water infrastructure and water quality management, including periodic testing; electronic data management, notification and follow-up of the disease; national collaboration and consistency; and information for the community. I commend the Chief Health Officer and her team for this comprehensive review. I now table the review undertaken by the Chief Health Officer and her team, and I will keep members informed as we work with other government agencies to implement its recommendations. Tabled paper: Department of Health—Review of the prevention and control of legionella pneumophila infection in Queensland: Chief Health Officer’s Report, September 2013 [3784].

Carers Week Hon. TE DAVIS (Aspley—LNP) (Minister for Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services) (9.45 am): It is estimated that one in 10 Queenslanders is an unpaid carer of a person with a disability, chronic pain, illness or frailty. That amounts to more than half a million Queenslanders, so it is a very fitting that this week—during Carers Week—we acknowledge their invaluable work as well as their important contribution to the broader community. Caring for a family member or friend can be enriching and rewarding, but it is not always easy. Carers face a range of issues from reduced employment opportunities to struggles with their own wellbeing. I was pleased to officially launch Carers Week in Queensland last Friday at an event hosted by Carers Queensland. During the launch I heard from some truly inspiring carers who could be described as ordinary people doing extraordinary things. Learning how carers in Queensland give up their time to look after their family member is what 2013 Carers Week is all about, with the theme encouraging all Australians to ‘Be Care Aware’. I encourage everyone in the community to get to know more about Queensland’s half a million quiet achievers. Who carers are, what they do and what support they need are key questions that we should all take time out this week to consider. If you know a carer, you could help by doing something as simple as catching up over coffee, offering to mow the lawn or dropping off the newspaper in the mornings. These small gestures can make a huge difference to carers. I am pleased to announce that a new Queensland Carers Advisory Council has been selected to represent the interests of the state’s thousands of dedicated carers and ensure they have a voice in the government decision-making process. The eight new council members represent carers and grandparent carers, as well as representatives from carer organisations. Plus four additional council members have also been appointed to represent the state government. I will be working with the council to gain a better understanding of the priorities and challenges faced by carers. The Queensland government has provided more than $10,000 to Carers Queensland to deliver a range of activities across the state during Carers Week. My department is also supporting carers by providing almost $2 million to Carers Queensland in 2013-14 to assist with counselling, support, advocacy, and education and training for carers. We are also contributing $15 million over three years for the Elderly Parent Carer Innovation Trial, which will assist elderly parent carers with their adult children with a disability. We are providing $5.17 million annually for the Older Carer Initiative, which provides respite and planning support to older carers. We are running the Carer Business Discount Card Scheme, which provides carers with discounts on goods and services at thousands of businesses across our state. Carers play a crucial role in our great state. Let’s ensure that this week they get the message loud and clear that they are not alone and that help is at hand. Heritage Conservation, Grants

Hon. AC POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection) (9.49 am): I am delighted today to announce a grants program to conserve and promote Queensland’s heritage listed places and historic shipwrecks. At the outset, I convey my thanks to Marisa Vecchio, the owner of Hanworth House, for hosting my visit yesterday in the midst of a very busy building program restoring that house following an arson attack earlier this year. The Newman government recognises that protecting Queensland’s heritage is important. It helps us to define who we are. Once lost, it is gone forever. This government has reiterated its commitment to support these valuable reminders of our past. A total of $600,000 is available for heritage conservation projects. Funding for projects ranges from $2,000 to $40,000. The heritage

17 Oct 2013 Ministerial Statements 3397

phase of the program provides two streams of funding—smaller scale projects of $2,000 to $10,000 and larger scale projects of $10,000 to $40,000 for heritage projects that seek to engage the community in conserving, understanding and appreciating Queensland’s cultural heritage. We are particularly looking for individuals who own heritage registered properties, community groups, historical societies, friends groups, P&C associations and not-for-profit trusts and associations that want to undertake heritage projects. This is the first heritage grants program run by a state government for a number of years, because the former government took an axe to heritage grants in this state. We understand the importance of recognising our past and preserving and celebrating our heritage for future generations. This funding builds on the $3.4 million to 83 successful projects for landscape and habitat conservation which I recently announced under round 2 of the Everyone’s Environment grant program. Successful landscape and habitat conservation projects will be implemented across a range of locations from the gulf to Southport on the Gold Coast, responding to environmental issues including weed and pest management, litter clean-up activities, habitat and wetland restoration and water quality monitoring. To date, round 1 and round 2 have allocated $6.3 million across 157 projects throughout the state. I look forward to continuing to work with Queenslanders to protect and enhance what is great about this great state.

Mining Industry Hon. AP CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Mines) (9.51 am): I am very pleased to advise the House about significant reforms that will encourage investment in mineral exploration and foster co-existence between the resources sector and landholders. The Newman government has been listening to requests from the resources sector for more efficient approvals time frames, and we are delivering. We have also listened to rural landowners who want a more inclusive engagement process with resources companies to ensure the two industries can successfully co-exist. With both of these industries in mind, my Department of Natural Resources and Mines closely examined the existing approvals processes and has made significant changes to the way that we consider coal and mineral exploration applications. The new process to be applied to resource companies wanting to explore for minerals will allow them to get on with their business more quickly and provide landholders with information about proposed activities far earlier than is currently the case. The new process has the potential to halve the time taken for companies to be granted exploration permits while importantly maintaining rigorous environmental, native title and land access assessments. Companies will now know within 90 days of lodgement whether their proposed exploration works program for a project has been approved or rejected. Exploration permits subject to native title will be able to be decided in less than 12 months. Permits not subject to native title can be determined in six months or sooner. This is a significant reduction on the average 22 months it currently takes for an exploration application to be processed. This is good news for rural landowners as well. Under the existing process, mining companies had to wait until an exploration permit was granted before engaging with landholders. Under the new process, discussions can now happen much earlier. This gives rural landowners more time to consider and negotiate land access and conduct and compensation agreements put to them by resource companies. I want to make it absolutely clear that no exploration activities can begin prior to a permit being granted and an exploration permit only allows for a company to explore. It does not allow for a commercial mining operation or production to commence. Applications to explore will continue to be subject to stringent rules regarding the environment, technical and commercial viability, community interest, native title and land access. These reforms have been welcomed by farm lobby groups and the resources sector. Greg Lane, acting CEO of the Queensland Resources Council, said that the Newman government’s reforms— ... are a great leap forward for Queensland explorers. Our members need to know quickly if tenure will be granted, and the Queensland Government is clearly listening. It will save time, money and relieve uncertainty. This is a simple change in process, but it could revolutionise how Queensland explorers operate. The Queensland Farmers Federation CEO, Dan Galligan, said on the ABC’s Queensland Country Hour— We were looking at the Government to provide an incentive for companies to talk to landholders much earlier and this is an opportunity for that to happen. My Department of Natural Resources and Mines will continue to support the industries that support Queensland’s economy and provide jobs for Queenslanders.

3398 Absence of Minister 17 Oct 2013

Energy Strategy; Water Strategy Hon. MF McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (Minister for Energy and Water Supply) (9.55 am): Last week all members of parliament had the unique privilege of joining community leaders from every part of this great state to help develop Queensland’s 30-year vision—one that is truly designed, owned and developed by the very people, interests and aspirations it must serve. The Queensland government is also committed to developing 30-year strategies for the state’s electricity and water sectors. These strategies will support the directions of the Queensland Plan. All Queenslanders have learned a very painful and enduring lesson: when a government fails to plan, it also fails the generations of Queenslanders that follow. The ongoing cost-of-living pain for Queenslanders through increasing water and electricity bills are directly linked to the prior Labor government’s failure to plan and its panic, hurried infrastructure investment decisions. As all members of the House know, the priorities identified by Queenslanders for the Queensland Plan make it clear that infrastructure is crucial to our future: a long-term approach to planning and delivery of infrastructure; communities that are well planned, well connected and engender community spirit; delivery of economic, social and community benefits through infrastructure; and the highest productivity rate in Australia. Developing long-term electricity and water supply plans are a key part of ensuring we respect these directions from Queenslanders from the Cape to Coolangatta and from Caloundra to Mount Isa and everywhere else throughout this great state. These plans will ensure that infrastructure, whether it is delivered by the private sector or the public sector, will be managed to deliver balanced economic, social and community benefits. The 30-year electricity strategy discussion paper I released recently seeks community and industry feedback on specific proposals to address a range of immediate challenges in the sector over the next five years, but it also considers the powerful drivers that will impact our electricity supply system in the long term and options to support a resilient sector no matter what challenges we face in coming years. The 30-year water strategy also balances long-term objectives with immediate challenges, putting building blocks in place now for the sector to support our communities, industries and environment for the next 30 years. Focusing on people, planning and partnerships, the strategy could propose actions that build skills, foster collaboration, improve regulatory outcomes, promote partnerships in innovation, support responsible and productive water management and use and, most importantly, put Queenslanders first. It is my intent to release the draft long-term water strategy later this year for public consultation. Together, the 30-year electricity and water strategies will make a difference to our future, and I encourage all Queenslanders to have a say.

Ecotourism Hon. SL DICKSON (Buderim—LNP) (Minister for National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing) (9.57 am): It is a very exciting time in Queensland as far as ecotourism is concerned. Our government has gone out to the world and made a commitment that we endeavour to be the best ecotourism operators on the planet by 2020. Ecotourism is a vital part of our tourism economy, and it is one of the four pillars of the Queensland government. We have gone out to the investment component of the Queensland public and asked them to become involved in creating some of the best businesses and best opportunities in the world. We are seeing that start to open up. We are seeing people putting forward their expressions of interest of where they want to go and what they want to deliver. In Queensland we have over 1,300 national parks, marine parks and other reserves including five World Heritage areas—more than any other state. Queensland has a unique environment that gives us a great competitive edge on the international stage. We will not let the people of Queensland down. This is about creating jobs. It is about exposing our natural beauty to the rest of the world. We are building a foundation that we just cannot go past. That is happening in every portfolio right throughout our government.

ABSENCE OF MINISTER Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (Leader of the House) (9.59 am): I wish to advise the House that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is absent from the House today on personal leave. Minister Cripps is acting minister for the portfolio during this absence.

17 Oct 2013 Education and Innovation Committee 3399

STATE DEVELOPMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE

Reports Mr GIBSON (Gympie—LNP) (9.59 am): I lay upon the table of the House report No. 30 of the State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee. Tabled paper: State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee: Report No. 30—Subordinate legislation tabled between 5 June 2013 and 10 September 2013 [3785]. This report examines portfolio subordinate legislation tabled between 5 June and 10 September 2013. The subordinate legislation examined has a disallowance date of 30 October 2013 and 13 February 2014. The committee raised specific concerns regarding the application of fundamental legislative principles to the Electricity and Another Regulation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2013 and recommends the tabling of associated documents with the Sustainable Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2013. I also lay upon the table of the House report No. 31 of the State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee titled Annual report 2012-13. Tabled paper: State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee: Report No. 31—Annual Report 2012-13 [3786]. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who contributed to the committee’s work throughout the year as well as the committee members and to make special mention of our hardworking committee secretariat staff. I commend the reports and the committee’s recommendations to the House.

EDUCATION AND INNOVATION COMMITTEE

Reports Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—LNP) (10.00 am): I lay upon the table of the House report No. 26 of the Education and Innovation Committee, the committee’s annual report for 2012-13. Tabled paper: Education and Innovation Committee: Report No. 26—Annual Report 2012-13 [3787]. The report summarises the committee’s work over that year: the bills referred to the committee, the inquiries we have undertaken, the reports we have tabled in the parliament and the government responses provided to these reports. Committee expenditure over that period is also summarised. I would like to take this opportunity to thank members of the Education and Innovation Committee for their enthusiasm and hard work during the year. It has been a year of consolidating the portfolio content, understanding we began to obtain in 2011-12. I look forward to us continuing to support the parliament to fulfil its functions in 2013-14. I commend this report to the House. I also lay upon the table of the House report No. 27 of the Education and Innovation Committee, subordinate legislation tabled between 6 August 2013 and 19 September 2013. Tabled paper: Education and Innovation Committee: Report No. 27—Subordinate legislation tabled between 6 August 2013 and 19 September 2013 [3788]. The committee has considered the five pieces of subordinate legislation tabled during that time that pertain to this committee and found no issues in respect of fundamental legislative principles or lawfulness. No. 107 implements the government’s decision, in response to the recommendations of the Skills and Training Taskforce, that TAFE adopt a flexible fee regime to allow it to better compete in a contestable training market. The amendment regulation removes fees and concessions from regulation and allows for them to be dealt with through the funding agreements with providers. This will allow for public training investment to be better directed towards high-priority qualifications in line with labour market needs. No. 108 proclaims the commencement of all remaining provisions of the TAFE Queensland Act 2013. No. 109 dissolves the two statutory TAFE institutes at the Gold Coast and South Bank and allows for the transfer of their assets, liabilities, staff, student enrolments and other matters into the Department of Education, Training and Employment. Nos 129 and 155 provide for the Department of Justice and the Attorney-General to become responsible for documents pertaining to the Queensland Child Protection Commission of Inquiry and the Queensland Health Payroll System Commission of Inquiry respectively. I commend the report to the House.

3400 Questions Without Notice 17 Oct 2013

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Madam SPEAKER: Question time will finish at 11.02 am.

Attorney-General Ms PALASZCZUK (10.02 am): My question is to the Premier. In the past 24 hours the Law Society, the Council for Civil Liberties and a leading lawyer who is also a former LNP member have criticised the Attorney-General including comments that the Attorney needs to ‘listen to advice’ and ‘has little experience in the law’, and I ask: when will the Premier remove this Attorney-General? Mr NEWMAN: I wholeheartedly thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question because, firstly, I am happy to reiterate not only that the Attorney-General has my personal support but also that he has, without question, the unequivocal, 100 per cent, rock solid support of the cabinet and those honourable members of the LNP in this place. Not only does he have the support of the LNP members in this place; he has the total, unequivocal support of the LNP state executive and, I am confident, almost all of the 14,000 members of the LNP across Queensland who worked hard to get a government that would be strong on these law and order and safety and security issues. This Attorney-General has had the ticker and the guts to actually stand up to entrenched interests right across this state without fear or favour and to do what is right for Queenslanders, do what is right for Queensland families, do what is right for Queensland businesses with regard to red tape and bureaucracy, do what is right when businesses are subjected to intimidation by criminal motorcycle gangs. I could go on and on. He has done the right thing by Queenslanders. I make this point: this government has used the law to protect people. This Attorney-General has brought forward tough laws to protect Queenslanders, to protect kids and we have pushed through legislation—and we make no apologies for doing that. Let us contrast that with the Labor Party. What did they do in terms of using laws that they pushed through? A government member: Nothing! Mr NEWMAN: No, that is not right. I take that interjection; it is not correct. The Labor Party used the processes in this place to stop crooked politicians like Gordon Nuttall going to jail. That is what they did. Let me summarise for those opposite. We use the law—tough laws—to protect Queenslanders, to actually keep crims and paedophiles in jail and to actually deal with outlaw motorcycle gangs; those opposite abuse the processes of this parliament to keep crooked mates out of jail. That is the difference. That is why I support this Attorney-General. That is why he is doing an outstanding job for Queenslanders.

Legislation, Consultation Ms PALASZCZUK: My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier today commit to meet with key stakeholders such as the Law Society and the Bar Association to fill the consultation void left by the Attorney-General? Madam SPEAKER: Before calling the Premier there is some feedback in the audio system. I ask members to be careful about turning your microphones on by accident. I call the Premier. Mr NEWMAN: This government has engaged with the stakeholders that the Leader of the Opposition outlined on any number of issues. For example, I personally have met with the Law Society in relation to workers compensation laws that they now bleat about and say there has been no consultation on. I do not know how much consultation is required with specific vested interest groups. Shame on the Leader of the Opposition for coming in here and backing the Law Society! Let us look at what they are saying at the moment. The Law Society— Mr Pitt: You’re whacking workers’ rights. Mr NEWMAN: No, the Law Society is talking about a range of things at the moment. I want to focus on one today. The Law Society is complaining about us dealing with the fact that people have been encouraged by ambulance-chasing legal firms to sue their employers over small matters when they could get statutory support anyway. That is what we want. We have a safety net. We do not want employees who have been injured to have to sue their employer. Madam SPEAKER: Mr Premier, I would ask you to be careful about anticipating debate. Mr NEWMAN: I make the point, because I have been asked, that the Law Society is championing legal firms who we know have already reported to the Stock Exchange that they will lose millions of dollars. Guess where those millions of dollars are coming from? That is right—out of the

17 Oct 2013 Questions Without Notice 3401

pockets of the claimants. What a day to think that the Leader of the Opposition would come in here and defend vested interests—total vested interests. I do not know if the Leader of the Opposition really should be the Leader of the Opposition when there is such a lack of political acumen. If you are going to do a job in political leadership circles, you need to know what the community are saying. The community is saying that the Attorney-General is right. The community is saying that the government is right. The LNP is saying that the government is right. I know the true blue— Ms Trad interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order, members! I call the Premier. Mr NEWMAN: The true blue Labor Party supporters, the blue-collar hardworking men and women of the Labor Party, want strong action against paedophiles, sexual predators and criminal bikie gangs who terrorise Queensland. The people of Queensland want tough action, and day after day this leader of no position, this leader who has no ticker herself, digs a deeper, darker hole for the Labor Party in this state because they stand for nothing. They have no policies, they have no guts and they certainly will be condemned by the community for their lack of action— (Time expired)

Queensland Economy Mr DILLAWAY: My question without notice is to the Premier. Premier, is the government receiving any new signals from business that point to increased growth and confidence in the Queensland economy? Mr NEWMAN: In the last few days the Treasurer and I have actually talked about recent economic data which has reaffirmed that this government’s policies are the right policies to take this state forward economically. We have seen a string of good news in terms of employment growth and GDP or GSP figures. The state’s business and consumer confidence is building up constantly day after day, week after week, and this state is moving ahead of all of the other Australian states in the Commonwealth. Today I am more than pleased—in fact, I am absolutely delighted, thrilled and ecstatic; I could not be any happier—with what I am about to table, which is the Property Council/ANZ Property Industry Confidence Survey results that were released overnight. What does this show? It shows that for the December quarter there has been a 25-point climb in Queensland’s property market sentiment up to a high of 142 on the index. This is the biggest shift of property market sentiment of any state or territory and places us level-pegging with New South Wales as the most positive property state in the country. The Property Council in its media release said— ‘Primarily, the research highlights the first signs of a residential revival, with a significant spike in house price growth expectations over the next 12 months.’ It also said— ‘These results reveal the highest levels of confidence in residential capital values since the survey’s inception.’ The Property Council Queensland’s Executive Director, Kathy MacDermott, goes on to say— ‘Queensland has once again exhibited one of the highest ratings of its State Government, reflecting the State’s ongoing commitment to supporting the property industry.’ I table the document. Tabled paper: Property Council of Australia media release titled ‘Qld: The tide is turning: Property industry sentiment climbs’ [3789]. We said that we would push the four-pillar economy very hard and that property was one of those pillars. These results have not come about by some sort of coincidence or pleasant accident. They have come about because of the great work of the subcommittee of cabinet led by the Deputy Premier; the great work of former Assistant Minister Ian Walker, which was taken on by assistant minister Rob Molhoek, to actually make sure that this is the best place to undertake property development in the nation. For that reason, if you look around the CBD of Brisbane or the CBD frame, you will see multiple construction sites where there has been demolition work, site clearance and initial mobilisation for major new projects in the construction sector. This government understands what it takes to build a strong economy and to create jobs which enable investment, and that is why Queensland is now leading the way economically in the nation.

3402 Questions Without Notice 17 Oct 2013

Legislation, Consultation Mr MULHERIN: My question is directed to the Premier. Will the Premier today commit to sending all of the bills which were declared urgent this week to the relevant parliamentary committees for proper scrutiny so all stakeholders can place their views on the record? Mr NEWMAN: I am so glad that once again I have another question from the opposition that allows me to demonstrate the difference between them and us. We use the processes of the parliament to expedite bills through this place for good reasons: to take Queensland forward; to protect families; to protect businesses and individuals from criminal motorcycle gangs; and to protect our kids against sexual predators and paedophiles. That is what we do. But what do the Labor Party use the processes of the parliament for? They use them to protect people like Gordon Nuttall and to keep crooked Labor politicians out of jail. Those opposite did not let Gordon Nuttall even get anywhere near the courts. We want to keep crims in jail or put actual criminals in jail; they want to use the law and the processes of the parliament to keep their criminal Labor mates out of jail. There is quite a contrast there. But let us have a look at some of the other processes they have used to expedite things in this state. What about the Fuel Subsidy Repeal and Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, which was introduced by Andrew Fraser on 16 June 2009, passed on 19 June 2009 and assented to by the Governor on 22 June 2009; what was that one? That’s right! They made a commitment that there would be no change to the fuel subsidy, and then they rammed it through parliament. They used the process of expediting bills through this place to increase taxes on Queenslanders—that’s right! So not only did they use the processes to keep crooked Labor politicians out of jail, but they used the processes to expedite bills to impose taxes on Queenslanders. What about another urgent one— Madam SPEAKER: Premier, just take your seat. Mr MULHERIN: Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The question is very specific. I ask you to rule on relevance. My question related to parliamentary committees and the bills that were marked ‘urgent’ this week, and the Premier has not answered the question. Madam SPEAKER: I am listening to the Premier’s answer, and he was speaking with respect to urgency bills and the processes of parliament. But I do ask the Premier to address the question. Mr NEWMAN: The answer to the question is no, but I am expanding on the theme. Well, what about another one? There was the Infrastructure Investment (Asset Restructuring and Disposal) Bill 2009. The then Labor government said there were not going to be any asset sales. This bill was introduced by Andrew Fraser on 16 June, passed on 19 June, and assented to on 26 June. Let’s just go through it again. We use the law to protect Queenslanders, to protect Queensland kids, to put crims in jail or keep paedophiles in jail; they use the process to expedite bills here to keep crooked Labor politicians out of jail, to raise taxes on fuel and also sell off assets when they promised they would not. What a contrast! Thank you so much for these wonderful questions this morning. You are a great opposition!

Infrastructure Planning Mr WOODFORTH: My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning. Can the Deputy Premier outline to the House the Newman government’s approach to infrastructure planning and how that compares to the previous Labor government? Mr SEENEY: I thank the member for Nudgee for the question, because it gives me an opportunity to talk about the critically important issues of infrastructure, infrastructure planning and delivery. I make the observation, honourable members, that the opposition has never once asked me a question about this. This is quite apart from the fact that the Leader of the Opposition stood up at the Queensland planning summit and tried to rewrite history about her government’s record on infrastructure and then tried to take some political advantage from being asked to participate in bipartisan planning. Didn’t that go down like a lead balloon! You could hear the groans when 700 people around the room went, ‘Oh, rubbish!’ Because when the Labor Party talk about infrastructure everybody thinks about the $7 billion wasted on the water grid, the Traveston Dam and the Tugun desalination plant. The Leader of the Opposition did not mention any of those, of course.

17 Oct 2013 Questions Without Notice 3403

Yesterday morning I addressed a breakfast meeting of Infrastructure Australia (Queensland) which some 220 people attended because they are interested in our approach to infrastructure. I released this Infrastructure for economic development document, which I will table for the benefit of the House. It sets out our approach to the planning and delivery of infrastructure. The title is no accident: Infrastructure for economic development. That is what our government believes our approach to infrastructure should be about. It should be part of our strategy to drive economic development—to supercharge the Queensland economy, as the Premier keeps saying. That is our government’s strategy. Infrastructure planning and development is focused on being part of that strategy—planning and building infrastructure to foster, facilitate and drive economic development. I table the document for the benefit of the House. Tabled paper: Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning: Infrastructure for Economic Development, October 2013 [3790]. That document fits within the broader economic strategy that our government has developed and is continuing to develop called Governing for Growth. It is all about economic growth. It is all about building the economy—building the future of Queensland for generations of Queenslanders who will aspire to jobs and a lifestyle that Queenslanders should be able to expect. That is the difference in our government’s approach. That is the difference between what we will deliver and what the Leader of the Opposition and her party delivered. The Leader of the Opposition can continue to try to rewrite history as much as she likes, but the facts about the previous government’s performance are on the record. Our government’s performance is beginning to produce results. The references the Premier made this morning to some of the data that is becoming available would indicate that our attempts to supercharge the Queensland economy are working and will continue to work. (Time expired)

Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative Mr KATTER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines. The Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative has been a successful state-federal government partnership to reduce water waste, soil erosion and the spread of waterborne weeds. After the July 2014 review of phase 3 of GABSI, will the minister commit the Queensland government to continuing this funding and encourage the federal government to commit also? Mr CRIPPS: I am absolutely delighted to have an opportunity to speak about the GABSI program. I agree with the member for Mount Isa that the GABSI program is an extremely important program that has run successfully for decades. If the member for Mount Isa had bothered to listen to my answer to a question without notice during the recent sittings he would have heard me refer to it as an iconic program that the Queensland government fully supports. He would have also heard me advise the House of my distress at the decision of the former federal Labor government to cut more than $20 million out of this program—a program that for decades has made a significant contribution to the capping and piping of uncontrolled artesian bores. I am distressed at the short-sightedness of the former federal Labor government in terms of that decision. I would also make the point that the federal member for Kennedy failed dismally to bring his perceived influence over the previous federal Labor government in relation to a whole range of initiatives that would have been beneficial to his electorate and the state of Queensland. I ask the member for Mount Isa to reflect on the dismal failure of the federal member for Kennedy in that regard. I can say to the House that the commitment of the Queensland government to the GABSI program remains 100 per cent. We are absolutely committed to continuing to make a contribution to the GABSI program to pipe and cap uncontrolled bores in the Great Artesian Basin because we do feel that it makes a significant contribution to the sustainable maintenance of that very valuable resource. We are 100 per cent committed, and I have already said that to the House. The member for Mount Isa is undertaking some sort of bizarre grandstanding exercise, because it was only during the last sittings of this parliament that I stood up in this place and said that. I said that I would be writing to the new federal coalition government to ask them to reconsider the cuts by the previous federal Labor government. I wrote to the previous federal Labor government asking for them to restore the funding, and I will continue to press for the current government to reconsider those cuts and make a contribution.

3404 Questions Without Notice 17 Oct 2013

The Queensland government is 100 per cent committed to the GABSI program. It makes a great contribution to the sustainable management of the resource in the Great Artesian Basin, which we recognise as a very important resource for the landowners in that area, for the industries that are successful in that area, and for the environment in that area of Queensland.

Railway Stations, Accessibility Mr BERRY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. Could the minister please outline steps— Ms Palaszczuk: The former president of the Law Society. Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I warn you under standing order 253A. I have told members that we will listen to the questions and there are to be no interjections during questions. We must listen to the questions. I call the member for Ipswich to start again. Mr BERRY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. Could the minister please outline steps that are being taken to improve accessibility at Queensland rail stations? Mr EMERSON: I thank the member for the question. I know that this is an area in which he is particularly interested. I am very pleased to inform the chamber that in the last week or so we have announced significant upgrades to four stations to improve their accessibility. Those four stations are Alderley, Newmarket, Graceville and Dinmore. Why are we doing this? This is one of the biggest challenges we inherited from the previous government. Across our network 31 stations do not have wheelchair accessibility; they are accessible only via stairs. We have worked to achieve more accessibility. Unfortunately, 31 stations do not have wheelchair accessibility. Making all stations on the network disability accessible would cost about $1.5 billion. So we have to begin the process. We have targeted stations at which there is a high level of patronage but particularly in areas where consecutive stations have no wheelchair accessibility—only stair access. This is not just for people with disabilities; this is also about universal access—for people who have some mobility issues and for parents with prams, for instance. It is important. That is why we have targeted these four stations as the beginning of this program. This contrasts with the previous government. They had many, many years in government but failed to deliver on a program that targeted this issue. In fact, some of the choices they made seem bizarre. In some cases they spent more than $10 million on a station that had just 60 people in a peak period but ignored stations that had 1,000 people in a peak period and left them with no wheelchair accessibility. This is a great result for those stations. I know that some people in the electorate of Ipswich will use that Dinmore station. It is interesting to point out that we are delivering accessibility for a station in the electorate of Bundamba. Those opposite failed to deliver that when they were in office. We are ensuring people have wheelchair access to Dinmore station which Labor failed to deliver. We are committed to improving access across our stations. This is not an easy task because of the failure and mismanagement of Labor and the fiscal deficit we were left. It is a big and expensive task. What is sad is that Labor had year after year after year in office and failed to deliver. It failed to meet its targets and misspent money. We are a government that is committed to improving access. That is why it is great to see these four stations being improved.

Correctional Facilities Mr PITT: My question without notice is to the Premier. I refer the Premier to statements by the mayor of the Moreton Bay Regional Council that this government has undertaken no consultation over the planned siting of a superjail for hardened criminals, announced by the Attorney-General, and I ask: why has no consultation occurred on this issue? Is the Premier concerned about a pattern of behaviour by the Attorney-General that involves making announcements without first consulting any key stakeholders? Mr NEWMAN: I am very pleased to answer this question. I am pleased to talk about the supposed superjail. There is a superjail there now. Woodford Correctional Centre is the state’s maximum security prison. That is it. I do not know why Mayor Allan Sutherland needs me to ring to say that we are going to use a prison that is there. That is extraordinary. Next he will be saying, ‘I wasn’t consulted, Premier, when you sent 15 megalitres up to our water treatment plant the other

17 Oct 2013 Questions Without Notice 3405

day.’ Come on! This is existing infrastructure. It is being utilised. I do not know what Mayor Allan Sutherland is doing. I suggest he gets on with the job of the economic, cultural and social advancement of the Moreton Bay Regional Council area. In relation to the unique prison experience that we want to create for criminal motorcycle gang members and other hardened criminals, I am happy to expand on that. When we were doing the planning for this crackdown on these criminal gangs, we were concerned to ensure that we had enough space to accommodate the people that we hoped the police could take off the streets so that we could protect Queenslanders. In considering that, we were talking in government circles about how that should be dealt with. Should we put these hardened criminals in various jails across the state where, arguably, the security would not be as tight in that they perhaps could run their businesses through nefarious means from behind closed doors, behind bars? That was a concern. The government, after getting some advice, decided that we should accommodate them at Woodford. We want to ensure that every measure is taken consistent with our international obligations to incarcerate them effectively, and that means trying to restrict them from interacting with one another, not having gyms, not having TVs in rooms, making sure that mail is read and censored, that emails are screened and censored, there is no contact with visitors, as is seen on those American shows where visits are done through glass, and measures such as those to ensure that the community is confident that these people are being properly punished for their actions and that they cannot run their criminal activities from inside the prison system. So that is what we are doing. Again, I am very happy to answer that question, but Mayor Sutherland should really stop worrying about a jail that is already there and get on with running his local government area. I thank the opposition for the opportunity to again talk about the way that we will create a unique prison experience for criminal motorcycle gang members who are convicted in the courts.

Queensland Health, Financial Management Mr DOWLING: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr DOWLING: I refer to the culture of financial waste and— Ms Palaszczuk interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! I have already warned the Leader of the Opposition, and I now warn the Deputy Premier as well and I ask the member for Redlands to start again. Members, we will hear the questions so the question can be clearly understood by the person who has to respond and I can also have the details in case there is an objection. I call the member for Redlands. Mr DOWLING: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. I refer to the culture of financial waste and financial mismanagement that defined Queensland Health under the Labor government, and I ask: can the minister provide an update on the financial rigour that is now applied by both the department of health and all hospital and health boards since the election of this LNP government? Mr SPRINGBORG: I thank the honourable member for Redlands for his question. I think the honourable member for Redlands would share the despair of many members of this parliament around the absolute financial incompetence of many generations of Labor governments in Queensland and what they have done with regard to ripping a hole in prudent financial management in this state. I can assure the honourable member for Redlands and other members that gone are the days of imprudent financial management by the department of health in Queensland, gone are the days of the hundreds of millions of dollars of budget blow-outs, gone are the days of fake Tahitian princes, gone are the days of Health payroll bungles which have cost $1.253 billion, and gone are the days of the Labor Party coming into parliament and using its numbers to exonerate a corrupt former minister who was formerly the health minister in Queensland. There has been a $480 million turnaround in the underlying financial situation of hospital and health boards in Queensland since the last full year of the previous Labor government in Queensland. Indeed, in their last financial year the budget blow-out for the hospital and health services was $320 million. This financial year—the first financial year of the Newman government in Queensland— there has been $156 million worth of budget surpluses which have been delivered by hospital and health services which have been reinjected into front-line services, and this is giving real benefits to patients around Queensland. We now have reducing elective surgery waiting lists. We have better performance in our emergency departments, and this last financial year was the first time in seven years where we have had less people on the outpatient waiting list than the year before.

3406 Questions Without Notice 17 Oct 2013

Let us look at some of the great benefits that we are seeing around Queensland from this prudent financial management, because we are seeing significant benefits around the state. With regard to the Metro North board, we have seen an additional 252 patients receiving surgery, including additional joint replacement surgery at the Prince Charles, and additional gynaecological surgery at Redcliffe. The Wide Bay Hospital and Health Service has done far more with regard to reducing its endoscopy waiting list and has basically blitzed that in that time. The Gold Coast Hospital and Health Board has also prioritised its Better Healthcare Bonus to ensure that an additional 8,000 outpatient appointments have been provided and an additional 1,000 surgical events have been provided for patients who have been waiting. The South West Hospital and Health Service has put in place a program of recruitment of 12 new nursing graduates and a seven-bed acute-care unit at Roma Hospital. The patients are the beneficiaries of this prudent financial management. (Time expired)

Screen Queensland Ms TRAD: My question without notice is to the Minister for Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts. Will the minister explain why the LNP’s hand-picked Screen Queensland CEO, Mr Brian Lowe, under whose watch the Queensland film industry has attracted precisely zero dollars in international film production, has suddenly been dumped and shuffled out the back door? Mr WALKER: I thank the honourable member for her question—in fact, my first question from the opposition as minister, the first after eight months: on science, no questions; innovation, no questions; IT, unsurprisingly, no questions; and the arts, and I am glad to get one. I am surprised of course that it is not about the high policy issues involved in the arts—an important area for Queensland, an area where this government is taking the arts to the regions with our Playing Queensland Boost to Touring policy where we are increasing regional performances from 180 two years ago to 306 last year to 400 this year. There have been no questions about our Super Star Fund, which is bringing international quality artists to Queensland through Queensland Ballet and the Queensland Theatre Company. There have been no questions about that but questions about mechanics and personalities. What is more, those opposite have asked questions about an independent company, Screen Queensland, which has a board running its affairs, not the minister running its affairs. It is true, as the honourable member opposite has said, that the CEO of Screen Queensland has resigned. That is a matter for the Screen Queensland board. It has been keeping me informed of these matters and I am aware that it has taken its responsibilities seriously and has performed appropriately as a board in this matter. But there is good news for Screen Queensland. Cabinet has agreed to my nomination of Professor Peter Little as the new chair of the board of Screen Queensland. Professor Little is well known to many people in this House. He brings a wealth of expertise to the position. He is currently deputy vice-chancellor at QUT. He is a former executive dean of the QUT business school. I am sure there is no question that Professor Little is suitably qualified to lead Screen Queensland into the future. Screen Queensland has continued what is the Newman government’s strong support of the screen industry in Queensland, and it has been a tough time. The honourable member raised with me during estimates the fact that times have been tough, and they have with the dollar being as it has between Australia and the US. But we were able to recently announce that Academy Award winner Angelina Jolie will be shooting scenes from Unbroken here in Queensland. Unbroken is an important movie. It will be used by Universal to open its Christmas season in 2014 in the United States. The filming will happen here. I encourage the honourable member to keep celebrity spotting because she may see Angelina doing her filming around South-East Queensland. It is great news for the screen industry. Screen Queensland will continue under Professor Little’s leadership to support the screen industry in Queensland, as will the Newman government.

Education Reform Mr GULLEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Education, Training and Employment. Can the minister please inform the House of the measures the Newman government is taking to relieve school principals of burdensome red tape? Mr LANGBROEK: It is interesting to hear the opposition leader talk about experience. Here she was, gifted a seat by her father, and her only experience was working for that bloke’s father.

17 Oct 2013 Questions Without Notice 3407

Mr PITT: I rise to a point of order. I find those comments offensive and I ask that those comments be withdrawn. Madam SPEAKER: Order! I will ask the minister to withdraw but I also remind members to refer to them by their correct titles. Mr LANGBROEK: I withdraw. It gives me great pleasure to answer the question, because everyone knows that we have a relentless focus on high standards in our schools. All of our efforts in education are about lifting student outcomes. We have done that with three main foci: boosting teacher quality, increasing school autonomy and improving student discipline. To that end, I have been pleased to go to principal forums in a number of parts of the state. I have done nearly 30, including one with the honourable member for Murrumba at Deception Bay, one with about four principals in Proserpine to 39 in Bundaberg, including a very memorable principal forum in the electorate of Ashgrove. This has all been about saying that the best way to improve teacher quality— Honourable members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Minister, take your seat. Members, I know there have been some late nights. If you are going to have conversations, though, take them outside. I ask you to please provide the courtesy of listening to the minister or those with the call. Mr LANGBROEK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Of course, one of the best ways to lift teacher quality is to have the principal, who is the leader in the community, able to help teachers with their own students in terms of their literacy and numeracy education. That means getting into the classroom to help them. We have heard lots of issues about red tape at these principal forums, some of which were small, which we have been able to fix quite quickly, and others that have been part of our signature reforms. But we have to look at the reason for there being so much red tape. Again, we only have to look at the actions of those opposite when they were in government. We have heard today from the honourable Minister for Transport about a lack of planning. More importantly, when there was a crisis reported every day in the Courier-Mail, by the afternoon there was a new procedure for principals to follow in every one of our 1,240 schools in Queensland. There was more and more red tape and that meant that principals could not be doing what they are supposed to be doing, which is assisting their own teachers and their own students in making sure they get the best the possible outcomes. Because of that, we have had these forums around the state. We continue to work with all of our principals, because it is important to acknowledge that this is the difference between the LNP and Labor. We trust our principals. We know that they know their communities. We trust our school communities. We believe that by increasing school autonomy, principals and school communities will make the right decisions that will lift student outcomes. That is why I am going to keep meeting with principals. I have met with hundreds of them. We want to hear about the things that are affecting them. That is why we have announced significant red-tape reduction, which is a significant issue across government. We are committed to working with our local schools and our principals so that they can get on with the job, as we announced yesterday, with independent public schools.

Wellcamp Mr HOPPER: My question is to the Deputy Premier. The Deputy Premier announced on 4GR this morning that Wellcamp would become a project of state significance. Can the Deputy Premier tell the House what this will mean to the residents of Wellcamp, Westbrook and Oakey and the surrounding areas and what it will mean for the privately owned airport project? Mr SEENEY: First of all, I am almost stunned to get a question—I am very pleased to get a question—but I wish I had a question that I could understand. I am not sure what the member for Condamine is referring to. I never made any appearance on 4GR this morning. Quite apart from that, given that I get so few questions I am not going to miss this opportunity to make some comments about some of the great things that our government is doing for the electorate that the member for Condamine represents, even though the member for Condamine abandoned his opportunity to be part of this government, abandoned his opportunity to be part of a government that could deliver for regional people, that could deliver some of the things that country towns and country people missed out on for so many years under the Labor government.

3408 Questions Without Notice 17 Oct 2013

The member for Condamine could have been part of an effort to restore some equality and some justice to country towns and country people, but he chose not to. It was too hard for him. He did what he had done a number of times previously and jumped the fence. He jumped the fence for the sake of a car and a fuel card. A car and a fuel card was the price. With a car and a fuel card, you can get anything that you want from the member for Condamine.

Honourable members interjected. Mr SEENEY: Madam Speaker, there are so many wonderful interjections that I wish I could take them all. I think the important point to make is that our government is delivering for regional Queensland. Our government is delivering for country towns and country people wherever they are in Queensland, even if they are represented by the member for Condamine, who would be the most despised member in country Queensland, the most despised member for his electorate. We are delivering through a whole range of processes. We are in the process of announcing Royalties for the Regions grants across regional Queensland. Some of them are for places in the member’s electorate. I have not announced some of them yet, but I look forward to the press release that the member for Condamine puts out congratulating the government that he could have been part of for the royalties money that we are redirecting to regional Queensland. That is what our government is about: delivering for country towns and country people right across regional Queensland. I thank the member for the question. (Time expired) Youth Boot Camps Mr KRAUSE: My question without notice is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. Will the Attorney-General please update the House as to the process of the youth boot camp expansion?

Mr BLEIJIE: I thank the member for the question, because the member knows only too well the great work that boot camps are achieving across Queensland, of course, having the Gold Coast boot camp in his electorate, run by Oz Adventures, which is the Kokoda Challenge. I am pleased to advise that the first group of young female offenders is now in the boot camp in the member’s electorate. So that is 20 children we have now had through this program in the Gold Coast region. We have expanded the program right around Queensland. I am pleased to advise that on Monday this week 17 young people started in boot camps at Hervey Bay and in the Fraser Coast area and the Rockhampton area. Bob Davis at Hard Yakka is running the program in the Fraser Coast area and the PCYC is running the boot camp in the Rockhampton area, despite the fact that the PCYC does not have the support of the local member, the member for Rockhampton. There has been no interjection from across the chamber from the member. I take it that the member does not support the local PCYC doing a fantastic job. It has started those young people in that boot camp this week. As I said yesterday, members have only a few days to wait for the announcement of the super boot camp in this state. The super boot camp will be announced with Beyond Billabong. It is going to be based somewhere between Townsville and Cairns. It is going to be a great opportunity for young people across this state to get their lives back on track, to get them out of a life of crime. This process involved an expression of interest process right across the state. Despite the fact that boot camps were the now opposition’s commitment as well—it now does not like boot camps— we have got on with the job. Despite the criticism from the opposition, we are delivering these boot camps right across the state. With this expression of interest process that we set up, one of the fundamental aspects, the essential element that I said that any provider has to have, is contemporary experience in working with high-risk young people with complex behaviours. To that end, I placed greater emphasis than did the evaluation teams on the experience demonstrated by the potential service providers. This resulted in the selection of providers, some different from those recommended by the evaluation team, who have a proven track record and the best possible chance of success in breaking the revolving-door cycle of young people.

17 Oct 2013 Questions Without Notice 3409

This is not about having hard Labor—L-a-b-o-r—boot camps, which had bucking bulls, jumping castles, diving lessons and snorkelling; this is about making sure that we make young people responsible for their actions. It is also about making sure that we give a young person the best possible opportunity to turn their life around, because if they turn their life around they are not going to be committing crimes against Queenslanders. That is who we place more emphasis on: the people of Queensland.

Rural Fire Service Mr WELLINGTON: My question is to the Minister for Police and Community Safety. I refer to the minister’s statement earlier this week on how the government is implementing the Malone review recommendations and I ask: how will the government reconcile the apparent differences between the Malone review recommendations and the Keelty review report in relation to the operation of the Queensland Rural Fire Service? Mr DEMPSEY: It is great to have the opportunity to speak on a topic that is important to all Queenslanders, particularly this week as we celebrate and recognise with our yellow ribbons the Rural Fire Brigade Association and the great work that our volunteers contribute right across this great state. The member for Nicklin supported the Labor Party’s increase of 14 per cent on the fire levy. He is a member who supported the Labor government as it put this state into a $65 billion dive into debt. Mr WELLINGTON: I rise to a point of order. I find those comments offensive. They are untrue and I ask that they be withdrawn. Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear the comments, but I do ask the minister to withdraw. Mr DEMPSEY: I withdraw. Madam SPEAKER: Before I call the minister, there was a disallowance of a statutory instrument moved by the member for Dalrymple and I am aware that this could cross over into a matter that is currently before the House. I ask the minister to address the question as best he can without compromising the motion that is before the House. Mr DEMPSEY: I will not address those matters that are before the House, but I will reiterate the fact that in previous years the member for Nicklin did support Labor’s proposal to increase the fire levy by a bit over 14 per cent. It is in Hansard. In relation to what this government is doing, there are three areas that I would like to address, and they are the Malone review, the Keelty review and the stability and the sustainability of our emergency services as we go through drought, the fire season, the storm season, possible cyclones, as well as whatever Mother Nature will bring to us over the coming months. As the saying goes, we will plan for the worst and hope for the best. In relation to the Malone review, we support in principle the 91 recommendations. We are providing $35 million this year—$6.5 million towards the procurement of equipment for the Rural Fire Service. I am very passionate about making sure we have the best Rural Fire Service in Australia. The Malone review and the Keelty review have a great deal in common. The steering committee from the Keelty review will ensure that its recommendations are followed. This is the first government that has had a minister in charge of volunteers, with a particular emphasis on ensuring that volunteers in rural fire services, the SES, the coast guard and surf life saving are highlighted and lifted up to the height they should be right across the state. (Time expired)

Social Housing Mr KING: My question without notice is to the Minister for Housing and Public Works. Will the minister update the House on the progress of the three-strikes policy for antisocial behaviour in social housing and advise how it is benefiting residents in my wonderful electorate of Cairns? Mr MANDER: I thank the member for Cairns for that question. I know that the behaviour of social housing tenants has been an issue in Cairns and of great concern to the member and I am happy to give a response. I would like to begin by saying that the overwhelming majority of social housing tenants do the right thing. They appreciate the privilege they have to be in social housing. They look after their houses. They are great neighbours and they respect that privilege.

3410 Questions Without Notice 17 Oct 2013

However, one of the biggest challenges we face in my department is dealing with the violent, destructive and antisocial behaviour of the minority of tenants who do not do the right thing. With 22,000 households on the public housing waiting list it is incredibly important our resources go to those who are most in need and are not squandered on cleaning up after people who do not appreciate the privilege that they actually have. Whilst those who do the wrong thing are the minority, their behaviour can have a terrible impact on those unfortunate enough to live nearby. Last year alone, badly behaved tenants did more than $5 million worth of damage to our properties. Earlier this year we implemented the new antisocial behaviour management policy commonly known as the three-strikes policy. Under this policy, people who receive three strikes within 12 months will find themselves facing eviction. That policy came into effect from 1 July this year. I would like to report on the progress of that policy to date. Since that time the department has issued 307 first strikes. First strikes put people on notice that their behaviour is unacceptable and it gives them a chance to straighten up. I said when we announced this policy that its success will not be measured by the number of evictions that we have but by the number of people who modify their behaviour in response. On initial data this policy seems to be working as the department has only issued 23 second strikes and no third strikes. It is still early days, but it seems that the new policy is having that desired deterrent effect and people are curbing their behaviour. I am optimistic that this trend will continue. We have though issued 25 first and final strikes and those people have moved on because they did not deserve to go through the three-strike process. Their behaviour was so bad they needed to go immediately. Directly answering the member’s question, in the Cairns area there have been 49 first strikes, three second strikes, no third strikes at the moment but we have had one first and final strike. Again we need to remind those in social housing that public housing is a privilege that comes with certain responsibilities. This policy is about making sure that communities are not disrupted by the antisocial behaviour of a minority who refuse to accept that privilege.

Floods, Infrastructure Mr HOBBS: My question is to the Minister for Local Government, Community Recovery and Resilience. Last year the Newman government called for an end to the madness that saw flood damaged infrastructure being rebuilt in a like-for-like fashion only to be destroyed time and time again. Can the minister update the House on what action the government is taking to fix this issue? Mr CRISAFULLI: I thank the honourable member for the question. I start by acknowledging that the question could not come from a more appropriate member in the House. It was only in recent days that the member for Warrego raised an issue with me about a project in one of his local areas. It was the residents who raised the opportunity for betterment with him. Not only does it show a local member who is in touch with his community, but it shows the cut through that this betterment project is starting to get. It shows that the community is understanding what successive state governments have not got, and that is that you should not continue to replace things to the same standard, in the same location and expect a different result. That is just stupidity. And we have done it time and time again. I will briefly speak about some of the opportunities that I have seen. It is an $80 million fund. I will acknowledge that that falls a long way short. We had wanted a $200 million fund. We had pitched a fifty-fifty deal with the former federal government. We only got $80 million: $40 million each. We could have done one of two things. We could have thrown our toys out of the cot and stomped our foot and said that is not good enough or we could have accepted it. We did accept it. Whilst we are not going to change the world with that $80 million, we are going to change the culture of stupidity that has existed of replacing things in exactly the same manner. The next time there is a disaster, we will point to these projects as the legacy of a government that does things differently and a government that does not accept the business-as-usual approach. Ours is not a government that goes through the motions time and time again and then rolls up the next time to cry crocodile tears in front of broken infrastructure. We are going to do things differently. When looking at some of the projects that have been announced in recent days, I have to commend the way that the councils have jumped at this challenge. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to visit both Rockhampton and Bundaberg, in the case of Bundy to announce yet another round of betterment funding and in the case of Rockhampton to announce nearly $1 million of funding, including a project to upgrade the road at Upper Ulam. The member for Mirani knows that project all too well. There was a tragic death at one of the crossings on that road in 2011.

17 Oct 2013 Speaker’s Statement 3411

It is not rocket science but it is about doing things better. I believe, by working with local government which has made contributions, by working with our local members and by working with the community, such as those represented by the member for Warrego, we can break the back on a generation of infrastructure replacement that was done in an absolutely absurd fashion.

Youth Crime Mr JUDGE: My question without notice is to the Attorney-General. In relation to the Attorney-General announcing reforms to name and shame certain juvenile offenders, has the Attorney-General obtained advice from any external legal experts about the compliance such laws would have with Australia’s and, indeed, Queensland’s obligation to UN conventions? Madam SPEAKER: Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, you have two minutes. Mr BLEIJIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. People often talk about the majority that the LNP has in this House. Today, it is a full majority because every member of this parliament, including the opposition and the crossbenchers, has been very supportive of government policies, asking for us to explain and further expand these great government policies. I can tell the member exactly who responded to youth justice reforms: 4,200 people responded to a very short survey about youth justice reforms in this state. The overwhelming majority of those people supported the youth justice reforms, including the naming and shaming provisions for repeat offenders. If a young person goes to court, they do get a chance to try to sort out their lives and get out of their offending patterns and behaviours. However, if they offend a second or third time, there is the ability for their names to be made public so that the community can look at and take ownership of some of these issues and say, ‘Enough is enough from these members of the community.’ We are also going to make sure that 17-year-olds are referred from youth detention centres to adult prisons when they reach adulthood. We are looking at other reforms in youth justice, include our announcement with respect to the criminal history of young offenders. If someone commits serious crimes as an adult, on sentencing the judge will be able to look at the offender’s previous history, to see whether or not they have a clean slate or whether that young person has committed— Mr JUDGE: I rise to a point of order. I have asked the Attorney-General about the obligation to the UN conventions. Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order? Mr JUDGE: Relevance, that he address the UN conventions. Madam SPEAKER: Please take your seat. The Attorney-General has 29 seconds on the clock. Mr BLEIJIE: The questioner asked about youth justice reforms and for two minutes I have talked about nothing but youth justice reforms. We are proud of these youth justice reforms. Queenslanders certainly support the youth justice reforms. They really fall in line with our overall strategy of the boot camps. As I said, the boot camp operating on the Gold Coast has changed people’s lives. Parents have written to me about their young people who have gone through the boot camp. They say thank goodness that their young people went through the boot camp because they are not getting hit or hurt at night. That is a positive response to youth justice reforms. (Time expired) Madam SPEAKER: The time for— Mr Judge interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! I was speaking. I warn the member for Yeerongpilly under standing order 253A. The time for questions has finished.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

School Group Tours Madam SPEAKER: I acknowledge the schools visiting today: Padua College, Kedron in the electorate of Stafford; Murgon State School in the electorate of Callide; and Somerset Hills State School in the electorate of Stafford.

3412 Education and Innovation Committee 17 Oct 2013

PARLIAMENTARY CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMITTEE

Report, Motion to take Note Resumed from 12 September (see p. 3050), on motion of Mrs Cunningham— That the House take note of report No. 93 of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee tabled on 11 September 2013. Mr CRANDON (Coomera—LNP) (11.04 am), continuing: I rise to continue my contribution to the report on the Crime and Misconduct Commission’s handling of suspected improper conduct, better known as report No. 93. To give a short recap, last sitting week I talked about the concerns that I had in relation to the timeliness of the delivery of some of the results through the Crime and Misconduct Commission. I finished by referring to the comment of a British politician, William Gladstone, who said that justice delayed is justice denied. He was talking more about injustice than anything else. People’s lives are being affected by these delays. I believe it is incumbent to deliver results in a very timely fashion. The last aspect of the report that I wanted to touch on was the discussion around a procurement program for computers. There were some rather unsavoury circumstances where information was provided to one particular provider. I make the point in this place that it is incumbent on all organisations and all government departments to ensure that their procurement programs are properly maintained and managed. Certainly, it is all about being very careful with the processes regarding the procurement program to ensure that there is no possibility of funny business going on and certainly no possibility of frauds being perpetrated in relation to those procurement contracts. At the end of the day, it is the money of the people of Queensland that is being spent on those goods and services. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION AND INNOVATION COMMITTEE

Report, Motion to Take Note Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—LNP) (11.05 am): I move— That the House take note of report No. 25 of the Education and Innovation Committee tabled on 14 October 2013. This report is the culmination of the committee’s inquiry into the assessment of senior mathematics, chemistry and physics. Over the past eight months, the committee has reviewed 288 written submissions and researched much educational data. Seventy-eight people, including students, teachers and academics, spoke at briefings and public hearings and the report contains 16 recommendations. Our brief was to inquire into the assessment methods of senior mathematics, chemistry and physics, but many submissions raised issues that went well beyond that scope. It became very clear that what is taught is what should be assessed and all assessment must be fit for purpose. The assessment criteria in senior mathematics and science reflect both of what are known as lower order skills, such as learning the core content, and higher order skills, which are about analysis and synthesis, application and communication of that knowledge. Concerns have been expressed that assessment methods at present mean that teaching and learning focus too heavily on higher order skills at the expense of the more fundamental lower order skills. Therefore, the committee recommended that a standardised external exam be part of the assessment process for senior mathematics, chemistry and physics worth 50 per cent of a student’s final grade. The remaining 50 per cent of grading would be made up of school based assessments. The rationale behind this is that some elements of the curriculum are best tested by exams, in particular, the core content and procedural knowledge required by each of those subjects. If, as has been strongly claimed, extended assignment assessment tasks are taking a disproportion amount of student and teacher time there is a risk that the focus of teaching and learning is very deep in one area but a bit light on in the broader content and procedural knowledge area. The benefit of it being an externally set exam, as opposed to school-set exams, is that it could be used to scale the results of school based assessments, ensuring comparability around the state and ensuring that what are being compared are apples with apples. There is no common assessment task at present.

17 Oct 2013 Education and Innovation Committee 3413

The committee also recommended that numerical marking be strongly encouraged and explicitly outlined in the syllabus in terms of how the numbers equate to the standards. Almost all who submitted to our inquiry, including the Queensland Teachers Union and educational researchers, saw that numerical marking was very appropriate when assessing student achievement in these subjects. Queensland has a standards based assessment system which is there for very good reasons and is well supported. But there is no reason we can see why numerical marking should not be used within that system. As well as supporting the provision of simple feedback to students and teachers and their families about how a student is progressing and what support might be needed, assigning proportions of an overall mark to individual assessment tasks would enable students and teachers to direct their efforts to where they will have greatest impact on their overall mark. The submissions received from individual teachers indicated that there were significant concerns with the current assessment methods used, with strong and passionate views being expressed to the committee. The passion from all submitters was very evident. Submissions received from key representative bodies expressed broad support for the current system, while also identifying areas for improvement. It is disappointing that some recent media has suggested that these recommendations for change are to replicate the New South Wales system. That is incorrect. The hard work and the enormous amount of work behind this report has been done by the remarkable parliamentary research team, led by Ms Bernice Watson. On behalf of the committee, I express our most sincere thanks to all members of the research team. I also thank the members of the committee who worked well together on this whole inquiry. I hope that this report will benefit students across Queensland in the future should the government accept some of the recommendations within this report. Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (11.11 am): I am pleased to rise to make a contribution regarding the Education and Innovation Committee’s report No. 25, titled The assessment methods used in senior mathematics, chemistry and physics in Queensland schools. Firstly, I would like to thank the committee chair, the member for Burdekin, and the committee secretariat staff, including research director Bernice Watson, for their efforts in conducting this inquiry and compiling this report. This was a huge body of work and our researchers have accomplished a very substantial report, and I thank them for that. The terms of reference for this report required the Education and Innovation Committee to inquire into and report on the assessment methods used in senior mathematics, chemistry and physics in Queensland schools. From the outset, I want to place on the record that the opposition has reservations about aspects of this report. In particular, the opposition shares the serious concerns raised by various stakeholders, including the Queensland Teachers Union and the Queensland Catholic Education Commission, regarding the recommendation to reintroduce external exams. Further, the opposition is concerned that this report’s findings may be considered or assessed in isolation to the Newman government’s review of the tertiary entrance and overall position system in Queensland, which is currently underway but yet to report back to the community. I do want to place on the record that the opposition acknowledges that reforms and improvements to assessment methods may be required. However, we are of the view that these should be undertaken within the framework of school based assessments and will require adequate resourcing. Queensland uses a system of moderation for school based assessment by using panels of trained teachers who review samples of work from all schools to ensure comparability between schools and students. The committee noted the importance of participation in early childhood education and teacher quality in improving student performance. The committee received 288 written submissions to the inquiry, which is an indication of the great interest shown in senior assessment by the education community. The Queensland Teachers Union submission supported the current system of assessment which is school based, standards referenced and externally moderated. The QTU opposed the reintroduction of external exams, as occurs in other states, where students and teachers feel the pressure and the enormity of the high-stakes Higher School Certificate. The Teachers Union submission recognised, however, that there needs to be a review of the current assessment methods in certain senior subjects in order to address teacher work load issues, to ensure that moderation panels treat student work in an equitable manner and to give students every opportunity to succeed. In order for this to occur, the QTU believes that any significant change to assessment methodology must be supported by adequate professional development and support for teachers and include examples of assessment items and graded exemplars provided by the

3414 Education and Innovation Committee 17 Oct 2013

Queensland Studies Authority. The opposition certainly supports the provision of adequate resources and professional learning to equip and support improvement of the assessment system to ensure the best outcomes for our students. An important submission from the Cairns branch of the Queensland Association of Mathematics Teachers indicated they supported school based assessment and the practices currently used in secondary schools in Queensland. They also supported the Queensland Core Skills test as one measure towards a student’s overall position. They do not support public examinations in any mathematics subject across the range of year 12 offerings. We will now await the government’s response to the committee’s recommendations. I urge the education minister to ensure student outcomes are at the forefront of his considerations when reviewing senior assessment methods. Mr BOOTHMAN (Albert—LNP) (11.16 am): I rise to speak to the Education and Innovation Committee’s report titled The assessment methods used in senior mathematics, chemistry and physics in Queensland schools. Firstly, I would like to thank my fellow committee members for their work: the chair, Rosemary Menkens, Michael Latter, Neil Symes, Steve Bennett, Desley Scott and Ray Hopper. I feel it is appropriate to thank the committee staff for the extensive work they have had to undertake for this inquiry. They are: Bernice, Emily Gregory, Carolyn and Debbie. I would like to thank the educators—the teachers and lecturers—and all those who expressed their opinions in this all important inquiry. The Education and Innovation Committee was asked to report on the assessment methods used in senior mathematics, chemistry and physics in Queensland schools which are administered by the Queensland Studies Authority. This inquiry invoked passionate responses from a broad spectrum of educators throughout the state. A total of 288 submissions were received. It was far-reaching and eye-opening information that we were assessing. I thank the education facilities in the Albert electorate—namely Windaroo Valley State High School—for making a submission to this inquiry. The perceived catalyst for this inquiry is the declining participation rate and final results in mathematics, chemistry and physics due to the excessive workload placed upon the students and teachers for no perceived benefit, the lack of understanding by both teachers and students with regard to marking standards and the requirement for a high level of English language skills which could potentially disadvantage some student groups. Specialist teacher qualifications was another concern presented to the committee. This is not just a Queensland issue but is understood to be a national issue. Due to the complexity of the inquiry and the highly valued submissions, the committee agreed upon 16 recommendations. Due to the limited time available to me today, I will highlight just two. The first recommendation I will highlight is recommendation 2, which states— The committee recommends that an external exam count for 50% of a student’s overall achievement mark in senior mathematics, chemistry and physics to: a) ensure an appropriate focus on content knowledge which, of the three criteria for each subject, is the one most readily testable by an exam task (and what is tested, gets taught) b) ensure an element of commonality in respect of content knowledge around the state, which makes comparing student scores more meaningful for employers and universities c) promote confidence in the validity of all of a student’s final mark for a subject by increasing the likelihood of consistent assessment practices against a common task. The other recommendation I would like to highlight is recommendation 13, which states— The committee recommends that in the context of standards-based assessment, numerical marking be strongly promoted in maths, chemistry and physics alongside more specifically defined syllabus documents ... that include mark ranges to equate to each of the five standards of achievement for each criteria, to: a) increase clarity for students and teachers as to why particular standards of achievement are awarded b) ensure an appropriate focus is placed on content knowledge along with the higher order skills ... c) reduce workload for teachers d) enable employers and universities and importantly, students themselves to readily see what content a student knows and does not know. With these few recommendations, I feel it has been a very well balanced inquiry. Most importantly, I do ask educators and parents to sit down and read this report. It has taken quite some time to put together, but it has been well worth it because it has been very informative and eye opening.

17 Oct 2013 Motion 3415

Mr SYMES (Lytton—LNP) (11.21 am): I rise today to make a brief contribution as a member of the Education and Innovation Committee on the inquiry into the assessment methods for maths, chemistry and physics. From the outset I would like to thank the committee staff who have carried a very large workload throughout the past four to five months. The committee spoke to numerous stakeholders, be it teachers, the QSA, QTU, universities, students, interstate educators, the New South Wales Board of Studies et cetera. The interest surrounding the committee’s inquiry was overwhelming, with 288 submissions throughout the process, as well as various forums and public hearings to provide in-depth analysis of the issues surrounding assessment methods in maths, science and chemistry. There were three main issues which the committee had to investigate for parliament, including student participation levels in Queensland schools, ensuring assessment processes are supported by teachers and the ability of assessment processes to support valid and reliable judgements of student outcomes. Two main recommendations were outlined by the committee chair, the member for Burdekin, in the 15 October media release around the committee’s findings. The first recommendation includes having an external examination as part of the process to standardise the assessment of those subjects which carries 50 per cent weight, with school based assessment to carry the remaining 50 per cent weight in the overall grading of a student’s assessment. The second recommendation relates to the use of numerical marking, where applicable, which will make the syllabus much easier for students, teachers and family members to understand. This recommendation was strongly supported by the committee. I would like to put on the public record my sincere thanks to the committee staff who worked on this inquiry, the 71 different community members who spoke at forums and public hearings, as well as the 288 public submissions, as I have already mentioned. At a local level I would like to thank members and residents in the Lytton electorate who spoke to me at various P&C meetings or just in the streets about the inquiry. I value their input into this review. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

MOTION

Suspension of Standing Orders; Vacancy in Senate of Commonwealth of Australia Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (Leader of the House) (11.24 am), by leave, without notice: I move— That, notwithstanding anything contained in standing orders, the meeting of the House for the purpose of the election of a senator be postponed until 2.30 pm on Thursday, 13 February 2014. Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.24 am): The opposition will be voting against the postponement of the filling of this casual vacancy until Thursday, 13 February 2014. The LNP government has had time now to get their house in order. It is now becoming not just a state embarrassment but a national embarrassment that Queensland will not have a senator fulfilling their role as a senator in the federal parliament until February next year. This is completely and utterly unacceptable. We came into this House back in early September, on Thursday, 12 September, to consider this issue in detail. We were all summoned to parliament to make a decision on whether or not we would accept the nominee for the Senate vacancy and by convention of this House we would endorse the LNP’s nominee. But that was sadly not to be the case because the Premier moved that it be deferred. Now we are under the impression, with this motion being put forward by the Leader of the House today, that it will be deferred further until Thursday, 13 February. That now means that some five months will pass until a Queenslander can be endorsed to fill the casual vacancy. I do not think anyone in their right mind, any Queenslander, would think that is acceptable. The LNP has had time. If there is this dark cloud over their nominee, if there is this cloud surrounding a CMC investigation—and I understand that the person in question may be a relevant person, as the Premier has indicated by reports in the Australian just recently—the LNP has had time to choose someone else. Even as early as this week there were rumours and whispers around George Street that the LNP was considering another candidate. In fact, we were told it was going to be ‘Senator Seeney’ at one stage. That was the rumour that was going around George Street. Government members interjected.

3416 Motion 17 Oct 2013

Ms PALASZCZUK: Ah, the Premier smiles! In fact, that has an interesting ring to it. ‘Senator Seeney’ almost rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it? Madam Speaker, I digress. This is a very serious issue. This is a vacancy in the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia. I am advised by reports recently that both houses of the federal parliament may be recalled to sit from 12 November to 14 November and then again in December. So that means that at those sittings, if the Senate is indeed recalled, Queenslanders will miss out. Queenslanders will not have a senator there to fulfil their obligations to represent Queensland. Mr Pitt: They are very casual, very casual about the casual Senate vacancy. Ms PALASZCZUK: They are very casual about the casual vacancy. I take that interjection from the Manager of Opposition Business. The LNP has had more than enough time to choose someone who is credible, who is well regarded and who could fulfil their responsibilities. If the person in question cannot fulfil their responsibilities, get rid of him. Find someone else. The right thing to do for Queensland would be to find someone else who is acceptable and who can take up their seat in the federal parliament. Today is a day when the Leader of the House has come in here and has said to the parliament, ‘We are going to postpone this. We are going to postpone this until February.’ What, in effect, the government is saying is, ‘We don’t care. We don’t care that for the next five months Queensland is not represented in the Senate.’ That is what they are saying to Queensland. That is exactly what they are saying: ‘We don’t give a damn.’ I have made my points very clearly. The opposition will be opposing the postponement. Let me make it very clear: the opposition will support a nominee put up by the LNP by virtue of the conventions of this House, but we will not support a postponement until February. Apparently they have 14,000 members but someone just left this morning so they are down to 13,999. Surely within those LNP ranks there is someone suitable—if not, then Deputy Premier, ‘Senator Seeney’—to take up the position. This is a serious position. The Senate is a very important institution in the federal parliament. It demands respect, and we need to make sure that Queensland is represented. Madam SPEAKER: I call the Premier. Mr Hopper: Madam Speaker, I was on my feet. Madam SPEAKER: I have called the Premier. He was also on his feet. Hon. CKT NEWMAN (Ashgrove—LNP) (Premier) (11.30 am): I rise to support the motion to roll this matter forward to the first sitting of 2014. I should recap on the circumstances that have led us to this point today. We had a Senate casual vacancy caused by the departure of Senator Barnaby Joyce some months ago. The LNP went through a proper process under its constitution to select Mr Barry O’Sullivan of Toowoomba to fill that vacancy. Mr O’Sullivan has himself requested the deferment of this matter previously because of this CMC investigation, and I have talked about that before. In the last few days I also advised the House, in answer to your question, that we received a letter from the CMC saying it will not be possible to finalise their inquiries by today. They have said they will do their best to finalise the matter this year but they cannot guarantee it. So the prudent course of action is to defer this until February next year. I listened with interest to what the Leader of the Opposition said. In response, Mr O’Sullivan is the nominated person from the Liberal National Party. He is the person who was selected, and I have personally nominated him. Mr Pitt: Put him in. Mr NEWMAN: I will take the interjection from the member for Mulgrave, who I think said, ‘Put him in.’ That is what the Labor Party would do right now. I sadly reflected earlier in question time about the way they used the processes of the parliament to cover up corruption with Gordon Nuttall. We are different from them. The Labor Party have not learned anything at all. They do not know how to do things the right way. Mr O’Sullivan is entitled to the presumption of innocence and that is what we are giving him but we are also doing what is right by the people of Queensland. We are absolutely doing what is right by the people of Queensland, and that is to make sure that in exercising— Ms Trad interjected. Mr NEWMAN: There are some opposite whom you sometimes think the caucus would put a muzzle on, so rabid are they in the way they conduct themselves in their daily affairs. Mrs Scott: We were elected with the same rights as you, Premier.

17 Oct 2013 Motion 3417

Mr NEWMAN: Madam Speaker, they have every opportunity to have their say in this place and perhaps they should do so. The Labor Party as a political party needs to reform itself. We heard over the last few days about the corruption of a former Labor national president. Frankly, that sort of institutionalised corruption— Mr PITT: Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order? Mr PITT: My point of order is a simple one in regard to relevance. This is a motion about delaying a Senate— Madam SPEAKER: Order! Take your seat. There have been interjections that have not been taken and they are also not necessarily relevant to the issue. I call the Premier. Mr NEWMAN: Madam Speaker, this is 100 per cent relevant because this is about doing the right thing and those opposite are incapable of understanding what the right thing is, let alone doing it. That is the point I am making. Their party is steeped in factionalism. Their party has people who are totally and utterly— Madam SPEAKER: Order! Premier, I will ask you to come to the motion. Mr NEWMAN: Madam Speaker, I am. I am talking about the need to do the right thing. We are going to make sure that any person nominated by a political party to fill a Senate vacancy is beyond reproach. We expect it, but more importantly Queenslanders expect it. The Leader of the Opposition is now in the extraordinary position of saying that we should just endorse Mr O’Sullivan today. That is how I took it. Ms Palaszczuk: Choose someone else. Mr NEWMAN: Let me explain very slowly and clearly to the Leader of the Opposition: I have already nominated Mr O’Sullivan. He has been nominated. He is the candidate. The matter is simply being adjourned. If the Labor Party does not support the adjournment today, then ipso facto it supports Mr O’Sullivan going in before the matter is dealt with by the CMC. That is a bizarre state of affairs. It demonstrates again that the Labor Party is totally and utterly clueless when it comes to moral and ethical issues. This deferral to February is the right and proper thing to occur. It is supported by the LNP executive. It is supported by Mr O’Sullivan, who I think is showing great fortitude and patience. As I understand it, it is also supported by the Prime Minister. I have no hesitation in backing the deferral of the matter today. Mr HOPPER (Condamine—KAP) (11.36 am): We all saw the preselection of Barry O’Sullivan for the federal Senate. The majority of the LNP are no doubt Nationals. I know Barry O’Sullivan, and I was very happy to see him take that position. Barry O’Sullivan is a fine, upstanding man. I know he has helped many orphanages overseas. He puts his own money into that. I think he will be a fine statesman for this state of Queensland. Out of all the people who stood for preselection, he no doubt left the rest behind by far. That came about because Barnaby Joyce left the Senate position vacant. The Premier just stated in the House that the CMC needed more time. We have a whole week before parliament sits again. Why could it not have been moved forward to the Thursday of the next sitting of parliament, which would give them 14 days from today? I believe that to be very fair. Instead, this has been moved forward to February. We heard the Premier talk about factionalism. I have sat in the LNP party room and I have heard the Premier talk about Barry O’Sullivan before this even happened— Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Condamine, an issue has been raised about relevance to the motion, which is a deferral motion. I ask you to stay relevant to the motion. Mr HOPPER: Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say this is how— Madam SPEAKER: I also encourage you to use my correct title. Mr HOPPER: I beg your pardon? Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to use my correct title as well. Mr HOPPER: Sorry, Madam Speaker. The reason for this motion and what is driving it today is an absolute hatred for Barry O’Sullivan. It is simply factionalism within the Liberal Party. There is no National Party in the Liberal National Party anymore. This is a Liberal Party takeover. So they have to do all they can to hurt Mr O’Sullivan. We heard O’Sullivan and Santo Santoro had a massive stand-up blue at the national conference.

North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Another 3418 17 Oct 2013 Act Amendment Bill

Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Condamine, I would ask you to please address the motion before the House, which is a deferral motion. You are going very broad of the topic. Mr HOPPER: The motion is that it be delayed until February. I say that it should be brought forward in the next sitting so we can have a senator in Queensland representing us who has been put through the proper process. This is simple Liberal Party factionalism. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (11.38 am): I thank the Leader of the House for circulating the motion earlier so that one had an opportunity to understand what the issue was going to be when it was moved. I am not a great lover of party politics. That is evident. That is why I sit up here. However, the process that has been accepted by parties across-the-board is that, if a party senator resigns, retires or whatever, that party has the opportunity to nominate and fill that position. Mr O’Sullivan has had some questions put against his name which the CMC are investigating. It is appropriate not to appoint a man for an indeterminate amount of time. It might be a short period, although the Premier said yesterday in this place that the CMC had advised that it would not be before the end of the year. Therefore, if the LNP are determined that this will be their nominee and their replacement senator, I do not believe I have any alternative but to support the motion because that is what the party has decided to do in relation to their responsibilities to represent this state in the Senate. Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (11.40 am): To quickly wind up this matter, this motion has the support of the LNP, the people entrusted to replace Senator Barnaby Joyce with another representative. The LNP has picked Mr Barry O’Sullivan. He is our nominee. He will be the senator. Mr Barry O’Sullivan agrees with this. There is no plot, despite the member for Condamine just rabbiting on about that. This is being done with Mr Barry O’Sullivan’s agreement in order to allow time to clear the matters from the CMC. As members would know, we do not direct when the CMC finalises the matters they are interested in looking into. We do not dare go anywhere near that course of justice. What we are doing here clearly—and it has the support of all those people—is giving time for the matters to be cleared so that this House can go forward and celebrate the Premier’s nomination of Mr Barry O’Sullivan as the replacement senator in Canberra. That will be a very great day. Mr O’Sullivan is looking forward to that day. According to the presumption of innocence, he is absolutely innocent of anything at this point. Whilst there is a CMC matter to be looked at and it is relevant to Mr O’Sullivan, he himself agrees with the Premier’s direction that this matter should be adjourned. I find it incredibly hypocritical for the opposition to talk about voting against this motion; they will be voting against what we want to do with our nomination, which has the agreement of the Senate nominee himself and our party. Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to. AYES, 69—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Cunningham, Davies, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Robinson, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Sorensen, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens

NOES, 11—Byrne, Hopper, Katter, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott Resolved in the affirmative.

NORTH STRADBROKE ISLAND PROTECTION AND SUSTAINABILITY AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction Hon. AP CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Mines) (11.49 am): I present a bill for an act to amend the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability Act 2011 and the Vegetation Management Framework Amendment Act 2013 for particular purposes. I table the bill and the explanatory notes. I nominate the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee to consider the bill. Tabled paper: North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Another Act Amendment Bill 2013 [3791]. Tabled paper: North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Another Act Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes [3792].

North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Another 17 Oct 2013 3419 Act Amendment Bill

I am very pleased to introduce the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Another Act Amendment Bill 2013 into the House, which honours the Newman government’s election commitment to deliver a framework for the orderly conclusion of sandmining on North Stradbroke Island. North Stradbroke Island is the second largest sand island in the world. It is situated off the coast of South-East Queensland, approximately 40 kilometres from Brisbane. Sandmining on North Stradbroke Island began in 1949. In 1966 Consolidated Rutile Ltd commenced mining operations on the island. Sibelco Australia Ltd purchased CRL in 2009. Today, Sibelco is the only active mining company on North Stradbroke Island. Mining has played a significant role in the economy of the island. As well as providing jobs for residents of the island, Sibelco has also contributed over $1 million to community development projects. In April 2011, the then Bligh Labor government passed the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability Act 2011. The act was purported to provide a framework to transition the economy of North Stradbroke Island away from sandmining and towards nature based recreation, tourism and education. The act provides for the phasing out of mining, specifically that mining interests for Yarraman Mine would end in 2015, the Enterprise Mine would end in 2019 and all mining to cease with the closure of the Vance Mine in 2025. The act sought to protect and restore the environmental values of the island and facilitate the staged creation of areas to be jointly managed by the state and the traditional owners of North Stradbroke Island. The Bligh Labor government declared a new national park over 20 per cent of the island in 2011, with the stated ultimate goal of 80 per cent of the island being protected as national park and jointly managed by the Quandamooka people, who are the recognised native title holders, and the Queensland government. While the Newman government supports the general intention of the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability Act 2011 to transition the economy of North Stradbroke Island away from mining and towards nature based recreation, tourism and education, the previous government made several fundamental errors which have rendered the act ineffective. The amendments contained in this bill will correct those errors. The first significant error made by the Bligh Labor government was the assumption it made about the island’s economy. Under the act, one of the most significant economic drivers on North Stradbroke Island will cease in six years. This time frame is far too short, given that there is currently no alternative economic activity of any significance that would be capable of generating jobs and incomes to replace those currently provided by sandmining. The strict time frames imposed by the act simply do not allow sufficient time for the local community and businesses to transition the island’s economy away from a dependence on sandmining. The reality is that the economy of North Stradbroke Island was, and still is, largely dependent on sandmining operations. It is estimated that Sibelco currently injects close to $130 million annually into the state’s economy. The population of the island is highly dependent on sandmining for employment and income. Compounding this naïve assumption about the ability of the island’s economy to transition is the Bligh government’s second error, which was not doing enough to facilitate the establishment of alternative business enterprises on the island. The Newman government recently enacted the Nature Conservation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2012. That act amended the Nature Conservation Act 1994 to allow for the authorisation of ecotourism facilities in national parks. Under the act, ‘ecotourism facility’ is defined as a facility whose primary purpose is to facilitate the presentation, appreciation and conservation of the land’s natural condition and cultural resources and values. Consistent with the Newman government’s commitment to open up national parks and increase access for tourists and the local community, the government has also introduced into the House the Nature Conservation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2013. The amendments in that bill seek to broaden the objects of the Nature Conservation Act to provide for recreation and commercial uses in protected areas, while continuing to retain the focus on nature conservation. The bill includes a number of supplementary outcomes with regards to meeting the objective of the conservation of nature: the use and enjoyment of protected areas by the community; the involvement of Indigenous people in the management of protected areas in which they have an interest; and the social, cultural and commercial use of protected areas in a way consistent with the natural, cultural and other values of the areas. Those amendments will go a long

North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Another 3420 17 Oct 2013 Act Amendment Bill way to assisting in the transition of the North Stradbroke Island economy by providing a legislative basis to facilitate the development of tourism and ecotourism operations on the island; however, it will still take time to develop private sector interests and encourage investment to facilitate the development of tourism and ecotourism on the island. The Bligh Labor government’s third error in enacting the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability Act 2011 was to materially cut short Sibelco’s proposed mining activities and the resource life potential. This represented a significant economic loss to Sibelco and damaged the State of Queensland’s reputation in terms of sovereign risk. The regulatory restrictions placed on Sibelco, such as denial of access to a resource, imposed closure dates and reduced mining lease area, ignores all market forces that drive investment decisions in resource projects. The precedent of amending legislation to change mining lease conditions is quite significant and one that has direct implications for investor confidence in exploration and minerals development in Queensland. As such, the enactment of this bill will return Sibelco to a position similar to what it would have been if the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability Act 2011 had not been enacted and will go some way to restoring Queensland’s reputation in terms of sovereign risk. This leads me to the fourth error made by the Bligh Labor government in enacting the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability Act 2011. This act imposed a restricted mine path for Sibelco’s Enterprise mine. The original explanatory notes state that this was done in order to ensure that future mining avoids areas of high conservation value as much as possible. Not only did this amendment contribute to the sovereign risk I have already referred to, but it also created unnecessary red tape and legislative duplication. Protection of the environment is a matter for the Environmental Protection Act 1994—an act which is specifically designed for that purpose. It is import to note that the environmental assessments originally carried out on Sibelco’s mining leases prior to the 2011 act were based on a larger mining area that would be returned to Sibelco. Areas such as the Ramsar wetlands on the island will still not be able to be mined pursuant to the conditions of the environmental authority. Further, the original environmental assessment considered the standard criteria as defined in the Environmental Protection Act 1994. Whilst there was no legislative requirement for an environmental impact statement to be completed at the time of the original approval, the applicant did undertake an environmental studies report; therefore, environmentally sensitive areas on the island are well protected without the unnecessary introduction of duplicate legislation. The location of mining activities is a matter for determination by the holder of the mining lease and the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection pursuant to the environmental authority. The fifth error made by the Bligh Labor government was not to provide any mechanism which enabled access to the mine sites at the end of the mining lease to carry out necessary rehabilitation. This is a truly remarkable oversight. The amendments contained in this bill will enable Sibelco to seek a renewal of mining leases in 2019 at the Enterprise mine until 2035, thereby providing a realistic time frame in which North Stradbroke Island can transition to other industries such as nature based recreation, tourism and education, and remove the restrictive mine path at the Enterprise mine and consequently replace the environmental authority. This will reduce the harm done to Queensland’s sovereign risk, leave environmental matters to the appropriate legislation and provide for an opportunity to renew mining leases associated with Yarraman mine and Enterprise mine until 2020 and 2040 respectively with a non-winning condition. This will provide the necessary mechanism to allow for the rehabilitation of the mine sites. I would like to point out that the extension of mining activities provided for by this bill will not occur within national parks or environmentally sensitive areas on North Stradbroke Island. Indeed, the majority of the Enterprise mine area is of low ecological significance, with over 50 per cent of its footprint having been previously disturbed or used for key infrastructure such as roads, water pipelines, power lines or electrical substations. This area is not pristine forest and has a history of disturbance from logging, mining and infrastructure construction dating back to the 1950s. I would also like to assure members that the amendments in this bill are being made in accordance with the requirements of the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 and will not breach or necessitate any amendment to the current Indigenous land use agreement between the state and the Quandamooka people. This government is committed to meeting all its obligations and responsibilities under the ILUA.

Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 17 Oct 2013 3421 Other Legislation Amendment Bill

In March of this year the Vegetation Management Framework Amendment Act 2013 was passed. This act will restore much needed balance to the state’s vegetation management framework. While a number of provisions came into effect on assent, a range of provisions, including two new relevant purposes for clearing of native vegetation for high-value agriculture and irrigated high-value agriculture, are proposed to commence in November 2013. Since March the department has been working hard to implement these reforms. In doing so, it has been identified that several provisions in the act associated with high-value agriculture and irrigated high-value agriculture will duplicate requirements within the state development assessment provisions that will be prescribed under the Sustainable Planning Regulation 2012; namely, the requirement to minimise and mitigate the effects of clearing and the provision of an environmental offset for the clearing of vegetation. These provisions in the act which require landholders to demonstrate how they have minimised and mitigated the adverse effects of clearing and to provide a significant beneficial impact for the clearing of endangered and of-concern regional ecosystems are unnecessary and clearly represent duplication. Amendments in this bill will address that duplication by omitting these requirements from the Vegetation Management Act. I commend the bill to the House.

First Reading Hon. AP CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Mines) (12.01 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time.

Referral to the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee Madam SPEAKER: Order! In accordance with standing order 131, the bill is now referred to the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee.

Portfolio Committee, Reporting Date Hon. AP CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Mines) (12.02 pm), by leave, without notice: I move— That under the provisions of standing order 136 the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee report to the House on the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Another Act Amendment Bill by 14 November 2013. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (FAIR WORK ACT HARMONISATION NO. 2) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (12.02 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Industrial Relations Act 1999, the Hospital and Health Boards Act 2011, the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990, the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Regulation 2006 and the Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990, and to make minor and consequential amendments to the acts listed in schedule 1, for particular purposes. I table the bill and the explanatory notes. I nominate the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee to consider the bill. Tabled paper: Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 [3793]. Tabled paper: Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes [3794]. The purpose of the Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill is to amend the Industrial Relations Act 1999 to create a reformed industrial relations framework for the Queensland jurisdiction.

Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3422 17 Oct 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill

The Industrial Relations Act 1999 is within my portfolio and, to the extent that it relates to public sector industrial relations, the portfolio of the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Premier. The bill also includes amendments to the Health and Hospital Boards Act 2011, which falls within the portfolio of the health minister. The bill also includes amendments to the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990 and the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Regulation 2006. The bill reforms the industrial relations framework for Queensland. The Queensland industrial relations jurisdiction consists almost entirely of the state and local government sectors. The bill responds to the recommendations of the Queensland Commission of Audit and the Blueprint for Better Healthcare in Queensland. In particular, recommendation 130 of the Commission of Audit notes the importance of updating the Industrial Relations Act 1999 to ensure that it is modern, flexible and relevant to the public sector environment. Other recommendations of the Commission of Audit that are reflected in this bill include: • that awards continue to provide the basis for public sector wages and conditions, however only matters not covered by legislation or Public Service directives should be included; and the number of awards that apply in the public sector should be significantly reduced; and • that certified agreements only contain wages and conditions for specific groups of employees which are outside award conditions and that these are linked to improvements in productivity and performance. The framework set out in the bill is considered essential for providing for a modern, flexible and responsive industrial relations framework, particularly with respect to the negotiation of employment agreements terms and conditions. The new framework is comprised of five elements. The first is legislated minimum employment standards. A key feature of the reform is that it will introduce comprehensive legislated minimum employment standards to be known as the Queensland Employment Standards, QES. Employment standards are currently provided for under both the state and federal industrial relations legislation. Chapter 2 of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 provides for general minimum employment conditions in the Queensland jurisdiction. Federally, the Fair Work Act 2009 makes provision for the National Employment Standards, NES. These are non-negotiable minimum employment conditions for employers and employees in the national workplace relations system. The QES, like the National Employment Standards in the Fair Work Act, will provide a safety net of non-negotiable minimum employment conditions for workers and consistency and certainty for employers operating in the Queensland industrial relations jurisdiction. The QES will underpin all employment arrangements including the new modern awards and agreements providing mandatory content for certain standards that cannot be altered in the bargaining process for a certified agreement. The QES are based upon the existing state and federal standards. These are standards for annual leave, sick leave, family leave, long service leave and jury leave. The existing sick leave standard in the IR Act of eight days accrual each year has been increased to 10 days, in line with the national employment standard. Other matters provided for under the QES include the adoption of a public holidays standard based on the NES, while retaining the definition of ‘public holiday’ in the IR Act; inclusion of a notice of termination and redundancy standard based on certain provisions from both the state and federal legislation; and the inclusion of standard dispute resolution, consultation and flexibility clauses for modern awards and certified agreements. The QES standards for dispute resolution, consultation and flexibility are not currently contained in general employment conditions in the IR Act. It is proposed that the QES will apply to all employers and employees within the Queensland industrial relations jurisdiction from 1 December 2013, subject to transitional provisions. The provision of the QES is consistent with the intent of recommendation 128 of the Commission of Audit report which provides for the development of core employment conditions for all persons employed in the Queensland Public Service. The second element in the IR framework is an award modernisation process. The Commission of Audit recommended that awards continue as the basis for public sector wages and conditions, on the basis that only matters not covered by legislation or Public Service directives be included in an

Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 17 Oct 2013 3423 Other Legislation Amendment Bill award. The Commission of Audit also recommended that the number of awards that apply in the public sector be significantly reduced. There are currently 83 state and local government awards operating in the Queensland industrial relations system. These awards have, over many years, been amended to contain extensive and complex provisions relating to a broad range of matters. The bill will introduce a process to modernise and rationalise the existing Queensland awards. The bill clearly states that the objects of award modernisation are for awards to be simple to understand and easy to apply; that they become a fair safety net of enforceable terms and conditions for the employment relationship between the employee and the employer; that they promote flexible modern workplace practices; and that there be certainty, stability and sustainability in the modern award system. The bill proposes an awards modernisation process similar to what was used by the former Rudd Labor government in 2008-09 by the Fair Work Commission to modernise federal awards. As the responsible minister, I will provide the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission with a request to modernise an award or group of awards. The request will state a date by which the award modernisation process must be completed and that date must be within two years. It is proposed that the award modernisation process will commence from 1 December 2013, with a staged process identifying priority awards for modernisation during 2014. Like the Fair Work Act and the process undertaken by the former federal government, the bill also specifies matters that must and may be included in an award and those matters that may not be included in an award. Queensland modern awards will include required content, such as consultation and flexibility clauses, and permitted matters relating to the employment relationship and machinery clauses, such as coverage and the types of engagement. Modern awards will not contain non-allowable content such as matters relating to workload management and workforce planning. The third element in the IR framework is the certified agreements. The scope to bargain for additional entitlements will be provided through the agreement-making process. The new IR framework will focus agreement making to be about matters linked directly to the employment relationship and improvements in productivity and performance in the workplace. This approach responds to the Commission of Audit recommendation that certified agreements only contain wages and matters for specific groups of employees which are linked directly to their employment relationship and, further, to improvements in productivity and performance which are not otherwise contained in the modern award. Similar to modern awards, certified agreements will also have required content such as the nominal expiry date; permitted content, such as matters relating to wages and other employment relationship matters; and non-allowable content, such as restrictions on access to training. Consistent with the Fair Work Act, certified agreements will be extended from three to four years duration. The fourth element of the IR framework is streamlined bargaining arrangements for agreement making and for taking protected industrial action. The bill introduces measures designed to reduce protracted disputation and disruption to service delivery, including the introduction of specified time frames in which assisted conciliation and arbitration is to occur. The QIRC may end the bargaining period and commence assisted conciliation if it is considered further negotiation is unlikely to result in an agreement or if the industrial action has been protracted. This is designed to assist both parties when it is evident that an agreement is highly unlikely. The QIRC must commence assisted conciliation where industrial action, or its cumulative effect, is threatening to endanger the health, safety or welfare of the community or threatens access to, or the delivery of, services to the community. Transitional arrangements are provided in the bill to manage the processes for those agreements that have reached their nominal expiry date but are not in arbitration under section 149 of the Industrial Relations Act or will reach their nominal expiry date prior to the modernisation of the underpinning awards. Arbitration proceedings that have already commenced under section 149 will continue. However, the bill allows for two or more of the parties to reach and make a certified agreement under the pre-reform rules. The fifth element of the IR framework is individual employment contracts for highly paid senior staff. The bill introduces a facility for an employer and an employee to enter into an individual employment contract. Such contracts will only be available to highly paid senior staff. A highly paid senior staff member is someone whose remuneration is above $129,300. This is the same high income threshold used in the Fair Work Act to determine eligibility for individual contracts. Workers earning less than this threshold will not be affected by this provision. Indexation of this threshold will be made by regulation. When on a high-income guarantee contract, a highly paid senior staff member will move out of the award coverage and have access to collective bargaining.

Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3424 17 Oct 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill

As a consequence of the reform of the IR framework, other acts that contain employment standards for those in the Queensland industrial relations jurisdiction will require minor amendments. The bill makes appropriate changes to the Hospital and Health Boards Act 2011 in this regard. In addition to the reforming of the IR framework, this bill also introduces changes to improve the operation of Queensland’s industrial tribunals. The workload of the Industrial Court of Queensland has significantly declined over the last 10 years. The recent retirement of President Hall from the Industrial Court of Queensland has provided the government with an opportunity to better align the resourcing of the court by returning the position of the president to be a Supreme Court justice on a part-time appointment. The bill provides the president with administrative responsibility for the court and also transfers some matters from the original jurisdiction of the court to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. This will further assist the president with managing the workload of the court. The bill amends the IR Act to allow the Governor in Council to appoint a QIRC deputy president or commissioner on a fixed term appointment of not less than one year. Currently, all appointments to the QIRC can only be made on tenure to age 70. This amendment will provide greater flexibility for the government to address short- to medium-term workload pressures within the QIRC. Fixed term appointment arrangements were a feature of the QIRC prior to 1999 and are currently provided for in the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission and the Fair Work Commission federally. The bill also allows for applications for trading hours orders to be determined by a single member, except when the vice-president of the commission considers a full bench to be appropriate. Under existing arrangements, trading hours orders are determined by the full bench of three commissioners. In recent years, stakeholders have raised concerns about delays in the hearing of applications for extended trading hours. Allowing for less complex trading hours matters to be dealt with by a single commissioner will help expedite the determination of trading hours orders, alleviate costs incurred by the parties and provide for a more efficient use of QIRC resources. Other amendments include prohibiting the deduction of industrial organisation subscription fees from an employee’s wages. This amendment is made to clarify that an employer will not be in breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 should it choose to no longer provide a payroll deduction facility for industrial association fees. The government strongly supports and defends freedom of association. However, an employer should not be forced to implement costly payroll deduction facilities for union fee deductions when these matters can be managed directly between the organisation and its members through direct debit. The bill also clarifies the powers of an industrial inspector to request and inspect records in relation to transparency and accountability obligations of industrial organisations under the IR Act. The bill also introduces an administrative facility to extinguish obsolete certified agreements and removes redundant provisions in the act relating to the now defunct Queensland Workplace Rights Ombudsman’s office. The bill also includes amendments to the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990, the QSuper act. These amendments relocate the provisions of the QSuper act governing the operation, composition, size and tenure of the QSuper Board, which is responsible for administering the state public sector superannuation scheme, to the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Regulation 2006. The bill is all about ensuring our industrial relations framework is modern, flexible and relevant to meet the needs of employers and workers in Queensland’s industrial relations system. I commend the bill to the House.

First Reading Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (12.16 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time.

Referral to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee Madam SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 131, the bill is now referred to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3425 Amendment Bill

Portfolio Committee, Reporting Date Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (12.16 pm), by leave, without notice: I move— That under the provisions of standing order 136 the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee report to the House on the Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill by 14 November 2013. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Resumed from 15 October (see p. 3149).

Second Reading Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (12.17 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (12.17 pm): I rise to speak to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. Queensland has the best workers compensation scheme in Australia. All Queenslanders should be proud of it. Queensland’s scheme is fair, it is sustainable and it is efficient. It works well for businesses and workers alike by providing low premiums, efficient processes and basic human decency for injured workers and their families. It provides Queenslanders with the care and support that they deserve in what can often be the most challenging times of their lives. I say all Queenslanders can be proud of the existing scheme because it is an issue that should be above partisan politics. I was the deputy chair of the parliamentary committee that undertook an extensive inquiry into the scheme. I worked closely with the committee chair and other LNP and Independent members of the committee. After months and months of hearings and deliberations and in-depth analysis, the LNP dominated committee delivered a unanimous report. This issue should be beyond politics. It is just common sense. Unfortunately, it appears that the ideological extremity of the LNP cabinet has overruled the recommendations of its own LNP members of parliament. Shamefully, this is not for any decent and genuine policy issue but rather because the Attorney-General is putting deals with big business ahead of common decency. As has been articulated already in this debate, the inquiry into the workers compensation scheme conducted by the Finance and Administration Committee had been most detailed and comprehensive. As the then chair, the member for Coomera, wrote in the forward of the unanimous report, the inquiry— ... received 246 submissions, held public forums in Mackay and Cairns, held 14 public hearings in Brisbane, including five in-camera hearings, and held three public departmental briefings. We heard from businesses, employer organisations, unions, individual workers and legal experts who have extensive experience in this area. The overwhelming position of those submissions was that Queensland should maintain its strong workers compensation scheme. After this extensive review the committee declared unequivocally that the existing scheme was fundamentally strong and that the core structure of the system should not be undermined. The findings of the committee and its unanimous recommendations were vindicated by the annual report of WorkCover. The report, which was tabled only on Monday evening after a six-week delay, confirms beyond any doubt that the scheme remains well run and premiums are still the second lowest in the nation. The number of common law claims is stable and the cost of those claims is well under what was expected. Net claims incurred reduced by $99.9 million. Annual profit more than doubled—from $199 million to $517 million. So there is scope for the government to consider premium relief if it chooses. The annual report confirms that the scheme provides employers with the stability and competitiveness that they require. It is a ringing endorsement of the existing scheme that boasts strong financial health and stability. The timing of the tabling of the annual report is suspicious at best. Even after the delay the Attorney-General promised, through media outlets, to release the report last week. But he did not do so. Instead he waited until late on Monday to table the report—a report that he had had for some

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3426 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill time—less than 24 hours after he had introduced legislation that flew in the face of the recommendations of his own committee and in complete inconsistency with the clear and irrefutable evidence contained in the independent WorkCover annual report. They confirmed that there is no need for this LNP ideological assault on workers’ rights. In short, the annual report proves that the scheme is strong and efficient. There is no financial justification to remove the core element of the scheme’s structure. The changes proposed by the Attorney-General will not only reduce people’s rights unnecessarily but also jeopardise the financial health of the scheme. Crucial to the unanimous report delivered by the Finance and Administration Committee was the recommendation that the parliament should not impose restrictions on injured workers accessing their common law rights. The notion of a threshold being placed on an injured worker before they access their common law rights would significantly harm workers and their families, lead to more sick days that had to be covered by employers and would reduce effective return to work of employees. Making it harder to get injured employees back on the job is not good for workers or their bosses. Let me remind the House of what the LNP, Labor and Independent MPs unanimously agreed after many months of consideration. Section 6.8 of the committee spells it out very clearly. It states— After considering all of the arguments for and against imposing an impairment threshold, the Committee considers that an impairment threshold should not be imposed.

The Committee believes that the extent of the 2010 amendments in addressing the increase in common law claims is yet to be fully realised as common law claims can be lodged up to three years from date of injury. As such, the Committee believes that there should be no changes to the current system.

The Committee considers that the fact that in order to have a successful common law claim, employer negligence needs to be proven in the courts, provides some protection.

The Committee recognises that imposing thresholds on accessing common law rights would improperly remove rights from one group of citizens that are available to other citizens. Imposing thresholds on WPI would break the nexus between workers’ compensation and the ability of injured workers to perform their pre-injury employment. The Committee recommends retention of the existing provisions relating to access to common law.

The Committee notes that the term zero impairment has created a perception that claimants are being paid when it is suggested there is nothing wrong with them. This is not the case, however, because zero WPI does not mean the claimant is not suffering from some disability or pain. The Committee has found that there is confusion over the terms which provide an inadequate explanation or representation of loss incurred by the claimant.

Recommendation 27

The Committee recommends that the existing provisions relating to access to common law be retained. The Law Society could not be clearer. In its submission titled ‘Workers’ Compensation Under Threat’ it stated— The Society is deeply concerned at reports that the Government may be giving consideration to a fundamental change to Queensland’s workers’ compensation scheme by introducing a 5% permanent impairment threshold in order to access common law claims. We understand that the desired outcome is to reduce premiums. The society went on to say— The Society opposes the change.

Introducing a threshold would change the scheme from a short-tail to a long-tail one. It would cause serious damage to a currently financially sustainable and fair scheme. It would disadvantage employers and employees alike.

It would be completely inconsistent with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Workers’ Compensation Scheme that states ‘The Committee recommends retention of the existing provisions relating to access to common law.’

Our workers’ compensation scheme enjoys the second lowest premiums in Australia—in fact we’re on par with Victoria when you consider they pay a higher employer excess. Our scheme has enjoyed the lowest average premium over the past decade.

Our common law claims numbers, claims rates and payments are decreasing.

The scheme is in excellent financial health—making a reported profit in 2011 with sufficient reserves to meet its liabilities, unlike comparable schemes in other states. … Any move to change our workers’ compensation scheme is an issue of great concern to all Queenslanders. Mr Rickuss interjected. Ms Trad interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Miss Barton): Order! If the members for Lockyer and South Brisbane would like to have a debate, they can take it outside the chamber, not across the chamber.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3427 Amendment Bill

Mr PITT: The submission states— Employers will see their premiums increase as the costs to the scheme escalate as has been the experience in other jurisdictions with long-tail schemes and limited common law access.

Queensland’s current 98% return to work rate will be under threat.

We can also expect it to act as a disincentive for Queensland to attract business as we will no longer have the nation’s best practice workers’ compensation scheme. Any short term benefits resulting from the introduction of thresholds will quickly be eroded by increased scheme expenditure.

We consider that imposing a threshold is a very blunt instrument to achieve an outcome of lowering premiums. From the experience in other jurisdictions, the advantage is likely to be short-lived. There are other options available to achieve this outcome without fundamentally altering the existing, very successful scheme.

We strongly encourage interested members to raise these issues with their local MP as a matter of urgency. Those opposite simply do not have an adequate response to counter the very detailed and articulate points made by the Queensland Law Society, an organisation with more experience than the Attorney-General and better placed to know the workings of the existing scheme. There is good reason those opposite do not have an adequate response and that is that, quite simply, many of them believe wholeheartedly with the position put forward by the Queensland Law Society—and not only the members of the Finance and Administration Committee, who took a genuine approach to the policy analysis and delivered the unanimous comprehensive report but also the members of the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee, who endorsed the recommendations of the Finance and Administration Committee of the definition of ‘worker’ and others in the LNP who know that this legislation is simply going too far. There are those who, I assume, have been proud members of the Queensland Law Society and who know full well that it is not a radical browbeating organisation. So when it makes such a clear and strident statement in relation to law reform, I am not surprised that it makes many members opposite justifiably uncomfortable. Let me read some more evidence into the record. This is an open letter to all parliamentarians titled ‘Why All The Fuss Over WorkCover?’ It states— The legal profession and the Queensland Law Society have always worked with Government to assist wherever possible in the formulation of good policy and the implementation of good law. In relation to workers’ compensation the profession and the Society have always worked with Government to address the concerns of business as to premium increases and frivolous claims. The premium increase after 2008 was a necessary correction as a result of the global financial crisis, failing returns of the WorkCover and the premium having been artificially depressed. After the Government review in 2010 the legal profession recommended changes which address concerns raised by the Government and by business. In 2010 legislative amendments were made which implemented the recommendations of the legal profession, with the major amendment being the implementation of the lnjury Scale Value scheme which has been used very successfully in Queensland’s Motor Accident lnsurance Scheme. The Motor Accident lnsurance Scheme for the last 10 years has refused to follow the unsuccessful attempts to contain premium increases by the unfair and ineffective method of thresholds which is used in other States. All other States which implement thresholds have had big premium increases. It is clear over the last 10 years that thresholds don’t work and are unfair. The legislative changes in 2010 recommended by the legal profession and first introduced into the WorkCover scheme have been successful like the Motor Accident scheme in containing compensation payments. The injury scale value scheme is effective and fair and operates to ensure that premiums do not increase. Workers’ compensation premiums have now stabilised and will start to decrease. WorkCover Queensland made almost $200 million profit in 2012 and it is anticipated that the 2013 result will be similarly favourable. When the full beneficial effects of the 2010 amendments flow through into the Scheme Queensland will have the lowest premiums in Australia. This is an ongoing process over the next 12 to 18 months. It is a myth that the legal profession is anti-employer. The profession supports good and fair policies which result in good laws. Our long-term low premium environment evidences that, as the legal profession has always been a key stakeholder. The Queensland Law Society has always attempted to work with Government and employer groups to achieve the Government’s desired policy outcomes. There are options which the Government could exercise which would result in premium reduction which do not involve thresholds. The Queensland Law Society would welcome the earliest opportunity to discuss these options with the Government and other stakeholders. All parliamentarians have a duty to understand the laws they pass. This requires parliamentarians to understand the facts and the evidence. The Annual Report already released by QCOMP confirms that claim numbers, claim frequency and claim sizes are reducing. Statements that there is an explosion in claims or are otherwise out of control are simply not supported by the evidence. These claims are false and misleading and if acted upon as the basis for introducing thresholds will be bad policy which results in bad laws.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3428 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

The legal profession has always provided balanced solutions focussed recommendations to address perceived problems with the WorkCover scheme as the profession represents lawyers for both business and employees.

Queensland Government please talk with the Queensland Law Society as there are solutions to achieve the Government’s desired policy outcomes without the need to introduce thresholds which do not work and are unfair. Who have I just been quoting? A so-called union thug that those opposite keep carrying on about? No, I am quoting Mr Kerry Splatt, principal of KM Splatt and Associates law firm, and also long-term LNP member. I understand that overnight he has resigned from the LNP’s legal policy committee and from the LNP itself. I understand he was a member of the LNP for 16 years—since the Attorney-General was in school. But his advice was not heeded. I would like to read a little bit from his letter of resignation. Mr Splatt writes— I had no choice, having regard to the utterly unjustifiable vandalism being visited upon the best workers’ compensation scheme in Australia.

There is no economic basis for the changes. When combined with the attack on the judiciary and the wilful disregard of the separation of powers doctrine, I am gravely concerned that we have an Attorney-General and Premier who do not listen. Many of my friends and colleagues, lawyers, LNP members and otherwise, share my concerns. He went on to say— ... the broad church ... of people and organisations concerned about the vandalism, will ensure that constituents know that the government spent this week ripping away rights, flouting the separation of powers, undermining the rule of law and embarrassing us in the eyes of any person of sound moral fibre. Mr Splatt wrote to all MPs and I urge all members to listen to his advice. I table a copy of his letter of resignation. Tabled paper: Open letter (email) to parliamentarians from Kerry Splatt—resignation from LNP Law and Justice Committee and from the LNP [3795]. I urge those opposite to raise their concerns with these extreme moves by the Premier and the Attorney-General. It is embarrassing that such an obvious and widely held position of the legal community is being blatantly turned on its head by this inexperienced Attorney-General. Make no mistake, it will be the LNP backbenchers who will rightly pay the price. It is up to them to hold the Attorney-General in check and it is up to the Premier to show some leadership and say enough is enough. The Premier’s lack of leadership will mean that a shoddy piece of legislation will go through not only hurting decent Queenslanders but also risking the financial strength of the system. At the core of the problem with imposing a threshold on common law access is the issue of whole-person impairment—WPI. The fundamental principle about allowing injured workers access to their legal rights is that imposing a threshold based on WPI breaks the nexus between the compensation given and the ability of an injured worker to return to fulfil pre-injury work. That is, if I hurt my foot I can still come to work and speak in parliament, but if I work on road construction and I have the same injury to my foot I may not be able to go back to work. Both injuries would receive the same measurement for WPI but have very different impacts on a person’s ability to complete the work. Consider the impact on you or me of breaking a hand in contrast to a carpenter. Consider the impact on you or me of having ongoing back pain compared to a labourer, nurse, wardie or a stockman. The issue of imposing a threshold is not an esoteric debate about where on a pendulum certain payouts should occur. It is not about hypothetical cases like the ones I have just touched on briefly. These changes will strip thousands of injured Queenslanders of their rights, with real impacts on real people. Let me detail some real impacts that highlight the offensive nature of these changes. I will not give the full details of the individuals, but I have permission to use the real details of the cases. A woman from the Ipswich region was working on a gas line project. Her job was as a leasehand or driller’s offsider. She was assisting a driller with the testing on some gas piping and had plugged an air hose into a pipe to test pressure, commonly known as drifting the tubing with air. Drifts are placed into the drill pipe with wire rope attached to a hook at the end of the drift. The pipe had a cap on it. The caps are modified for air filling. Caps are required to be certified but her worksite had been fitted with inferior, uncertified caps. The pipe could not hold the pressure and as a result of the defective cap it exploded and it hit her left hand. Despite wearing approved safety gloves she has been left with an ongoing hand injury. As a consequence of her injury she has ongoing pain in her hand and bruising. She can no longer do the manual component to her job. Her injury meant she could not do the repetitive tightening of caps in other parts and equipment, the manual lifting of drilling equipment, which often weighs 20 kilograms or more, and operate grinders. She now works in an administration role doing data entry. It is unlikely she will be able to return to her pre-accident work as a driller’s offsider or eventually as a driller, which she had aimed to do.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3429 Amendment Bill

Following medical review by an external medical officer her injury was assessed as zero per cent whole-person impairment. That is, on the measurement of WPI her assessment was zero per cent even though her injury has a direct impact on her not being able to return to her pre-injury work. I want those opposite to consider this woman’s case. If she was injured after these laws were introduced she would have no entitlements to recover compensation for her lost wages and for the ongoing pain and suffering that she has now and will continue to suffer into the future as a consequence of the negligence of her employer. Her case highlights the injustice that will occur to a person with a low WPI who has lost out and will continue to lose out significantly in the future. I hope that the Attorney-General can hear the rally that is going on outside. It is all for the Attorney-General, who unilaterally seems to think that he can change Queensland despite the wishes of Queenslanders. It is astonishing. I am aware that many members of the legal community have written to members to give examples of how this legislation will hurt Queenslanders. I want to read some of these cases into the record to remind members of this evidence and to record the information that was so obvious to all at the time of this debate. I will refer to four actual case examples provided by Gouldson Legal law firm. The first involved a brickie’s labourer. The client was employed as a brickie’s labourer and sustained injury to his lumbar spine in January 2011 in the course of his employment and a further aggravation of this injury in February 2012. He had worked his whole life in the field of manual labour and is now prohibited from returning to any such work due to his injuries and associated disability. He is 47 years of age and is now dependent on a Centrelink pension and faces fundamental difficulties in attempting to re-enter the workforce in any capacity due to his injuries, age and lack of experience in any other area of work. He was assessed by WorkCover Queensland as having a two per cent work related whole-person impairment and conveyed an offer of $5,752.10. He has not worked since February 2012. He is on Centrelink benefits and supporting his family. He would have no access to common law damages under the proposed amendments to the scheme. The next example is a road construction labourer. The man is a 30-year old male who worked as a labourer for WorkPac Pty Ltd. He sustained a lumbar spine injury on 3 September 2011. Prior to the accident he had enjoyed a net weekly wage of $1,381.90. As a result of the incident he was unable to return to labouring work and returned to lighter work. He was assessed as sustaining a zero per cent WPI and was offered a zero dollar lump sum by WorkCover Queensland. Even with the lighter work he required intermittent periods of time off work and sustained a total loss of net earnings of $50,110.40, averaging $508.37 per week over 98.57 weeks. He will suffer permanent weekly loss of income. He received significant compensation at common law because his employer was negligent in causing his injuries. He would have no access to common law damages under the proposed amendments to the scheme. The third example is that of a concreter employed to work on site for a construction company. On 10 September 2012 he sustained a lower back injury when he was required to lift a number of 70 kilogram concrete boxing planks by himself from a work truck onto a building site. For all of his mature working life he had worked as a concreter. He is now prevented from undertaking this employment or any other employment due to the pain symptoms associated with his injury. The client is a 41-year-old father of three children who is now dependent on his partner’s part-time income. He was previously receiving WorkCover benefits. However, having been assessed at zero per cent work related impairment his lump sum offer is $0. He would have no access to common law damages under the proposed amendments to the scheme. The fourth example relates to a 26-year-old process worker who sustained an injury to his lumbar spine and left lower limb during the course of his employment from July to August 2012. He had only ever worked in the area of unskilled and manual labouring and will now suffer significant restrictions in returning to any such work due to his injuries and associated disabilities. The man has been unable to obtain alternative employment since sustaining the injuries and is currently struggling to support his young family. He was assessed under WorkCover for a permanent impairment assessment as having a one per cent work related whole-person impairment and was conveyed an offer of $2,160. He would have no access to common law damages under the proposed amendments to the scheme. Those cases show that this LNP legislation is unfair and unjust and will harm decent working Queenslanders who are injured at work due to the negligence of their employers. Imposing a threshold is unfair. It is illogical when you consider the nature of workplace injuries. Injured workers, their families and communities will be left to pick up the pieces.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3430 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

On another issue in the legislation, I ask the Attorney-General to address in his reply exactly how the new standard will be implemented regarding psychological assessment. Will the medical assessment tribunals issue a new evaluation guide? How will that guide be evaluated? Who will be consulted and what is the avenue for input? Another area of serious concern with this legislation relates to the new requirements imposed on prospective employees and the correlation of a central database that can be accessed by employers in certain cases. There are serious concerns about the privacy of applicants when trying to get a job. There are serious questions as to whether this legislation breaches federal privacy and antidiscrimination legislation. I ask the Attorney-General to address that issue. What advice did the Attorney-General receive on the implications for privacy and antidiscrimination requirements? Will he commit to providing that advice to the House, especially as this legislation has not gone through a committee process or been made available for the appropriate scrutiny? There are several serious concerns. In relation to the insurer denying coverage to an injured worker based on the nondisclosure of previous injuries, the legislation as written appears not to make a distinction on the issue of intent. That is, the legislation appears to suggest that workers could be denied coverage whether they innocently forgot a minor issue that subsequently became a contributing factor in an injury or if there was a deliberate fraudulent intent. The drafting also appears not to impose any restrictions on the employer using that information in consideration of appointment. Significantly, there appears that there is no requirement that the previous claims or existing injuries have any direct link to the work required of the position for which they are applying. Again I ask the Attorney-General to address this issue and provide the House with details. Is it the deliberate intent of the legislation that employers are entitled to use any information provided by prospective applicants about former claims or injuries in deciding whether or not to appoint that person, even if the previous history has no link to the duties to be performed in the role for which they are applying? I await the Attorney’s response before raising these issues further in consideration in detail if required. After the serious issues are laid bare, the question must be asked: why are they doing it? When the evidence is so clear, when the legal community is speaking as one, when even well-known LNP figures are begging for the government to reverse its course, why are they doing it? Despite protestations from the Attorney-General for months and months that no decision had been made, this week the cat was finally let out of the bag by the Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Speaking on 612 radio with Steve Austin, the CCIQ’s Nick Behrens confirmed that this whole legal reform process had been a charade from the start. This parliament asked the Finance and Administration Committee to undertake a comprehensive and detailed inquiry. We held hearings right across Queensland. We had days and weeks and months of hearings, research, testimonies and discussions about submissions and our recommendations. Committee staff worked tirelessly. Committee members, including LNP members of parliament, took it seriously and those organisations that made submissions participated genuinely and did a great deal of work. However, we were all treated like mugs because we were told this week that this reform was not actually intended to be based on the most comprehensive review that this parliament has conducted. Instead, it was confirmed that this was a secret election commitment made by the LNP at the last election. So that everyone in the chamber can be cleared about how this Attorney-General has treated his own colleagues, I will quote the Steve Austin interview with Nick Behrens from the CCIQ, aired on Tuesday this week on 612 ABC. In relation to lobbying the LNP government on this issue, he said— … I believe we even secured a commitment from them in the state election that they would restore balance to the scheme from an employer perspective—and we really believe that the changes that have been announced last night— Monday night— are delivery of that promise that the LNP made to the business community. The arrogance of this is breathtaking. We have got to the point where the LNP and business are now blatantly admitting that they are playing the parliament, members of parliament, research staff, stakeholders and the public for fools, because this was stitched up before the last election and nobody was told about it. Now we know why the poor LNP backbenchers are being rolled once again. Are there that many of them that they feel that they can use them as cannon fodder? It also explains why the Attorney-General wanted to force this review through as urgent legislation in the same week as the bikie legislation, pay rises for members of parliament and his ‘Judge Judy’ legislation. It is just like when he pushed through draconian industrial relations changes during the State of Origin in budget week. This Attorney-General talks big and acts out on a limb, but he does not have the courage of his convictions to stand up to public scrutiny and defend his extreme changes.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3431 Amendment Bill

It is an absolute joke that the Attorney-General claims that he has negotiated broadly. In the debate on the urgency motion, the Attorney relied on the fact that the committee had considered the issue since last year, except, of course, that the core elements of the legislation do the complete opposite of what the committee, including his own LNP members, recommended should be done. Time and time again, including under questioning in this parliament, he claimed that no decision had been made, but—lo and behold—he had legislation the day after cabinet. He claimed Queenslanders had 18 months to consider the issue because the inquiry was underway, but he tabled the WorkCover annual report only on Monday evening of this week and the legislation on Tuesday afternoon. It is just beyond the bounds of credibility that we have an admission from the CCIQ that this was an election deal, delayed tabling of the annual report that confirmed the fundamental strength of the current system, legislation introduced the day after and an urgency motion so that it could not go to a committee or receive widespread attention, yet the Attorney-General maintains that the whole inquiry and decision process was a genuine exercise. It does not stack up. In his response I ask the Attorney-General to answer these specific questions: what undertaking was given to the CCIQ at the last election about making changes to the workers compensation legislation? What gave the CCIQ the impression that a commitment, in fact, had been given and was being delivered by the Attorney-General’s decision to overrule his own members of parliament? The Attorney-General owes it to the people of Queensland, everyone involved in the inquiry and certainly his own colleagues on the committee a direct and fulsome answer on this point. The legislation is being rushed through against the advice of the Queensland Law Society, the Bar Association, the Lawyers Alliance, the WorkCover annual report and the LNP’s own committee members. The parliament is being asked to back this legislation based only on the judgement of the Premier and the Attorney-General. However, on this issue and others, those opposite should not blindly trust this Premier and this Attorney-General. All backbenchers need to seriously consider how to stop the extremities of the Premier and the Attorney-General. They will be the ones who will face the backlash from their communities, and rightly so. The reason this legislation should have more scrutiny is that the alternative being presented today is the Attorney and the Premier saying, ‘We know that the committee investigating this received an overwhelming body of evidence that the scheme is the best in Australia, we know that our own LNP members considered this evidence and unanimously decided that the scheme should not be restructured, but trust us: we are the Premier and the Attorney-General!’ Imagine being one of those backbenchers who is putting their faith in the Attorney-General before the obvious interests of their own constituents. Are they really comfortable with trashing the rights of their constituents based on the judgement of this Attorney-General? How did the boot camps work out for them? This is the same Attorney-General who is known in the legal community as ‘the articled clerk’. The Attorney-General is so poor at delivering effective legislation that he had to amend his bikie bill after the Labor opposition picked holes in it even though we had had it for only a couple of hours. The electorates of those opposite deserve better. They demand representatives who will stand up for their rights, not members of parliament who blindly support the Premier and the Attorney-General in doing over fellow LNP members and stripping Queenslanders of their rights. Providing a sustainable and fair workers compensation scheme is a basic decency for all Queensland workers. Here is the bonus: it does not cost the taxpayer. The scheme itself is self-sufficient and is the most profitable in the country. As I said earlier, this issue should be beyond politics. It is basic human decency and it is just common sense. But it seems that the ideological extremities of the LNP—their leadership team— have destroyed that prospect. It is clear to the people of Queensland now that the only way to ensure— Mr Bleijie interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Miss Barton): Order! Mr Attorney, the member for Mulgrave is not taking your interjections. I am struggling to hear him, particularly with the addition of the noise outside. The member for Mulgrave has the call. Mr PITT: It is clear to the people of Queensland now that there is only one way to ensure that we have the fair and equitable and sustainable workers compensation scheme that Queenslanders deserve. We need to get rid of this arrogant, out-of-touch Attorney-General and the entire Newman government that comes into this place and laughs, jeers and carries on like spoilt children all the while tearing away the rights of vulnerable Queenslanders and injured workers who need their support more than ever.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3432 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

The Labor opposition has worked very hard to ensure that all Queenslanders are aware of this legislation and what the government is doing to their rights. They are eroding their rights and they are stripping away protections. Mr Bleijie interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Attorney, the member for Mulgrave is not taking your interjections and I have made that clear. I am struggling to hear the member for Mulgrave because of the noise outside the chamber. I would ask that he be allowed to continue his contribution in silence. The member for Mulgrave has the call. Mr PITT: I want to make sure I get on the record that the Labor opposition worked very hard to ensure the committee process was undertaken in a fulsome way. It is important to note that that committee process was undertaken with a great deal of respect for the iconic Queensland workers compensation scheme. There were no dissenting reports or statements of reservation. Maybe everyone did not get every aspect of the report the way they wanted it, but the report was agreed in a bipartisan way. It was based on a range of submissions and based on evidence provided by submitters, by Queenslanders. Government members interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mulgrave is clearly not taking interjections and I would ask that members allow him to make his contribution. Mr PITT: The rally outside is just a small sample. Most people may not realise what this will mean until it is too late. When it is too late— Government members interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mulgrave has the call! Mr PITT: There are people outside attending the rally today. There is one in Cairns today too. It is being held outside the office of the member for Cairns. This is a very important issue for this government leading up to the next election. They have the opportunity to pull the pin on this. They have not taken it until now. If they are clever they will have a hard look at what they are going to do. This maybe a short-term fix in their view but it is going to have lasting ramifications and will make a material difference to people’s lives in this state. Injured workers should be afforded the protections that the most comprehensive and sustainable scheme in Australia currently affords them. Sadly, this Attorney-General and the Newman cabinet have made it clear that they are quite prepared to toss those rights completely out the window. To suggest that keeping journey claims is somehow absolving them of any responsibility is ridiculous. It was thrown out as a red herring. They may well have never intended to get rid of journey claims. It was thrown out as a red herring to say that they gave a little bit. We have seen this before. We saw this when the Premier talked about a reduction in Queensland’s workforce of 20,000. He said, ‘Look at me, we have only sacked 14,000 people. I have saved 6,000 jobs.’ What a load of rubbish. Again, it is more about expectation management than real government here in Queensland. This government has a terrible record, only 18 months in, of ignoring Queenslanders and not allowing them to put their views on the record by bypassing the committee system. They are now stripping away workers’ rights in a way that we have not seen for some time. They are ignoring their colleagues and essentially abandoning them. What we are going to see at the next election is a backlash against these changes. This is a very important issue. They have completely underestimated how important worker protection is in this state. Quite frankly, they deserve to cop it with both barrels at the next election. Mr DAVIES (Capalaba—LNP) (12.55 pm): I rise today to speak in support of bill to amend the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 and other legislation. I would like to commend the Attorney-General and his staff for putting this bill forward today. As a small business owner in my past life—I still own a small business—we appreciate this. Workers compensation is a big burden for small business owners. You hold your breath when you open the bill. The premiums can be quite high. I commend the Attorney-General for thinking about small business owners. We are the employers of people. The greatest workers’ right is to have a job. We are looking at putting people into jobs. We want to create jobs. I think this bill today will certainly go a long way in making employing people far more desirable in the state of Queensland.

17 Oct 2013 Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Amendment Bill 3433

We do not just want to have a good workers compensation scheme; we want to have the best scheme in Australia. Our changes strike the right balance. They protect workers and they protect employers. We will make the premiums the cheapest in Australia again and reduce the baseline general premium by more than 15 per cent while still providing Australia’s best protection for injured workers. The average premium rate has increased by 20 per cent since 2009. Queensland is quickly slipping back into the pack when we compare our schemes with those of our interstate counterparts. These changes will make our premium the cheapest in Australia yet again and reduce the baseline general premium by 15 per cent. We will have one of the lowest average premium rates for employers and maintain the appropriate coverage for injured workers. Over the last 10 years we have had the lowest average premium in Australia and want to keep it that way. Having competitive premiums will encourage more investment into our state, which means many more jobs for Queenslanders and, as I said earlier, the most important entitlement is a job—a secure job. Despite the scaremongering over the last few weeks we are keeping the journey claims because every Queenslander deserves to be protected. We are keeping common law claims because seriously injured workers deserve to have adequate compensation. We want a scheme that helps injured workers get back to work as quickly as possible. It is not good enough to settle for second best. We want to ensure that Queensland has the best scheme in Australia and the best performing scheme in Australia and that we are the envy of other states. We are here for Queenslanders. We want to help those most in need while keeping the state open for business. As I mentioned before, this is very important. We need to keep unrestricted access to journey claims because every Queenslander deserves to be protected when travelling to and from work. This is vitally important considering that Queensland is a large, decentralised state. It recognises our fly-in fly-out workforce. We are the only state to maintain journey claims for every worker. It is a poignant fact that we are the only state in Australia that actually does have journey claims. We have retained those. I commend the Attorney-General for keeping that provision. The Finance and Administration Committee recommended that we keep journey claims in the workers compensation scheme. We have kept those. It is a fantastic initiative. We are cracking down though on fraudulent claims. We are changing the law to require that WorkCover refer all allegations of fraud related offences to the scheme’s regulator for investigation. We have all seen the Today Tonight programs and others showing the guy with a bad back who cannot work again lifting things into the back of his car or doing a sneaky job on the side. Fraud in workers compensation does happen. They are ripping off the people of Queensland. Debate, on motion of Mr Davies, adjourned. Sitting suspended from 1.00 pm to 2.30 pm.

ETHICS COMMITTEE

Report Mr CRANDON (Coomera—LNP) (2.30 pm), by leave: I lay upon the table Ethics Committee report No. 137 titled Matter of privilege referred by the Speaker on 8 August 2013 relating to an alleged deliberate misleading of the House by a member. I commend the report and the committee’s recommendations to the House. Tabled paper: Ethics Committee Report No. 137—Matter of privilege referred by the Speaker on 8 August 2013 relating to an alleged deliberate misleading of the House by a member [3796].

CHILD PROTECTION (OFFENDER REPORTING) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction Mr JUDGE (Yeerongpilly—UAP) (2.31 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 for particular purposes. I table the bill and explanatory notes. I nominate the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee to consider the bill. Tabled paper: Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Amendment Bill 2013 [3797]. Tabled paper: Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes [3798].

3434 Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Amendment Bill 17 Oct 2013

The policy objective of the bill is to confirm and strengthen police powers to conduct random audits to ensure compliance with reporting obligations under the provisions of the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 and thereby increase reportable offenders’ certainty of apprehension for any noncompliance. To achieve this objective, the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Amendment Bill 2013 will amend the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 to insert two new provisions under part 6 ‘Other matters’. It will insert section 74C ‘Police functions include ensuring compliance with reporting requirement’ and 74D ‘Power to enter and search premises without consent or warrant to ensure compliance’. Queensland’s child protection offender register commenced in 2005 and is used to record the relevant personal particulars of reportable offenders as obliged to be reported under the provisions of the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004. From the commencement of the register in 2005 and until June 2010, there had been a total of 1,523 breaches of reporting obligations under the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004. This was according to the now Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Premier in a speech he made in this House on 9 March 2011, rightly identifying and confirming the issue at that time. These figures accurately indicate the recent rates of noncompliance and support the legitimate need for improved evidence based measures to increase compliance, especially in consideration of the continually increasing numbers of reportable offenders in the community. In fact, last year on 21 September 2012 I formally wrote to the police minister about issues associated with the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 and the present approach being taken to community management of reportable offenders in Queensland. I table the letter forwarded to the police minister. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 21 September 2012, from the member of Yeerongpilly, Mr Carl Judge MP, to the Minister for Police and Community Safety, Hon. Jack Dempsey [3799]. Prior to that, on 10 July 2012, I supported the Criminal Law (Two Strike Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill 2012 despite the numerous unsupportive submissions made to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee. By far the vast majority of submissions to the committee were not supportive of that bill. This included a very critical submission from the Queensland Police Service. I table the Queensland Police Service submission relevant to this bill. Tabled paper: Submission, dated 28 June 2012, by Mr Ross Barnett, Deputy Commissioner, Queensland Police Service to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee, titled ‘Criminal Law—Two Strike Child Sex Offenders (Submission 016)’ [3800]. During a speech in relation to the Criminal Law (Two Strike Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill 2012 I stated that it is my belief that the next step we needed to take is to revisit how we manage known child sex offenders after their first offence. That is why I wrote to the police minister and that is why I am introducing the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Amendment Bill 2013 today. This bill, if enacted, will enable police officers to enter and search the premises of a reportable offender without consent or a warrant. It also enables police officers to enter without consent or a warrant in cases where the reportable offender is sharing the premises with another person or other persons. The bill also takes into consideration effective compliance management of the continually increasing number of reportable offenders in the community. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Cunningham): Order! There was an error with the clock. The member’s time has expired. Would you like to incorporate the remainder of your speech? Mr JUDGE: Yes, I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. This Bill will enable police to effectively prevent a reportable offender’s non-compliance with reporting obligations under the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 from going undetected.

It should be noted that the fundamental purpose of the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 is, in part, to reduce the likelihood that reportable offenders will reoffend. The proposed amendments will significantly contribute toward that purpose.

As already stated Queensland’s child protection offender register commenced in 2005 and is used to record the relevant personal particulars of reportable offenders as obliged to be reported under the provisions of the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004.

Significantly, as at June 2013 there were 4,193 offenders recorded on the register. Comparatively, as at 30 June 2010 there were 3,543 offenders registered in Queensland. This indicates the continually increasing number of reportable offenders in the community.

As mentioned, from the commencement of the register in 2005 and until June 2010, there had been a total of 1,523 breaches of reporting obligations under the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004.

17 Oct 2013 Private Members’ Statements 3435

This accurately indicates the recent rates of non-compliance over a considerable period of time and supports the legitimate need for improved, evidence based, measures to increase compliance. To this end and ultimately to protect children, the policy objective of the Bill is to confirm and strengthen police powers to conduct random audits to ensure compliance with reporting obligations and thereby increase reportable offenders’ certainty of apprehension for any non-compliance.

Underpinning this policy objective and the Bill is a consistent finding in deterrence research that increases in the certainty of apprehension and punishment demonstrate a significant deterrent effect. However, studies of deterrence also suggest that the threat of imprisonment, as a standalone measure, only generates a small general deterrent effect.

To be clear, research indicates that increases in the severity of penalties, such as increasing the length of terms of imprisonment (e.g. mandatory 20 year sentencing introduced through the Criminal Law (Two Strike Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill 2012, do not produce a corresponding increase in deterrence. For this reason improved, evidence based, measures are required to increase compliance by reportable offenders in the community.

This research and rationale have been applied to inform the Bill, proposing amendments to the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004. It has been purposefully designed to increase reportable offenders’ certainty of apprehension for any non-compliance. It is asserted that this can only be achieved by enabling police officers to enter and search premises without consent or a warrant.

Overall the Bill will improve the management of reportable offenders in the community and ultimately serve to improve child protection in Queensland.

First Reading Mr JUDGE (Yeerongpilly—UAP) (2.35 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time.

Referral to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Cunningham): Order! In accordance with standing order 131, the bill is now referred to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Noosa Council, Election Hon. GW ELMES (Noosa—LNP) (Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Premier) (2.35 pm): The Noosa shire is just over two months away from being restored to the position it enjoyed as a stand-alone local government area before the Beattie Labor government abolished it. Noosa residents will go to the polls on 9 November to elect its first council under the re-established Noosa shire. The election will be the last piece in the puzzle of restoring the former Noosa shire. The installation of a renewed Noosa council from 1 January will be a proud moment for the many people who have fought for so long to have the council restored. That keenness to see the shire restored is reflected in the large field of candidates for election. Nominations closed at midday today, and I am advised that there are 19 nominees for six available councillor positions and there are two candidates for the position of mayor. The Electoral Commission will need to validate all of these nominations and will formally declare eligible candidates tomorrow. I have every confidence that Noosa includes people of the highest calibre who can form a council which will be innovative, forward-looking and fair as it deals with the range of issues and opportunities facing our community. Voting will be compulsory, but I doubt the people of Noosa need any sort of compulsion to make their way to a polling station. This is something Noosa residents have been waiting for. I would like to place on record here my thanks to the many organisations and individuals who have contributed to making the restoration of the Noosa shire a reality. Firstly, thank you to the Noosa Independence Alliance, a group made up predominantly of the Friends of Noosa and the Noosa Parks Association. They provided the catalyst for deamalgamation around which many others could gather and add their effort to the cause.

3436 Private Members’ Statements 17 Oct 2013

I would also like to thank the many thousands of Noosa residents who signed petitions and attended rallies. A particular group which deserves recognition is the 8,000 people—mostly from Noosa—who marched through the streets of Brisbane and demonstrated out the front of parliament in support of Noosa. I was very proud indeed to lead that march. Noosa was steamrolled by the Beattie government in 2007, and the vote on 9 November will be the final step in a six-year fight by the people of Noosa to take back control of their destiny. It is now up to each and every resident who is eligible to vote to make sure that the mayor and six councillors we elect are up to the job and capable of guiding our community into the future. I have every confidence that that will be achieved and that Noosa council will resume its place as one of the state’s most innovative and community focused local government areas.

Currumbin Estuary Hon. JA STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Small Business and the Commonwealth Games) (2.38 pm): As honourable members are no doubt aware, the Currumbin electorate is home to some of the most beautiful, clean beaches and waterways in Queensland, if not the world—one of these being the Currumbin Estuary, which is a hive of activity all year round, especially in the summer months with a multitude of users, local and visiting, taking advantage of the weather and location. Due to this huge interest, discussions surrounding this waterway require careful consideration and a whole-of-community approach to ensure it remains safe for all to use. Tragically, in May 2011 local resident Richard King was killed whilst surfing at Currumbin Estuary. At that time I urged the community to recognise the dangers of the waterway and to look out for one another when partaking of any activity. The Gold Coast Waterways Authority was formed as a result of an LNP election promise, and it provides a long-awaited, go-to authority for management of our waterways. On Friday, 13 September 2013 the CEO of Gold Coast Waterways Authority, Hal Morris, and I, after considerable community consultation, announced a raft of initiatives focused on improving the safety of Currumbin Estuary for everyone. Following lengthy discussions and engagement with surfers, boaties, Currumbin Volunteer Marine Rescue, Gold Coast City Council and state government agencies, it was determined the focus over the coming months should be on education, clear signage and community collaboration. Educational briefings will be held by Maritime Safety Queensland, Queensland Water Police, and Boating and Fisheries. These will be aimed at better informing locals and visitors of the conditions, and warning them to take precautions when using the estuary. In addition to the existing Coastalwatch camera on top of the VMR, a new fixed camera has been installed and will be operational for a three-month trial period. Footage from this camera will allow the Gold Coast Waterways Authority to assess and monitor the waterway over one of the busiest periods of the year. Signage plays a critical role in providing a clear, concise and effective message to those entering the creek. The Gold Coast City Council and the Gold Coast Waterways Authority are currently in the process of updating signage at the creek, beach and on boat ramps. Earlier this year I launched Currumbin Hoon Watch, an initiative encouraging residents to be actively involved in reporting unsafe and unsociable behaviour in a straightforward and helpful way to the relevant authorities. Locals can download a copy from my website. I place on record my appreciation to Hal Morris, the CEO of the Gold Coast Waterways Authority, the minister and local stakeholders for their commitment to my local area and their active involvement in implementing these initiatives. I am sure that these actions combined with community support will lay the foundation for what we all hope is a safe and enjoyable summer holiday season at Currumbin Estuary. I invite all honourable members to come down and see how wonderful it is.

Belmont and Gumdale Scout Groups Mr MINNIKIN (Chatsworth—LNP) (2.41 pm): I rise today to bring to the House’s attention the work of two of Chatsworth’s volunteer organisations, the Belmont and Gumdale scout groups. Scouting is a unique endeavour which strives to foster the physical, intellectual, emotional, spiritual and character development of young people. Chatsworth is privileged to be home to not one, but two, outstanding scout groups. The Belmont Scout Group is home to over 70 joey scouts, cub scouts and scouts, in addition to a further 70 adult leaders, committee members, family and friends. In the past year alone, members of the group have received an impressive number of awards. Ten joey scouts have been awarded the Joey Promise Challenge Award and a further six cub scouts have received Grey Wolf Awards. These

17 Oct 2013 Private Members’ Statements 3437

awards represent the highest level of achievement at both the joey scout and cub scout level, and I commend each and every recipient for their ongoing dedication to scouting. However, the group’s achievements do not end with the scouts. Group leaders Helen Lovegrove and Bernard McDrury have each received awards from Scouting Queensland, acknowledging their commitment to the Belmont Scout Group and the scouting movement. The Gumdale Scout Group, which formed six short years ago, is also thriving, with over 80 joey scouts, cub scouts, scouts and venturers. Since 2007, members of the group have received numerous awards including 82 joey scout promise badges, 27 cub scout Grey Wolf Awards and two Australian scout medallions. Once again, adult leaders play an important role in supporting the scouts. A number of adult leaders from the Gumdale Scout Group have received accolades for their service to scouting. Among the recipients are group leader John Parr, who received the Silver Kangaroo Award, which is the highest service award a leader can receive in Australia; Angela Bassard and Kathryn Chandler, who were awarded certificates of merit for their ongoing service to scouting; and the late Martin Collett, honoured posthumously with a Silver Arrowhead Award for outstanding service to the Gumdale Scout Group. While scouts continually strive for personal improvement, they are also encouraged to work to better their communities. Again, the Belmont and Gumdale scout groups excel in this regard, developing partnerships with a number of organisations such as the Bulimba Creek Catchment Coordinating Committee, the local Rotary Clubs, Gumdale and Districts Progress Association and the Leukaemia Foundation. Renowned British adventurer and chief scout Edward Michael Grylls, better known by his moniker ‘Bear’ Grylls, believes that as a young boy scouting gave him a confidence and camaraderie that is hard to find in modern life. Irrespective of where life takes them, it is clear that scouting equips young men and women with the skills to enable them to be prepared for whatever the future holds. It is my distinct pleasure to highlight the work of the Belmont and Gumdale scout groups to the House.

Independent Public Schools Mrs RICE (Mount Coot-tha—LNP) (2.44 pm): Today I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate three schools in the Mount Coot-tha electorate which have been successful in their applications to become independent public schools. The IPS program is a flagship policy and initiative of the Newman government. It is about enabling greater autonomy and decision making for individual school communities through a new framework introduced by the Minister for Education, Training and Employment. I commend the minister for investing $21 million to establish 120 independent public schools by 2016. This is a fantastic opportunity for Queensland students and schools. Ithaca Creek State School, Milton State School and the Queensland Academy for Science, Mathematics and Technology will adopt the new IPS model at the start of the 2014 school year. This is a great outcome for students, parents, principals, staff and the school communities in our area. I know these school communities are very excited about the new opportunity to drive their individual plans to provide the best possible outcomes for their students. At Milton, Principal Paul Zernike and his team have a clear plan to build on existing partnerships and opportunities to shape the school’s own strategic direction. The Milton school community can be excited about plans to deliver innovative offerings for the professional learning and development of the middle management team, an expanded external philanthropy program and blended curriculum as part of being a Queensland Academies partnership school. At Ithaca Creek State School, Principal Richard Nash and his team will also implement the IPS model in 2014. Interestingly, since 2009 Ithaca has established itself as a composite primary school using multiage philosophy pedagogy from years 1 to 7, which is unique to the area. This philosophy is underpinned by a very strong community of parents and staff. Importantly, the IPS program will enable Ithaca Creek State School to have a greater level of autonomy and provide opportunities for further innovation. From 2014, Ithaca will have the opportunity to further improve initiatives including the NAPLAN support program, provide much needed support to non-English speaking students and develop new concepts like the socialisation skills club. Finally, the Queensland Academy for Science, Mathematics and Technology will also become an IPS in 2014. A number of students at the academy have received state, national and international recognition for their academic achievements, and the school can look forward to having more autonomy to make decisions and implement their unique educational programs.

3438 Private Members’ Statements 17 Oct 2013

To have three independent public schools in Brisbane’s inner west and in my electorate of Mount Coot-tha is a great result. I am looking forward to working with each school community as they implement this process, and I look forward to seeing how they work together. I am confident that existing students and parents, as well as prospective students and parents, will benefit from the greater level of autonomy and the innovative educational approach that will be demonstrated by each of these schools. Over time, I have no doubt this will lead to better innovation, stronger partnerships with industry and the community, and the tailoring of school programs that will ultimately benefit all students and be demonstrated through their outcomes.

Mackay Cutters Rugby League Football Club Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (2.47 pm): Today I rise to pay tribute to the Mackay Cutters Rugby League Football Club, which to the joy of the people of Mackay are the Intrust Super Cup premiers for 2013. I see the member for Mansfield in the chamber. He thought it was just a matter of turning up and collecting the cup, but it was not to be. The Mackay Cutters showed true grit in the grand final last month, as they came from behind to secure a 27-20 victory over Easts Tigers at North Ipswich Reserve. For a team that was the underdog for the premiership decider and was trailing for most of the match, the grand final victory was especially sweet. The Mackay Cutters premiership victory is the best result for Mackay Rugby League since the Mackay Sea Eagles won back-to-back state league titles in 1993 and 1994. Mackay has been a nursery for rugby league talent in Australia, from Graham and Ray Laird to Wendell Sailor, Ben Barba and Martin Bella. However, Mackay has not always had an opportunity for a team it can call its own to play on a state-wide basis. The residents of Mackay are immensely proud of the Cutters’ premiership victory. Many Mackay fans made their way to Ipswich to support their team, while many more attended Souths Leagues Club in Mackay to watch the game with other Cutters supporters who could only watch their boys from afar. The Mackay Regional Council reflected local pride by hosting a civic reception for the Cutters last Tuesday on 8 October at the Mackay Entertainment and Convention Centre. For the players and their coach, Kim Williams, it is also a highly personal victory. Not considered in the running to win the premiership at the start of the season, the team went from strength to strength through the season, finishing second on the ladder after the home-and-away season. After losing their qualifying semi-final to Easts, the Cutters made the most of their earned second chance by defeating the Ipswich Jets and the minor premiers the Northern Pride to claim their grand final berth. The players’ faith in themselves was vindicated when they avenged their first week finals loss to Easts with a grand final victory. The players were vindicated for their belief in themselves. But for the players it was not just about themselves; they also devoted their on-field efforts to a higher purpose. During the year one of their own teammates, Alex Elisala, passed away. His death was sudden and, like any tight-knit group, the passing of a teammate was a struggle to come to terms with. It is a testament to the team that they dedicated their premiership win to Alex’s memory. It is a mark of the team’s unity and selflessness that they could make this dedication to their late friend. Given the adversity the team faced off the field and their struggle for respect on the field, the 2013 Mackay Cutters premiership victory is the mark of a tough unit. On behalf of the people of Mackay, I salute the Mackay Cutters for their well-deserved triumph.

South East Brisbane Chamber of Commerce Mr DILLAWAY (Bulimba—LNP) (2.50 pm): I rise today to speak of the South East Brisbane Chamber of Commerce, its role in my local business community and the recent changeover of president. The South East Brisbane Chamber of Commerce promotes and encourages networking of local businesses and the building of successful business partnerships. Its members are business owners and representatives from a range of industry types and sizes across south-east Brisbane, many of which are concentrated in the Bulimba electorate. The chamber provides an avenue for members to network, stay up to date on local issues and learn business skills from one another through monthly breakfast meetings and lunch functions. It is a great support tool for local businesses and also provides a channel for the local schools to give students an insight into business and the broader community.

17 Oct 2013 Private Members’ Statements 3439

I want to take this opportunity to pay special tribute to the hard work and effort devoted to the chamber by the outgoing president, Mrs Penny Cutting. During the time I have been a member of the SEBCC, Penny has been its life and soul. She is a vibrant member of our local business community and was a very valuable contributor to the Queensland Plan at one of my local events, bringing many fantastic ideas and views to the table. As president for the past 10 years, Penny’s achievements are many, including growing membership from about 20 members to over 100 members and recently hosting the debate between the four political candidates for Griffith in August this year prior to the federal election. Penny has also nourished a value of generosity and compassion within the chamber, supporting a number of charities over her tenure as president. Last year through the chamber’s fundraising efforts, the chamber presented The Tertiary PLACE with $2,500 to help with activities and programs for adults with disabilities. This year, the chamber will fund a young entrepreneur award for a year 12 student from each of the eight member schools. At the upcoming November breakfast, Penny will be awarded the first lifetime membership of the chamber in recognition of her pioneering efforts. It is an award that is well deserved and supported due to her passion for the success of small business and the chamber. I welcome the incoming president, David Farrell, from Ray White Bulimba, who will take over the reins. I am sure that David is looking forward to continuing Penny’s fantastic work and continuing to provide small businesses with information and relevant advice to help them to grow, be cost- effective and minimise red tape. I know he sees the chamber as a positive forum where businesspeople can bounce off ideas, explore and discover. His aim will be to continue to grow and strengthen its membership and to ensure that it continues to be worthwhile and a valuable experience for its members. It is hard to follow an act like Penny Cutting, but I have complete faith that, if anyone can, David will. I greatly look forward to the contribution he will make to the local business community as president of the chamber. I wish him the best of luck and look forward to working with him as one of the many local state MPs involved with the chamber. I encourage all members to be actively involved with their local chamber of commerce so that, as a government, we can help drive growth and prosperity in this sector, which is the economic and job-generating engine room of our state’s economy.

Online Diets Mr WOODFORTH (Nudgee—LNP) (2.53 pm): As all members know, it is the health of all Queenslanders that I am concerned about along with the direction of the health budget over the next 10 to 15 years. It is of great concern when I continually read ill-advised stories that papers publish, pushing a one-sided story and giving the people misleading commentary, which only makes our obesity, diabetes and disease epidemics worse. I refer to the article in the Courier-Mail from last Friday rubbishing online diets titled ‘A slim chance they’ll work’. The article goes on to say that these diets limit processed foods. How great is this? These diets want you to eat real food with little or no chemical preservatives or additives. I think that is fantastic. The article goes on say that they are short-term solutions. So eating real food is now a short-term solution? The article goes on to say that some of these sites hook you in with dramatic before and after photos, which cannot be real. It is easier to be a knocker than a doer. Success comes to those who do what others give up on. The article goes on to say that the diets are restrictive—yes, restrictive to eating only what you need, not want. And people wonder why we are so overweight, obese and diseased! Another criticism is that the diets are overly complicated. Yes, it is easier to get seven toppings of your choice home delivered! Other articles from this week’s papers have pointed out how urgent cleaning up our health is and that we need to get the right messages out there. There have been articles such as those titled ‘Medicines sending us back to hospitals’, ‘Children’s drug linked to suicide, ‘More kids calling for mental health aid’. These are mostly diet related problems in the first place. Our diets are causing this pain. Mrs Miller: Absolute nonsense! Mr WOODFORTH: Any day of the week! I will now move on to another subject and away from health for a moment. I am so over the member for South Brisbane banging on the climate change drum so often. Seriously, does the member still not get it? Does the member not see that the dams are now full? Does the member not realise that it was once called ‘global warming’ but when the

3440 Private Members’ Statements 17 Oct 2013

globe stopped warming they thought they best change it to ‘climate change’? And, yes, it has been doing that for just over four billion years on its own. It is the Labor way; it is all about spin and scaremongering; don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story. I found this headline twice in two days: ‘15 cyclones to brew this year’. If honourable members read the detail—and the saying goes that the devil is in the detail—it goes on to say that only one is probable and is not even certain to cross the coast, but the 15 is the scare. It is the same type of spin that was used to scare us about fluoride back in 2008. Show us a kid’s mouth with missing teeth and say it is because of no fluoride and that we will all end up the same way or tell us that there is a difference in the decay rate of up to 65 per cent, but do not tell anyone that 65 per cent equates to just one-quarter of one tooth from a 22-year-old case study that was cherry picked. They scare us with scant regard for the real science. Instead they distort the figures to fuel their own scare story. The truth is at first ridiculed, then violently denied before finally becoming self-evident.

Morayfield Electorate Mr GRIMWADE (Morayfield—LNP) (2.56 pm): In June this year I delivered a budget reply speech in which I outlined the significant progress we have made locally for the people of the Morayfield electorate. Today I wish to update the parliament on further progress we have made. Over the last 18 months the Caboolture Hospital has received 30 new beds, a total of 138 new staff in mental health areas across Caboolture and Kilcoy, and 23 new graduate nurses. We have also seen a new $22.5 million mental health facility built and a new children’s ward, education and training facility, and outpatient clinic delivered at a cost of $19 million. The number of patients on dental waiting lists in Queensland has fallen from 62,513 to 13,722 over the last six months. Further funding has been allocated to education, with $1.4 million provided to St Eugene College to build new classrooms and purchase resources. Five schools in our area were allocated additional prep teacher aides and three schools have been made independent public schools. That provides them with $50,000 of funding upfront and an additional $50,000 a year to provide targeted assistance, greater autonomy and increased discipline. Public housing waiting lists have continued to fall, with the most recent data indicating that our electorate has 313 applicants on waiting lists compared to 831 just 18 months ago. We have built 13 new units on Caboolture River Road and have also announced that a new 17-unit complex will be built in Frank Street, Caboolture South. This additional housing stock will enable us to further reduce the waiting lists. A new $700,000 fire truck has been delivered to the Caboolture area and $100,000 of funding has been allocated to install CCTV cameras around the local area. With regard to transport, we have now completed the $150,000 station upgrade at Burpengary train station. Around 244 families in the Morayfield electorate, equating to 376 kids, have been provided with $150 vouchers to assist them in their registration costs to join a local club, with over 37 per cent of recipients playing a sport and enrolling in a club for the first time. An amount of $721,000 has just been spent to upgrade the Harris Avenue sports fields for the Narangba Soccer Club. The Caboolture Sports Club, Narangba Demons Baseball Club, Burpengary Jets Netball Club and the Narangba Dynamos Netball club have also received grants totalling $31,000 to assist them in the costs of training referees, coaches and first aid volunteers and also to assist in the cost of necessary equipment and programs to get kids playing sport. An amount of $644,000 has been made available to build a flood levy along Dale Street, Burpengary. This project will ensure Dale Street and surrounding streets will no longer flood in severe weather conditions and will bring peace of mind to the people who live in this area. We have provided hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to assist small community groups and organisations around our area including the Burpengary Equestrian Centre, Morayfield East State School, Burpengary Girl Guides, St John Ambulance in Caboolture, Crime Stoppers Caboolture, Caboolture Family Network, Jinibara State School and the Torrens Road Community Child Care Centre, just to name just a few. As a community we are making significant improvements in service delivery and are delivering projects that are making our community a better place. I will continue to work hard for our area and ensure that our local area becomes the greatest place in which to live, work and raise a family. I look forward to updating the parliament again soon on further achievements we are making.

17 Oct 2013 Private Members’ Statements 3441

Nursery Road Special School

Mr KAYE (Greenslopes—LNP) (2.59 pm): Last week I had the privilege of attending an art auction at a local school in my electorate. Nursery Road Special School holds Beyond the Lines every second year to showcase student work and to raise funds for the school. Previous auctions have enabled the school to build further on its arts program for students. The school has been operating in Holland Park for 25 years, offering a specialised curriculum for students with particular needs. The teaching staff go well beyond what is required to encourage their students to excel. School families are also extraordinary in the commitment to their school. Beyond the Lines is an innovative program which assists students to access learning pathways and helps them to explore their creativity. Teachers use mediums such as dance, media, music and visual arts with the children, and the results have been nothing short of amazing. Parents, teachers and students alike all find this program of enormous benefit to students who may otherwise find it extremely difficult to tap into their learning potential. This year at the art auction every student submitted an individual piece for presentation, giving children as young as five the pride of having their work publicly displayed for the large crowd in attendance. In addition, every class submitted a group piece, and these were the pieces offered for auction. I bought two vibrant pieces for my electoral office, and I would like to thank the children for their beautiful work. Every time I walk past them throughout the day I am reminded of your talent and resilience, and it inspires me to work hard for the people of Greenslopes. This year the auction raised in excess of $6,000, which will be reinvested in growing and developing Beyond the Lines further. I am so excited to see the potential of this program and the great things that it will do for the children of Nursery Road Special School. Events such as this are vital to the life of any community. Parents, teachers and staff all work exceptionally hard to raise funds, and in doing so they build bonds with one another and share life as they work towards a common goal. All over Queensland there are schools like the Nursery Road Special School which are filled with people whose goal it is to improve their children’s schools and thus their lives but who in doing so become more connected to their local communities. I would like to think that my community is particularly special. I am extremely proud of this school and all that it has achieved in the surrounding area. I am constantly impressed with the results that this specialised arts program has produced in the lives of these kids, giving them pathways and options in learning that they might never have enjoyed had their potential not been tapped in this way. I would particularly like to thank the school principal, Shauna St George, for her tireless efforts in making Nursery Road Special School the great local school that it is, for the long hours she puts in and for her dedication to the children in her care. Thanks must also go to the other staff and teachers alike. I would also like to give a special thanks to parents Angela Holden and Natalia Russ, whose enthusiasm and commitment made this great school event possible. With communities such as Nursery Road Special School, I am confident of the future of our great state.

Collinsville, Memorial Service Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (3.01 pm): On Sunday I travelled to Collinsville to attend the annual memorial service which honours the 26 miners from that small community who have lost their lives in local pits since 1928. It was a deeply moving tribute which, as in previous years, focuses attention on the ever-present need for the highest standards of vigilance to protect those who earn their living in this most dangerous of occupations. The overwhelming message from the memorial event is that coalminers should never, ever have to risk injury or death in unsafe conditions to provide profits for multinational companies. Danger is never far away from any mining environment, and it is vital that nothing is done to dilute the safety standards which have been fought for, and won by, generations of Queensland miners over the years. Collinsville is a community founded on coalmining and it continues to exist for that purpose today. That is the reason why I am speaking up for the Collinsville community, because at the moment Collinsville is a mining town without a working mine and without an MP willing to fight for them. Collinsville coalmine was closed by GlencoreXstrata on 31 August. Four hundred workers were

3442 Private Members’ Statements 17 Oct 2013

made redundant—not because there is no coal left, not because the mine is unprofitable but, cynically, so the mine owners could reopen it with a new workforce on lower wages and reduced conditions. What is happening in Collinsville, Bowen Shire, Queensland in 2013 is sickening and something that should be damned by every member of this parliament as totally unacceptable. Workers who have risked their health to rip coal from the ground to benefit this state and fill the pockets of shareholders have been casually tossed aside, and there is anger in the Collinsville community at the way GlencoreXstrata has cynically and callously taken away livelihoods and treated working people with absolute contempt. There is not just anger, but bemusement that, although GlencoreXstrata has said it intends to reopen the mine, it has indicated that it does not intend to re- employ local people. It beggars belief that such a company can ignore the interests of the local community and ignore the skills and expertise of experienced miners. Businesses, families and the entire community are suffering because this is a brutal example of capitalistic greed. The uncertainty is devastating, yet I am advised that there has been no transparency and no consultation. The town’s residents are being treated like mushrooms by GlencoreXstrata. The company was invited to a meeting on Monday but they did not turn up, which is typical of them. Allow me to restate that 26 miners lost their lives, and their approach is last century. But we in the Labor opposition stand up for the people of Collinsville and say there is a CFMEU mining and energy union.

Algester Electorate Mr SHORTEN (Algester—LNP) (3.04 pm): I would like to speak about a couple of the fantastic community groups that I have in my wonderful electorate, particularly the Forest Lake area. I was very honoured to attend the 20th anniversary dinner of the Lions Club of Forest Lake on Friday, 4 October. I was welcomed by the president, Sebastian Rendic, and had the opportunity to meet a number of charter members who are still deeply involved in the club’s activities. It was great to hear about the club’s history from charter member and past district governor Heather Short. For a community club to exist and to thrive for 20 years is an indication of the drive and commitment of its members and its leaders, past and present. I thank the Lions Club of Forest Lake for all the good works that they have done, for all the good works that they are continuing to do, and I wish them every success for the next 20 years. I look forward to working with them on behalf of the wonderful community of Forest Lake. The other groups that I would like to make mention of today are the Forest Lake Area Garden Group and the Friends of the Parks Association. I was very happy to attend their presentation day recently. The presentation was in recognition of this year’s park and garden competition, which was sponsored by the Forest Lake branch of the Heritage Bank. I was also very happy to be able to support this worthy community event with a small financial donation. The competition was open to all residents of Forest Lake and there were a number of different categories such as: best maintained park area, best residential garden, best native or waterwise garden and best cottage style garden. Also included within the community garden section were the balcony/patio garden and pocket garden within a retirement village garden. The winners of each category were awarded a beautiful lumino tile mounted photo of their winning garden. I congratulate the following people for the following categories: in the cottage section, first place went to Denis and Jenny White; in residential, Wayne Howard; in native and waterwise, Ian and Sue MacGregor; in the park section, Dirk and Maureen Scalongwe; in community, Settlers Village—they were highly recommend; in pocket garden, Miles and Mavis Farmer; and in balcony, Diane Maloney. I congratulate the Friends of the Park and the Forest Lake Area Garden Group, and particularly the hardworking volunteers who organise and run this great community event, led by Lorraine Salisbury and Dawn Dormer. I look forward to being able to support this competition into the future.

National Family Business Day Mr STEWART (Sunnybank—LNP) (3.07 pm): It is my privilege to rise today to discuss 19 September which, as many people were aware was Speak Like a Pirate Day. Whilst I do not intend to speak like that in the House today, I would also like to note that it was actually the autumn festival as well, and I have already briefed the House on that particular day.

17 Oct 2013 Private Members’ Statements 3443

The other area that I would like to discuss today is the fact that it was Family Businesses Australia National Day—such an important day for the backbone of Queensland and Australia. On 19 September I had the privilege of representing the Premier at Family Business Australia’s National Family Business Day, and participating in the National Family Business Day gave me a renewed appreciation of the enormous contribution that the family business sector makes to the Queensland economy. Family businesses account for approximately 70 per cent of all Australian businesses— almost half a million—and employ 50 per cent of the Australian workforce. I commend Mr Nick Bloor and Family Business Australia for the work they have done in building a dynamic and sustainable family business environment. I also acknowledge the work the government has done in promoting expansion and driving profitability in the Queensland business sector. As the state member for Sunnybank I understand how family businesses are the lifeblood of local communities. Sunnybank is one of the most culturally diverse electorates in Queensland. It is renowned for its great restaurants and specialty shops. Many of these businesses have a strong multicultural influence, reflecting the popularity of the electorate with different cultural groups. As such, I have a true appreciation of how the resilience of the family business sector is the linchpin of local economies. I also know from personal experience, as well as from my dealings with family business men and women in my electorate, of the difficulties that can arise when it comes time to pass the family business on to the next generation or to sell the business altogether. The importance of a good exit strategy cannot be overstated, given that it is estimated that 41 per cent of family business owners intend to pass their businesses on to family members, while 61 per cent would seriously consider selling if approached. That is why I applaud Family Business Australia for having educational and other support programs in place which are designed to foster a culture of best practice tailored specifically to family businesses. National Family Business Day gave me the opportunity to recognise the work that organisations such as Family Business Australia do in helping small and family businesses to connect, profit and expand. (Time expired) Hervey Bay, Sesquicentenary Mr SORENSEN (Hervey Bay—LNP) (3.11 pm): Hervey Bay is 150 years old. On Sunday, 29 September, as a result of the efforts of many volunteers of the Hervey Bay Historical Village and Museum, this milestone was celebrated. I make special mention of and give thanks to John Andersen, the President of the Hervey Bay Historical Society, who had worked for many months putting together the celebrations, making it a very memorable occasion. John enjoyed a lot of support from his team from the historical village and museum. Many guests came to Hervey Bay to share in our celebrations: Her Excellency the Queensland Governor, Ms Penelope Wensley; the Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection, Andrew Powell; the federal member for Hinkler, Mr Keith Pitt; and the Mayor of the Fraser Coast Regional Council, Gerard O’Connell. On the day Her Excellency buried a time capsule, which housed some very interesting items and is to be reopened in about 50 years time. The time capsule included a contribution from local schoolchildren, a variety of Hervey Bay business cards, the local newspaper of the day, photographs, a mobile phone, a digital camera, current-model car brochures and a bank chequebook. This will provide some humour and interest for the people who open the capsule in 50 years time. Mr Crandon: Are you going to be there, Ted? Mr SORENSEN: I was there at the opening of the last one, so hopefully I might be. How funny our modern presents sealed in time will turn out to be in the future. It will be interesting to see what mobile phones look like in the future. You cannot take life too seriously. You have to get on with life. The official 150-year book, produced and published by the Hervey Bay Historical Society, Hervey Bay the first 150 years 1863-2013, was also placed in the time capsule. This book captures in text and pictures the highlights of Hervey Bay’s history and the trials of our pioneers as we transformed from bush to bustling city. It also includes a lot of information about current-day living. Hervey Bay and the Fraser Coast region are steeped in amazing history, with Fraser Island featuring in many of the stories. Hervey Bay was first a timber town. Then a lot of Danish settlers came to that area— (Time expired)

3444 Private Members’ Statements 17 Oct 2013

Centenary and Districts Chamber of Commerce Mrs SMITH (Mount Ommaney—LNP) (3.14 pm): It is with great pleasure that I rise this afternoon to update the House on the new-look Centenary chamber of commerce in the electorate of Mount Ommaney. Following the 2011 floods, the chamber certainly took a hit in membership due to the number of businesses in the Mount Ommaney electorate suffering from the devastation. But both the residents and the businesses in the electorate have proven their resilience in bouncing back bigger and better. Examples of the Newman government supercharging the Queensland economy can be seen in the Mount Ommaney electorate. Oxley has transformed into a thriving retail hub, with new offices and shopping centres employing over 200 people in the last six months. Do you know what else? New businesses are opening in local neighbourhoods. Landlords at Looranah Street, which went completely under water in 2011, now have a full tenancy. Mr Gibson: That is great news. Mrs SMITH: It is great news. Thank you, member for Gympie. The chamber meets on the first Wednesday of every month at the McLeod golf club from 7 am for breakfast. The Centenary chamber of commerce has recently partnered with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland to relaunch as the CCIQ Centenary and Districts Chamber of Commerce. Under a new executive— Steve Pollard as president—they are breathing new ideas and taking a fresh approach. The chamber is a great way to meet other business owners and share some experiences with them. It can be very mutually encouraging to find out that you are not alone out there in the business world. There are many advantages to being part of the Centenary and Districts Chamber of Commerce including: support for local business owners by bringing other small business owners together; networking opportunities by meeting other like-minded people and setting up long-term valuable business as part of regularly being part of chamber activities; referral by members—as well as direct networking there is a great opportunity there to cross-refer; access to government agencies and local MPs at chamber functions; relevant speakers at chamber functions who have expertise in matters which will be of value to you in running your business and making a profit; member expertise, as there are some successful business operators among the membership—you can grab some great tips from a simple breakfast table conversation; and industry advice as the chamber can provide assistance with staffing, awards, insurance, disputes, taxation and, yes, even workers compensation. I am proud to be a member of the Centenary chamber and proud to support small business in Queensland. This is a great state with great opportunities, and Mount Ommaney is a great place to do business.

Helensvale State High School Mr CRANDON (Coomera—LNP) (3.17 pm): I rise to congratulate the Helensvale State High School, a new independent public school in the electorate of Coomera. One of more than 100 expressions of interest, Helensvale State High School was successful in its bid to become an independent public school. As an independent public school, Helensvale State High School will be well placed to benefit from increased autonomy to deliver the best possible outcomes for their students in this community. With great input from parents, teachers and community members, the school will have more freedom to shape their own direction and make decisions that will directly benefit their students. Over time I have no doubt that this will lead to better innovation, stronger partnerships with industry and the community, and the tailoring of school programs. Principal Mark Blackshaw has welcomed the opportunity. He knows that it is great news for the school and its students, teachers and the community. This increased autonomy will provide even greater learning opportunities for students. I know that the school is really excited about the future possibilities for this great school. The independent public school initiative is one of the many ways the Newman government will reduce red tape so that schools can focus on a quality education experience for their students. I had the great pleasure to go to the Meridien Marinas Horizon Shores, Cabbage Tree Point, in the great state of Queensland—Woongoolba, as a matter of fact. Woongoolba is a beautiful part of the world in the Coomera electorate. I represented the Minister for Education, Training and Employment, the Hon. John-Paul Langbroek, at the launch of DETE’s new vessel for the Moreton Bay Environmental Education Centre. This vessel was constructed to support the day-to-day operations of the Moreton Bay Environmental Education Centre.

17 Oct 2013 Private Members’ Statements 3445

This vessel is a fully-equipped floating classroom, but this boat is not only a classroom that carries 36 students and teachers and two crew but also their very own research vessel that they can use just like scientists to learn more about Moreton Bay and its flourishing ecosystem. A big thank you to John Hardie and his team at Everingham Power Boats for their work on the MV Inspiration. They are boat builders based at Horizon Shores in Woongoolba. What an incredible asset this will be for the Moreton Bay Environmental Education Centre. It is another great example of what we can achieve when government and industry work together. Whether it is taking people from A to B, acting as a teachers’ platform for students or undertaking scientific surveys, the Inspiration will always be involved in learning, research and discovery. I believe this aptly named vessel will indeed live up to the school’s vision and inspire champions for the bay for many years to come. (Time expired)

Brisbane Central Electorate Mr CAVALLUCCI (Brisbane Central—LNP) (3.20 pm): I rise to speak about recent events that have occurred in two of the great people places in my electorate—Roma Street Parkland and New Farm Park. Firstly, on 15 September in Roma Street Parkland I had the great honour of unveiling, on behalf of the Premier, a new monument that was erected for the specific purpose of celebrating the valuable contribution made by Italian migrants to Queensland and aptly named ‘Confluenza’, or ‘Confluence’ for my English-speaking colleagues. This creation was led by Vito Di Stasi and the Lucania Association of Queensland who commissioned local Italian-Australian artists named Sam and Sebastian Di Mauro to develop a concept that truly reflects the essence, the influence and the immense contribution of the Italian way of life in Queensland. The beautiful monument, carved from Carrara marble, took the form of a three-metre-long table and seats—a perfect fit for the parklands— and carvings and engravings located throughout reflect the contribution Italian migrants have made to this state and what they shared with and provided to their new country. It reflects the essence of what it is to be Italian—at a table surrounded by the two most important things to us, being family and food. Importantly, as inscribed on the monument, it provides genuine inspiration to Queensland’s new migrants of all nationalities by providing the example of what can be achieved and the contribution they can make through determination and plenty of hard work when arriving for the first time on foreign shores. I again wish to thank and congratulate Vito Di Stasi, the Brisbane City Council, federal MPs and all the members of the Italian community who pitched in to fund and make the unveiling a great success and for providing a fitting home for this beautiful monument and a lasting legacy to Italian migrants in Queensland. Additionally, I was honoured to be invited to wave off the official 2013 Pride Festival march on 21 September which started from the balcony of the Empire Hotel in Brunswick Street and culminated in the Pride Festival in the historic gardens of New Farm Park. The march drew approximately 1,000 people who were celebrating and valuing the diversity that is very much woven into the fabric of my electorate of Brisbane Central. I wish to pay special thanks to the hardworking committee members of Brisbane Pride, especially outgoing president Deej Hancock and all of the volunteers who made the event such a success. These events in both of these great community parklands demonstrate the outstanding contributions made from the talented and diverse peoples of the unique electorate that I am very proud and fortunate to represent.

North Stradbroke Island Dr ROBINSON (Cleveland—LNP) (3.22 pm): The September school holiday break has been yet another successful period of tourism on North Stradbroke Island. Every September the island packs out with families, outdoor enthusiasts and young people to enjoy the beaches and natural beauty that the island and Moreton Bay have to offer. During the first week of the school holidays I met with the volunteer Red Frogs chaplains in their work with young visitors to the island. The Red Frogs is a group of young people who support the holiday-makers on the island by handing out free red frogs, cooking pancake breakfasts at young people’s apartments or simply by helping people to walk home safely after a night out. It is not hard to see why the Red Frogs have become so popular among the holiday-makers. It was great to spend time with the Red Frogs crew of Shannon Page, Anthony Luk, Tim Tasi, Buddie Enua, Jacinta Crufgtin, Sam Steenson, Sharleen Christie, Kristelle Gilchrist and Scott McCallum. As a strong supporter of the Red Frogs chaplaincy program on North Stradbroke Island, I was pleased to support its funding from the government of $10,000 per annum over the next three years. This season’s holiday-makers were overwhelmingly well behaved and I think that that is a testament to the support of the local community groups and the police.

3446 Private Members’ Statements 17 Oct 2013

North Stradbroke Island is fast becoming one of South-East Queensland’s foremost tourist destinations. The island will transition over the next decades into an economy based on nature based recreation, tourism, local business, education and Indigenous opportunity. This long-term vision of the residents is important. The major development of Toondah Harbour in Cleveland is in its early stages but is progressing well and, when completed, will feed into this great vision. The future of the residents of Straddie is now a bright one, largely due to such commitments and others taken by the Newman LNP government. The rule of anticipation does not permit me to discuss the government’s landmark decision to reinstate sandmining to the previously understood time lines, but I look forward to contributing to the debate later this year. I commend the Premier and Minister Cripps for listening to the thousands of local residents on Straddie and for honouring the government’s commitment to save Straddie from the Bligh-made recession that was coming with today’s introduction of the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Another Act Amendment Bill 2013. A dark cloud came over the island in June 2010 when the Bligh government forced its loopy lefty plan on the island’s residents without consultation and without local support. The huge majority of the island’s 2,000-plus local residents rose up against the Bligh plan and called out, ‘Anna, don’t shut Straddie down!’ The Bligh plan has been eating away at the local economy, destroying jobs and driving up the costs of living and tourism on the island. But the bill introduced today will save the people of Straddie. This government is delivering for the people of Straddie, Cleveland and Redland City with tourism recovering, mining staying strong, property and construction slowly coming back and with groups like the Red Frogs who bless us all.

Stretton Electorate Mrs OSTAPOVITCH (Stretton—LNP) (3.25 pm): I rise to praise the Minister for National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing for the Get in the Game and Get Playing grants. The wonderful diverse electorate of Stretton—from humble postwar homes to the stately mansions—has constituents from almost every nation on earth, with over 34,000 adults and about 10,000 children and a great number of permanent residents from New Zealand and Asian countries. Stretton has just two state high schools, has no community club and only one sports field in Calamvale that is not even suitable for play-off games. I have had meetings with numerous members of the sporting community about the lack of lighted fields in the electorate that would encourage both children and adults to participate in physical activity and enjoy the community-building nature of teamwork that playing sport provides. I will be doing my very best to see that the only location available for another sports field is improved with lighting and basic equipment. These grants give me the opportunity to fight for my electorate to provide services that will increase health and interaction between all of my Australians—new and old alike. I also thank the Minister for Transport and Main Roads for listening to the residents in Drewvale who have been waiting for a bus service to their area for many years. All reports so far are that residents are extremely grateful for not only one new service from Brisbane City Council but also a great service taking residents to the closest railway station. Slowly but surely, the residents of Stretton are going to get the services and facilities they have been denied by the previous Labor member of parliament.

Longreach, Scouts Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (3.27 pm): It is with much pleasure that I relay to the parliament and the people of Queensland a little bit of the history of Western Queensland. I invite the Minister for Information Technology and the member for Mansfield, who is sitting next to me, to come to Western Queensland to see where the real people are. However, on 22 September this year we witnessed the celebration of 100 years of scouting in Longreach. That is a marvellous achievement in anyone’s language in such a young country as Australia. The scouting movement was brought to reality by that late and great leader of young people, Lord Baden-Powell, and has moved to Western Queensland and many other parts of this nation. We were blessed in Longreach on the Saturday afternoon of 22 September to have Kirsty Brown, the Chief Commissioner of Scouts Queensland; former commissioner Alan Sherlock; the Commissioner for Cub Scouts Queensland, Robyn Devine; and Wilma Everingham, the former commissioner for Joey Scouts in Queensland who now lives in California. She came all the way back for this special event.

17 Oct 2013 Private Members’ Statements 3447

I want to congratulate John Palmer, the scout leader in Longreach, who has been a member of the scouting movement in Longreach since 1963. This man has given so much to the young people of Longreach, and wider Western Queensland for that matter. He is very active in the local athletics out there. John has been the scout leader in Longreach for 38 years—since he was 21 years of age. This is an achievement of historical proportions. I congratulate John. I congratulate his wife, Sue, all his family and all of those people who are connected with scouting in Longreach for their great achievement in making this great organisation still strong, still vibrant and still encouraging young people in 2013. There are 48 youth members in Longreach. There are 11 adult leaders. Some of those young people are in years 11 and 12 at Longreach State High School. They are wonderful young people. I think a lot of young people around Queensland today could take a leaf out of their book and see exactly what leadership is all about, what being a good citizen is all about and what the future generation has to offer. I congratulate John Palmer and the leaders of the scouting movement in Longreach. I hope we see another 100 years plus of Longreach scouts. (Time expired)

Maryborough Speedway Mrs MADDERN (Maryborough—LNP) (3.30 pm): I find that one of the most fascinating parts of being a representative of my community is connecting with people from different groups and backgrounds and, in the process, learning so much more about my community. This happened again a couple of weeks ago when I was invited to attend a Maryborough Speedway meet as guests of Margaret, Geoff and Wayne Moller. I knew that speedway meets were held regularly in Maryborough, as I hear the noise of the racing vehicles from my home, but I had no idea of the history behind these events or the size and value of the events to the community. At the 25th anniversary club dinner, I was told by founding member Eddie Hughes that the establishment of the Maryborough Sporting Car Club resulted from a conversation between a couple of young lads on the town hall green. He was one of those young men. Initially, races were held at the old Maryborough showgrounds, but later land was purchased, a new racetrack constructed and in March 1968 the first meet was held at the Tinana grounds. Club members are very proud of their history and at the anniversary dinner there were displays of vintage bikes and cars. Today, the club grounds provide a first-class racing track and all the associated facilities. Margaret Moller kindly took Lloyd and me up to the tower where we saw the highly sophisticated race recording equipment and began to understand the commitment and hard work that club members put into these race meets. The action from 5 pm to 10.30 pm was constant, with cars having just finished a race leaving the track as cars for the next race entered for warm-up laps. There was not only precision driving by the competitors but also very timely and precision organising to enable the race agenda to be completed before the 10.30 curfew. On the night the races that we attended included the V8 Super Sedan East Coast Classic, the Queensland Street Sedan Title, four-cylinder sedans, junior sedans and nostalgia sedans. The level of competition is very high, with the national champion and two former national champions competing in the V8 super sedan race. The 12 events on the calendar for this year’s racing season provide not only entertainment for locals and visitors but much needed income into our community. These events have become so successful that, on the opening night of the season, the gates had to be closed as the maximum capacity of the ground of 6,000 people was reached. I left the event slightly more deaf than usual but having had a wonderful evening. Yet again, I was surprised and so very proud of the achievements of my local community. My thanks go to the Mollers and other club members and volunteers for their contribution to sport and to my community.

Pumicestone Passage Hon. MF McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (Minister for Energy and Water Supply) (3.33 pm): Earlier this week I tabled in the House a petition, signed by roughly 4,000 people, concerning Pumicestone Passage. I have spoken about this issue before, but this petition asked for the development of a plan to ensure that the passage maintains its pristine condition for many years to come. The 4,000 people who signed that petition are passionate about the issues surrounding the passage and, more importantly, are concerned about the development in Caloundra South and how that development will impact on the quality of water and the flora and fauna of the area.

3448 Private Members’ Statements 17 Oct 2013

The passage was gazetted in 1986 as a marine park. It is 35 kilometres in length. It has a surface area of 63 square kilometres, it contains 24 islands and 240 kilometres of shoreline. In my opinion this body of water is the most attractive body of water in Queensland. It is represented by men and women who reside in Caloundra who have an undying passion to ensure that the best body of water in the state is maintained for many years to come. There is no doubt that that passage is looked upon by global entities as being of significance, not just to Caloundra, not just to the coast, not just to Queensland, but right across the globe. It is a Ramsar site and attracts birds on a regular basis. Mr Gibson: How many birds? Thousands? Mr McARDLE: It contains thousands of birds that migrate to the site on a yearly basis, coming from as far afield as Russia and elsewhere. Can I say that the jealousy that is clearly evident in the chamber today about the quality of this body of water indicates how good it is. It is most important that action is taken to protect the passage, in particular from the overloving that can occur with population growth and also the use of the water and its surrounding areas. We do not want to see the passage deteriorate over time. It is most important that we put in place a regime of management that takes into account the impact of population growth and long-term use. There is a move to remove jet skis from the passage. I cannot agree with that, because it is not the jet skis that do the damage; it is the idiots who ride them in a manner that destroys the passage. We need to put in place jet ski areas and non-jet ski areas. But again, I make the point quite clearly: Pumicestone Passage is the best body of water in Queensland, the most attractive surroundings in Queensland and, I suspect, it has the best people on the coast who will look after this fantastic body of water for many years to come.

Rural Fire Service Mr HOPPER (Condamine—KAP) (3.36 pm): I rise today to speak about a fellow member of parliament who has been betrayed by his party to which he has given so much and a member who has lost a lot of skin in defending rural fire brigades across the whole of Queensland from the centralised senior fire bureaucracy in Kedron. On 10 September, the honourable Premier rose in this place and stated that a recommendation of the Keelty report was that the Rural Fire Service would be— ... led by a dedicated Deputy Commissioner for Rural Fire Service Queensland. That statement caused many members in this House to be happy, as I believe it was something that we were all promised after the Malone review into the Rural Fire Service was released in April this year. I believed then that all members would work to support volunteer rural firefighters. Then when I read the Keelty report I found that Rural Fire Service Queensland is not to be led by a dedicated deputy commissioner at all. I do not suggest that the Premier misled the House; rather, he has shown a great lack of diligence in not reading a report that has negative outcomes for over 35,000 volunteer firefighters in Queensland. Furthermore, when the Minister for Police rose to make his ministerial statement he did not mention rural fire brigade volunteers or the member for Mirani. I could see how upset the member for Mirani would be to have his hard work on this review thrown out to see the self-interest of an urban senior fire officer satisfied. The Keelty report flies in the face of the LNP’s regionalisation policy by closing down fire communication centres across regional Queensland, many of which were the same ones that the government tried to close down last year during the fire season. This report gives the control of all rural firefighters across Queensland to the urban fire services assistant commissioners. This recommendation flies in the face of using the local knowledge of volunteers in managing fires across Queensland. The Keelty report is one of the most slyly written manifestos for centralised government since Karl Marx last put pen to paper. For years I was a first officer of a rural fire brigade. I wore the yellow coat and rode in the yellow truck. To see rural firefighters in communities in my electorate and across 93 per cent of Queensland being destroyed by the Keelty report makes my blood boil. I make this offer to the member for Mirani. He has many friends and supporters in this place. If he believes that he can implement the whole of the Malone review—all 91 recommendations—I will support him and the member for Dalrymple and the member for Mount Isa will as well. While I cannot speak for the others in this House, I know that the member for Mirani is an honest broker and a man of his word. He has been a very dear friend of mine, unlike some others who hold higher offices. I call on this House to support the member for Mirani in full in the implementation of the Malone review.

17 Oct 2013 Private Members’ Statements 3449

Abbot Point, Priority Port Development Area

Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—LNP) (3.39 pm): I rise to reiterate and cement this Newman government’s commitment to the people of my great electorate of Burdekin and, indeed, the great state of Queensland. Today’s announcement by the Deputy Premier, the Hon. Jeff Seeney, that Abbot Point in the electorate of Burdekin has been declared as one of the five priority port development areas is proof that this Newman government is committed to getting Queensland back on track again. It is committed to taking a common-sense approach to development. This government is listening to the people. Unlike the previous state and federal Labor government’s, Abbott Point has always been a priority for the Newman government which has the interests of the people of Bowen as well as jobs and the prosperity of all Queenslanders at heart. Unlike those opposite, this government cares. There are no grandiose plans like the former government’s unrealistic 12-berth proposal. This government is striking a balance: aiming to have the most efficient ports to propel our industries forward whilst also setting stringent environmental safeguards for the protection of tourism, fisheries and associated industries on the Great Barrier Reef.

The Newman government is concentrating on and encouraging the development of Abbot Point by declaring it one of the priority port development areas under the draft Queensland Ports Strategy released today. This expansion is crucial to Queensland’s economic development and the government is leading the way by setting the standards, encouraging development, jobs and business in Queensland all in balance with our unique environment. Naming Abbot Point, along with the other priority port development areas of Brisbane, Mackay-Hay Point, Gladstone and Townsville, was among the key actions in the draft Queensland Ports Strategy released today. As Minister Seeney has outlined, this draft Ports Strategy is this government’s blueprint that will improve the efficiency and environmentally manage the state’s port network over the next decade. It is a sensible common- sense strategy and it will prohibit capital dredging for the development of deepwater port facilities outside of those PPDAs for the next 10 years. Dredging has become a dirty word. Indeed, many have been too afraid to use the word ‘dredging’ for fear of dredging up sentiment—or should that be sediment? I digress.

If we were to listen to green sentiment, there would be no agriculture or horticulture, there would be no mining, there would be no jobs, there would be no fishing, no tourism on our reef, there would be no nothing. This government cares about Queensland. It also cares about our reef. It has always been committed to progressing Abbot Point with realistic, accomplishable plans that can be sustainably achieved. From the outset the government has recognised the port of Abbot Point as an important strategic state asset. I know that the federal member for Dawson, George Christensen, is fighting hard for his Bowen constituents. We now wait on the new federal government to give the expansion project the green light.

Bundaberg Arthritis Support Group; Arthritis Queensland Mr BENNETT (Burnett—LNP) (3.42 pm): I rise to share with the House the work of my local Bundaberg Arthritis Support Group and Arthritis Queensland. Arthritis may be mild, moderate or severe and overall it is the major cause of disability and chronic pain in Australia, costing the community many billions of dollars. Arthritis is non-selective of age and may affect children, teenagers, young adults, middle aged and elderly alike. Arthritis usually causes pain and stiffness in and around one or more joints and can interfere with basic daily activities such as walking. The symptoms can develop gradually or suddenly and some conditions also involve the immune system and various internal organs of the body. I was privileged to attend the 25-year birthday celebration of our local support group last weekend and quickly learned of the commitment to management of the affliction by laughter and friendship. The use of Tai Chi was demonstrated as a significant contributor to the wellbeing of arthritis sufferers. I spoke at length with Helene from Arthritis Queensland about supporting the community groups and the other important work they do. We spoke about strategic goals to diversify their services and formats through which their services are provided. Arthritis is often a serious and complex autoimmune condition which people need to self-manage between trips to their medical practitioners. Arthritis Queensland also advocates for people with arthritis. In the past 18 months they have completed the 2013 Action Plan for Queensland Children with Juvenile Arthritis which was informed by state-wide questionnaires and stakeholder workshops. There are four people doing this work and we should be very proud of the work they do and its important challenges. The service is

3450 Private Members’ Statements 17 Oct 2013

almost all donor funded with two per cent of the funding from the department of health. We would like to see the continuation of funding beyond the end of this year. It is a tiny amount of funding but every bit helps people with arthritis and osteoporosis. Queensland Health also generously provides office space on Lutwyche Road at Windsor. However, the last contract was for just two years and the lease expires in September 2014. The short lease and the time to expiry are further challenges to the longevity and financial viability of Arthritis Queensland. There are more than a million Queenslanders with arthritis and osteoporosis. Arthritis Victoria has just released a document titled ‘A problem worth solving’ informed by Access Economics which states that the national cost of these diseases in 2012 was $55 billion. Arthritis Queensland has finalised its Action Plan for Queensland Children with Juvenile Arthritis. The plan is a proactive way to improve the lives of children with juvenile arthritis. It takes a detailed and multidisciplinary approach, including health care, education and transition into adult life. The Action Plan for Queensland Children with Juvenile Arthritis was made possible as a result of survey and workshop feedback from parents, children and young adults, healthcare professionals, educators and social workers. I believe we need to thank everyone involved. Because of this work they have been able to create a document with the ability to change young lives. I have witnessed the support groups in my electorate and have been impressed with Arthritis Queensland. I congratulate them. We need plans so that we can all support Queenslanders with arthritis and osteoporosis.

KRANK School Holiday Program Mr PUCCI (Logan—LNP) (3.45 pm): I am humbled to once more speak on the wonderful organisations and programs that are flourishing in the great electorate of Logan. Recently I had the privilege of representing the Minister for National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing, the Hon. Steve Dickson, by attending the launch of the KRANK program at the Logan Village Skate Park. KRANK is a low-cost local government school holiday program for students aged 13-17. Strongly supported by the state government, the program is a direct result of both levels of government working together towards outcomes itemised in the Logan City’s City of Choice Summit held earlier this year and ongoing local initiatives that support the development of youth activities within the community. KRANK actively engages with our youth through a variety of programs ranging from skateboarding competitions, laser skirmishing, rock climbing, BMX coaching and much more. For our community’s youth, the KRANK program plays a role that supports them getting out and getting active. ‘Idle hands are the devil’s tools’, an old parable from the Tale of Melibee written in 1386, can be appropriately applied in cases of youngsters who, whilst on school holidays, turn to antisocial behaviour to pass the time. Programs like KRANK offer our youth a positive alternative. KRANK brings the youth together whilst putting their energy towards constructive outlets and encouraging physical activity. By providing these outlets we are creating an attitude of strong community participation. I am proud of the state government’s ongoing support for youth in our community as can be seen through the investment of $35,000 towards the KRANK program and a further $20,000 towards a multicultural and Indigenous soccer program, both initiatives responding to the need identified in the Logan City’s City of Choice Summit for sports based programs between different cultures and increased participation in sport and recreation activities. I commend the volunteers and staff who make the program successful. With such a magnificent response from the community and a high level of participation, I look forward to seeing the program continue to grow with enthusiasm come each holiday period. I would like to make special mention of the efforts of Karrin Church who, as the youth development project officer from Logan City Council, was key to ensuring the success of the day and the ongoing operations of the KRANK program. With more communities that are well planned, well connected and that engender community spirit being one of the key outcomes of the Queensland Plan, the success of this objective rests on continued support for programs like KRANK. With the mantra of healthy living and continued support from the state government, programs like KRANK will continue to flourish across the state. Logan has already significantly benefitted from the state government’s support through grants of over $500,000. I take this opportunity to encourage all organisations and clubs within the Logan electorate to jump at the chance to see what funding is available. Already many organisations have

17 Oct 2013 Private Members’ Statements 3451

seized opportunities through grant writing workshops I have held and material made available through my office. I look forward to working alongside the KRANK program and the community as we continue to make Logan a great place to live, work and raise a family. Together we can make it happen.

Aquis Great Barrier Reef Resort Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (3.48 pm): It has been incorrectly asserted by the member for Cairns that I do not support the Aquis Great Barrier Reef Resort proposal. I am very aware that it is not every day that a multibillion dollar proposal is offered up to our region and so it has my support. Notwithstanding that, there are some important questions to be answered. Asking questions and casting a critical eye over proposals does not mean opposition to them. A project like this is too significant for political point scoring, which only distracts from what really matters—getting it right. The terms of reference for the EIS released earlier this month are a good start. The proponent will be required to provide necessary infrastructure so that existing public transport services and infrastructure are maintained to their current standard or better. The terms of reference also ask that any infrastructure built as part of the project is both compatible with and does not disrupt existing infrastructure, including airport operations or future transport corridors. One area of concern is the demand that will be placed on roads, including the Cairns Western Arterial Road, which is likely to be used by workers travelling from the growth corridor of Cairns both during construction and once established. The construction workforce is expected to reach 9,300, with 10,000 ongoing operational jobs. We need to ensure that the supporting infrastructure is there to maximise productivity. The terms of reference mandate an assessment of mitigation for coastal erosion risks, storm tide inundation and flooding. These assessments will need to be carefully scrutinised to ensure both the commercial and environmental sustainability of the development. Some considerations not included in the EIS terms of reference include the impacts from population flows on local schools, kindergartens, housing, hospitals, the electricity network and local government infrastructure. We also need to think about how this infrastructure can be delivered and funded. The government should also be looking at how local TAFE facilities can be utilised so that most of the construction workforce is sourced locally. There may also be opportunities for leveraging education exports. The Aquis development presents opportunities for co-investment in infrastructure that will be necessary for the future economic development of the region, including for public transport. The government needs to be engaging with the council, the proponent and local community representatives to act on these opportunities now. We cannot turn our focus to partisan politics or we will miss out on opportunities for the future of our region. One of the key reasons for the increased interest in tourism investment in Queensland is the falling Australian dollar, which is forecast to fall to US84c by the end of next year. This will lead to a strong resurgence in tourism, particularly in North Queensland, irrespective of whether any development includes a casino. The Newman government has announced that it will approve up to three new casinos without any detail of whether more gaming machines will be allowed or where the revenue gains for the state will go. It is incorrect to say that we simply must have more casinos to attract tourists to Queensland. Independent studies show people will continue to come in increasing numbers for our beaches, wildlife and the reef. I have never suggested that no new casino licences be granted, but if one were granted it would most likely be for the Aquis development. However, I stress the point that Queenslanders are seeking a proper economic growth and development strategy that must be based on more than casinos.

Mental Health Research Alliance Dr DAVIS (Stafford—LNP) (3.50 pm): I wish to draw the attention of the House to the establishment of the new Queensland Mental Health Research Alliance. Mental disorders are prevalent in Queensland and are a leading cause of health related disability and a global health challenge. There have been calls to accelerate basic neuroscience research and translational research in order to optimise health outcomes for those with mental health disorders. In recent times in Australia, mental health was made a national health priority and national mental health reform has been underway since 1992. In 2010 the National Health and Medical Research Council formally identified mental health and complex disorders as the key strategic

3452 Private Members’ Statements 17 Oct 2013

redirection of resources. With this in mind, I was pleased to represent the Premier at the inaugural meeting of the Queensland based Mental Health Research Alliance on Friday 4 October. This meeting showcased existing skills and discussed directions for future research. This vibrant new alliance has been established to synergise mental health research across the Queensland Institute of Medical Research at Herston, the Queensland Brain Institute in the University of Queensland and the Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, which is a Queensland Health funded group based at the West Moreton Health and Hospital Service. Biomedical research is already very strong in Queensland. However, mental health research skills in this state have not kept pace with the progress made in Victoria and New South Wales. The three groups that I just mentioned will now be involved in an alliance that will explore ways to optimise current joint research and build capacity for research in the next generation. Based on experience, it is clear that groups that build strong and meaningful collaborative links are the most successful in discovery and translational research. Queensland now has an opportunity to catalyse these links with our new Mental Health Research Alliance. I am very confident that the new alliance will be an important driver of future research within our state. There is an urgent need to catalyse this research. Therefore, I wish to congratulate professors Frank Gannon, Perry Bartlet and John McGrath who head the other members of the alliance on this vital initiative and wish them and their colleagues every success on behalf of all Queenslanders and their families and carers who live with the challenge of mental health and other brain disorders.

Wynnum and Bayside Carer and Family Expo; Wynnum Relay for Life Mr SYMES (Lytton—LNP) (3.53 pm): This week is Carers Week throughout Queensland. It is a time to acknowledge the valuable roles carers play in providing a better quality of life for people of all ages who suffer with a disability and other issues. Yesterday I had the honour to represent the Minister for Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services at the Wynnum and Bayside Carer and Family Expo at the Wynnum RSL. It was great to catch up with many carers from across the electorate and with the organisations that promote and support them on the bayside. Those are organisations such as ARAD and LinC or Life in the name of Christ, and the Brisbane East Orchid society, of which I am a patron. They provide invaluable assistance to people with disabilities, both physical and intellectual. At the event I met a young mum who told me about the difficulties her family had dealing with her child’s disability, which impacted on his learning. The mother told of her relief that her child could have a flexible learning experience on the bayside by attending the local special school for two days a week and the local non-government school for two days a week, which provides the child with spiritual and religious learning. I say ‘thank you’ to all carers throughout Queensland and especially those on the bayside who make invaluable contributions to the lives of people with disabilities. I want to touch on another event that occurred over the past weekend, which was the inaugural Wynnum Relay for Life event, held in Kianawah Road, Wynnum West, to promote awareness of the work of the Cancer Council Queensland and cancer generally. I thank the following groups that helped to make the event such a success and to raise over $20,000: Tammy Tailor from 1300epromo, the Lions Club of Moreton Bay, the Wynnum Vikings Australian Football and Sporting Club, St John Ambulance Wynnum branch, the Leos Club of Victoria Point, Tahnee from the Cancer Council Queensland, the Melanoma Awareness Foundation and the local residents who participated. I am looking forward to the 2014 event to be bigger and better. Obviously, I will support it again by helping to cook the breakfast and participating with the group.

Special Schools Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.56 pm): I seek the assistance and support of members of this chamber in a proposal to rename our special schools throughout Queensland. Some time ago I spoke to the education minister in relation to this matter and also to Mrs Lisa Newman after her visit to our school during a regional cabinet meeting. In Gladstone we have a wonderful community of teachers, volunteers, parents, other family members and, of course, the amazing students. For many years, they attended the Gladstone special school. It was named other things prior to that, as were all the schools in the state.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3453 Amendment Bill

One might ask, what is in a name? The Gladstone special school is now called the Rosella Park School. When Mr Bob Quinn was the minister for education, I asked if this was possible because David de Villiers, the principal at the time, wanted to give the kids an opportunity to be proud of their school and to be able to say with pride, ‘I go to Rosella Park School,’ rather than, ‘I go to the special school.’ At the time departmental officers raised a number of difficulties, or so-called. As it turned out, many of them were spurious. They were things such as the school will suffer in terms of funding; no-one will know what type of school it is; the level of service will deteriorate, again because we will not know what type of school it is; and they may miss out on additional staff and funding. Actually, funds and services are allocated to schools by a school code. The name of the school has little to do with the level of service they receive. What it does do is give those students a real sense of personal confidence and school pride. They are able to say, ‘I go to Rosella Park School,’ instead of, ‘I go to the special school.’ It is a great learning tool too, because in this instance the name of the school was derived from the two roads that the school adjoins, Rosella Street and Park Street, hence, Rosella Park School. Therefore, this is also used as a learning tool. How could you determine a name? It is quite easy. You could have a school competition where the students and families offer suggestions for the type of name that they would like. Ultimately, the teachers and principal would have a great deal of say. But it does give a new atmosphere to the school. It gives a great deal of pride to those students who are very conscious of the school they attend but maybe a little self-conscious about the name of the school that they attend. I have seen a marked increase in personal pride and confidence in those students who are reasonably highly functioning. I think it is a wonderful initiative, one that is good for the local schools to be involved in and one that I commend to each member in this chamber.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from p. 3433, on motion of Mr Bleijie— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr DAVIES (Capalaba—LNP) (4.00 pm), continuing: We are changing the law to require that WorkCover refers all allegations of fraud related offences to the scheme regulator for investigation. Further, we are increasing the penalties for fraudulent claims, with maximum penalties of 500 penalties units or five years imprisonment, up from a maximum of 400 penalty and 18 months imprisonment. WorkCover will have to refer injured workers to an accredited return-to-work program to facilitate improved return-to-work outcomes and minimise the injured workers’ future economic loss. We are also reintroducing the requirement for workers to provide an employer with a notification of previous injuries if requested. Also we are enabling employers to be able to access the prospective workers’ claim history. This will enable employers to be able to mitigate any risk of aggravating a pre-existing injury or condition when recruiting workers. We are retaining access to common law claims, except for those with a medically assessed impairment of five per cent or less. In 2009-10 the board of WorkCover Queensland, under former chairman Ian Brusasco, recommended that the government introduce a 10 to 15 per cent threshold on common law claims. Under our proposed changes the threshold will be five per cent. The government believes that we have got the balance right. All injured workers are entitled to compensation under the statutory payments scheme which is a no-fault scheme. Statutory compensation provides weekly compensation for lost wages, medical expenses and a lump sum payment, until a worker’s injury is stable. There is also an appeals process via the medical assessment tribunals. It should be noted that the statutory claim process is far more efficient than that of common law. The government believes that these claims are more appropriately dealt with through the statutory no-fault system instead of through the courts.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3454 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

So what is business saying about these changes? A number of businesses have already come out and commended the Attorney-General, including the Queensland Trucking Association, the HIA and the Master Builders Association. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland say that the Queensland government’s proposed introduction of a threshold on Commonwealth claims will restore fairness in the state’s workers compensation scheme. CCIQ general manager of advocacy, Nick Behrens, said that by opting to implement a threshold but refusing to touch journey claims the government has struck a balance between workers and their employers. Mr Behrens said that one of the biggest concerns with common law claims for injuries below five per cent work related injury was the strain they place on the relationship between worker and employer. Masters Electricians Australia has also welcomed today’s announcement from the Attorney-General. MEA workplace relations manager Jason O’Dwyer said he was optimistic the changes approved by cabinet yesterday would boost employee confidence and ultimately reduce the cost for employers. He said— Common sense has finally prevailed and we’re confident the introduction of the five per cent Whole Person Impairment (WPI) threshold will finally enable the focus to be on rehabilitation for all parties.

We’re also particularly pleased to see travel claims have been retained as a protection for Queensland workers. But who is against this? Which companies would be against this? There is one particular company called Shine Corporate Ltd, better known as Shine Lawyers—a firm established by former Labor Attorney-General and former ALP MP Kerry Shine—that is against it. What did they announce to the ASX on Wednesday? They announced that the government’s proposed five per cent threshold is predicted to halve the number of cases eligible for common law remedy and reduce the company’s net profit—Shine Lawyers net profit—by between $2 to $2.5 million. A government member: It’s working already. Mr DAVIES: It is working already. Who pays this $2 to $2.5 million? Does it just fall from the sky? I can tell members who has to pay for it. Businesses have to pay for it. Consumers have to pay for it. Workers have to pay. Workers pay for it through lost jobs. My business had to pay for it. When people go to a business today they have to pay for it. It is all added into the cost of things. The cost of these insurance policies is added in. A lot of these guys are ambulance chasers. They are on the TV advertising. They have slobbering dogs and different people advertising that they are going to do this or do that. A government member: They’re barking mad. Mr DAVIES: They are barking mad. I take that interjection. Another company is also very upset by this. That company is Slater & Gordon. Who is Slater & Gordon? A very prominent person, one J Gillard, actually worked for Slater & Gordon. They have also released a statement to the Stock Exchange. They announced that it will not be too big a hit because only five per cent of their group revenue in 2014 will be from Queensland. The Law Society criticism is fraught with conflict of interest. Many of these ambulance chasing firms need to be curtailed. I think this is a great thing. If we can bring some sort of balance into the whole legal system in this area I think we will have achieved a fantastic outcome. In closing, this bill introduces amendments that will ensure the ongoing success and viability of the Queensland workers compensation scheme by simplifying regulatory processes, reducing duplication and ensuring that compensation is available to help injured workers get back to work. That is what workers compensation is about—getting workers back to work. The changes aim to strike a better balance between providing appropriate benefits for workers and ensuring the cost incurred by employers is ultimately affordable. The bill will also empower employers to further reduce workplace injuries by tailoring employment health and safety procedures for individual workers. The government also listened to the concerns of business over the potential for fraudulent claims. It is proposed to further increase the penalties for defrauding or attempting to defraud insurers under the scheme and will bring them into line with penalties in other jurisdictions.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3455 Amendment Bill

Workers compensation is not about workers’ workplace entitlements. It is insurance paid by employers to compensate injured workers and get them back to work. To that end, this bill seeks to see WorkCover and the self-insurers in the Queensland scheme have a stronger focus on return-to- work outcomes. Getting injured workers back to work is good for the worker and good for the employer. Queensland is a great state with great opportunities. Let us see it stay that way. Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Leader of the Opposition) (4.07 pm): I rise today to speak on the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I rise today to oppose, in the strongest possible terms, this bill introduced by a government as the latest effort in its blatant, ruthless and cold-hearted attack on Queensland workers and their rights. I would like to thank the hundreds of workers who came to Parliament House during their lunch break to protest against this bill. There were many workers there. There were even some workers who in the past had been injured. Mr Bleijie: Lawyers. Ms PALASZCZUK: There were also some lawyers there as well. I hear the Attorney-General commenting—not from his seat where he is supposed to be if he wants to comment, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Watts): Order! Leader of the Opposition, you have the call. I will deal with the interjection if he does it again, but he is not in the chamber at the moment. Ms PALASZCZUK: He was interjecting from other than in his seat. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand that. You have the call. Ms PALASZCZUK: I would like to pay tribute to the union representatives who attended today and spoke. Ron Monaghan from the QCU was one. We had the AWU, the AMWU, the ASU, the CFMEU, the BLF and a range of lawyers standing up for workers’ rights in this state—workers’ rights that each and every one of the LNP members want to dismantle. That is what the LNP members want to do. A government member: Was Williamson out there? The HSU? Ms PALASZCZUK: Yes, absolutely. There was a broad range of workers there who are concerned about what this LNP government wants to do with their rights—workers’ rights that have actually taken a generation or more to develop into the best workers compensation scheme in Australia. But this government, not content to sit back, always wants to keep attacking the workers in this state. We sent a very loud and clear message to people who attended that rally today. We said very clearly— Government members interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: Mr Deputy Speaker? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Watts): Order! You have the call. Ms PALASZCZUK: Mr Deputy Speaker, there has been a series of interjections and I am not taking the interjections. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I think it becomes disorderly I will tell them. You have the call. Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. What this government is doing with its Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill is trampling on a proud tradition. It is trashing the hard-fought and hard-earned rights of every ordinary Queenslander who goes to work each day deserving to be safe and expecting and deserving to be protected when their safety is compromised. This government seeks to ignore history. This government will take a knife to history. And that is a history characterised by proud Labor men and women, by wise and dignified men and women who fought for workers and fought for ordinary Queenslanders, who fought to install a system of workers compensation which affords us all confidence and dignity in our workplaces as well as the confidence that we will be protected should things in the workplaces go wrong—a system which gives all workers peace of mind, a system which does the right thing, a system that affords all Queenslanders the most basic human decency. I say again that the system of workplace protection that we enjoy and can be proud of today is based on a century-old platform that was devised and crafted and implemented by proud and wise and dignified Labor Queenslanders—people who were far prouder and far wiser than those opposite, people who had the courage to stand up for workers and their families.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3456 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

Mr Cripps: If you don’t mind patting yourself on the back. Ms PALASZCZUK: Member for Hinchinbrook, people who had the courage to stand up for workers and their families, unlike those opposite who demonstrate only their innate weakness in seeking to dismantle it. The bill we are presented with today is further proof that this government views workers and their jobs as commodities that can be cut from balance sheets at the drop of a hat. They never see people—people with families, people with children to support, people who contribute to their local communities and to our state as a whole and its future. Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members. Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It proves that the LNP will stop at nothing to attack workers and their hard won wages and conditions. Anyone looking for proof that this LNP government is at war with ordinary hardworking Queenslanders need not only look at this disgraceful bill. They need to look at this government’s short but brutal track record in trashing workers’ rights. They need only ask any of the more than 14,000 workers this government has so far thrown on to the scrap heap and ask any of the thousands of others who remain fearful for their jobs and, critically, their rights in the workplace. In just 18 months the Premier and the Attorney-General, and each of the ministers who sit around the cabinet table and each of the LNP members who are sitting in this place today, have carved a path of destruction through Queensland workplaces. They have humiliated workers. They have pounced on their self-respect and they have attacked their dignity. They have attacked the workers’ dignity in this state. Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You have the call. Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. They have attacked the very dignity of collecting a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. They have ruthlessly launched an attack on the independent umpire, the QIRC. They have determinedly frustrated the efforts of unions to stand up for their members. With the stroke of a pen they have destroyed the employment security for government workers in this state—and now this. I know that there are some members opposite who take workers compensation seriously and actually agree with our position. Then there are other members—who I am sure are many in number—who blindly follow the decisions of the Premier and his Attorney-General with little regard for history and with no regard for what is right. They are the ones who are too cowardly to speak up even though they surely realise that what they are doing is simply and utterly wrong. For their benefit today I offer them a lesson—a lesson in the evolution of workers compensation in this state, a lesson in how critical, how vital, this system is to every workplace throughout Queensland. When they blindly vote on this bill, falling in behind the Premier and the Attorney-General, perhaps then they might hang their heads in shame when they realise precisely what it is they are crushing—when they realise what they are doing to workers in Cairns, in Ingham, in Cooktown, in Emerald, in Ipswich West, in Roma, in Townsville, in Mackay, in Miles, in Dalby, in Toowoomba, in Normanton, in Mount Isa and in all places in between. Government members interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: They can interject as much as they want but the LNP members sitting in this House know that they have cut over 14,000 jobs throughout this state and that is having an impact in each and every member’s electorate. Mr Cripps: The unemployment rate is going down across Queensland—more people employed. Ms PALASZCZUK: You have thrown out your unemployment target, haven’t you, Minister? Since 1886 Queensland has had in place some form of workers compensation scheme. The Employers’ Liability Act 1886 rightfully required employers to take out insurance to pay workers and look after their wellbeing when they had sustained injuries in the workplace. It not only protected workers but also protected employers.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3457 Amendment Bill

The TJ Ryan government’s election in 1915 was based on a platform that included a strong commitment to reform workers compensation. It led to an extensive, no-fault system which covered a majority of workers. This was groundbreaking legislation. This was important legislation. It was legislation that ensured no worker would be penalised for suffering an injury at work. It was legislation that ensured employers were accountable. It was legislation that formed the foundation for the scheme workers and employers remain guided by to this day—almost 100 years later. It was precedent-making legislation. It was Labor legislation. It set out that insurance became mandatory for employers and extended coverage from manual workers to practically all workers in the state. It set out that workers were also protected on their trips to and from work by including journey claims. In the years following, a number of important amendments were made to our laws, and once again for the benefit of many members who do not understand the history and have not bothered to learn it I will point a few out. In 1930 Queensland saw the introduction of mandatory medical reports for compensation claims. In 1944 the term ‘accident’ was repealed and the definition of ‘injury’ inserted. This allowed compensation to be paid to a worker who, while not being involved in an actual accident, had suffered some injury from their job. 1972 saw the full introduction of full award wages for injured workers for the first 26 weeks of their recovery. Over the past 23 years Queensland workers have been covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act 1990. Although the name of the act has changed over the decades, its philosophy, its structure and its intent have remained consistent—to provide protection for workers while at the same time giving fairness and equity for employers paying premiums. What the LNP government is doing is once again stripping away workers’ rights. What is perhaps one of the most appalling aspects of this determined effort to penalise workers is that the committee charged with reviewing our system of workers compensation did not recommend that it be attacked. The Premier and the Attorney-General have completely ignored that. Just as they threw more than 14,000 workers on the scrap heap, they now want to go the extra mile and ensure that nobody can access what is rightfully and what is fundamentally theirs should they be injured in their workplace. They intend to make the system so weak in its definitions that it will, in turn, offer workers weaker protection. This is just the beginning. More is to come and none of it is good. Among the fresh pain to come, this government has plans for massive outsourcing across core government services including health. They intend to do this and that intention will lead to further job losses. We in Labor believe in the dignity of work for every Queenslander. We believe in fair and decent conditions for Queenslanders at work and fair workers compensation for people injured at work. Unlike the LNP, we believe in job security for all Queenslanders. We believe in the power of the independent umpire. We will fight for the rights of workers, and we will continue to fight against the government’s constant attacks on workers. Every LNP member in this place should today not only feel a deep sense of shame but also search their souls because what they are voting on when they support this bill is an attack on not only every worker in this state but also future generations of workers—their children and their grandchildren. It is a vote against the best advice of their own LNP members, and it is an attack that history will record as the latest in a shocking pattern of attacks against ordinary, decent Queenslanders. This bill offers a stark lesson in history: a lesson in contrasts. The big reforms to give basic support and protection to workers were delivered by Labor legislation. Today we see that support and protection stripped away by LNP laws. This is the same choice voters will have at the next election: between a party that cares and listens, and one that does not. I today repeat the commitment we have already made: when Labor returns to office we will scrap the changes being made here today. We will return the scheme to where it was before this greedy, uncaring, callous and cold-hearted LNP government and its equally callous and uncaring Attorney-General got their hands on it. In short, once again it will be Labor that delivers a workable and just workers compensation scheme to Queenslanders. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (4.22 pm): I rise with great pleasure to support this bill which the Attorney-General has put forward. I was a latecomer to the committee during this process. I only came in towards the end of it. It is a very good committee that was very ably chaired by the member for Coomera and deputy chaired by the member for Mulgrave. It is a committee that has tried very hard to arrive at consensus positions.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3458 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

In relation to the WorkCover report and bill, the principle is that our WorkCover system in Queensland should protect workers who are injured or harmed because of work. Nobody is falling for the drivel that we have heard from the other side today when it tries to pretend that somehow or other this bill will be watering down protection for workers. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have a good system here in Queensland. This bill will ensure that it continues to protect workers. I am astonished by some of the nonsense that has been trotted out by the other side. Mr Cripps: Really? You can’t be that astonished? Dr FLEGG: I am perhaps not surprised that they trot out drivel, but nobody is falling for it. There is nothing in this bill that will strip away any genuine protection that workers in Queensland enjoy. That is the guiding principle. I have spent most of my life working for the health care of people. I care very deeply that people who suffer serious and genuine injury should be protected, and WorkCover does that if it is a work injury. I have treated many people with mesothelioma and work related injuries, and we have a very serious commitment that very comprehensive protection should be provided. As such, one of the first things that was discussed prior to my joining the committee and after I joined the committee was journey claims—injuries which occur on the way to work and for which many employers feel they are not in control of including how far away people choose to live and so forth. Many jurisdictions do not cover workers for accidents that occur on their way to work. This Queensland government is committed to reducing red tape for employers. It is committed to reducing the cost of doing business. It is committed, by reducing red tape and reducing the cost of doing business, to increasing jobs and making this a great state to employ people. Even in that setting and with that commitment the government has reaffirmed its commitment not to join the other jurisdictions that do not provide WorkCover for accidents going to and from work but to affirm that protection for Queensland workers. I think that underscores this government’s commitment to make sure that workers are well protected. One issue on which there was a lot of discussion and on which I had some input during my time on the committee was a very difficult and challenging one, and that is the area of psychological injury. It is hard to measure because it is frequently not able to be directly related to a particular event or injury that happened in the workplace. The government’s response has not entirely seen this area in the same light as the committee. Nevertheless, I do not think there is a great disparity. I would like to say a few words about what we had in mind in relation to that. Psychological injury, to my mind, falls into two different areas. One is an event that one might expect to seriously harm the psyche of anybody subjected to that sort of trauma. In other words, it does not require an underlying vulnerability. I remember treating a young man whose job was to clean the body parts off the wheels of QR trains in Queensland when people suicided under them. He was quite a young man. There are people who are seriously bashed in workplaces such as fast food outlets, overnight service stations et cetera. They are held up, they are bashed, they are assaulted and their psychological damage can be very significant, and that has nothing to do with their own vulnerability or their own pre-existing psychological state. It is something that could be expected to affect anybody subjected to that sort of trauma. So the committee took the view that those sorts of injuries should be treated the same as a physical injury and that the system should not add any further difficulty to people making those sorts of claims. I think that is the end result of what the government has done in this bill. There is also a whole range of other psychological issues that arise because of either a vulnerability in the person or more often than not a pre-existing psychological or personality disorder. This often manifests itself—and I am sure most people have seen it in their office and certainly anyone with a medical background has seen it—when people who have been given correction or direction in relation to their work performance feel they have been bullied, they have been traumatised, they cannot face going to work and so forth. This is a much more complex area, and the committee in its discussions acknowledged and realised that. I think the government’s move in relation to psychological claims—in particular, those claims that are much more difficult to attribute to a work event or a work trauma—is to ensure that the psychological injury should be the result of the work related event. In other words, work should not be a contributing factor to the psychological injury; the work event should be the major factor contributing to a psychological injury. The reason that this is necessary is, firstly, the significant increase in the number of people seeking to make claims in relation to psychological issues, and this has significantly been fuelled by the ambulance-chasing lawyer industry. This trend will continue unless the government takes some action. I think the

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3459 Amendment Bill

Attorney-General has done the right thing in ensuring that we do not see an unsustainable explosion in the cost of WorkCover because of the direction that these sorts of claims will take. To a significant extent this bill is reacting to a trend that has already begun but which undoubtedly will continue in the future. However, we should never lose sight of the fact that under this provision introduced by this government the psychological trauma that people suffer from a work event is still a compensable issue. Despite this feigned outrage that we heard from CFMEU members outside and some of the members opposite, we should make it very clear and we should understand very clearly that this is not about workers’ rights or protections; it is about superprofits for greedy and frequently dishonest ambulance-chasing lawyers. I worked my entire working life as a doctor. I have been involved with many, many WorkCover issues and many of them were genuine. I can tell honourable members the type that upset me the most, that got under my skin—and it was not a rare event—because I know the harm that it did to the patients I saw. On many occasions I saw a person who, in fact, had had a minor injury and had recovered and had no ongoing disability. There was no reason that they could not go back to work. They came to me as a doctor for medical advice and I would say to them, ‘The best thing you can do is to go back to work.’ Time and time again—not just once or twice, but regularly—the patient said to me, ‘No, I can’t go back to work, doctor. My lawyer says if I go back to work I won’t get as much.’ The lawyer, of course, is on a percentage, no matter how they dress that percentage up. There has been a lot of medical research done in relation to compensable WorkCover issues. There are two things that stand out and these have been well researched. One is that if you want your patient to get better, settle the compensation claim. Taking non-structural back issues such as back sprains as perhaps the best example, if you compare the group who does not go back to work whose lawyers told them they will not get as much money if they do with a group who are sent back to work, all the medical research shows that the group who recover the best are the ones who go back to work. The best medical treatment is to go back to work, and this should be the outcome wherever it is possible. Years ago there was a government in South Australia, the Bannon government, one of the worst governments in Australian history. I remember well seeing a patient from South Australia who had been on WorkCover for five years. This young lady in her thirties who had been collecting WorkCover for five years came in for a medical certificate. I said, ‘Why do you need a medical certificate?’ She said, ‘I’ve got a sprained little finger.’ I said, ‘You’ve been off work for five years with a sprained little finger?’—this is a true case—and she said, ‘Yes.’ I examined it—nothing. ‘Was it broken?’ ‘No, it wasn’t broken.’ ‘Did it have a tendon injury?’ ‘No, it didn’t.’ ‘Was the skin broken?’ ‘No, no, the injury did not break the skin.’ I rang the WorkCover people in South Australia and I said, ‘What on earth are you people doing?’, and they said to me, ‘Well, that’s the system. She can go to every doctor in Queensland.’ She moved up here because she liked the beach. If I said no to a medical certificate she could go to the next doctor and the next one and the next one and she could do that for the rest of her life. Mr Mulherin: That’s an indictment on your profession. Dr FLEGG: No, it is an indictment on a union driven, disastrous government policy. It has often been said that if you build infrastructure they will come and use it. Let me tell honourable members if you build a rort into the system, they will come and use the rort as well. I note that some opposite want to suggest that somehow or other there is a rift between our very good and cooperative committee and the government’s response. In relation in particular to the five per cent disability rule, I would strongly draw the House’s attention to page XVII where the chairman, the honourable member for Coomera, has written some very important comments in relation to no win, no fee and the fifty-fifty rule. This whole industry, which is based on no win, no fee and suing for anything, has changed our way of life and not for the better. Honourable members know exactly what it has done to their community groups. I know what it has done in medicine as we become risk averse. I have seen what it does in aged care as they become terrified and risk averse. I have seen what it does to teachers in schools who are fearful and have become risk averse. The system of protecting workers with WorkCover is not there to be exploited by greedy lawyers. Let me say that our legal system does not exist to be cluttered up with a lot of speculative claims for very minor, non-permanent injuries. The courts are not designed to deal with those trivial things. That is why in other areas of life we have a Small Claims Tribunal and we have QCAT. This is one of the last frontiers where we still see these minor matters clogging up our courts. Interestingly,

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3460 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill when this issue was raised, did it not appear that we had picked a scab on a sore? The response to a measure to say that minor, non-permanent injuries should be protected by our mandatory system of WorkCover but should not end up in the courts has resulted in this outrage not from workers, but from lawyers who are seeking to profit and, in many cases, to superprofit from what has become a racket. Boy, did we scratch that scab off the sore! We have all had them at our offices. There is a pretty good rule of thumb that if you see somebody with millions of dollars to spend on advertising, that is because they are in a very lucrative business. Have a look at the prime time advertising in major sports events, chasing people to try to get them to sue over minor injuries. This is clear evidence that this is an industry that is making superprofits. The announcement to the Stock Exchange that one individual firm in one state of Australia, in Queensland, could be cost millions of dollars of profit—not costs or revenue, but profit—simply because a small number of minor injuries are taken out of the system tells us that there is something very seriously wrong here. This has become an industry that threatens our way of life. We do not want to go down the route that America has gone. Australians I know who work in America say, ‘Nobody in America ever invites you to their home for a meal. They do not do it because of the risk of them being sued. For instance, if you had a drink, they might sue you because you rammed their car. I have seen the effects on my community groups in Moggill, where insurance has become one of the biggest issues that they have to confront. If you go back 15 years it was not an issue because we did not have this industry. There used to be an ad on the back page of the TV Guide and the Sunday Mail that said, ‘Have you been involved in an accident? Even if you were not injured in any way, you can still sue.’ Do you remember that ad? In fact, I used to know the principal of the law firm that put it there. What an outrage! There is another human being on the end of that lawsuit who is being sued by somebody who did not even sustain an injury. I applaud the government for taking on board the serious reservations that the committee had about the direction in which this industry is going, and I would say that I hope the Attorney-General will take this further. This whole industry of speculative claims and lawyers seeking to exploit often very unsophisticated clients in order to make superprofits has become a scourge in many respects. It is one of the most secretive industries in Australia. At one time I sought some information about how much money is generated, because don’t forget that lawyers like to settle these cases before they get to court because they know that they are going to get their 50 per cent. Is this an effective system for rewarding people? Who is making the money? How much is being paid out in total and how much is the injured person receiving? You will never get those figures because the lawyers will make damn sure that you never get them. We need to have a serious debate in this country about whether this is an effective way of rewarding injured people. I believe it is not. We need to look at a better system and I believe that 50-50, where the lawyer has as much at stake as the injured worker, is an obscenity. Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (4.41 pm): I rise to speak against the Newman government’s changes to the Queensland workers compensation scheme. These changes are indefensible and unjustified and will have far-reaching ramifications for Queensland workers and their families. I am pleased to say that I was a member of the Finance and Administration Committee last year when its review of workers compensation started. I commend the former chair, the member for Coomera, for his dedication to this task and the leadership he provided in steering an impartial, bipartisan review of workers compensation. He oversaw the delivery of a thorough, comprehensive report earlier this year that gave full consideration to the competing views regarding the operation of workers compensation. It must be deeply disappointing to the former chair and other LNP members of the committee to have had their deliberations completely ignored by this arrogant government and the inexperienced Attorney-General. It seems the Attorney-General and the cabinet know best and are prepared to overlook the detailed and thoughtful advice of their fellow MPs. They would rather wreck the current scheme than admit that a scheme set up and managed competently by Labor was both effective and economically responsible. I believe that the government, the Premier and the Attorney-General have misread this issue completely. They have demonstrated that they are prepared to sacrifice a secure safety net for workers and their families, all for the sake of a secret deal struck with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland before the election. The Premier has miscalculated the community’s feeling on our workers compensation scheme. He has no empathy for the hundreds and thousands of Queenslanders who are injured in the workplace each year and the impact this has on their work

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3461 Amendment Bill lives, their personal lives and their families. He has no understanding of the impact of a workplace injury—even one which some may consider relatively minor—on a worker’s earning capacity for the rest of their working lives. Let us set aside the spin and the obfuscation that has been the hallmark of the Attorney-General’s contribution to this debate and deal with facts. Fact: the latest WorkCover annual report, which was tabled in this House just this week, shows that the Queensland workers compensation scheme made a profit of more than $517 million in 2012-13. Fact: Queensland employers pay on average $1.45 for every $100 of wages, which is, to quote WorkCover, ‘still the second lowest rate of any state in Australia’. Fact: during the past decade Queensland employers have paid premiums that have been consistently lower than interstate schemes. Fact: the number of common law claims being made has stabilised in Queensland. Fact: the average common law claim is now $138,000, well below WorkCover’s target of $161,000. Fact: Queensland WorkCover schemes met all capital adequacy requirements and maintain a fully funded position with assets exceeding liabilities. The facts all point to one undeniable conclusion: Queensland has the most secure and sustainable workers compensation scheme in Australia. But despite these facts, the Liberal National Party is determined to push ahead with changes that will wreck our scheme. Importantly, the LNP changes will have significant impacts on workers in regional Queensland, particularly in the mining industry that is so prevalent in the Mackay area which I represent. Of most concern is the government’s plan to impose a new five per cent threshold of permanent physical impairment that has to be met before an injured worker can take legal action and sue a negligent employer. These are unnecessary changes that are being rammed through the House by an arrogant LNP government that is wielding its massive majority without regard to the wishes of the majority of Queenslanders. Make no mistake: these changes will hit all injured workers, but some sectors like mining and other heavy industries will be affected even more. The Attorney-General does not realise that the five per cent threshold for permanent impairment before a common law claim can be made will have devastating implications. It is now quite common for a spinal injury to cause an impairment of less than five per cent, but that does not mean that the injured person can continue working, especially in heavy industries such as mining. A bulging disc in your back could result in an impairment of less than five per cent, but it still means the worker is not able to continue working shifts of more than 12 hours at a time. Of course you do not have to be in the mining industry to be affected like this. You cannot do your job as a firefighter, an ambulance officer, a nurse or a myriad other occupations involving physical activity if you have a five per cent impairment from a spinal injury. In addition, the new threshold affects the treatment of pre-existing injuries. A doctor may assess a worker as seven per cent impaired, but if three per cent was pre-existing from an earlier injury that worker will still not be entitled to sue for compensation because their most recent impairment is only four per cent. Similarly, if a person sustains separate injuries over a period and is assessed as being more than five per cent impaired as a result, they may not be entitled to lodge a common law claim for any of them if each individual injury represents less than five per cent impairment. The fact is that for some workers an injury assessed as being less than five per cent permanent impairment will be the end of their career in that particular occupation. This will mean that they could face the prospect of having to find a new job which perhaps does not pay as well. The worker would then have to cope with lower wages for the rest of their working career. If they have taken out a mortgage based on a certain wage, then they face the prospect of financial hardship and perhaps even mortgage default if that wage is substantially reduced. These are the sorts of considerations that can be taken into account in common law claims, with an independent judicial officer responsible for making a determination after listening to both sides of the argument. In fact, when the independent judicial officer decides on a quantum, he or she takes into account all aspects of the case, that is, was there contributory negligence or was there a pre-existing injury, in determining the final quantum. The Newman government’s changes will also give employers access to people’s WorkCover history. This means employers will be able to check up on existing employees and get rid of them if they discover that those employees have made compensation claims in the past. They will also be able to check a potential employee’s file and not hire them if they have a previous WorkCover claim. So an injured employee sacked by one employer may not be able to obtain a new job because

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3462 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill potential employers will rule them out once they have access to their WorkCover files. That means that once any statutory benefits run out you are on a Centrelink benefit indefinitely—perhaps for the rest of your life. This is the vision that the arrogant Newman government has for Queensland working families. This is the way the Newman government views the employer-employee relationship. It wants to make it as hard as possible for employees to claim compensation for injuries outside their control while making it as easy as possible for employers to discriminate against those same workers. Other changes that will make it even harder for workers to receive fair compensation for their injuries include the abolition of Q-Comp and the restriction on appeal rights. Firstly, the abolition of Q-Comp, the regulatory body currently responsible for oversight of the workers compensation scheme, gets rid of the independent umpire. This is typical of the LNP. They watered down the Industrial Relations Commission. They starved the independent Crime and Misconduct Commission of funding and resources. Now they are abolishing Q-Comp and absorbing its functions into the Department of Justice and Attorney-General. So instead of having an independent body overseeing the operations of the workers compensation scheme, we will now have the Attorney-General interfering in its operations. Why should Queenslanders be worried by this? For several very good reasons. This is the man who cannot run a boot camp. This is the man who has an almost pathological dislike for workers, particularly those who are members of unions. This is the man who lists Joh Bjelke-Petersen as one of his idols. This is the man who has shown a strong propensity to interfere in the running of our independent judiciary. This is the man who was described just this morning, by one of his former LNP colleagues no less, as inexperienced and as someone who needs to listen to advice. This is not the sort of person we need having hands-on control of our workers compensation scheme. Another of the Attorney-General’s errors in this legislation is the abolition of the medical assessment tribunals. This means workers will have no right of appeal against any decisions that may be in dispute. Other states with whole-person-impairment thresholds have provided rights for workers to lodge appeals. But the Attorney-General will deny Queensland workers these rights by getting rid of the medical assessment tribunals. The Attorney-General will probably stand up in this House and claim that there are no appeal rights available currently so he does not need to have them in the future. But access to common law claims is an effective method of appeal at the moment. When this is taken away from workers with a whole-person impairment of up to five per cent, they will have no other avenues of appeal available to them. This is clearly another attack on the rights of workers. Not only has the Attorney-General betrayed workers with these changes; he has also betrayed the legal fraternity. In the lead-up to the 2012 state election the Queensland Law Society asked the two major parties—Labor and the LNP—for their views on a range of issues of importance to lawyers. One of the 11 priority issues for the Law Society was the workers compensation scheme. Specifically, the Law Society sought a commitment from each party to ensure that ‘Queenslanders have unrestricted access to common law actions in injury compensation schemes and fair compensation’. I want to emphasise: unrestricted access to common law claims for compensation was among the 11 high-priority issues for the Law Society. The member for Kawana, who was then the shadow Attorney-General, provided his response. I table the election edition of Proctor for the information of members. Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Queensland state election 2012, Features: Members’ issues brought to political heads’ [3801]. I want to read his own words into the record, because his commitment was quite explicit. He said— The LNP supports injury compensation schemes that provide for fair compensation for injured Queenslanders. The scheme must allow access to common law actions in appropriate circumstance (and regulated by statute), and schemes must be financially viable.

The LNP has no plans to ask Queensland small businesses to pay higher premiums— and here is the clincher— nor do we have any plans to reduce the availability of common law actions in appropriate circumstances. There we have it: clear proof in the Law Society’s Proctor magazine that the Attorney-General misled Queenslanders before the last state election—clear proof that the LNP was prepared to say anything to get elected, clear proof that the Newman LNP government cannot be trusted. I call on the Attorney-General to honour the commitments he made just 18 months ago and stop his plans to reduce workers’ access to common law claims for injury compensation.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3463 Amendment Bill

The Newman government may not have any ethics or any respect for workers in general and injured workers in particular. However, I am proud to say that the Labor Party will always defend the rights of workers and will always push for proper compensation for workers who may be injured on the job. Every worker, regardless of where they are employed, deserves the right to go home fit and healthy each night to their family and friends. Protecting workers’ rights is fundamental to the Labor Party. That is why we will be opposing these unnecessary and unjustified changes. As the Leader of the Opposition said in her speech on this bill— … when Labor returns to office we will scrap the changes being made here today. We will return the scheme to where it was before this greedy, uncaring, callous … LNP government and its equally callous … Attorney-General got their hands on it. In short, once again it will be Labor that delivers a workable and just workers compensation scheme to Queensland. I fully support what the leader said. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (4.56 pm): I rise to speak to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. I joined the Finance and Administration Committee in only February this year. It had certainly had all of its hearings in relation to the workers compensation scheme review. I would have to add to other speakers and commend the then chair, the member for Coomera, and the members of that committee for their dedication to the cause. I have some very strong views in relation to workers compensation. My views in some instances do not align with those of the Attorney-General. I have to, though, commend the Attorney-General and the LNP government for retaining journey claims. There was a real fear in the community that journey claims would be abolished. In a decentralised state such as Queensland, that would be both abhorrent and unfair. We have so many people who in the course of their employment travel, including travel to and from work, quite significant distances. To abolish journey claims would be to put those people at significant financial risk, emotional risk and risk in terms of their job security. I commend the Attorney-General for retaining journey claims and certainly hope that well into the future no change is made to that aspect of workers compensation. There are quite a number of changes proposed to the act—changes from work related impairment to degree of permanent injury. I will speak about that a little later on. What I should say at this point is that the current workers compensation scheme is sustainable. The review showed that it is sustainable financially. The scheme is fair. There has been a plethora of changes since I had the privilege of joining this parliament in 1995. There were a huge number of changes made in 1996, some of which were disadvantageous to workers and some of which endeavoured to put the scheme on a sound financial footing. Not all of the changes that were being asked for went through because there was, at that stage, a call to have journey claims abolished. The fund now is strong. The fund withstood the 2007-08 global financial crisis—it withstood it well—and the scheme does encourage safer workplaces. The scheme runs soundly, in part, because it has a short claims tail and, as the member for Mulgrave said, has moved from a $199 million profit to a $517 million profit just in the last few years. This is a scheme that we should not be talking about in terms of profit. Rather than that money being used by successive governments—and successive governments certainly have taken a financial withdrawal out of the fund and used it for other government services—that money should be quarantined so that it can be either reinvested into coverage and services for injured workers or to reduce premiums. We cannot deal with the injured worker without having some consideration for the employer in terms of their financial exposure. But we have the second lowest premium in this nation and yet, maintaining that second lowest premium in the nation, we have still had access to common law. We have not had a common law threshold, so I oppose that common law threshold altogether. The scheme does not need it in terms of viability. The advice that I received from the Law Society was that a five per cent threshold would remove something like 55 per cent to 60 per cent of all claims and yet when we look at the amount of money that goes to the settlement of common law claims it is, in the overall scheme of the fund, not a huge amount of money. So implementing this threshold is disadvantageous to workers and is not necessary because the scheme is financially sound. The Queensland Law Society raised with me a number of points, and it put these in its submission to the committee. All major stakeholders agree that the fundamental short-tail structure of the scheme should not be changed. It said that the workers compensation scheme weathered the upheavals of 2007-08, that now all actuarial analysis of the scheme is positive, and that change to the structure of the scheme will create uncertainty and problems for the scheme. With regard to the fact

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3464 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill that some stakeholders have called for thresholds to access common law, this will fundamentally alter the nature of the scheme and will have an adverse impact on public liability premiums and yet not have a net benefit for industry. With open access to common law claims, Queensland has the second lowest workers compensation premium of any scheme in the nation, second only to Victoria, which is just marginally below Queensland. Last financial year, as I have already said, Queensland made a $199 million profit or benefit. I also want to address the issue of the five per cent permanent impairment as opposed to work related impairment. I remember that there was a recent advertisement. I do not think it was an advertising blitz from the government but was an advertising blitz that talked about an injured worker with an injured finger who received $600,000 or something in a common law payout and the advertisement made the clear inference that an injured finger certainly was not worth that much. It would be if you were a concert pianist and it would be if you were a violinist. Mr Rickuss interjected. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I will take that interjection. I do not know if it was linked to that, but then neither does anybody else who saw the ad. That is the nonsense of it, because a person’s injury could preclude them from what they are trained to do and to be re-employed in another area requires training and it requires gaining experience at a time when they are already emotionally traumatised and physically recovering. Putting people through— Mr Rickuss interjected. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I am not going to take your interjections, member for Lockyer. They are inane and they do not reflect the concerns of the community that I represent. The workers compensation system as it currently stands is solid—financially solid. It looks after injured workers. The changes that have occurred over the last few years have not fully rolled through the scheme. We have not seen all of the results of those changes, and yet here we are making a change that will disadvantage workers. I have had a lot of experience. I do not know everything. I wish I could say I did. I do not. I refer to the workers compensation scheme when Santo Santoro was the minister and indeed, without trying to be disrespectful—and it could be erroneous—this has got his fingerprints all over it. He wanted to get rid of journey claims. He wanted to get rid of access to common law. Each time the conservative government gets into power this is the sort of stuff that occurs. Fundamentally today, the scheme is sound and yet people who are injured at work are going to be made to feel uncertain because of these changes that are not necessary. I wish I could be as sure of winning the lotto: the unions will agitate because of these changes because it is an area of uncertainty in the community that is rich for harvest. Again, I go back to the point: it is not necessary. It is not necessary. The bill also means that prospective workers have to give a prospective employer access to their WorkCover history. I understand both sides of the argument as to why an employer should be able to get access to a potential worker’s claims history because they do not want to employ somebody who may have something that is really difficult to judge. If someone has had a prolonged back injury, it is not immediately obvious. It is not easy to determine, but it can have a significant impact on that person’s ability to do work and also in the probability of that worker claiming workers compensation into the future. So I can understand why employers are looking to be able to access that information. It makes prospective employees, however, incredibly vulnerable. When one of the major subcontractors for the LNG industry in our area started employing a few years ago it actually said—I am not sure that it had legislative cover to do this—to prospective workers, ‘You’ve got to tell me what your workers compensation history is.’ Quite a number of workers came into my office very concerned about the fact that they were having to divulge this information and, almost without exception, if they had a history of a back injury or something like that they were not employed. I honestly do not know where the balance is for this particular issue. I do know, however, that it significantly disadvantages workers in that, even though some injuries most probably would not affect their ability to do that job, once a prospective employer knows about that injury it would certainly colour the decision making of that prospective employer. Again, there is a second string to that bow where a prospective employer will be able to request the prospective worker’s claims history from the regulator and pay a fee. I am pleased to see that there is a safeguard in that the request must have the prospective worker’s consent but, honestly, the worker is on a flogging to nothing because if that person does not give consent for the prospective employer to get the history from the regulator they probably will not get a job. If the prospective employee gives consent—I think it will be Hobson’s

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3465 Amendment Bill choice for them not to—they also risk not being employed. Human nature in the employment area says that if an employer is presented with a person with similar skills who has no workers compensation claims history and somebody who may have a workers compensation claims history, albeit not related to that type of work, they will pick the person who has no history whatsoever. I acknowledge that there has been a campaign by the Together union and the WorkCover Protection Coalition in relation to these matters. Again, I do not understand why it is an issue that is being taken on by the government. The scheme is sound financially. It is in a good position. The precedents have been set through court cases so people have a clear understanding of what is and is not eligible. The status quo could be left and this government would receive quite a high level of kudos from the community. However, the decision has been made to go down this path and I think it will disadvantage members at the next election. People would have read the advertisements in the Courier-Mail and the other major papers about myths and facts. I do not want to read all of them, but the first one states— Interstate schemes run better.

The information that the Workcover Protection Coalition presents as facts are these—

WorkCover Queensland is the best and fairest scheme in Australia: It’s fully funded and runs at a healthy profit to government It has the second lowest employer premiums in Australia It has amongst the best rehabilitation and return to work rates in Australia It enables employees to sue only if an injury is caused by employer negligence It provides coverage for employees injured on the way to or from work Other states have higher employer premiums, less employee benefits, more disputes, more wasted time fighting in courts, and bigger legal bills. … The Queensland scheme is going from strength to strength, while other State schemes are going backwards. Why risk the same for us? I ask the Attorney-General to reconsider. I think the five per cent threshold to common law claims is unnecessary. I think that using the five per cent—and it used to be whole-person impairment; it is now called degree of permanent injury—fails to take into account the relevance of that injury to the person’s training, skills, ability and work. I think there is a real risk that people who should be covered and who should have access to common law will not have access to common law. Years ago—many years ago now; I was about eight or nine—my father had a work injury. He crushed his hand between two sugarcane train buffers. He was in hospital for weeks and weeks and weeks and ended up having a live skin graft. In those days—you can do it now—you could not terminate the employment of somebody who was on workers compensation; you had to continue to have their position available to them until they were fully recovered and able to go back to work. It took dad a long time but he went back to work and he was a very good, if I might say so, employee for the Bingera sugar mill. That protection is not afforded to people now. They can be sacked while they are on workers compensation. But at least the current protections gave workers confidence that, if they needed to, they could access common law. Again, I commend the government for retaining journey claims—may they stay into the future—but the proposed changes will disadvantage employees. It will disadvantage families at a time when they are most vulnerable because of injuries and most vulnerable to family disconnect and most vulnerable to financial hardship. I think that it is unnecessary and reprehensible and I will not be supporting it. Hon. JA STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Small Business and the Commonwealth Games) (5.13 pm): I rise to speak to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, introduced into this place by the honourable Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and member for Kawana on 15 October 2013 and, in doing so, I add my support for this legislation. In my capacity as the Minister for Small Business I speak today on behalf of almost 190,000 small and medium sized enterprises throughout our great state that welcome a fairer system and one that will deliver protection for injured workers. For too long our small business community has been suffocated with layers of red tape from a Labor government and prohibitive regulations, and this bill provides some relief. As the Attorney-General outlined in his introductory speech, this bill aims to ensure the ongoing success and viability of Queensland’s workers compensation scheme by reducing duplication, simplifying regulatory processes and ensuring that compensation is available and accessible to help

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3466 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill injured workers get back on their feet, literally speaking. The changes aim to strike a better balance between providing appropriate benefits for injured workers but at the same time keeping the costs incurred by employers reasonable. This bill relates to seven areas of workers compensation including journey claims, cracking down on fraudulent claims, rehabilitation and return to work, definition of ‘injury’, disclosure of previous injuries or claims history, common law threshold and Q-Comp transition. I will expand on each of those areas in a moment. This bill will make Queensland premiums the cheapest in Australia again and reduce the baseline general premium rate by more than 15 per cent. We will have one of the lowest average premium rates for employers whilst maintaining the appropriate coverage for injured workers. In the past Queensland had the lowest average premium rate in Australia, and the Newman government wants to keep it that way. However, since 2009 the average premium rate in Queensland has increased by around 20 per in Queensland. Simply put, Queensland businesses and employers are not seeing value for money from their workers compensation premiums. Queenslanders want an affordable scheme that helps injured workers get back to work as quickly as possible. That is why the Finance and Administration Committee undertook an inquiry into the operation of Queensland’s workers compensation scheme. The committee tabled its report on 23 May 2013 and since that time the Newman government has implemented a number of the 32 recommendations contained in the report. Of the 32 recommendations, 12 are of a legislative nature while 20 recommendations involve administrative and structural arrangements. The Queensland government response to the committee’s report supports the majority of these recommendations. The first of the seven areas to be covered by the bill relates to journey claims made by employees travelling to and from their place of work. The Newman government is retaining unrestricted access to journey claims because it recognises that a state as large and decentralised as Queensland presents unique circumstances and we support a large fly-in fly-out workforce. I am pleased to say that we are the only state to maintain journey claims for every worker. The second issue this bill addresses is fraudulent claims. Cracking down on fraudulent claims will not only help reduce premiums but also save employers undue stress and hassle. We are changing the law to require that WorkCover refer all allegations of fraud related offences to the scheme regulator for investigation. Additionally, we are increasing the penalties for fraudulent claims, with maximum penalties of 500 penalty units or five years imprisonment—an increase from a maximum of 400 penalty units or 18 months imprisonment. The third matter this bill covers is rehabilitation and return to work. This bill will require insurers to refer injured workers to an accredited return-to-work program to facilitate improved return-to-work outcomes and minimise the injured worker’s future economic loss. The fourth issue this bill addresses is the definition of ‘injury’. No longer will psychological or psychiatric claims be considered as an injury unless employment can be proven to be the major significant contributing factor. The fifth matter this bill covers relates to the disclosure of previous injuries and claims history. In the past, workers were required to provide an employer with a notification of previous injuries if requested by the employer. This bill reintroduces this clause and enables employers to be able to access a prospective worker’s claims history. This will allow employers to be able to mitigate any risks of aggravating a pre-existing injury or condition when recruiting workers. The sixth matter the bill addresses is the common law threshold for workers compensation claims. The government is retaining access to common law claims except for those with a medically assessed impairment of five per cent or less because seriously injured workers deserve to have adequate compensation. In 2009-10 the board of WorkCover Queensland, under former chairman Ian Brusasco, recommended that the government introduce a 10 per cent to 15 per cent threshold on common law claims. Under our proposed changes, we believe we have got the balance right with the above five per cent threshold. Since 2010 the number of lower-end common law claims has remained constant or increased in certain work related impairment bands, which is of significant concern to the government. All injured workers are entitled to compensation under the statutory payment scheme, which is a no-fault scheme. Statutory compensation provides weekly compensation for lost wages, medical expenses and a lump sum payment until a worker’s injury is stable. It should be noted that

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3467 Amendment Bill the statutory claim process is far more efficient than that of a common law claim. The government believes these claims are more appropriately dealt with through the statutory no-fault system instead of through the courts. The seventh and last area this bill covers is the Q-Comp transition. As part of the government’s commitment to strive for improvements in front-line services, the current workers compensation regulator, Q-Comp, will be merged into the Office of Fair and Safe Work Queensland in the Department of Justice and Attorney-General. This transition will specify that current Q-Comp employees will be no worse off. This merger will enable government to reduce duplication and inefficiencies in the current structure and end the general confusion about the roles of WorkCover Queensland and the regulatory framework. This bill is supported by many industry organisations including the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland, the Housing Industry Association and Master Builders Queensland. In a media release Nick Behrens from CCIQ said— The Queensland business community welcomes the government’s decision to restore fairness in the system to ensure the interests of both employee and employer are met. HIA Queensland’s executive director, Warwick Temby, said on Tuesday— HIA also supports the government’s commitment to return-to-work programs and rehabilitation. This is what the workers’ compensation system should be focused on rather than how to maximise common law claims. Grant Galvin, the executive director of Master Builders Queensland, said— Our industry has had on average a 23 per cent increase in workers’ compensation premiums over the last four years, meaning it has one of the highest rates in Queensland. The changes announced by the government today are estimated to reduce premiums by at least 13 per cent, whilst ensuring that the scheme remains fully funded and sustainable, and effectively balances the interests of employers and workers. I believe that Mr Galvin summed up industry’s response to this bill when he said— We believe that the Newman government’s changes to the scheme will make a clear statement to the rest of Australia that Queensland is once again open for business with a robust, fair and cost effective workers’ compensation system. Like many honourable members in the House, over past months my electorate office has been contacted by many individuals and some unions expressing their views relating to this issue. The comments are varied, but there has been a very clear theme of concern relating to journey claims when travelling to and from work—an aspect that this legislation does not change, so I am confident Currumbin locals will be very pleased this aspect has remained the same. There was also a desire by some to leave the current workers compensation scheme untouched but, as with many schemes across various portfolios, such as the Public Works BSA overhaul, regular reviews are seen as a necessary and somewhat healthy initiative. This new legislation will ensure the Queensland scheme is the fairest in the nation, with the most coverage for workers and the lowest premiums for employers. Queenslanders deserve the best in the nation and that is what the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 sets out to do. This bill will go a long way to guaranteeing the ongoing success and viability of Queensland’s workers compensation scheme in years to come. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (5.23 pm): The workers of Queensland are united against this bill. The workers of Queensland deserve safe workplaces. They have a right to be safe carrying out their duties through their employment. Husbands and wives, partners, mums and dads, kids and dependents of workers need to know that when their loved ones leave for work they will return safe and sound at the end of every shift. Unfortunately, due to no fault of their own, some workers come home injured or, worse still, they do not come home at all. This is something I was reminded of on Sunday at the Collinsville mine memorial service. It is a stark and clear reminder of the dangers many workers face in their workplaces. It is a shame that the Attorney-General seems to have such a limited grasp of workplaces, the work people undertake and the risk of injuries in a range of professions. He may have a limited grasp of their roles, but they have a clear understanding of the part that he and members of the LNP opposite are playing in dismantling the best WorkCover system in this country. They are so aware of the Attorney-General that many people have labelled him ‘Kim Jong Bleijie’. They label the Attorney-General this because no-one else but a clone of a North Korean dictator— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berry): Order! Member for Bundamba, that is unparliamentary. Mr BLEIJIE: I rise to a point of order. I ask the member to withdraw. I find the comments offensive and not fit for a person in the office of the member for Bundamba.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3468 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bundamba, just compose yourself. Mrs MILLER: I am composed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not want you to smile about it. Are you prepared to withdraw? Mrs MILLER: I am prepared to withdraw. A government member interjected. Mrs MILLER: And I withdraw. He asked me if I was prepared to, I said yes, and I withdraw. He is going to dismantle this system after introducing draconian bikie laws and then appointing himself as a judge. Attorney-General Bleijie has now turned his attention to the rights of workers who are injured at work. This current Attorney-General has moved to set up a system that gives a person more rights if they slip in a shopping centre at Coles than if they are hurt by a negligent employer. This self-appointed ‘Judge Judy’ is now determining what is worthy of compensation and what is not. This Attorney-General has determined that workers have less rights when injured in their workplaces than others. This is despite common law claims numbers, claim rates and payments decreasing. That is right: they have been decreasing, so there is no urgency, no rush and no crisis. This is Bleijie’s ideological attack on the rights— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bundamba, please address the Attorney-General by his proper title. Mrs MILLER: Thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will go back and address the Attorney-General. This Attorney-General’s ideological attack on the rights of workers is nothing more than an LNP view that basically ignores the LNP’s own party members on the parliamentary committee, his former colleagues from his days as an articled clerk and a lawyer, a variety of personal injury lawyer specialists, as well as trade unions working for injured workers. I have to say that maybe it would be worthwhile checking if the Attorney-General has a form of industrial deafness as he clearly cannot, or at worst he will not, listen to expert advice when he makes these crazy contributions to public life. Submissions from the legal fraternity clearly show that this out-of-touch and arrogant Attorney-General believes that he is above the legal profession that he was so recently a junior member of. That is why they refer to him as an articled clerk. The Queensland Law Society submitted that one of the key goals of WorkCover, returning people into valuable work, had a risk of losing Queensland’s outstanding 98 per cent return rate. The society believes the changes could not act against attracting business to Queensland as we would no longer have such a low-cost, efficient and effective system. The society states that employer premiums will increase, putting an impost on business, as had happened when other systems have followed this disastrous path. There will be more cost on business and more stress on its ability to employ Queenslanders. I turn to some references from legal firms. Trilby Misso’s submission hit the nail on the head when it stated— The changes will be prejudicial to lower paid workers and deny them access to social justice and compensation. Slater & Gordon pointed out the fact that, at times of stressed household budgets—something this government claims to care about, but this is yet another example of its actions not reflecting its words—families will struggle with health costs and the loss of income that workplace injuries clearly impose. In its submission, Hall Payne Lawyers highlighted the grave injustice these changes will have on workers. It goes further than saying these changes are unjust, inequitable and a retrograde step. It says that these changes to the threshold test will deny a majority of the most deserving injured workers the right to access common law remedies. This out-of-touch Attorney-General has immaturely handled his role and taken away rights from a majority of injured workers in Queensland. By withdrawing access to justice for the vulnerable low-paid workers injured through negligent employers, this Attorney-General attacks the rights of Queenslanders to stand up for themselves and for their families. These are real people with rents to pay, mortgages to pay off, kids to send to school and to sporting events while also dealing with rising electricity costs, rising water costs and rising day-to-day costs of living under this LNP government. I now turn to a few examples of how this draconian legislation will affect real people in our workforce. These are real-life examples of real people who will suffer financially and socially under this bumbling far right wing ideology. The first example: a Beenleigh paramedic assaulted at work and suffering while undertaking their duties, with bruising and psychological trauma, would receive limited time off and support to deal with their workplace injury but should receive ongoing counselling and

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3469 Amendment Bill support. This is a paramedic who has been injured at work; they have been assaulted at work. If assessed under the five per cent rule, they would receive no compensation for injury, wages lost or any ongoing medical costs. An officer at Mason Street tore a nerve whilst lifting, with other officers, an obese patient. That paramedic now suffers significant pain, loss of movement and strength and is on light duties for 18 months. Again, if that paramedic is assessed at below the five per cent threshold, she could be out of pocket and unable to return to her profession as she could not undertake the workload. These are dedicated paramedics who are unable to return to the profession that they undertook. Most of them undertake this profession not for the money and certainly not for the conditions that this LNP government seeks to strip from them, but for the benefit of everybody in our community. Paramedics study hard for years and they do a job that they love because they love the people in their local communities. I turn to the electricity industry and some examples of workers who would suffer substantially because of this mean spirited and ideologically right-wing driven Attorney-General. For a live linesperson with a five per cent impairment from disk protrusion, the initial offer was $13,500. The common law claim was settled for $155,000 clear of the insurer’s refund. For a lineperson with a four per cent impairment from a crushed finger, the initial offer was $8,737. The common law claim settled was $210,750 clear of the insurer’s refund. For a signal electrician with zero per cent impairment for a lower back injury, the initial offer was nothing. The common law claim was $50,000 clear of the insurer’s refund. Mr Bleijie interjected. Mrs MILLER: For a power generation plant officer—wait for this one, Attorney-General— Mr Bleijie: I am waiting, with anticipation. Mrs MILLER: Well, wait. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berry): Order! Member for Bundamba, could you please address all your remarks through the chair? Mrs MILLER: I will, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Bleijie: Were you sacked from the JP branch because of incompetence? Mrs MILLER: I take that interjection, because you have just misled the House. Mr Bleijie: I asked you a question. Mrs MILLER: No. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Attorney-General and member for Bundamba, please direct all your comments through the chair. Mrs MILLER: For a power generation plant operator with a zero per cent impairment from a lower back injury, the initial offer was nothing. The common law claim was $385,000 clear of the insurer’s refund. Those are examples of workers lawfully seeking justice under a scheme that is far from being in trouble. It is in such a strong financial position that it made a $500 million profit. From my own electorate of Bundamba, I give two clear examples from people who have contacted my office, deeply concerned about this legislation and how it will impact on people just like them. Ashleigh Degen was working on a gas line project as a driller’s offsider. She was working with another driller on testing a pipe’s pressure, known as drifting the pipe with air. Drifts are placed in the drill pipe with a wire rope attached to a hook at the end of the drift. The pipes have a cap on them. The caps are modified for air filling and are required to be certified. However, in this case the cap was made by another employee and was not certified. It could not hold the pressure and, as a result, exploded and crashed into Ashleigh’s hand. Despite her wearing approved safety gloves, she was left with a hand injury. She has ongoing pain and bruising, and can no longer undertake the manual parts of her job. Ashleigh now has an administrative job on lower pay. Sadly, she is unlikely to return to the job she was doing. Ultimately, she wanted to work up from being an assistant to being a driller. Despite this, she was assessed as having a zero per cent permanent impairment. She is seeking compensation for loss of wages and ongoing medical expenses which, if these draconian laws are introduced, she would not be able to do.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3470 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

Also from my electorate is the case of Lee Sietzema, who was injured at work while repeatedly lifting 20 kilogram-plus mailboxes. As a result, she has suffered injuries to her right wrist, carpal tunnel and tendonitis to her right elbow. The provision of a folding trolley by her employer would have prevented those injuries by eliminating the need for lifting and carrying the boxes. She has not been able to return to work. At age 54 and with this compensation claim it will be difficult to find a sympathetic employer to give her work. She was assessed at two per cent by an external medical officer for WorkCover. Under these laws she would be unable to seek compensation. This is a real life case which shows how people will suffer financially, personally and emotionally— real people who this government and this arrogant Attorney-General ignore because of their narrow, right-wing, ideological war on workers. Today I attended a rally outside Parliament House where a couple of thousand workers were protesting against these draconian laws. I was out there with them. The workers united will never be defeated! Attorney-General, enjoy your last few months here. My advice is for the Attorney-General to get his CV updated. Let us see what law firm would lower themselves to employ an Attorney-General of this calibre. Maybe after the next state election the Attorney-General— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berry): Order! Member for Bundamba, that is unparliamentary. I ask you to withdraw it. Mrs MILLER: I withdraw. Maybe the Attorney-General might even have to leave the state if he sought another junior job. The workers of Queensland intend to let absolutely every elector in Kawana know that this MP is kicking every worker in Queensland in the guts, including those in his own electorate. I have a proven track record in my community and across Queensland for fighting for what is right. This legislation is not right. In fact, this legislation is all wrong. It is all wrong. This Attorney-General will wear this legislation as a crown of thorns around his head. I will fight this unjust legislation on behalf of our workers whilst this tory LNP government is in power. I look forward to the day when the next Labor government rescinds this legislation. That day is not too far away. May I say to this Attorney-General: ‘Don’t get comfortable because you are not going to be there that much longer.’ Mr GULLEY (Murrumba—LNP) (5.42 pm): I rise to support the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. That is a very hard act to follow in terms entertainment. Mr Bleijie: Reg, it’s always hard to follow a clown. Mr GULLEY: Correct. I do not quite have the clown skills. Mrs MILLER: Mr Deputy Speaker— Mr GULLEY: I withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Attorney and the member for Murrumba, that is unparliamentary. Mrs MILLER: I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I find the comments by the member for Murrumba and the Attorney-General across the chamber personally offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Murrumba has apologised and I have censured the Attorney-General for calling out. I think we can now move on. I call the member for Murrumba. Mr GULLEY: I promise that my speech will shorter than 18 minutes long. I rise to speak to the bill as a member of the Finance and Administration Committee. We conducted an extensive review. We had two chairs of the committee over the course of the review—the member for Coomera, Michael Crandon, and later the member for Capalaba, Steve Davies. It was an extensive review involving many committee hearings. I acknowledge those who took the time and energy to contribute to that statutory, periodic review. We had employers, insurers, lawyers, unions, professional groups, interest groups and individuals contribute. Some of the individual presentations and submissions were very heartfelt and very meaningful. This is certainly a topic that seriously touches many lives. We had 246 written submissions, 18 public hearings, five in-camera hearings and five briefings. I would certainly like to take this time to thank the parliamentary committee staff for their support in this process.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3471 Amendment Bill

I would like to acknowledge that any injury in the workplace is regrettable. I would certainly like to acknowledge that an injury can have not only a physical effect but also an emotional and psychological effect. Let us look at the big picture in terms of the reforms that have been introduced by this bill. The message we received during the committee process was that, when compared nationally, the Queensland scheme is an effective scheme. It stacks up quite well against the other states. That said, there are still clear opportunities for improvement. I would like to compliment the minister for taking this opportunity to reform the system. Non-reforming and politically motivated governments can often take the easy way out, sit on their hands and take an effective program and let it go stale. Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr GULLEY: Do nothing and the train slowly arrives. Correct. I congratulate the Attorney-General for being a reformer. This is a great state and we have great opportunities. I thank him for taking the opportunity to reform. The Queensland scheme works well partly because it is a short-tail scheme. It has a high return-to-work rate. One of the key tenets of workers compensation is workers returning to work. The best outcome for people is to get back to work and receive compensation for any loss incurred. I now turn to the legal firms. I note today’s Brisbane Times law article by Amy Remeikis, which states that Shine Lawyers predict losing $2 to $2½ million due to the WorkCover reforms. I note that Shine Lawyers is an ASX listed company. ASX listed companies are required to disclose significant changes to their business. Hence that is why this is in the news for them today. Who pays this $2½ million? Is it claimants who pay? No. This $2½ million comes from those with insurance policies. Often they are the mum and dad businesses from my electorate and other electorates. Mr Newman: It’s $2½ million that should have gone to the people themselves, not to the pocket of lawyers. Mr GULLEY: That is right. I take that interjection from the Premier. During our hearings whenever the lawyers were asked, ‘What is your cut? What is your profit out of this?’ the ducking, weaving and diving would have done the average rugby league half-back proud. It showed that these guys had something to hide and protect. Due to the ASX requirement of timely disclosure we have an admission today of the effect on the bottom line of lawyers. I will now move on to talk about union media. I was listening to ABC Radio on Tuesday morning driving in and noted the language they used when talking about claims for injuries of less than five per cent impairment. They were very clear in their inference that there was no ability for workers compensation under five per cent. It was a very clever use of language. Clearly, this legislation retains the very important statutory claims for injuries of less than five per cent impairment. We acknowledge that five per cent is an arbitrary line in the sand and we certainly acknowledge that the intent is to declog the system of trivial claims. Certainly, there is no intent here to hurt genuine claimants through this process. But at all times there is still the process of statutory claims and that is very important to retain. We acknowledge that a balance has been retained, and I believe it is a justifiable outcome by the Attorney. I would now like to talk about the merge of Q-Comp into the department. I must admit that during the committee process this was the first time I fully understood the demarcation between WorkCover, other self-insurers and Q-Comp. I welcome the efficiencies that will be gained by Q-Comp being brought back into the Office of Fair and Safe Work Queensland as the regulator within DJAG. I note that the briefing notes state that all staff will be retained through that process. I want to thank the Attorney for in many ways improving efficiency. In looking at the green paper on this bill, I would like to address the fundamental legislative principles and explore the concept of retrospectivity. I clearly state that this bill only applies to injuries that occur after the assent to this bill. If you have been injured, you still have time to put your claim in under the existing claims process. I would like to acknowledge the fairness of the Attorney in relation to the fundamental legislative principle process. I would now like to move on to talk about fraud and insurance. Unfortunately we live in a society where if there is easy money to be made by claiming insurance fraudulently we leave ourselves open to people who may test the system. I certainly welcome the changes under WorkCover where importantly—and this is the key here—all allegations of fraud will be referred to the regulator. In many ways you need to be an independent referee of your own performance. Previously

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3472 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

WorkCover was the insurer but also the adjudicator of whether or not there was fraud. That put WorkCover in a position of having a conflict of interest. Now we are moving to a situation where all claims of potential fraud—and that is key; potential fraud—will go to the independent regulator to assess whether or not there has been fraud. I would now like to move on to talk about disclosure of previous injury. I welcome this and I welcome it from the perspective of balance. We have moved from in many ways zero up to more of a middle road approach. I will give an example. I note that the previous speaker loved to give examples, so I will give an example. This example—and I stress this—was given to me before the committee commenced its WorkCover review. This example was given to me by a small employer in my electorate who needed to employ a businessman. The employer, being a community minded person, took on a long-term unemployed person—and I applaud him for that. Unfortunately for the long-term unemployed person that role was not working out. The employee got a whiff that termination was coming and literally minutes before termination he put in a claim for a sore back from an injury that apparently, possibly or allegedly, had occurred sometime before that date. Lawyers were involved and he received a $400,000 payout. After the case, the employer from my electorate discovered that that former employee had a history of WorkCover claims and a history of six-figure payouts. In many ways those claims contributed to his long-term unemployment because he had the ability to live off those funds. So I welcome the balance and I welcome the ability for employers to be able to access information about previous claims. I would now like to move on to talk about the increased penalties that this legislation offers. It is often a sad reflection that the ALP is soft on fraud. I applaud our new Attorney-General— Mr Newman: They are frauds themselves, if you ask me. Mr GULLEY: Yes, they are frauds themselves. Mr Newman: The National President of the Australian Labor Party. Mr GULLEY: Yes, the national president of— Mr Bleijie: Michael Williamson, HSU. Mr GULLEY: Michael Williamson, HSU—absolutely. Mr Bleijie: Bill Ludwig’s legal fees paid, $50,000; the racing inquiry— Mr GULLEY: The racing inquiry. Mr Bleijie: The health inquiry. Mr GULLEY: The health inquiry. Mr Bleijie: Gordon Nuttall. Mr GULLEY: Gordon Nuttall. Mr Bleijie: Merri Rose. Mr GULLEY: Merri Rose. Mr Newman: Why would they be interested in fraud? Mr GULLEY: They are clearly not interested in fraud because it hides their own core behaviour. I applaud the Attorney for his strong character and for increasing penalties for those convicted of fraud. I would now like to move on to talk about psychological injury. I acknowledge Bruce Flegg, the member for Moggill, and how he led that debate in our committee. Unfortunately he is not here in the chamber to hear this. I would like to acknowledge that psychological injury is a complex field. It is a difficult field. I certainly applaud, again, the balance that the Attorney has tried to introduce in this field. I will now move on to talk about travel claims. I applaud the Attorney for retaining travel claims. We live in a diverse state. We live in a provincial state, a regional state. Certainly the member for Gladstone was quite adamant and vocal in our committee meetings for the retention of travel claims. Travel claims are a genuine inclusion. Unlike other states who do not have travel claims, we in Queensland certainly deserve and should retain travel claims. I would now like to touch on the comments made by the member for Mackay about profit. It seems that the ALP associates the term ‘profit’ with being a dirty concept, as an immoral concept— that profits should not be earned either by private or in this case by public entities. Public entities

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3473 Amendment Bill need to ensure that they are profitable to retain capital adequacy so that they are secure organisations that can withstand shocks like the global financial crisis and like potential natural disasters when there are multiple claims. It is right and proper that WorkCover retains a secure capital base and each year WorkCover should make a surplus. I find the member for Mackay’s comments clearly political and clearly a clever— Mr Newman: I bet he hopes his super fund makes a profit. Mr GULLEY: Correct, yes. Public funds need to be profitable and they need to make surpluses. Clearly through the media they are trying to manipulate people who do not have the opportunity to do a full analysis. They used that seven-second grab to try to trick and manipulate the public into thinking that WorkCover was doing the wrong thing. May I say that WorkCover was doing the right thing by making an adequate and sensible surplus. I conclude by saying that I support this bill. Mr JUDGE (Yeerongpilly—UAP) (5.59 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate. This bill is the Newman government’s tailor-made version of Work Choices for Queensland. The former Prime Minister John Howard regretted it; the current Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, learnt from it; but the Newman government is embracing and enacting it. I oppose it. I refer to the WorkCover legislation that was urgently introduced into the House in a very undemocratic way yesterday. The legislation introduces an unjust and unfair five per cent threshold on access to common law damages. It is another example of the Newman government circumventing the legal system: ‘Judge Jarrod’ at it again. I am aware that the LNP has lost membership over the proposal. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berry): Order! Member for Yeerongpilly, it is unparliamentary to refer to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice by that description. If you are going to refer to the Attorney-General you must refer to him by his proper title. Mr JUDGE: I withdraw. The LNP has lost membership over this proposed legislation. They are extremely concerned about the way in which the Newman government is proceeding with legislation. It is abusing the parliamentary process and behaving in an extremely concerning and undemocratic manner. In relation to the WorkCover legislation, prominent legal professionals have been frustrated by the Attorney-General’s refusal to consult with peak bodies like the Queensland Law Society in relation to WorkCover. He has dismissed the Queensland Law Society as being self-interested, as did the Premier this morning, during the debate this afternoon. I think it is important to point out that the Queensland Law Society represents lawyers for both employees and employers. So it is simply a matter of logic that they cannot be regarded as self-interested. They are representing employers as well as employees; they have a balanced view of this legislation. Most importantly, over the last 16 years there have been major changes to WorkCover and the Queensland Law Society has worked very carefully with all governments to ensure fairness to both employers and employees—the workers. The Attorney and the business community have complained about premium increases. The premium increases occurred mainly in 2008-09 due to the GFC. Contrary to the myth that the legal profession is self-interested, it was actually the Queensland Law Society which addressed all of the concerns of the business community as to the rise in premiums. Accordingly, in 2010 the government refused to introduce thresholds like every other state because thresholds do not work, as evidenced by high premium increases in every other state. Furthermore, thresholds are extremely unfair because the arbitrary impairments determined by doctors and paid by WorkCover do not assess disability—meaning one’s ability to complete workplace activities. Queensland has had extensive reviews of thresholds from the Kennedy review to the latest parliamentary WorkCover inquiry and it has been ascertained that thresholds do not lower costs. I repeat: thresholds do not lower costs. It is interesting that, no matter what thresholds have been introduced, the schemes become very unprofitable. With good tort reform in Queensland, such as the Ipp review, Personal Injuries Proceedings Review Act 2002, the Civil Liability Act 2003 and the 2010 amendments, many of the abusers of the old common law system have been removed and the common law works well with the scheme to ensure profitability and fairness. The 2010 amendments have brought the Queensland workers compensation scheme up to date with tort reform that has been operating in other schemes for over a decade. Thresholds are not the answer to ensuring profitability and viability of schemes. It is good that the parliamentary WorkCover inquiry understood this. Thresholds represent an arbitrary and unjust sledgehammer approach and are not cost effective in any event. Indeed, schemes that have thresholds are in a much worse financial state to that of WorkCover Queensland, while delivering substandard outcomes for injured workers. Thresholds simply do not contain costs and

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3474 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill have not improved the profitability of those schemes. Unions in Queensland will never accept thresholds, as we have learnt from past battles. Thresholds will result in upheaval and industrial action. Governments in other states must concede that thresholds are an absolute failure in ensuring sustainability and fairness. Whole-person-impairment thresholds based on American Medical Association guides provide a very poor assessment of the impact of injury on a person’s life. Any threshold for physical injury based on the guidelines will affect Queensland workers who suffer injuries in a workplace accident— and not only minor claims. For example, a five per cent WPI threshold will remove access to damages from approximately 50 per cent of injured workers and severely limit access to justice as a result. A whole-person-impairment threshold takes no account of pain, suffering, continuing disability or loss of enjoyment of life due to injury. It also ignores the actual impact of the injury on a person’s capacity to work in their chosen field or engage in sporting or recreational activities. It is very strange that access to damages for pain and suffering, economic loss and the like should depend on an assessment tool which specifically precludes the consideration of pain and suffering and workplace disability that has resulted from an injury. There is no evidence that the Queensland workers compensation scheme is not operating effectively, which brings into serious doubt the logical basis for the introduction of a threshold. Any threshold will create the most draconian restriction on the rights of negligently injured workers ever seen in Queensland. The Queensland workers compensation scheme underwent a major change as a consequence of the 2010 amendments. The introduction of a threshold will result in a substantially greater disenfranchisement of injured people solely for the purpose of perhaps reducing a premium. However, if the experience in other states is anything to go by, the evidence is clear: thresholds actually increase premiums. The introduction of a threshold would be grossly unfair to Queensland workers and taxpayers as the cost of an injury within the community would simply be shifted to bodies such as Centrelink and Medicare. Further, the thresholds have been proposed without any evidence of an insurance crisis or any real or justified concern about insurance affordability. The Attorney-General is proposing to fundamentally change the structure of our WorkCover scheme by imposing thresholds on access to common law claims. This is despite the recent parliamentary review recommending no structural changes. In March 2012 the Queensland Law Society asked the Attorney-General to make a commitment to ensuring that Queenslanders have unrestricted access to common law actions in injury compensation schemes and fair compensation. They pointed out that injured Queenslanders currently enjoy open access to fully funded, well run and sustainably accessible common law compensation schemes and that the Queensland Law Society sees the continuing right to access the common law for compensation as one of the fundamental reasons for the success. I am reliably informed that the Attorney-General replied that he had no plans to reduce the availability of common law actions. Since the LNP’s policy position was articulated, the only things which have changed are for the positive. On all objective measures, the scheme is fair, financially sound, profitable and well balanced. Furthermore, the WorkCover annual report, tabled earlier in the week, again demonstrates this balance and more good news for the scheme. I would ask: why does the government need to upset important workers such as the police, nurses and teachers? The annual report of WorkCover confirms the facts that common law claims are decreasing, not increasing, as asserted by employer groups. The Attorney-General had the opportunity to engage with key stakeholders around a suite of minor tinkering measures which will continue to place downward pressures on premiums without the drastic step of thresholds for which the government has no mandate whatsoever. The economic and fairness case against structural change is overwhelming, and the government should not buy into a fight they do not need or want. The issue is capable of being rescued before it damages the government and spirals into the type of poor policy we have seen implemented in other states. The issue of thresholds is an issue of vital importance to every working Queenslander and their families. In this debate I think it is very important to point out that several years ago the previous insurance commissioner for the Motor Accident Insurance Commission agreed with the Queensland Law Society that thresholds are arbitrary, fundamentally unfair and were in fact counterproductive, as they did not reduce premiums because of the costs associated with disputation rates. Accordingly, in order to contain common law damages the insurance commissioner introduced the concept of injury, scale, value—or ISV.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3475 Amendment Bill

The introduction of ISV was not opposed by the Queensland Law Society because of the political imperative to contain premiums and the necessity to contain some heads of damage. Thresholds are in fact counterproductive, as they do not reduce premiums because of the large costs associated with disputation rates. Thresholds require a very large bureaucracy and bog down schemes because of disputation rates. Most importantly, the recent parliamentary review of WorkCover, after hearing submissions from both sides, reached similar conclusions regarding thresholds. I am also aware that WorkCover and Q-Comp have both expressed similar views to the committee: that thresholds will not work because of the need for a large bureaucracy to handle disputations. Furthermore, the AMA has advised the government that there are simply not enough specialist doctors in this state, such as orthopaedic surgeons, who are prepared to administer the thresholds. The Queensland Law Society is not being self-interested when they say that they are firmly opposed to thresholds because, as the previous insurance commissioner has said, they are fundamentally unfair and the ISV already addresses the issues of frivolous claims which have already been spoken about. The Attorney-General has already received a detailed submission as to why any threshold, including a zero to five per cent threshold, is unfair. Despite the fairness of thresholds, from a purely practical point of view the implementation of thresholds will result in large disputation rates. Thresholds have clearly not worked in other states, and I am sure that the majority of Queenslanders are hoping that the government realises they will not work here. Despite the ISV being present in other schemes for many years, such as the CTP and public liability schemes, the ISV was not introduced to the WorkCover scheme until the recent 2010 amendments, which also ushered in other significant changes to common law claims that have been present in other schemes for some time. As realised by the parliamentary review, the impacts of the 2010 amendments have not had sufficient time to flow through to the figures. This is the fundamental reason the parliamentary review said there should be no change at this stage. Substantial change occurred in the 2010 amendments to deal with frivolous claims and viability issues. That is the reason the parliamentary review said there should be no change. Common law systems remit millions and perhaps billions of dollars back to government agencies such as Medicare, Centrelink, public hospitals, WorkCover and Veterans Affairs to name but a few. In doing so the common law system in Queensland relieves the burden on taxpayers, who would otherwise be footing the bill for the consequences of personal injuries. This is an extremely important point that I cannot emphasise enough. When thresholds are applied, it shifts the burden and costs associated with workplace injury from negligent employers to the taxpayer. Taxpayers and the government should be aware of the increased costs as a result of the introduction of thresholds. It must be emphasised that it is wrong to say that workers in this state have unfettered common law rights. It is correct to say that workers have restricted access to already quite heavily restricted common law damages. It would be extremely unfair to workers, who have just had further restrictions to their common law rights by way of the ISV and 2010 amendments, to be hit by a double whammy of introduced thresholds. I must emphasise that Queensland has the lowest premiums, and as such any threshold is totally unnecessary. Victoria has distorted its figures, and the Queensland Law Society can provide much more detail about it if the Attorney-General chooses to seek that information out—which I doubt he will. I must express the folly of any government attempting to introduce thresholds in Queensland. All governments should embrace the worker, not just unions, and not introduce laws that are antiworker. To do so would result in a Work Choice situation, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. I would have thought that the very clear message to the LNP is to embrace the worker and not introduce Work Choice style laws. It is unfair to introduce thresholds when the ISV and other amendments have only recently been put in place. In Queensland premiums remain low. This proposed legislation is a poor, ill informed choice by the Premier, Attorney-General and any other LNP member who supports it. The main reason the recent parliamentary review recommended that there be no changes to the legislation was that there had just been substantial changes to the legislation by way of the 2010 amendments which introduced, amongst other things, ISV and further restrictions on common law claims. The parliamentary review, after weighing all of the evidence, also came to the clear conclusion that thresholds are unjust and simply do not work.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3476 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

Queensland should be proud of its WorkCover scheme, which has historically been fully costed and profitable—in no small part by retaining full common law rights—and yet has one of the lowest premiums in Australia. The recent inquiry into the operation of Queensland’s WorkCover compensation scheme considered whether the reforms implemented in 2010 have addressed the growth in common law claims and claims costs that was evidenced in the scheme from 2007-8. The inquiry dealt with some difficult issues, but it did so in a reasonable and even-handed manner while acknowledging the unique and effective scheme operating in Queensland. The extent of the 2010 amendments in addressing the increase in common law claims is yet to be fully realised, and common law claims can be lodged up to three years from the date of injury. As such, the inquiry recommended that there should be no changes to the current system. For those reasons and others that will be spoken about during the course of this debate, I can say with my hand on my heart now that I will not be supporting this legislation. It is an attack on workers. It is unjust. The scheme is already working in Queensland. The premiums in comparison with other jurisdictions are fair, and this is simply a ridiculous move by the Newman government. It is ill informed, but we are not surprised by that sort of approach which is becoming commonplace for the Attorney-General, who is clearly out of his depth and lacks the understanding to do his job. The Newman government and the Premier should remove him from his role. Mrs OSTAPOVITCH (Stretton—LNP) (6.17 pm): I rise to contribute to the discussion on the workers compensation scheme in Queensland. May I firstly acknowledge the year of work that my committee colleagues and our amazing parliamentary support staff have done. I must also commend our committee chair during that time, the member for Coomera, Michael Crandon MP. By and large, we found that Queensland’s workers compensation scheme was a good one. But we do not just want a fundamentally good scheme: we want the best in Australia. We want to have the best in Australia for both workers and employers; therefore, the committee made recommendations to the Attorney-General and he has listened. We had businesses which asked us to follow other states and take away journey claims; however, we are keeping journey claims because Queenslanders deserve to be protected. At a cost of only an extra 5c, it was a sound decision. In fact, we will be the only state left to have full compensation coverage for workers who are injured when travelling to and from work, yet I do not hear unions celebrating that. We are also keeping common law claims because seriously injured workers deserve to have adequate compensation. Nothing will change except that those with injuries with less than five per cent impairment will not be able to use common law to further sue their employers or the scheme. For example, less than five per cent impairment could be a relatively minor injury such as a deep cut, back pain, bruising or an injury that can be healed with adequate treatment which will still be paid by the employer or the scheme. Employees will still receive up to a year’s full pay, another year of reduced pay and a payout to try to compensate for pain and suffering. During our deliberations we also recognised the plight of employers, who have had a 23 per cent increase in premiums over the past four years. They are vulnerable to frivolous or even fraudulent claims. If this one change to the legislation means the end to ambulance-chasing lawyers, then hallelujah. In my past work on chambers of commerce and as a business mentor I heard so many heart-wrenching stories from people who had to close down their businesses because they had to pay out an employee who got one of these law firms to make a claim. With a no-win no-fee lure, people may not realise that most defence lawyers advise their clients to settle out of court, even if the employer is determined that they are innocent of wrongdoing. Fighting for your right to defend your reputation is considered foolish, and those who do sadly generally end up with hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs and no choice but to close down their businesses, laying off their other employees in the process. The cost to settle out of court, I hear, is about $120,000. Not a lot of small business owners can cope with that kind of a cost. I suspect that this is to cover the cost of the ambulance-chasing personal injury law firms firstly and to give a payout to the alleged victim secondly. In fact, the non-government members of the committee, including the member for Mulgrave, agreed that ambulance-chasing law firms had a lot to answer for. I might add: all agreed that people who are lured into suing are often duped. By the way, they are not told that if they lose they could still end up paying costs. This is probably why most claims are settled out of court, but of course we do not hear about them.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3477 Amendment Bill

During the inquiry process we heard the story of a family owned meat-processing factory which was paying premiums in excess of $100,000 per annum because it had the misfortune of a few accidents and an employee who had cut himself. This case is currently being appealed. The meatworker, who was not wearing the protective gloves required by his employer, received $337,000 despite a medical assessment deeming an injury to his hand to be a two per cent of whole-person impairment. It is interesting that this individual had previously received $212,500 in a confidential settlement with the same employer. For this very reason we need to make these changes. I am sure that, to a meat processor, a large cut would be very painful indeed. I know how much a paper cut hurts! I certainly believe that medical treatment of injuries needs to be paid for and that, depending on the severity of the injury, compensation is necessary. Nothing has changed in relation to that. The key is: how severe is the injury and how much is the injury going to stop the injured from returning to work? An injury should never be an excuse to claim a windfall payout by suing a business owner. Common law claims are for those who deservedly need ongoing treatment or who are unable to work—those people with over five per cent impairment. These people need to be able to live with as much dignity as money can buy. For most of these claimants there is probably no amount of money that can compensate for their loss. Our scheme will put the focus back on injury management, rehabilitation and return-to-work outcomes for injured workers and competitive premiums for employers. Since 2009 the average premium rate has increased by 23 per cent, with Queensland slipping back behind other states. We want to restore the scheme, and having a competitive premium will encourage more investment into our state, which means more jobs for Queenslanders. We are also cracking down with harsher penalties for fraudulent claims. A recent CCIQ media release states— CCIQ General Manager of Advocacy Nick Behrens said by opting to implement a threshold but refusing to touch journey claims, the Government had struck a balance between workers and their employers.

“The proposed changes will ensure those who are rightfully entitled to make common law claims will be able to do so, while those whose impairment is less than five per cent will continue to receive statutory benefits,” Mr Behrens said.

“This will deter people from rolling the dice to see what windfall they can receive from a WorkCover settlement and brings Queensland into line with the other states.

“CCIQ’s most recent employer survey found 81 per cent of business owners supported the introduction of a threshold, while just 27 per cent said they felt the current scheme provided for the protection of employers.

“Since 2010, business has been forced to cover a $400 million increase in costs and average premium increases from $1.15 per $100 in wages to $1.45.

“We anticipate the introduction of a threshold will reduce the current premium by 15 per cent, which is a significant reprieve for businesses operating in an already difficult trading environment.” In closing, I stress that every injured worker will continue to be covered under the statutory no-fault compensation system, which includes payments for lost wages, medical treatment and access to lump sum compensation. Access to common law claims will remain in Queensland, except for those with a medically assessed impairment of five per cent or less. All injured workers will continue to be protected and receive assistance while they recover from their injury. We want to help injured workers get back on their feet as quickly as possible. I believe that our proposed changes have the balance right. Employers will have a more competitive premium, reduced by at least 13 per cent, enabling them to provide more job opportunities for Queenslanders. This is reflected by the number of letters from businesses telling us we have the balance right. These changes will enable the very best outcome for every Queenslander. Mr BYRNE (Rockhampton—ALP) (6.27 pm): Here we go again: another bill sticking it to Queensland workers. I have to congratulate the member for Gladstone. This is the second occasion on which I have followed her in debate and the second time I have risen to make comment on her reasoned contribution. You can hardly call the member for Gladstone a tree-hugging pinko proxy of the union movement. She brought a measured and sensible analysis to this debate and one that I wholeheartedly endorse. What I have learned this week is that the Attorney-General, or at least the government, does not seem to have much time for the judiciary. In the debate so far today all I have heard about is money-grubbing lawyers chasing ambulances. So, clearly, they do not like the judiciary and they do not like the legal profession. I am wondering who they do like out there defending the rights and

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3478 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill privileges of Queenslanders. This is typical, dreadful legislation from this government. It is typical of this Attorney-General. It strips away rights and offends almost every basic decency that Queenslanders should expect in 2013. I will give some facts about this scheme that supposedly requires the changes contained in this legislation. It is fair. That is a fact. It is sustainable. That is a fact. It is the most profitable in Australia. Queensland has maintained the second lowest premiums in recent times and the lowest over 10 years from this scheme. It is a great system that works for both employers and employees. This legislation is a slap in the face to the members of the Finance and Administration Committee, including the LNP members, who delivered an extensive inquiry and report. It also reminds members of the Legal Affairs Committee of the— Sitting suspended from 6.30 pm to 7.30 pm. Mr BYRNE: Just to reinvigorate us all after dinner, I want to quickly recap one issue that I mentioned before the dinner break. This scheme is fair. This scheme is sustainable. It is the most profitable in Australia. It maintains the second lowest premiums and the lowest over 10 years. It is a great system that works for both employers and employees. This is a scheme that does not require the heavy hand of government assistance. If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it! Before dinner I spoke about the role that the Finance and Administration Committee played in this and how I thought that members of that committee must be feeling somewhat aggrieved, at least privately. It also reminds members of the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee of the Attorney-General’s approach to workers compensation, because that committee also delivered a unanimous recommendation on workers compensation—namely, the definition of ‘worker’. Not surprisingly, and despite LNP members recommending the definition be strengthened, the Attorney-General overruled his colleagues and rammed through changes in earlier sittings of this House. I also want to reflect on Kerry Splatt. It is not only LNP members of this House who have been snubbed; it is also long-term LNP party members—indeed, none other than members of the LNP legal policy committee. They would be a fairly quiet bunch of people these days, I would imagine, given the conduct of this government in terms of legal affairs. Kerry Splatt, principal of KM Splatt and Associates law firm, has made it very clear that the Premier and the Attorney-General are so far off the mark with this legislation that he can no longer stay in the party, which he has been a member of longer than the Attorney-General has been out of school. I cannot resist reinforcing and reading into the record of this House some of the comments and opinions that a member of the LNP policy committee that looks at such matters said in a letter that he was prepared to send to every parliamentarian. He said— I had no choice, having regard to the utterly unjustifiable vandalism being visited upon the best workers’ compensation scheme in Australia. This is one of your mob saying this; this is not some union heavyweight. He continues— There is no economic basis for the changes.

…

... there are further measures that can be taken to reduce premiums even further—without the introduction of a draconian threshold. However, these recommendations have been ignored by the Attorney General and Premier. This is one of your party members writing to every one of you saying— I urge you to vote with your conscience, not according to the dictates of party ideology. He concludes by saying— ... people and organisations concerned about the vandalism, will ensure that constituents know that the government spent this week ripping away rights, flouting the separation of powers, undermining the rule of law and embarrassing us in the eyes of any person of sound moral fibre. You do not get any more damning criticism than that, and that is from one of your long-serving members who was, until moments ago, part of your legal policy committee. But this is not an isolated case in my view. The opinions of the mainstream legal profession are clear on this issue. Lawyers from both plaintiff and employer backgrounds agree that the current system is the best in this country and should not be altered. This legislation is so out there that not one member of the mainstream legal community is supportive—not one! I encourage members in their contributions this evening and the Attorney in his reply to put on the record who of any substance in the legal community is supportive of this position. Anyone at all will do.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3479 Amendment Bill

This makes me wonder about the motives of this bill. This is just another case of the Premier and the Attorney-General pandering to minority mates. This is probably delivering on secret deals made with big business at the last election but not disclosed to Queenslanders at the time. They put on a big show with inquiries, committee hearings and submissions and reports, but the truth is that the deal was done behind closed doors and they treat the rest of Queensland with absolute disdain. This is the same sort of run sheet as we saw earlier in this parliament during the debate on the body corporate bills that passed the House—making promises to their mates behind closed doors, ramming changes through using the huge majority and hurting everyday Queenslanders along the way. This issue is a bread-and-butter issue for working Queenslanders. It will impact on Queensland workers and their families in very significant and potentially cruel ways. Those opposite should consider that it is not just Labor voters who will be hurt by this while at work; there are constituents in each of their electorates who are hurting today—men and women right across Queensland who have had their rights stripped away by this legislation who, when suffering an injury due to the negligence of their employer, will have no access to what should be their common law rights. In layman’s terms, their bosses will get off scot-free while injured workers and their families will be left trying to pick up the pieces on Centrelink payments and substandard pay packets. What we have seen from the Attorney-General over this is nothing short of bloody-minded butchery of the industrial relations landscape. Here is some figurative advice for the LNP: those who choose to live by the sword die by the sword, in a metaphorical sense. I have not had one person approach me in support of this bill over a considerable period. I have a lot of business friends in my electorate and not one of them, knowing full well what goes on with workers compensation and how much they are exposed, has raised it with me as a substantive matter for them. The government is on the rough end of the pineapple here. LNP members in this House will lose their seats over this issue alone. Without anything else since the election campaign, I can assure them that they will lose their seats, and a chunk of them will lose on this issue alone. LNP voters will be just as disadvantaged. Just remember that: working LNP voters are going to be just as disadvantaged as any of those people outside this place today. When they find out, this government will suffer the consequences. I make no stronger prediction than that. Here is some policy for those opposite, as has been alluded to by my colleagues: we, the Labor opposition, will knock this rubbish on the head when we return to government. That will be sooner rather than later if you allow the Attorney-General to continue to play with people’s lives in the manner that he has. Don’t you worry about that! There is one element of this bill that represents consistency, and that is the person who is leading the debate for the government. The Attorney-General consistently introduces dreadful legislation into this House—one ideological embarrassment after another. This bill is not intelligent or balanced or informed or mainstream or fair or necessary or even fashionable—just like its author! To the government I say this: a pox on your house. I will not be supporting this bill under any circumstances. This is a disgraceful bill and one that every member of the LNP with working people in their electorates should be ashamed to be associated with. Mr STEWART (Sunnybank—LNP) (7.38 pm): Tonight I rise to contribute to the debate on the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. One of the linchpins of Queensland industry is an efficient and effective workers compensation scheme. For over a decade Queensland has had the lowest average premium rate in Australia. Nevertheless, the fact is that the average premium rate has increased by around 20 per cent since 2009.

When comparing the current scheme with those of our interstate counterparts, without legislative intervention Queensland will quickly slip back into the pack. The Attorney-General is proactively demonstrating his and this government’s commitment to ensure that the workers compensation scheme remains the best in Australia in delivering outcomes for both industry and workers alike. This balance between compensation for injury and the appropriate cost burden on employers is critical to an effective and sustainable workers compensation scheme. I believe that this bill goes a long way to creating a better balance than the existing legislation. As a member of the Finance and Administration Committee, I was personally involved in the formation of the 32 recommendations that were presented to the Attorney-General for consideration. It has been pleasing to see that the majority of those recommendations has been supported. At the outset, can I say that the committee found that the scheme runs well. It is self-sustaining and considered to be one of the best schemes in Australia. The short-tail nature of claims goes a long way to managing most cases in an efficient manner. But I pose the question: just because the system

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3480 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill works, just because it is self-sustaining, should we stand still and not try to make a better scheme? I do not believe that we should. I believe that we should continually look at ways of improving the scheme, and we have. I have been in contact with many constituents who, through no fault of their own, sustained spinal injuries, cuts, breaks, strains, bites and burns in workplace incidents. Some have been happy with the statutory claim. However, many have been lured with the dream of a lottery style payout that is promoted in workplace lunch rooms, ads, current affairs shows and the humble barbecue as the norm. There are many examples of this and we have heard some of those today. I am not saying that an injured worker is not entitled to compensation and that they are not entitled to a common law claim, because the statutory benefits provided by WorkCover are insufficient to compensate him or her for the impact the injuries may have on them for the rest of their working life as I believe that, for significant injuries, statutory caps on damages may not provide adequate recompense. That is why I fully endorse the fact that this bill maintains access to common law damages with the exception of minor injuries. I believe that a medically assessed permanent impairment of greater than five per cent is an appropriate threshold for enabling a common law damages claim to be lodged. Having a threshold lower than this has opened the floodgates for common law claims and inundated our court system with compensation claims of a comparatively minor nature. We do not want a backlog of these sorts of claims. A permanent impairment of less than five per cent is best addressed under the statutory no fault workers compensation scheme and also by introducing the five per cent medically assessed permanent impairment scheme. I am particularly pleased that this bill will also ensure that journey claims are retained with no amendment whatsoever. Many employees travel considerable distances to and from work each day. This travel is a logical adjunct to the working day. It is an extension of the time spent in the course of their employment. That is why I am glad that Queenslanders will continue to be protected when travelling to and from work. Initially, I felt that journey claims should be looked at. But after discussions with other members of the House and constituents I was able to further understand the issues and the need for journey claims to be retained. Of course, compensation is only one aspect of our workers compensation scheme. Another aspect—and perhaps the most important aspect—is rehabilitation. In my opinion, this scheme would be a failure if all it did was compensate for the loss of amenity, reduction in quality of life, pain and suffering, or diminished future earning capacity. For me, it would be doing only half the job. The ultimate aim of any workers compensation scheme should be to help the injured workers get back on their feet as quickly as possible and to return to work as soon and as safe as it is for them to do so. To that end, this bill rightly includes the requirement to mandatory refer injured workers to an accredited return-to-work program. It is my belief that these programs will lead to better return-to-work outcomes and mitigate future economic loss, both of which are desirable industry goals. Finally, as a member of the Finance and Administration Committee, I am pleased that this bill has adopted the committee’s recommendations to review the assessment of psychiatric work related injuries, the fastest growing portion of total claims in the state. In my mind, this area of workers compensation has always existed in muddy waters. A multiplicity of external and internal factors, both latent and active, can combine to bring about psychological disorder. Only some of these factors may be attributable to the workplace. Although psychological disorders may not develop in a vacuum, it remains difficult to pinpoint the source of aggravation. That is why I approve of the increased onus on workers to prove that their employment was the most significant contributing factor to the condition in order to be compensated. I support wholeheartedly the tenor of this bill. In some aspects I respectfully consider that it does not go far enough. In particular, I do not believe that the bill goes far enough in reining in the super megaprofits, the percentages that are leveraged by some members of the legal profession on client fees. In the context of workers compensation claims, these exorbitant fees are simply unacceptable. I also believe that this bill needs to take a stronger stance on gross misrepresentations in legal advertising. The standard mantra that is peddled by a number of the law firms of no win, no fee is misleading and, indeed, untrue for clients seeking compensation for workplace injuries. As a government we need to ensure that this practice of false advertising is eradicated. Unfortunately, we live in a society that has fraud and I am glad that any investigation into fraud will be moved to an independent body. That is indeed to ensure that investigations are carried out and that Queensland workers are not picking up the bill for the fraudulent claims. Employers having the

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3481 Amendment Bill ability to check the history of potential employees will greatly benefit the scheme. It will also help with the people who go from job to job, driving up the costs for employers and placing businesspeople in difficult times where some would consider closing the doors of their business. I want to touch on a few aspects of this bill that some other members have also mentioned. We heard the super profits of one company announced to the ASX of $2.6 billion—I believe that is correct; around that mark anyway. If we look at just a humble 10 per cent profit mark, that is $26 million that could go towards paying for the injuries that a worker has sustained in their place of work. The 50 per cent fee that many of these legal professions take needs to be addressed. I would definitely support any effort to bring in a better sliding scale of fees. I do not believe that lawyers should work for nothing, like some other members have possibly hinted at today. I believe that they need to be compensated for the work that they do initially in bringing about any claims. Obviously, there is quite a considerable cost in bringing a claim to trial. That is why I believe there should be an initial fee and then a diminishing percentage after that of any compensation. Many members have referred to benchmarking our workers compensation scheme against that of other states. I believe that is very important in some areas, but I do not think that we should be so closed minded to say that just because the other states do not do it, we should not do it or that just because the others states do it, we should do it. We need to look at ways that we can do things better—ways that we can make our workers compensation scheme the best and the most reliable. The other important aspect that I definitely wanted to touch on tonight before I conclude was the importance of members of this House to understand the interests of external submissions. During this debate, we have heard many members say, ‘Shine Lawyers have said this’ or ‘The representatives from Trilby Misso have said that.’ As members of parliament I think we should really be wise enough not to have to rely on these sorts of statements to really gauge in which direction we think the workers compensation scheme should go. We should look at all of the submissions that come in and make up our own mind. When submissions come in we should be able to say, ‘Well, there is obviously a vested interest here: they are protecting their super profits,’ or, ‘There is a vested interest here: they want more money or they want something.’ We need to ensure that we take those things in. When other members have said that the legal profession thinks that this should stay in, that does not mean to say that it is the best outcome for Queenslanders, it does not mean to say that it is the best outcome for the members of my community who have had to claim workers compensation for their family; it just means that it is the best thing for their business. I thank the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the Hon. Jarrod Bleijie for introducing a bill that will restore faith in our workers compensation scheme as the best in Australia. I believe that this bill is commendable for striking an appropriate balance between the right compensation and the desirable goal of mitigating the costs with which employers are encumbered. I would also like to thank the chair of our committee, Michael Crandon, for the wonderful job that he did in representing our committee and chairing the committee meetings. To the staff of the Finance and Administration Committee, thank you very much for all your support. We received hundreds of submissions. There was quite a lot of discussion around the table on all aspects of the workers compensation scheme. I thank also the members from both sides and the Independent member for Gladstone. Thank you for your submissions and the discussion throughout our committee meetings. I support the bill. Mr CRANDON (Coomera—LNP) (7.50 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. Among other things, an objective of the bill is to implement the Queensland government’s response to the Queensland parliament’s Finance and Administration Committee’s report on its inquiry into the operation of the Queensland workers compensation scheme. I was very proud to be the chair of that committee during that period of time. There is no doubt in my mind, having been through what we went through over a 10½ month period, that the workers compensation scheme in Queensland is the best workers compensation scheme in Australia. The changes that are being made to the scheme are intended to ensure that it continues to be far and away the best workers compensation scheme in Australia. On 7 June 2012 the Legislative Assembly referred responsibility for the inaugural review to the parliament’s Finance and Administration Committee. The committee tabled its report and recommendations 10½ months later on 23 May 2013. During that 10½ month period a number of unions and other organisations, quite underhandedly at times, attempted to sit down with me. I remember representatives from one particular insurance company very early in the piece wanted to come to see me about what I thought was a local issue from a local office. It turned out that they were

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3482 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill the bigwigs from head office and they were coming in to give me all the reasons we should privatise the workers compensation scheme in Queensland. I pointed out to them that I was the chair of the committee and it was totally inappropriate for them to approach me in the way they approached me and I bid them farewell after giving them a cup of tea and a biscuit. We were informed that the structure of the Queensland workers compensation scheme is the most complex in Australia—it is the most successful, but it is the most complex in Australia—given that it operates as three separate agencies resulting in duplication and overlap which increases scheme costs. There is no one point of control for scheme costs as both the workers compensation regulatory authority and WorkCover Queensland set their own budgets. As a result of these changes the regulatory authority is to be merged with the Office of Fair and Safe Work Queensland in the Department of Justice and Attorney-General. The authority will be replaced by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator. The consultation, as has been mentioned a few times but it is worth saying again, was quite an impressive process. It was certainly the most complex that the secretariat had ever undertaken. For the research director, Deb Jeffrey, who has been with the parliament for more than 11 years, to say that it was the most complex task that she had taken on is saying something, I would suggest. The Finance and Administration Committee invited public submissions, with a total of 246 written submissions received from employer associations, individual employers, insurers, lawyers, unions, professional bodies, interest groups and individuals. There were a number of individuals who came to see us to tell us their story about how they had been done over for this or that reason. The committee also held 18 public hearings, five in-camera hearings and five briefings. Some of those in-camera hearings were from people who were very emotional about their experience in our workers compensation scheme. A range of views were expressed by all stakeholders. I take this opportunity to thank my then committee colleagues and the secretariat for their huge effort in putting this particular report together. Having gone through my preamble, I turn now to the 2012-13 annual report for the workers compensation scheme. Page 9 sets out the performance overview: their targets and what they achieved. There are a couple of interesting points. One of their targets was to consider the premium model to appropriately price and collect premiums. I make the point that the premium model was reviewed and the average rate maintained at $1.45. In that respect WorkCover were looking to maintain current premiums going forward. They did achieve that. But it is worth noting that the Attorney-General is looking, in the changes that he is proposing in the scheme, to reduce the base premium by 22c or thereabouts. It is interesting and worth noting that I received a document from Master Builders applauding the Attorney-General’s announcement on workers compensation laws. In the fourth paragraph they state— Our industry has had on average a 23 per cent increase in workers’ compensation premiums over the last four years, meaning it has one of the highest rates in Queensland.’ They go on to say— The changes announced by the government today are estimated to reduce premiums by at least 13 per cent. It is interesting that they say that because that is not what is being said by the Attorney-General and by the department in relation to these changes. What is being said is that we are looking at a 22c reduction on a $1.45 premium. If you are in a situation where you are experiencing much higher premiums, I would suggest that you are probably going to get your 22c off—you might get a few more cents than that off—but you are not going to get a percentage of something in the order of 13 to 15 per cent off a premium, particularly if you have been hit with some loadings as a result of poor claims experience. I hope I am right in that. I hope the Attorney-General can confirm to me that if someone has shown poor claims experience over a period of time we are not going to reward them by giving them a percentage off those penalties that they are being charged to in some way bring them back to the fold, bring them back to a situation where they are ready to start implementing safe work practices or implement more safe work practices. I wanted to make that point. One of the things that was in my mind when I first read page xii of the inquiry into the Queensland workers compensation scheme was that looking for a 22c reduction was not part of our review. However, I need to make the point now that one of the areas that we were required to consider was WorkCover’s current and future financial position and its impact on the Queensland economy, the state’s competitiveness and employment growth.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3483 Amendment Bill

Clearly, the Attorney-General is looking to implement this reduction in the premium to help with the state’s competitiveness and employment growth. Certainly, I and I think it would be fair to say our committee overlooked that aspect of that particular dot point. Certainly we looked at its viability going forward, but we did struggle in that area. Coming back to the targets and what was achieved, two areas stand out. Of course, common laws claims are the main point of contention here. It is fair to point out that the target for common law claims was $161,000 as an average payout. WorkCover did an exemplary job in that it brought in an average payout of $138,000. So that was a significant reduction in that. Sadly, on the statutory claim side, the target was an average of $6,300 per claim and it came in at $6,960. So it failed in that regard. That is reflected in some figures that I will be talking about later, but I will talk about them briefly now. The statutory claims for the year increased by $50 million. There was about a five per cent reduction in the number of claims, but the actual quantum that was paid out increased by about $50 million or just over $50 million. That is a lot of money. On the other hand, the common law claims remained stable. In fact, I think there were about three or four or five fewer claims in the 2013 tax year than there were in the 2012 tax year. However, there was about a $52 million reduction in the total payout in common law claims. In my view, some of the changes that occurred back in 2010 are starting to come through the system. It is worth noting that and pointing it out, because I believe it is important to say that they have been doing a darned good job in achieving their goals and so forth. The next thing that I want to look at is the Queensland government’s response to the recommendations of the Finance and Administration Committee’s report. I thank the Attorney-General for taking on so many of the recommendations that we have made. There are a few that I am disappointed that we could not have done something with, but perhaps they are there for the future. One of them relates to crews of fishing vessels and the reason for not including them. We are talking about crews of fishing vessels where the crew receive a percentage of the catch. The reason for this exclusion is that receiving a share of the gross earnings of the vessel makes them partners in an enterprise. A bureaucrat might say that. A salesperson receives a commission, but they are not part of the enterprise. They are in the same boat—no pun intended—as the fishermen in that respect, yet they are covered. I think there is room to massage this going forward. This is not a dead in the water—again, no pun intended—situation. I think we can make some changes going forward. That was one point that I wanted to raise. In the same area, the government response to the committee recommendation No. 2 states— The government considers that a more appropriate policy response would be for WorkCover to conduct a targeted information and awareness campaign ... Our recommendation No. 3 states, ‘… the Department undertake an extensive awareness education and compliance campaign …’ Therefore, we are already there. We have already made that recommendation. Of course, that was supported by the Attorney-General. A number of other things were supported. One worth pointing out, and others have mentioned this, is that we retain journey claims. That was very important to so many people right across the country and across the state. It is really important that we retain those claims. I know people who have had accidents and so forth going to work and it has had a major impact on them. Another point that I want to comment on is that the committee recommended that the definition of ‘psychological injuries’ be amended to include the two types of psychological injury identified as category A and B above. Dr Flegg put a lot of work into that when he came on board. The response from the bureaucrats was as follows— There was no evidence provided to the Committee that psychological injury claims relating to a post-traumatic event disorder are being rejected. That is exactly right: they are not being rejected. This is fait accompli stuff. If someone has just been robbed or something has happened in their workplace and they have been locked in a closet, beaten up or whatever, we would know about that. The point that we were making is that they should go through the system fairly quickly. It is the more suspect psychological claims that we felt needed to come under category B and be subject to more stringent measures to ensure that the people were fair dinkum in their claim. The government response makes the point that no Australian jurisdiction makes this distinction. Hello: in Queensland we are innovators. Just this week we have been making changes to many laws as innovators. I do not care that other states are not doing these sorts of things. We should consider doing these things if they are going to better serve Queensland society. In that regard I take their points, but I think the bureaucrats have overstepped the mark by saying that other jurisdictions have not done it. I say, too bad. Other jurisdictions have 15 per cent thresholds and their premiums are skyrocketing.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3484 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

The final point that I want to make in regard to the recommendations relates to what the Attorney-General has advised us he is going to support or not support. The committee recommended that the existing provisions relating to the access to common law be retained. Of course, as we all know, that has not been supported. I understand why. I understand the thinking behind it. Our committee did discuss the possibility of some sort of a threshold being implemented, but in the end we thought we could probably do the same thing for ambulance chasing lawyers by restricting the amount of money that they could earn off small claims. In other words, we could cap them and push them down. I hope the Attorney-General will give some serious consideration to capping those payouts or the super profits of the lawyers who can claim up to 50 per cent now. That is the agreement they are able to enter into. If the Attorney-General employed a limit of 25 per cent and banned their ridiculous advertising, which sucks people into their offices and so on, I would applaud him for that. I am still concerned that there will be some unintended consequences from the five per cent cap. The committee struggled with the concept that there could be potential and unintended consequences and people who genuinely need to be supported financially will miss out. I hate to think that that may go on, but time will tell. I looked at many of the letters and so forth that were sent to us by various organisations which said, ‘You are doing the wrong thing and you are going to hurt the wrong people. You are going to do this, that and the other thing.’ Generally speaking that came from the lawyers. One such letter was from the Queensland Law Society. I have not had a chance to look at this because I got it quite late in the day. It talks about a right to appeal or review a decision of the medical assessment tribunals. It states— This becomes critically significant when the MAT decision may be one which precludes a common law claim by a worker. It goes on to say— We consider that a right of review or appeal from the MAT decision is a fundamental issue of natural justice and equity.

We strongly urge you to support an amendment to the bill to enable a worker either to appeal to an appropriate court or tribunal; or to use the existing mechanisms available to parties to seek a review of a workers’ compensation decision from Q-Comp, with subsequent appeal rights to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission and beyond. I put that out there, Attorney. It may be worth thinking about. I will finish by mentioning the financials. I note that premiums were up significantly between 2011 and 2013. Statutory claims were up by $50 million to $737 million. Finally, common law claims were down quite significantly to $461 million from $538.9 million. (Time expired) Mr DILLAWAY (Bulimba—LNP) (8.11 pm): I rise tonight to contribute to the debate on the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. This bill makes amendments to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 and other legislation and makes changes to the current workers compensation scheme in Queensland to ensure the ongoing viability of the scheme and to make our system second to none in Australia. I speak in support of this bill as I strongly believe it correctly balances the rights and interests of both workers and employers—the two key stakeholders in this issue. In the past workers compensation schemes have played too heavily on the side of either of these parties. It is the government’s responsibility to find an effective compromise when it comes to these interests. I applaud the Attorney-General’s efforts over the past few months in listening and engaging with workers, unions, employers and businesses and acting on this consultation to deliver changes that will guarantee long-term viability of the scheme, coverage and protection for workers and competitive premiums for Queensland businesses. I believe that this bill has four main achievements. Firstly, it returns the focus of workers compensation to injury management, rehabilitation and back to work outcomes. Secondly, it gives Queensland businesses and employers the lowest average premiums in Australia. Thirdly, it assists employers in creating and maintaining a safe and healthy workplace. Finally, it reduces duplication in government services. The ALP struggles to learn that throwing money at a problem does not make it go away. We want a workers compensation scheme that assists injured workers get back on their feet and return to work as quickly as possible and one that makes sure they are well looked after. It is important to stress to the Queensland community that under these changes workers will remain completely covered under the statutory no-fault compensation system for up to five years, including payments for lost wages, medical treatment and access to lump sum compensation.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3485 Amendment Bill

Changes will be made to common law claims through the introduction of the five per cent whole-person-impairment threshold where only those with injuries above this threshold will be eligible to make common law claims. In 2011-12 some 56 per cent of common law claims were from work related impairments between zero and five per cent, representing 52 per cent of the total cost. This significant amount of lower end claims has remained constant or increased over the past few years, with no sign of reducing. In 2010 then WorkCover chairman Ian Brusasco recommended to the Labor government the introduction of a 10 per cent to 15 per cent threshold on common law claims that mirrored that of other jurisdictions such as New South Wales and Western Australia. The issue of the large percentage of minor injury claims is addressed through the introduction of the five per cent permanent impairment threshold. Again, I want to stress that these injuries will still be covered by statutory claims because all workers deserve to be protected. Injuries above this threshold will continue to allow workers to access common law claims because this government believes that serious injuries deserve protection and compensation. I note that Grant Galvin, the executive director of Master Builders, agrees with this through a statement he issued this Tuesday. He stated— The changes do not impact workers who have a genuine claim, as every injured work will continue to be covered under the statutory no fault compensation system, which includes payments of lost wages, medical treatment and access to lump sum compensation. I believe it is important and I welcome our government’s decision that journey claims be retained because of the spread-out nature of our state which incorporates a range of high-travel occupations. Workers will continue to be covered even when they are travelling to and from work. I remind everyone that Queensland is the only state with this level of coverage. Therefore, these two objectives do strike a very clear balance between the employers’ needs and employees’ needs. Since 2009 the average premium rate has increased by a whopping 20 per cent. Fortunately, employers will see a reduction in their premiums next year as a result of the amendments contained in this bill. These changes will make the premium the most competitive in Australia once again, reducing the baseline general premium rate by an expected amount of more than 15 per cent. This is one of the lowest average premium rates for employers across the country whilst continuing to maintain appropriate coverage for workers. This competitive premium has a domino effect, encouraging investment in Queensland, creating more jobs while simultaneously maintaining the viable system well into the future and protecting those who need it most. Another peak industry representative body, the HIA, highlighted in a statement on Tuesday that common law claims place stress on the employer-employee relationship and that the free-for-all in common law claims has been a disincentive and a discouragement for employment and investment in Queensland due to the rising rates of premiums. Earlier this year the Attorney-General visited the Bulimba electorate. I joined him on a tour of one of our largest beef producing companies, Australian Country Choice, where workers compensation and safety in workplaces was discussed in depth with company directors and managers. Australian Country Choice has a fantastic record in workplace health and safety with doctors and physiotherapists on site to ensure optimal working conditions. This is a great example of the employer working with their employees and we should harness this cooperation and not continue the stress the current system can have on the employer and employee relationship. The bill also reintroduces the requirement for a worker to provide an employer with a record of previous injuries if requested and also grants employers the ability to access a potential worker’s claims history. This measure will assist employers in creating and maintaining safe and healthy workplaces and mitigating any risk of aggravating pre-existing injuries or conditions of recruited workers. Finally, the bill reduces duplication in government services and moderates the inefficiencies of the current structure and roles of WorkCover Queensland and the regulatory framework. This confusion is fixed through the transition of Q-Comp into the Office of Fair and Safe Work Queensland under the Department of Justice and Attorney-General to further deliver on the Newman government’s commitment to streamline and improve front-line services. These changes will see the scheme better focused on return-to-work outcomes which should be the purpose and priority of workers compensation whilst delivering a competitive premium for employers. If this bill is passed tonight this will be the best workers compensation scheme in Australia with the lowest premiums for employers and with the most coverage for workers. This fair and effective balance between employer and employee will see workplaces in Queensland more safe, protected

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3486 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill and productive. As a government for all Queenslanders, I am pleased to see that workers and businesses have been equally represented. It is important to have continuous improvement and this bill delivers. I recommend the bill be passed. Mrs SMITH (Mount Ommaney—LNP) (8.18 pm): I rise tonight to speak in support of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. During the month of October, Safe Work Australia and Workplace Health and Safety Queensland are promoting safety at work. All workers are encouraged to think about what their reason is for staying safe at work. Safe Work Australia and Workplace Health and Safety Queensland are encouraging all workers and Australians to get involved in and concentrate on safety in their workplace to reduce death, injury and disease. The best outcome for everyone is for businesses and employees to work together to look after the health and safety of the workforce. But, even in the lowest risk businesses, accidents and injuries can occur, and this government is committed to delivering the best performing workplace compensation scheme in Australia which will be based on this bill we are discussing today. Can I say at the outset that this legislation strikes the right balance for employers and employees across Queensland. This is a sensible, balanced approach, achieving savings for business whilst ensuring we assist genuine complainants who have sustained a workplace injury. I know firsthand about paying WorkCover premiums. As a former small business owner it was my responsibility to cover my staff in the event of an unfortunate accident. Thankfully I had none of those at my workplace. We, like most employers, value our employees and have a safe workplace. But maintaining those premiums to ensure I had my staff covered was another cost to business that needed to be added to the operating expenses each year. I saw my premiums rise over the course of business due to the whole-of-industry increases year after year. One of the first things we need to crack down on is fraudulent claims. I have seen firsthand employees chase common law claims that would amount to being dubious at best. I represented my previous employer against a worker who claimed under common law for a payout due to a workplace injury—only to find that she had been working at another job for the previous five years under her maiden name. Or what about the electrician who moved house on the weekend, hurt his back, turned up to work, worked for five minutes and then made a back injury claim? After months, he finally lodged a common law claim and included that the injury had impacted on his conjugal rights—even though his wife had given birth four months before! Both people got a payout. I could spend the next hour telling you of many stories about low-level, questionable common law claims that either I have dealt with firsthand or businesspeople have told me about. There are four key features of this bill. The first feature of this bill is the introduction of a five per cent threshold to access common law. The second feature is that this bill will also introduce an increased onus on workers to prove psychiatric or psychological disorders are work related. Workers will have to satisfy insurers that their employment was the ‘most’ significant contributing factor to the injury or aggravation in order to be compensated. This also will aid in negating fraudulent claims that again drain the employer—money that would be better spent on protecting the honest employees. The third feature of this bill requires a worker to provide an employer with a notification of previous injuries, if requested, and allows for access to a prospective worker’s claims history in particular circumstances. The fourth feature of this legislation is having a strong focus on rehabilitation and return-to-work programs for workers. This is good for business, but it is also good for the workers themselves. My next comments are a reference to dubious claims and in no way reflect on genuine cases. Let me tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there are professional claimants out there and once they get a payout they become hooked. But let’s examine who really wins from common law claims. I suggest that it is not the employee. It certainly is not the employer. I suggest that it is those whom we affectionately refer to as ‘ambulance chasers’ or, in loose terms, lawyers. As I drive around the suburbs of my electorate, and indeed other electorates, I am enthralled by the catchy jingles played on the radio, or the billboard advertising that dots our suburbs, all along the same idea. How does it go? ‘No win no fee,’ or ‘We sue insurance companies.’ They invite us to call them for an obligation-free meeting and, where possible, no win no fee. On the surface you would think that here we have legal people who are honourable, who only want to obtain justice at no cost to the poor unsuspecting punter. But let’s face it: the no win no pay slogan is a con because someone always pays in these situations. Someone always pays. The employer pays via their increased insurance premiums. The employee pays ridiculous amounts from

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3487 Amendment Bill their payouts to these ambulance chasers, which have flourished over the years. Indeed, there has been a steady rise in the number of no win no pay law firms, so business is obviously solid. It is the ambulance chasers who make the money, but someone else always pays. Many people think that insurance fraud is a ‘victimless crime’ and that no-one gets hurt, but the truth is that everyone gets hurt. The next person who lodges a genuine application for compensation may be looked at questionably. Businesses are affected by not having a full complement of staff and, of course, by unnecessary rises in insurance premiums. These have to be covered in some way, and often it means that consumers end up paying more for goods and services. Someone always pays. The average Queenslander is outraged—yes, outraged—by the frivolous claims that they see published all too often. It makes most of us sick that such frauds attempt to rip off the system like that, but it absolutely repulses them that in most circumstances these people get away with it. This government wants to do what is right for workers and for businesses and it wants to meet public expectation in this area. That means ensuring good governance and properly managing a system that has been rorted and abused for far too long. I speak regularly with small and large businesses in my electorate and the topic of workers compensation is constantly raised with me. In fact, very early on in this government’s term one such business met with me and the AG to raise their concerns about the ongoing increases to the workers compensation premiums. Over the years they have seen their premiums increase at alarming rates while they try to grow their business and employ more people. They came away from that meeting commenting that they were happy to have had the opportunity to present their case to the Attorney-General. Under the previous government, the former minister would not even meet with them. So I say to the opposition: do not talk to me about consultation. The nature of their business is such that it does require a lot of manual labour and much machinery is used, but they have re-engineered several of their workspaces and procedures to negate further workplace injury. Going back to the five per cent threshold, let’s compare it with other states. In New South Wales it is 15 per cent, in Tasmania it is 20 per cent, in Victoria it is 30 per cent and under the Commonwealth it is 10 per cent. Queensland will continue to be a leader in this field. At a level of five per cent permanent impairment for common law claims, only minor injuries will lose access to this avenue. This will place heavy pressure on those who are intending to rort the scheme to think twice. This bill is not about taking away the right to access workers compensation. What it is about is transitioning the entire workers compensation system to a best practice model that suits the employee, the employer and the people of Queensland. This is about protecting the rights of all parties whilst continuing to deliver Australia’s best scheme. It is about cracking down on fraudulent claims with harsher penalties in place that further enhance the integrity of those who are doing the right thing. For the past 10 years this state has enjoyed the best workers compensation scheme in the country. It is our duty to ensure that we continue providing the best service to the people of Queensland, and this bill and legislative changes ensure that we are doing that. We will have one of the lowest average premium rates for employers and maintain the appropriate coverage for injured workers. I say well done to the Attorney-General. I support this bill. Mr KNUTH (Dalrymple—KAP) (8.29 pm): It is a great honour to be able to speak to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I have to acknowledge the importance of this legislation and I commend the Attorney-General for rushing it through very quickly! I do acknowledge the importance of this legislation such that it needs to be fast-tracked! If he did not fast-track this legislation, the situation could have been worse than the global economic crisis. It could have been much worse than the global economic crisis or the recession we had to have from Paul Keating. It needs to be acknowledged that standing orders need to be suspended. This government needs to do something different to what the Labor Party used to do, which was to suspend standing orders and take away everyone’s democratic right to have a say. I also have to acknowledge that there was consultation on this bill. There was a lot of consultation. There were 246 submissions and 18 public hearings. I notice that very few of those recommendations were adopted. I recall that when the terrible Labor Party was in power during the last two years— Dr Douglas interjected. Mr KNUTH: We will go back to the last 20 years. I recall LNP members would stand up and condemn the Labor Party when they suspended standing orders to rush through legislation without members having an opportunity to have a say. The Labor Party did not give the LNP or

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3488 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

Queenslanders a chance to have a say. I recall how they would talk about how terrible this was and how they would never do anything terrible like that. The LNP said that it would be a government of honesty, integrity and accountability that is about getting the best and good outcomes for the people of Queensland. That is what the LNP believes. I do acknowledge the importance of rushing through this legislation because I would hate to see another global economic crisis. I would hate to see a recession—another recession we had to have—as a result of fast-tracking this legislation. I do acknowledge the importance of this legislation, which can be seen in the number of submissions received. The Law Society stated— The Society is encouraged that results for the 2012 / 2013 financial year are tracking positively for the future financial viability of the scheme. It is understood that to the present: • common law claims rates remain consistently low Thank goodness the Attorney-General fast-tracked this. It goes on— • common law average payments continue to reduce. Thank goodness the Attorney-General fast-tracked this, suspended standing orders and did something different to what the Labor Party did. And how shocking was it when that terrible Labor Party suspended standing orders? I remember that, when in opposition, the LNP would stand and say that the people of Queensland will not tolerate undemocratic processes in this parliament because the way that they acted was terrible. It goes on— Results presented at the November 2012 stakeholder actuarial presentation were very encouraging, evidencing the following: • common law claims frequency decreasing both by wages and numbers of employees My goodness! I am just so glad that we had to fast-track this bill. It continues— • common law claims nil finalisations remaining high • common law claims payments continuing to reduce • actuarial provisions for outstanding claims were reduced by $114 million. We are so glad that he had to rush this through, fast-track it and suspend standing orders. It could have been so terrible! The submission continues— The Society notes that at the November 2012 stakeholder presentation, the actuaries for both Q-Comp and WorkCover Queensland advised that sufficient time had elapsed since the passing of the 2010 amendments, to confirm with certainty that ... A document headed ‘Queensland Government Response to the Recommendations—and thank goodness there were 246 submissions and 18 public hearings—of the Finance and Administration Committee’s Report of the Inquiry into the Operation of Queensland’s Workers’ Compensation Scheme’ states— The Committee recommends that the definition of worker contained in section 11 remain unchanged and amendments are made to Schedule 2 to strengthen who is or is not considered to be a worker. What an important amendment. Hold on, it is not supported by the government in this bill. That is strange because this bill had to be fast-tracked and we had a strong LNP committee. It is unusual because this is a very important amendment. The number of submissions acknowledges that this is important. There were 246 submissions and 18 public hearings. It is something that is very important, but hold on, it was not supported. Everything else had to be fast-tracked, but something that was so important was not so important to the government or the hierarchy of the LNP. The document states— The Committee recommends that Schedule 2 be amended to include crews of fishing vessels, who are paid a percentage of catch as remuneration, as workers. This was not supported by the LNP. I cannot understand this because the committee made some wonderful recommendations. I just cannot understand why the government had to change what the committee had recommended, something that was so important in backing these people who are out there busting their guts and who have the great potential of being injured or hurt. The government could not acknowledge the importance of looking after them, but they had to fast-track this bill by whatever means necessary. The document goes on— The Committee recommends that the current definition of injury be retained in its current form with the exception of psychological injuries which are addressed separately in section 4.4. That was also not supported by the LNP. Hold on, it goes on— The Committee recommends that psychological injuries be included under separate provisions within the legislation.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3489 Amendment Bill

That was not supported. It continues— The Committee recommends that the definition of psychological injuries be amended to include the two types of psychological injury identified as category A and B above in section 4.5. I could read from this all night because I am very passionate and I have to acknowledge that this is important legislation and it is important to rush it through! Three bills have been rushed through the House this week that are of great magnitude and importance. There is one tonight on which we will go til one o’clock in the morning. When we see that a chairman of a committee is now earning an extra $30,000 a year and every member of parliament is earning an extra $8,000, this is a waste of the committee’s time and process. For one thing, the committee process is not taken heed of; it is not addressed. It does not matter if the government wants to put through legislation very quickly for their own selfish agenda or when the big end of town gives them enough money to support their election campaigns because this is not about democracy, this is not about good outcomes, this is not about the best outcomes for workers, this is not about the best outcomes for the people of Queensland; this is about the best outcomes for the LNP government. There is no reason why we should suspend standing orders. Those recommendations are very important to the small business people of this state but they are also very important for the workers. We had the opportunity to put it forward here tonight so that we could have proper consultation, but it was not received. We have to look to see what the Law Society says, and they say that we have the best compensation scheme. There were 246 submissions, but when these submitters put in submissions on how to improve the scheme, what has happened? The government has rejected those submissions, but they have embraced something that they believe is not in the best interests of working class people and probably also small business. They are happy to adopt something very, very quickly and rush it through to benefit big business in this state. So if you put two and two together and fast-track, we have been saved from a global economic crisis and avoided a recession. We have solved the problems of this state by fast-tracking this legislation, but at the same time this is not a proper process. This is a kick in the guts for workers and small businesses in Queensland, and I definitely cannot support this legislation. Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—UAP) (8.40 pm): I too oppose the legislation and I also oppose the urgency of the matter. This is the type of policy and governance that the National Socialist Party in Germany in the 1930s was introducing in the Reichstag, and we all know where they ended up. Mr Bleijie: That is rubbish! Dr DOUGLAS: Go and read your history! I am completely underwhelmed by any argument and media releases from the Attorney-General and others regarding the needs and outcomes for business and victims alike from the changes that the government are proposing here in this evening. I put it to all members here today that you have a collective responsibility to deliver something that is, if not better for Queenslanders, then certainly no worse than what they already have. The committee to which the legislation was originally referred has effectively recommended no changes, yet here we have an awful piece of legislation that unfairly weights the arguments on issues of workers injuries and outcomes against them. Your votes are important. I ask that you do not support changes in this bill which will be very hard to undo and very costly for all of us, including those businesses who think that this will help them. Eventually it will not. I went to some of the hearings as an observer to hear the submissions, and there were many. There were 18 public hearings and, as been said, there were approximately 246 submissions. Was everybody who was there wrong? Do we all honestly believe that this Campbell Newman bureaucracy is in possession of all knowledge, divine or otherwise, that is greater than all of those people who presented evidence to the committee? To do so is to be ignorant. Mr Rickuss: Are all the small business people wrong? Dr DOUGLAS: Just listen to this, member for Lockyer. I know you are a former employer too, as I was. Of course any employer will always want to lower their workers compensation premiums. I paid those premiums for 25 years. They always went up. I always wanted lower premiums too with no loadings. There would be many here who did not pay them. But I can tell you that when you are running a substantial business, you do pay them and they are expensive. But I am a realist— Mr Bleijie: That is why we are making them cheaper.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3490 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

Dr DOUGLAS: You have a listen to this, Attorney-General. You have probably never paid them— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! The member will speak through the chair. Dr DOUGLAS: Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will speak through the chair, and I take your guidance. But I am a realist, and I ask you all not to do this. It is false economy to defer costs forward if the compound cost of that cost is far greater for doing what you are doing here tonight. In other words, employers will have to put aside extra funds in addition to their premiums because of what is being done tonight. I want to discuss some of the key recommendations of the committee in detail. The committee were correct in finding that imposing thresholds on accessing common law rights would improperly remove rights from one group of citizens that are available to other citizens. That is what they said. The review has confirmed that the current scheme is financially viable, affordable to employers and provides a level of benefits to injured workers which is unrivalled in any other mainland Australian state. No other Australian state can match the benefits under the Queensland scheme whilst charging such a competitive premium. Queensland remains the only mainland state to retain full access to common law damages for workplace injuries. Premiums remain affordable to the employers of Queensland. The Queensland premium remains very competitive, even against those states that have introduced harsh restrictions on benefits to injured persons such as thresholds. We have heard what the percentages are in the different states. It is not overstating the position to say that the Queensland workers compensation scheme is the envy of virtually all of the other schemes in the country which have been subjected to harsh and often unfair restrictions on benefits in an attempt to contain deteriorating premium rates. In response to increasing pressures on premiums, the answer is not to be found in the further restriction of benefits to injured workers. I want to correct many false assumptions stated here by various government members as they just whittled away through their speeches. Comparison between premiums in most jurisdictions is a fairly pointless exercise due to a preponderance of different laws and frameworks. However, from an analysis it is clear that restrictions on common law damages are not the most significant driver of premiums in other jurisdictions, and workers compensation schemes in other states that impose restricted fault based schemes and thresholds do not compare favourably with jurisdictions such as Queensland, where the actual value of insurance premiums is substantially greater in terms of benefits to injured workers. It is clear that Queenslanders have enjoyed a unique and enviable workers compensation scheme, and now is not the time to be making significant changes. There is no justification, financial or philosophical, for substantial change such as the introduction of a threshold. Does anyone realise that this is a substantive reason why people emigrate to Queensland for work? That leads to growth and income. Historically, an excellent culture has existed within Queensland, and there has historically been a very open, cordial and cooperative relationship between the workers compensation insurers, Q-Comp, and the Queensland Law Society. This unique culture has been one of the single most important contributing factors to the scheme’s success, and it must be preserved to ensure the ongoing health and viability of the scheme. In the motor vehicle and public liability schemes, damages were capped several years ago in response to the ‘insurance crisis’. Damages in these schemes have been contained through the ISV scale, other than tort reform, around a decade ago. For one reason or another, this tort reform and corresponding legislative changes were not brought into the WorkCover scheme at the time but have now been incorporated through the 2010 Amendments which have been discussed a little bit here today. The 2010 amendments, by capping common law damages while allowing access to common law, have been the best way to proceed. The changes are fair and contain damages. The 2010 amendments also represent a major shift towards uniformity across all schemes. It is a misnomer to say that in Queensland there has been ‘unfettered’ access to common law. It has been stated multiple times here today. This is not correct. If you are a worker, you must proceed through a statutory phase and then numerous pre-court procedures. Failure to comply with these procedures and associated time limits can mean access to common law is restricted or even statute barred. Only once a worker has jumped through these significant hoops can he or she access common law. However, common law damages have already been restricted for some time, such as gratuitous assistance and recovery of standard costs.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3491 Amendment Bill

The 2010 amendments introduced considerable further restrictions on damages in the form of the injury scale value and capping damages for economic loss, et cetera. Accordingly, with respect, the worker should not have to compromise anymore; in other words, they have already significantly compromised. This has been outlined by various people in different forms, but it has not been spelled out. The 2010 amendments will continue to be effective in containing common law damages and as such ensure the sustainability and fairness of the scheme. That is why it is working at the moment. The 2010 amendments represented a reasoned response to the problem of the profitability of the scheme. Common law damages for workers with worthy claims will be maintained while frivolous claims are ‘weeded out’. The 2010 amendments represent a peaceful, effective solution, and that is exactly what happened. We were in parliament at the time and we were talking to the Labor Party who were introducing it. That will continue to maintain the viability of the scheme, as confirmed by the most recently available actuarial data. The 2010 amendments should be allowed to continue and then be further evaluated before unnecessarily stripping away compensation rights for Queensland workers, for example, through the introduction of a threshold. This important fact was recognised by the inquiry. In fact, I think it was stated very elegantly earlier by the member for Coomera, who was the chair of the committee. The government should look at the examples and models of other states where thresholds have been introduced. Thresholds have not contained costs in these schemes and in fact have resulted in schemes which are still burdened by massive debt and liability. Thresholds have certainly not contained costs in those jurisdictions. Why some stakeholders continue to press for thresholds when they have been a spectacular failure in other jurisdictions mystifies me. That is why they have climbed. Fortunately, the inquiry conducted an extensive and even-handed analysis of the pros and cons of thresholds, concluding— The committee recognises that imposing thresholds on access to common law rights would improperly remove rights from one group of citizens that are available to other citizens. Imposing thresholds on WPI would break the nexus between workers’ compensation and the ability of injured workers to perform their pre-injury employment. The Committee recommends retention of existing provisions relating to access to common law. The WorkCover Queensland scheme has historically been a short-tail scheme, with full access to common law. The introduction of thresholds and restricting access to common law results in a shift to a very expensive long-tail scheme. For example, in exchange for the one-off common law payment, which is more often than not heavily discounted for future contingencies of life, WorkCover and employers can be subjected to paying associated medical expenses and 85 per cent of workers’ wages until the retirement age of 65, along with the burden of decades of administering such benefits. The experience in other states has shown that, far from being profitable, these schemes have become more of a form of pseudo social security. Thresholds should never be contemplated as a solution to debt. All states with thresholds in place have failed to reduce debt. There is great concern as to the huge administrative costs associated with administering thresholds. I refer to recent commentary on the Victorian scheme in this respect, detailed in extensive literature, which members will have seen. I am sure some have read it; it is all there. Thresholds are arbitrary and result in WorkCover doctors making decisions about common law rights. This is extremely unfair to injured workers. To understand how unjust the threshold is, a sound knowledge of the American Medical Association Guides for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment is necessary. Remember, I am a doctor. So in fact I would be considered in this to be partial rather than impartial. But in fact I think this is fair. Permanent impairment percentages are determined by medical practitioners using the American Medical Association Guides for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, the AMA guides. Anyone familiar with the operation of the guides will realise that they are an arbitrary administrative tool. Various percentages act more as a broad descriptor of a particular injury. They do not take account of the impact various injuries may have on a particular individual, in particular work ability. The guides themselves make this perfectly clear. It is imperative to understand the distinction between impairment and disability. Impairment does not reflect the ability of a person to conduct work activities. It is a bizarre development that the right to access damages, such as pain and suffering and economic loss, is being assessed using the AMA guides, which specifically preclude any assessment of pain and suffering a person has endured as a result of injury and impairment as well as work ability. Take the example of a fairly common five per cent lumbar spine injury—a so-called back pain person who is actually going to get a resolution. For a well-educated bank manager this injury is not

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3492 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill going to overly affect his ability to complete his work. However, for a labourer with limited education and employment prospects—a lot of people who were out there today protesting, everyday people—a five per cent lumbar spine injury could have disastrous consequences and prevent them from undertaking any sort of future employment involving heavy lifting or labouring and place them at significant disadvantage in the open labour market for the rest of their working lives. So it affects their whole families, their lives. These are everyday, average people. That is what this government is doing. Miss Barton interjected. Dr DOUGLAS: You obviously do not talk to enough of these people. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! The member will speak through the chair. And members will cease interjecting. Dr DOUGLAS: To deny such a person access to common law damages based on a threshold is unjust since if the same injury mentioned in this example occurred in a motor vehicle accident or a public place he or she would have access to common law damages. It has to be fair. The balance is not there. The Queensland Law Society has worked cooperatively with the Queensland chamber of commerce—and government members should not deride the Law Society for pursuing the interests of its members—who were originally not aware of the 2010 amendments— Mr Dillaway interjected. Dr DOUGLAS: You wouldn’t know; you weren’t here last time—but understood how those amendments would be effective in reducing premiums. Mr Dillaway interjected. Dr DOUGLAS: You have had your turn. Just keep quiet. The Law Society desperately tried to communicate with the Attorney-General and the Premier to absolutely no avail when they had a good proposal which would reduce premiums even more and cap damages even more than was going to happen with the 2010 amendments without the need to introduce draconian, unfair thresholds which do not work and have never worked in any other state. Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Gaven, if you could resume your seat. Members will cease interjecting. The member for Gaven has the call. Dr DOUGLAS: This government has now, through this legislation, destroyed the fundamentals of the scheme by making it extremely bureaucratic, and the medical assessment tribunals and courts will be clogged with judicial review, with workers appealing their disability impairments. That is to be regretted. That is a terrible outcome. Furthermore, the injured workers of Queensland will now have the worst workers compensation scheme because they will be hit with the double whammy of capped damages from the 2010 amendments as well as the thresholds. No other state in Australia has such a double whammy, and I do not think it has been mentioned here tonight. This whole legislation is an unnecessary tragedy. The government has listened to the ignorant myths perpetuated by the business community, who literally are not aware of what they are going to have to do as a result of it—they should be—and it has refused to listen to the voice of reason, the Queensland Law Society, which has worked always to reduce premiums in a fair manner. It is in business, too. I understand that the Queensland Law Society made submissions containing various measures that can be taken to reduce the premium below that of Victoria without the introduction of a threshold. This seems to me to be a very sensible way of providing a balanced response which is fair to all stakeholders. Whilst I understand the political imperative of reduced premiums, it is very important to realise that workers have already been slugged with the 2010 amendments, the savings from which are still in the process of flowing through the scheme. So we are getting the advantages of decisions made a little less than four years ago. Furthermore, the 2010 amendments are reflected in the WorkCover annual report, which was tabled earlier in the week, showing record profits. The annual report shows a very favourable position—I think the member for Coomera was in the process of actually trying to state this earlier—and confirms the parliamentary committee’s findings. Therefore, the WorkCover scheme is viable after the changes made during the final term of the Labor government. The member for Coomera correctly stated: what about the results of that report? It demonstrates that in fact it is sustainable.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3493 Amendment Bill

I argued against parts of the original bill, as virtually all members of the opposition did. I did so on the basis of detailed knowledge of the system, because I had patients on the scheme, I was paying the premiums and so on. The reality was that we actually got something that was better than we already had and we made the thing sustainable. So the system was improved and it has been returned to financial health. It represents fairness that means something to those who need that kind of security to underwrite their family’s lives and their own lives in the event of an accident. It is affordable. It is reasonable. As a doctor I have seen good outcomes from this. We need not return to lesser outcomes. Too many people who stated things here today have little or no contact with people involved in these types of claims and they believe far too much myth and not enough reality. That is the case from the cabinet down. I say to all members that if they do not really understand it then they should not vote for it. Such should be the position of the majority of members who represent both their electorates and the people within those electorates. Members are elected to represent all of their constituents, not just those who voted for them or those they believe they want to represent. I believe that there are more changes to come. I think it is highly likely that the common law department will be the first to be made redundant with the current WorkCover. I think the likelihood is in fact that it will be privatised, despite the government saying that it will not be. So this is more of the same story of Campbell Newman, with his extreme right-wing policies, implementing systems which have massive effects on people within such a short time and in fact not for anyone’s benefit. These are ideological dreams. They do not represent pragmatism and practicality. In contrast to the flawed arguments of the member for Moggill, whom I deeply respect generally, I have outlined in depth what workers will retain. The evidence is that he is wrong. To justify it as reducing red tape, which is sort of what I think he was saying, is to give up on truth and honesty. The system as it is should not be tampered with. It should be left alone. The changes the government is recommending are wrong. Mr KATTER (Mount Isa—KAP) (8.59 pm): I rise to speak to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. To understand how this bill will impact on WorkCover Queensland and Q-Comp, members should research and understand the Kennett government’s implementation and application of Project Victoria’s recommendations relating to workers compensation. The government wants to abolish Q-Comp and restructure WorkCover Queensland, which appears to be in line with the Victorian model known as WorkSafe Victoria. The government’s possible shift towards the Victorian model is an ideologically based decision instead of a decision based on economies of scale. The government has based this bill on the argument that WorkCover Queensland is a costly and a duplicative system which needs an overhaul. The evidence suggests that the government is wrong and validates the argument that this bill is purely ideologically driven. The Queensland Law Society is encouraged that results for the 2012-13 financial year are tracking positively for the future financial viability of the scheme. It is understood that at present common law claims rates remain consistently low and common law average payments continue to reduce. Results presented at the November 2012 stakeholder actuarial presentation were very encouraging, evidencing the following: common law claims frequency are decreasing both by wages and by numbers of employees; common law claims nil finalisations are remaining high; common law claims payments are continuing to reduce; and actuarial provisions for outstanding claims were reduced by $114 million. The society notes that at the November 2012 stakeholder presentation the actuaries for both Q-Comp and WorkCover Queensland advised that sufficient time had elapsed since the passing of the 2010 amendments to confirm with certainty that the reforms in 2010 were effective in reducing exposure of the scheme to adverse claims trends, there was a five per cent reduction in common law frequency for 2011 and later injury years, and there was a five per cent reduction in common law settlement sizes for 2011 and later injury years. The society has consistently cautioned—and the actuaries for WorkCover Queensland and Q-Comp have confirmed— that any further significant structural change to the scheme will introduce actuarial uncertainty and that it may take some considerable time for the impact of such changes to crystallise. In the case of the 2010 amendments, cautious actuarial confirmation indicates that that initiative has been successful, notwithstanding actuarial opinion recently expressed that, even without the 2010 amendments, the positive trends now confirmed may have eventuated. The submissions by the Queensland Law Society have presented sufficient evidence that places a question mark over the reasoning for the government to make changes to the basis for assessment of impairment to align the assessment method between the statutory and common law provisions of the scheme. The government is arguing that WorkCover is a costly scheme that needs to be restructured to reduce

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3494 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill cost and increase efficiency. The government has once again been caught out making choices for the public which are based in bad faith. The committee report supports the observation by KAP which suggests the government is acting in bad faith, stating— A paper presented at the Asia Pacific Risk and Insurance Association (APRIA) conference in 2008 reviewed the different Australian Workers’ Compensation Schemes. The authors found that the managed scheme (such as that in South Australia and New South Wales) had the worst claims management performance, the highest frequency rate of injury and the highest cost ratio. The managed scheme also has the highest premium rate on average and the poorest funded scheme and although it had the lowest injury rate, it still had a higher cost ratio and lower funding ratio. The above review also suggested the best scheme to be that of the government-run central scheme in terms of best claims management performance. The central scheme was the only scheme to have recorded a funding ratio above 100 per cent in each of the years examined in the study. As members should know, WorkCover Queensland is a government-run central scheme and this is the foundation of its success. So why does the government want to restructure a scheme which is internationally recognised as best practice? The cost efficiency of Queensland’s WorkCover speaks for itself when compared to WorkSafe Victoria, as stated by the Law Society. In terms of comparing the Victorian experience, Victoria claims to have the lowest workers compensation premium in the nation but, as the society noted in its supplementary submission to the inquiry, there is a significant difference in the nature of the excess payable by employers in the two states. This will inevitably have an impact on premium levels. Queensland has the second lowest average workers compensation premium in the country at 1.45 per cent of wages. The published average premium in Victoria is lower at 1.29 per cent, but employers in Victoria must pay the first two weeks of wages and the first $629 in medical expenses of a claim directly. Employers can buy out of this excess by paying a 10 per cent premium increase, giving a total premium presently of 1.427 per cent. Another aspect of the Victorian model is a threshold to access common law claim entitlements. The threshold contributes to the high rate of disputation in the Victorian scheme as a result of arguments over entitlements to pursue common law claims. Additional administrative burdens are placed on employers who are often required to participate in the complex multistage common law process in Victoria. Recent reporting has indicated that there are significant issues facing the Victorian scheme in the 2012-13 year in that there is a sustained surge in common law claims which has dented the performance of the Victorian scheme; half-year results for the 2012-13 year showed a significant reduction in profit from insurance operations, down from $118 million to $13 million; rising levels of common law claims for the half year added about $150 million to liabilities; and the Victorian scheme actuary has taken the view that the trend in the increased number of common law claims was not likely to abate. It is an interesting outcome that, despite having a threshold for access to common law claims in Victoria, there now appears to be a sustained increase in the claims rate. In Queensland we have open access to common law claims and a clearly identified decreasing common law claims rate, together with decreasing average claims payments, as a result of the introduction of the ISV scale in relation to awards of general damages. The recent Victorian scheme claims experience reinforces the society’s long-held position that the imposition of thresholds in order to access common law claims entitlements, firstly, does not necessarily impact upon common law claims rates; and, secondly, will not, going forward, result in the removal from the scheme of that cohort of claims which presently meets the claims profile which would be excluded by the imposition of a threshold. In other words, if, for example, the imposition of a threshold would, on current figures, remove 20 per cent of claims, the imposition of a threshold will never in reality achieve such an optimistic outcome and the actual reduction in claims will always be less than projected. The Law Society also stated that the workers compensation scheme in Queensland is the best in the nation because it delivers fair benefits to injured workers, low premiums to employers, the right balance between the delivery of statutory benefits and access to common law, and the opportunity for employers to enjoy the benefits flowing from a positive involvement in the workplace health and safety of workers. The society has asserted for some time that significant structural changes to the scheme were not needed and that, with current claims, trends premium levels will decrease. The society urges the exercise of caution in undertaking significant changes to the scheme. If changes are considered necessary, it is to be expected that the actuaries for both WorkCover Queensland and Q-Comp will be given the opportunity to model the impact of any such reforms and, if necessary, further consultation with stakeholders will be undertaken. WorkCover Queensland is the best in the country and it does not need restructuring. WorkCover Queensland positively meets all economic criteria to run a productive, efficient and successful business such as production efficiency, producing services at the lowest possible cost;

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3495 Amendment Bill increased opportunity cost as the workforce increases in Queensland and the opportunity cost of services increases; marginal cost, the marginal cost of a service is the opportunity cost of producing more services; increased economic growth; and comparative advantage. Members have to ask themselves: do we possibly want to go down the same path as the financially unsustainable WorkSafe Victoria, or do we maintain our financially viable and internationally recognised WorkCover Queensland system, which is the envy of many? Miss BARTON (Broadwater—LNP) (9.08 pm): This evening I rise to contribute to the debate on the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I look forward to being able to support this bill and I look forward to being able to vote for it because I stand up for business owners and other members of the community in my electorate. This bill will implement our government’s response to the Queensland parliament’s Finance and Administration Committee report on its inquiry into the operation of the Queensland workers compensation scheme. The committee tabled its report on 23 May this year and I want to acknowledge the work of the committee. There were a number of members of this House who worked on this report and who were members of the committee over that time, but I particularly want to acknowledge the work of the then chair, the member for Coomera. The report contains 32 recommendations, 18 of which have been supported by the government. I want to take note of a few of the recommendations of the committee that the government has supported. I believe that it is very important that we continue to support the education and awareness programs with regard to safety in the workplace and workers compensation insurance. The government has also supported the committee’s recommendations that there will be no change to journey claims and its recommendation that issues of the no win, no fee and the 50-50 rule be investigated. With regard to journey claims, there was much information peddling its way around my community. I want to make it absolutely clear to my electorate of Broadwater that there is no change to the current scheme, which allows workers to avail themselves of a claim when injured while travelling to or from work or while on a break. Queensland is one of two jurisdictions in Australia that has no restrictions on journey claims. There were many submissions received that argued for a limit to journey claims or against their retention. However, in the face of those submissions, there were many reasons for the retention of journey claims. They include, but are certainly not limited to, that they have no real impact on an employer’s annual premium and that there would be an increased strain on the Queensland budget because the costs of medical expenses and rehabilitation would then become a burden of the state. They are very important for workers in regional areas who quite often have to travel long distances and, of course, an LNP government always stands up for the regions. Journey claims provide protection for workers injured in no-fault accidents where they are unable to demonstrate negligence. No win, no fee arrangements were introduced as an endeavour to ensure that the community had access to legal representation where they otherwise might not and where quality legal representation might otherwise have been beyond the reach of potential litigants. Access to Legal Aid is often limited to those who are on low incomes or receive Centrelink benefits and it often does not extend to civil matters such as these. I know that many in my electorate of Broadwater have serious concerns about the integrity of some members of the legal fraternity who offer and make available some arrangements and these can be valid concerns. I have no doubt that there are members of the legal fraternity who are genuinely seeking to provide quality representation to those who would not ordinarily have access to it because of financial constraints. However, I do not believe that that can be said of all. I personally believe that the advertising of these services can in some cases be incredibly misleading, because those members of society who see the advertisements are not always necessarily aware of the associated costs and that, irrespective of a favourable judgement, they may well be, and in many cases often are, liable for filing fees, the cost of expert reports as well as barristers’ fees. Mr Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you are well aware, barristers’ fees often do not come cheap. Mr Gibson: Unless you are a cheap barrister. Miss BARTON: I do not think I have ever met a cheap barrister in all of my time. Despite the Queensland Law Society’s contention otherwise, I believe that the existence and the advertisement of 50-50 arrangements and no-win fee offers can have an impact on the workers compensation scheme.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3496 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

I accept that for the most part there is merit in the arrangements, but there is a valid concern across Queensland about the advertising, how it is done, the language that is used to advertise and the conditions and whether or not they are truly made clear to potential litigants. I note that in the government’s response, which the Attorney-General tabled on Tuesday, he indicated that he would support the committee’s recommendation that the Attorney-General should investigate these 50-50 arrangements and no win, no fee offers. This amendment bill will achieve many objectives. I do not intend to list them all, but there are a few that I wish to address. I think it is really important to note that one of the objectives that will be achieved from this bill is that, if requested by their employer, an employee will now have to provide a notification of previous injuries and allow for access to prospective workers’ previous claims histories. This will ensure that hardworking Queenslanders and their businesses are not subject to the vagaries of vexatious claimants. I have said time and time again in this House that our government is committed to making sure that business in Queensland is able to get about the business of doing business and this is a key element of making sure that they are able to do so. We have also announced that, through this amendment bill, we will close a potential loophole that has been caused by Foster & Another v Cameron. In that particular case, a man who had hurt his back was able to claim damages for a lost ability to mow his lawn because he sometimes employed someone else when his children or his grandchildren were not available. I do not believe that we need to have broad-ranging access to damages for gratuitous services. The government is introducing a common law threshold of more than five per cent impairment. Where a claim is below this threshold, the statutory no-fault workers compensation will still apply. I think it is important to note that, in 2011-12, 56 per cent of common law claims were those where the work related impairment was between zero and five per cent. This move has strong support, as evidenced in the submissions, and also the third-party endorsements received by the government. There has been a lot of discussion about whether or not it should have been five per cent and I am sure that there are many in the community who feel that it should perhaps even be 10 per cent or 15 per cent. It is an arbitrary number, but at some point in time a line has to be drawn in the sand and this is where this line has been drawn. I have no doubt that this will make for a much more efficient system. I would also like to address the increase in maximum penalties for people who defraud or attempt to defraud insurers. One of the things that we see in the Penalties and Sentences Act is that, when sentencing someone, a key element has to be that the sentence is a deterrent against others committing the same crime. As part of this amendment bill, the maximum sentence for defrauding or attempting to defraud insurers is increased from 18 months to a maximum of five years imprisonment. Workers who make fraudulent claims give genuinely injured workers a bad name. I believe that the increase in the maximum penalty will certainly go a long way to deterring against such fraudulent claims. Of course, this amendment will also be a great comfort to the businesses and insurance companies because, even though once a fraudulent claim has been made it is perhaps a little bit too late, I think it will go a long way to assuaging concerns about how tough we really are on those who seek to defraud and take advantage of the system. Members of the opposition and the crossbenchers have complained there has been no consultation and they have complained about the urgency of the bill. In fact, I do not think that the member for Dalrymple addressed anything in the bill; he simply addressed the urgency and the importance of it being important. I think it is important to note that one of the first acts of this parliament in June last year was to pass a motion that the Finance and Administration Committee of this parliament—a bipartisan committee—conduct an inquiry and report to the House. That was 15 months ago. If members of the opposition and crossbenchers do not believe that 15 months is ample time for a committee and the community to consult and for the community to understand what the committee was trying to argue, then I am not sure what they think consultation is. I personally believe that ample time was provided to the community. The committee itself held many public hearings. It travelled across the state and it gave people significant opportunity to make contributions. Those contributions are indeed noted in what is a very hefty and thick report. I also would like to point out that no dissenting report has been submitted by the official opposition or any member of the crossbench. I wonder, if they had serious concerns, why they did not take the time then to submit a dissenting report?

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3497 Amendment Bill

I would also like to highlight that the government has received a number of endorsements for the action that it has taken. It has received endorsements from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland, which is the peak body for business in this great state. It has received endorsements from the Master Builders Association, the Housing Industry Association, the Australian Industry Group and many others. I am a strong believer that the greatest dignity for many in our society is a job. I would think that all members of this House would agree with that proposition. I also believe that workers in our state deserve to have a safe place of employment. I believe that we also need to have a system that does not deter businesses from getting on with doing business and does not deter people from wanting to run their own businesses. This government is committed to ensuring that Queensland workers are safe in their workplaces and where they are legitimately injured and deserving of compensation it will be available to them. This amendment bill is not about stripping rights from workers when it comes to compensation. We have looked to reduce premiums for business. That is something that we will see come out of this amendment bill. We are committed to making sure that businesses are able to do business in Queensland. I look forward to seeing this particular bill pass the House. Mr MOLHOEK (Southport—LNP) (9.20 pm): I rise tonight to speak in support of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I am disappointed that the member for Gaven has decided to leave us after delivering what I thought was a fairly interesting perspective on this bill. I felt it was absolutely inappropriate for him to try to draw an analogy between our government and the Nationalist Socialist Party of Germany back in the times of the Second World War. These sorts of comments from the member for Gaven should not surprise us. Just yesterday we heard him rise in the House and make all sorts of accusations about the effectiveness of the Gold Coast University Hospital. He attacked the Minister for Health, Minister Springborg, about the performance of that hospital. We have increased spending on the Gold Coast by some $178 million this year. We have built a brand new hospital. Today I received a phone call from the local media suggesting that the member for Gaven, who leads the Palmer party here in Queensland, has come up with another great plan and that is they are going to buy the old Gold Coast Hospital. Apparently Mr Palmer is going to make an offer on the basis that he just pays the land value and we give them everything else on the site and then he is going to refurbish it and run a whole new hospital at his expense because the new Gold Coast University Hospital is apparently inadequate. The Gold Coast University Hospital was built at a cost to taxpayers of some $1.8 billion. It has capacity for the next 10 years. We have six brand new services available on the Gold Coast that we have never had before. The member for Gaven continues to attack and make all sorts of unfounded claims and when the Minister for Health sends someone out from the appropriate body within government to investigate these accusations he comes up dry without any evidence. Here he is again tonight coming up dry with hollow argument and debate about this legislation. He makes all sorts of comments and accusations about the changes we are wanting to make. He casts aspersions on the members of this government and suggests that Campbell Newman and the bureaucracy are out of control, that there is no discipline, there is no function, but he completely overlooks the fact that his leader has demonstrated nothing but an unbridled passion, through his public statements, to control the balance of power in Canberra. The last time I checked our government was elected with a strong majority. The people of Queensland supported the LNP in Queensland. They gave us many, many seats to act responsibly and make good decisions in the best interests of Queensland. Yet we hear accusations from the leader of the Palmer party in the House tonight suggesting that the appropriate way to run a government is from a minority position and to somehow try to use some sort of leverage or coercion to take control of the government and to run your own agenda. I do not believe we need any further evaluation. As the member for Broadwater quite rightly pointed out earlier, it has been some 14 months in the coming. Queenslanders, business and lobby groups have had plenty of time to provide evaluation. I have done a little evaluation of my own that I think is highly relevant in this discussion. The fact is that when we came into government business in Queensland was bleeding, more and more jobs were moving offshore and many businesses were becoming uncompetitive and struggling to stay afloat let alone create opportunity and employment for people. We are in the midst of seeing some of the highest youth unemployment in recorded history within our state and youth jobs are at unacceptable levels. Another bit of evaluation that is relevant here is the fact that we were elected to try to fix this mess. There has been 20 years of Labor mismanagement, 20 years of ‘Labornomics’ here in Queensland, and what do we have to show for it? Under Labor the harder businesses worked the unluckier they got. You work hard to grow your

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3498 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill business, to make a profit, create opportunity and to give someone a job, which is a tremendous privilege, and then what do we do? We charge them more. We put up their premiums. We make it more expensive for them to operate. We make it difficult for them to stay afloat. Then we wonder why businesses are shutting their doors. In my corporate business days I saw year after year the workers compensation costs and other costs go up and up and up. Then just a few years ago as a small business person, things went pretty well for a year or two and I thought, ‘Wouldn’t it be great to put on a full-time administration staff member? Wouldn’t it be great to bring a full-time salesperson into the business?’ As I started to look at the costs involved—the work health and safety regulations and the workers compensation premiums and all the other red tape—I came to the conclusion pretty quickly that it was easier to stay as a solo operator for a little longer. Eventually I had the need to put someone on. I created a part-time job for someone. I rang up and paid my first WorkCover premium. In the space of just three years that premium went up 400 per cent. There were no claims through my business. There were no issues in my small business. But the premiums under WorkCover continued to go up to unsustainable levels to the point where it was all too hard. I stand here tonight to commend the Attorney-General and the Finance and Administration Committee for their efforts in the face of considerable pressure and unwarranted scare campaigns from the labour unions. Since the review was announced I have spoken to many constituents and business owners in my electorate who have voiced their opinion about our workers compensation scheme—what should be changed, what should remain the same—but all of them agreed on one thing: the Queensland workers compensation scheme is the best scheme for workers and employers in Australia. However, there is room for improvement. This bill addresses those areas of concern while maintaining the high standard and employment protection Queenslanders have come to expect from our workers compensation scheme. When speaking with business owners in my electorate the issue of fraudulent claims has been raised with me on more than one occasion. Many in the business community are suffering at the hands of irresponsible and dishonest employees who see the workers compensation scheme as their ticket to early retirement. One small business owner spoke to me about multiple employees who had teamed up and provided false statutory declarations for each other so each of them could claim a payout. Every time this happened the business’s premium skyrocketed to the point where the business had become unsustainable. This was a business in my electorate on the coast that was providing full-time employment for some 60 people. They came to see me at Australia Fair about six months ago and said it was at the point now where the premium and the conditions and everything else that had been placed on them were unreasonable. They had people coming to them with work histories who were not declaring them and then putting in claims for old injuries that had occurred in a different work life in a different setting. We need to attack and address this issue because we need to get Queensland going. We need to create jobs. We need to continue to build that reputation that we are so committed to building, which is one of being the best place in Australia to come and set up a business, to build a home and to create a future. However, the particular businessman I mentioned before wanted to know what recourse he had and what penalties were applicable to those fraudulent workers. He wanted to know why no-one was taking his concerns of fraudulent claims seriously. Our government has listened to those concerns. The Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill will increase the penalties for fraudulent claims to 500 penalty points or five years imprisonment. We are also changing the law so that WorkCover is legally required to refer all allegations of fraud related offences to the scheme regulator for investigation. This is an effective and responsible approach to a widespread problem and I will be pleased to return to my electorate tomorrow and speak with business owners about these changes. It is an important win for Queensland businesses that have long been fighting this battle with little ammunition. The scaremongering that has gone on as a result of the review into workers compensation has been outrageous. Last week I received an email from a school principal in my electorate. It states— Hi Rob,

I just thought I’d let you know that the Teachers’ Union is asking its members to take action against the LNP Government, alleging that your LNP Government is preparing legislation to: - take away journey cover for travel to and from work; injuries that occur on journeys between worksites; injuries that occur on any recess break. - limit payouts in (civil legal action for employer negligence) common law claims if injured at work.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3499 Amendment Bill

Rob, I am unsure as to whether this is in fact true (and obviously I would be opposed and most concerned if it was), however, I thought I would: a) give you a heads up, b) get a confirm from you that this is or is not in fact the case, and c) seek your personal views on such a proposal

I wish you well. We wrote back to this particular school principal and he was more than happy with the response, because we were able to give some undertakings about the policy direction of this new legislation. The action referred to in this email which was being encouraged by the Teachers Union was sending postcards to the offices of members of parliament protesting the removal of journey claims from the workers compensation scheme. My office has received at least 70 of those. The thing that annoys me about this is the fraudulent behaviour of the opposition in creating unnecessary alarm with no regard for the concerns, feelings and worries of ordinary working families, whipping up a frenzy about issues that are simply not true or factual. I am reminded of the way that Labor does business every time I go past the lift to level 9 and see those placards behind their desks stating, ‘Queensland is not for sale’ and ‘Queensland hospitals are not for sale’. It is another great example— A government member: Queensland Rail is not for sale. Mr MOLHOEK: Yes, apparently Queensland Rail is not for sale either. The hypocrisy of the opposition is breathtaking. All of this is just a tremendous waste of time and union members’ fees, particularly after the Attorney-General again confirmed his commitment and announced in this House that there would be absolutely no change to journey claims. The Attorney-General referenced the transient nature and size of our fly-in fly-out workforce as important reasons to retain journey claims. We are the only state to maintain journey claims for every worker. This bill also maintains access to common law claims except for those with a medically assessed impairment of less than five per cent. As part of the review process, the evidence provided for common law claims indicated 56 per cent of claims were for those with a work related impairment of zero per cent to five per cent. Incredibly, those represented 52 per cent of all costs in 2011-12. It should also be noted that all injured workers are entitled to compensation under the statutory payment scheme, which is a no-fault scheme. Claims are more appropriately dealt with through the statutory scheme, instead of the courts. Earlier I mentioned some of the challenges that I have experienced in this space as a former employer. From the opposition’s point of view, the economics of this are quite interesting. I am not sure that they really understand basic economic principles. The principle seems to be that you keep pushing up the wages and the conditions of people so they can earn more and then when people do start to earn more you tax them and business more, because you need more and more money to cover fraudulent claims and to support people on welfare and people who cannot get jobs because the jobs start to diminish because business cannot keep employing people. You end up handing out more and more money to people, many of whom should be supported. Those people who are disadvantaged in our community should be supported. However, it is ridiculous for us to be supporting people who want to rort the system. Speaking of people who rort the system, some lawyers skim off extortionate amounts of money from compensation claims under a no-win, no-fee system. They will provide their services for some ridiculous amount of money, but they get to keep half of the payout. They value themselves at $400 or $500 an hour and are out there, hand on heart, like our good friends in the Labor opposition, saying, ‘We’re here to help, but we’re happy to help because we are getting 400 bucks an hour and we will make sure you get your $25 an hour’. The hypocrisy of this organisation and the opposition in this space is just incredible. The only way that business can thrive in Queensland is to have great work conditions. The only way that business can thrive is if they have some certainty around their premiums and their costs. They need to know what their overheads are. It is simply not sustainable for a business to be paying $10,000 in WorkCover premiums one year and then the next year they find they have to pay $25,000 and then two years later it has gone up to $89,000. In the case of the Gold Coast business that I mentioned earlier, which has 60 employees, the premium had gone up to something like $178,000. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to work out how many jobs that would have created.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3500 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

As a parent, my hope is that we can provide a great future for our kids. My passion is to see everybody with a job. My passion is to see everyone who does not have a job but could be doing a job have a job. While we keep jacking up the costs and handing out more money to people who really do not need it and are already getting far more than they should, and while lawyers are gouging the system, we simply rob our kids of a great future. That is why I am here. That is why I ran for the election last year. That is why I decided to hopefully spend the second part of my working life in politics, serving the Gold Coast and Southport community, which I love. Frankly, I am sick of hearing the stories of people who come to my office to tell me that they are struggling to get a job and are struggling to get by. I listen to businesspeople who are tearing their hair out trying to meet the overheads that are imposed by the sort of policies we have seen from the opposition, the ‘Labornomics’ of business management in Queensland. It is important to point out that a job is actually a privilege, it is not a right. It is a privilege. We have to stop penalising our entrepreneurs and risk takers for giving people a go. Workers compensation was never supposed to be an alternate form of welfare. It was supposed to be a fair and reasonable recognition and compensation for real harm and to cover and support those people who had a genuine injury at work. I am happy to add my support to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—LNP) (9.37 pm): I rise to make a few brief comments about the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. I received a very irate call from a member of one of the larger solicitors’ firms in my area, McNamara & Associates. Kerian is a good friend of mine. He was quite irate about what we were doing to the workers compensation act, as personal injury is one of the claims they deal with. I know from the conversation that we had that some of his senior partners were also quite irate. I have received an email from Bill Munro, who is the principal of CW Hooper & Hooper Lawyers, which has been operating in Laidley since the 1880s. I know Peter Hooper extremely well. Bill has taken over the company. Both of those men are quite irate. I was an employer of a large number of people for well over 20 years. We really have to make some hard decisions here. That is what this is about. No-one wants to see workers getting done over. No-one wants to see businesses getting done over. It is a fact of life. We are making some of those decisions. One decision was could we stop the insurance lawyers from taking such a large percentage of the payments to workers. That was one option that was made available. We could have done that. The five per cent limit is reasonable given that in 2009-10 the then chairman of WorkCover, Ian Brusasco, suggested a 10 to 15 per cent threshold. Ian Brusasco, the right-wing, conservative person that he is talked about a 10 to 15 per cent threshold. We are making realistic decisions. I get quite annoyed when people say that the workers compensation scheme has made a profit. What has really happened is that its levies have exceeded its expenditure. It does not make money. People paid levies and then money was paid out. The levies exceeded the expenditure. It did not make a profit. The levies paid in exceeded expenditure. That may be due to good management. There is no such thing as profit in that regard. The Queensland Farmers Federation put out a press release on this. The cane growers in the member for Hinchinbrook’s area, Growcom, the vegetable growers and the large employers in the horticulture industry have put out press releases supporting our take on workers compensation. I have had Cooks Transport, one of my local transport companies, come to me with issues around access to workers compensation history. The meatworks in my area have been quite irate about what has gone on with some of their workers compensation payments. It is something that we have had to manage. I think we are doing a good job of managing it. This is not an easy piece of legislation which will please everybody. Hard decisions have to be made. We have to make sure this is sustainable into the future. There has been an increase in premiums of some 20 per cent since 2009. It is important to get this on the right track to ensure that all Queenslanders have good WorkCover coverage and that all small businesses can manage their WorkCover issues and continue to prosper into the future. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (9.42 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. There are parts of this bill which I think are very sensible and very reasonable. There are also parts that I do not agree with. I will be brief in my comments.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3501 Amendment Bill

I note in the parliamentary committee’s report it states— Of major concern to the Committee is ensuring that the principle of universal coverage is protected and vulnerable workers are not unknowingly excluded. The Committee considers that there are several groups of workers who are in a disproportionate position of power when it comes to negotiating their entitlements. These groups include those whose employment status is unclear, the poorly educated and those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. There is no doubt that over time as more and more people move to Queensland there will be a greater group of people who fit into that category. One of the objectives of the bill is to ‘require a worker to provide an employer with a notification of previous injuries, if requested.’ Another objective is ‘allowing for access to a prospective worker’s claim history in particular circumstances.’ I think that these two objectives are very sensible and very reasonable. I can reflect on a meeting I had with the previous minister responsible for this area. Then I met with senior staff down at WorkCover in the Valley. I raised with them then what the Attorney-General and the government are trying to do in these two objectives. They gave me a very involved answer. The reason I raised this matter with the previous minister and the reason I raised this matter with the senior staff at WorkCover was that a small crop farmer had a situation where a couple of people made a series of claims over two years. In due course it went to the tribunal. In due course his premiums increased. In due course the powers to be looked at his work program and, to cut a long story short, it turned out that the people who made the claim had a history of making similar claims interstate. We inquired why he was not able to ask about the prospective employee’s claim history. The answer was very clear. It was that we could perhaps affect their potential work employment prospects. I support those two objectives. I think they are fair. I suppose it is about trying to find a balance. I understood the strong arguments that were put to me by the then minister responsible and the strong arguments that were put to me by the other parties involved as to why the law would not be changed. I have listened to debate since it started this afternoon and I believe this is right. I am prepared to test the water. I am prepared to see how it unfolds. If it turns out that there are significant problems in terms of many employees who are not able to gain employment because of their previous work history and employers are being unreasonable then I have no doubt that a future government or maybe this government if it happens during their time will review the situation. Another objective of the bill is that ‘WorkCover refer all allegations of fraud-related offences to the Regulator for investigating and if necessary prosecution’. Another objective is to ‘increase penalties for persons who defraud or attempt to defraud insurers’. I got to know this small crop farmer quite well over the years. It is often where I buy my fruit as I leave Nambour. This farming family—and I will not mention their name here—has employed many people over a period of years. They had a couple of claims. The advice that they gave to me is that very clearly those claims were fraudulent. The farmer went to great length to raise his concerns with the investigative unit of WorkCover. He agitated for an investigation of one claim in particular that is very clear in my memory. He was involved in telephone link-ups as the investigations progressed and as the hearing progressed. To cut a long story short, finally the lawyers for WorkCover said, ‘It is cheaper for us to pay the claim than to proceed to a hearing and testing it in the courts.’ I support the government’s intent to deal with these fraudulent claims. Mr Trout: That’s what lawyers play on as well. Mr WELLINGTON: I take that interjection. There are some lawyers who certainly do play on this. Not all lawyers are in that category. I used to be one and I thought I always did the right thing. I know other lawyers out there— Mr Bleijie interjected. Mr WELLINGTON: I take your word, Mr Attorney-General. There are lawyers out there who do the right thing and do a lot of honorary work. I would hate Queenslanders to think that according to the submissions we have heard during this debate that all lawyers are out there doing the wrong thing—ambulance chasers as some have referred to them. I will go back to the bill before the House. I am asking the minister to give some assurance that it is not just about increasing penalties but that we are going to focus on having proper resources to ensure that we have people with the right skills to do the investigations of these claims, because there is one claim that is very clear in my mind where I have no doubt that it was a sham but, because there was not sufficient will to investigate and prosecute, the powers that be at the time took the easy way out. Minister, I certainly support those initiatives and I am keen to see how things unfold over time.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3502 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

On the issue of the journey claim component, I simply say, as other members have said, that we are a decentralised state. I am disappointed that this was even raised as a consideration because I thought it was a no-brainer to not consider taking away the journey claim component of the scheme. We are one of the states where people have to travel long distances to and from work. There are many in my electorate with kids in the local kindergarten and preschool and the breadwinner heads off to Central Queensland and then comes back. I have spoken about that in previous contributions in the House. I think it was unfortunate and disappointing that the issue of possibly taking away journey claims was raised. I am very pleased that there was no action on that. With successive state governments promoting and encouraging significant development in Central and Northern Queensland, a lot of that development has relied on the businesses being able to operate their business on the lowest cost denominator. Often that revolves around the business not having to spend business dollars in building a town and building community facilities but relies on many of the workers who work at those businesses travelling extreme distances from their residence to and from work. In relation to the threshold component, can I say to the government that I do not support that. I do not believe sufficient evidence has been presented either in the parliamentary committee report or to me to support removing this threshold component. Because this is all tied up in one bill, I commend the minister on some components that I have touched on tonight. I realise that it is 10 to 10 and there is another bill to be debated after this, so I will be brief. I cannot support the introduction of a threshold component. I note that the opposition has proposed an amendment which will be debated in consideration in detail. I look forward to the minister’s response to the matters that I and other members have raised. Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (9.51 pm), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contribution to the bill this evening. This bill gives effect to the government’s response to the inquiry into the operation of Queensland’s workers compensation scheme by the Queensland parliament’s Finance and Administration Committee. The bill seeks to deliver Australia’s best performing workers compensation scheme—a scheme that is the envy of the rest of the country. The Newman government was elected on a platform that included rebuilding the Queensland economy and getting our state back on track. This bill builds on that commitment, which is good for jobs and good for Queensland. Having competitive premiums encourages business investment, meaning more jobs for Queenslanders. The bill achieves this by simplifying the regulatory processes and ensuring that compensation is available to help injured workers get back on their feet. It strikes a better balance between providing appropriate benefits for injured workers and the reasonable cost of premiums for employers. As I mentioned in my explanatory speech, the government’s response is the result of careful analysis of both the recommendations contained in the report and the 246 submissions made to the inquiry. In addition to the written submissions received from employers, insurers, lawyers, unions, professional bodies and individuals, the inquiry held 18 public hearings, five closed hearings and five official briefings in its year-long review. I also met personally with various organisations to discuss issues related to the operation of the workers compensation scheme. The committee’s report made 32 recommendations. The government supports 18 recommendations, supports a further two with an amendment and does not support 12 recommendations. I would like to again reassure all Queenslanders that the bill does not include any changes to journey claims. In a large decentralised state it is vitally important to afford workers this necessary protection. Queensland’s workers compensation scheme will be the only scheme in any Australian state that covers journeys to and from work for the workforce generally. The recommendations which were not supported were, in the government’s view, based on commentary in submissions rather than detailed analysis or evidence. For example, the committee was of the view that there should be no restriction on access to common law damages claims in the scheme. This is despite evidence that claims with a work related impairment, or WRI, of between zero per cent and five per cent represented around 56 per cent of all common law claims and 52 per cent of the total costs in 2011-12. This number of lower end claims has remained constant or increased in certain WRI bands over recent years, rather than reducing. The bill will, subject to consideration by parliament, introduce a threshold of greater than five per cent degree of permanent impairment to access common law damages. The threshold will apply to all injuries occurring on or from the day the bill was introduced into the parliament. If a worker

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3503 Amendment Bill disputes the assessment of their degree of permanent impairment, they can request the medical assessment tribunals to review and decide the impairment. The tribunal comprises around 170 eminent medical specialists appointed by the Governor in Council whose role it is to make decisions solely of a medical nature including degrees of permanent impairment. Workers with a degree of permanent impairment of five per cent or less will continue to maintain access to statutory compensation, including weekly and lump sum compensation, consistent with current entitlements. If I can be clear again to members of this House: workers with a degree of permanent impairment of five per cent or less will continue—in fact, all injured workers in Queensland will continue—to have access to statutory compensation. It is about this that I have seen a lot of misinformation out in the public domain, misinformation from the likes of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, who are advertising in papers—full-page ads—where they put how much was offered on a particular impairment from WorkCover, but they failed to mention that that may have been the lump sum payment at the end from a statutory scheme and failed to mention that for the first 26 weeks 100 per cent of wages would be covered, medical bills would be covered and after the first 26 weeks 75 per cent of the wages would be covered up to a period of five years. So, despite the misinformation going out there from a lot of people like the Australian Lawyers Alliance, who claim that people will not have any access to money, is simply wrong. All workers in Queensland will have access to a statutory scheme. For the first 26 weeks 100 per cent of wages will be paid and thereafter 75 per cent of wages for five years. The only difference is that half of that money will not be going to personal injury lawyers; it will be going straight to the employer and straight to the worker concerned, and I think that is great for workers in this state. Under these changes, the government believes that it has got the balance right. All other Australian states that provide for common law damages have thresholds which go as high as 30 per cent. Cabinet deliberated on this matter. We looked at all the other jurisdictions. We looked at Victoria with a 30 per cent common law threshold and other jurisdictions like New South Wales with a 15 per cent common law threshold. We thought that by maintaining the journey claims and by introducing a five per cent common law threshold we have got the balance right. Certainly there is a view in the business community that we should have gone with the New South Wales and Victorian models of a 15 per cent or 30 per cent common law threshold. We did not take that view. We thought the balance is right with introducing a five per cent common law threshold and keeping journey claims in the state, despite the fact that I have recently received a letter from the Law Society saying, ‘Get rid of journey claims but don’t touch common law thresholds.’ So there is dispute amongst even the lawyers and the unions who were protesting out the front this evening. I had representation from one side to get rid of journey claims and from the other to keep them. So we are keeping journey claims. We are the only Australian jurisdiction to keep journey claims so workers are covered to and from work. And we are introducing a common law threshold of five per cent—one of the lowest common law thresholds. We are the only state currently that does not have a common law threshold. So, in terms of the introduction of a common law threshold, Queensland is still way below every other Australian jurisdiction—Victoria, 30 per cent; New South Wales, 15 per cent; others in between. We are one of the only jurisdictions that did not have a common law threshold. Honourable members may be interested to know that there are two to three jurisdictions in Australia that actually do not allow common law. They actually do not allow access to any common law. So they do not have a threshold. You are not able to sue your employer for common law; you only have the rights of a statutory claim. I thank the members for their contribution. I thank the member for Gladstone for her contribution tonight. Over the last 48 hours a lot of stuff has been said about me by lawyers around the state and I have deliberately stayed out of the debate. I have not gotten personal with personal injury lawyers or the Law Society because I respect everyone’s right to have a say. I respect the views of the 200 to 300 people who were protesting out the front this evening. I say this to the member for Gladstone, who did make a good contribution. When we look at all the other Australian states and territories, Queensland is one of the only jurisdictions that does not currently either have a common law threshold or allow access to common law at all. Three jurisdictions do not allow any access to common law. I have looked through the committee report over the last 12 months. We set up the parliamentary committee to do its job. They did their job. We did not rush this; we took time to look at all the submissions. I personally met with the Law Society on numerous occasions. The Law Society met with the Premier and the Treasurer. At some stage I had a meeting with the Australian Lawyers Alliance. I met with business groups and businesses on the ground, including small businesses who have to pay the worker compensation scheme. Cabinet and I

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3504 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill took the view that, upon considering all of that—not rushing it; it was an 18-month process—upon considering all the evidence before us, the best way to make sure we have a sustainable scheme for the future is to retain the journey claims but to also introduce a very small threshold of five per cent, the smallest of any Australian jurisdiction by far. Victoria has 30 per cent. We will cover only the minor injuries. However, those who have minor injuries will have immediate access to a statutory claim. For the first 26 weeks of their injury they will have their full wages paid—100 per cent of their wages. After that, they will have 75 per cent of their wages paid up to a period of five years. At two years it gets reviewed to see where the employee is—whether the worker feels like they can go back to work. In essence, when the WorkCover scheme was established, it was not necessarily a compensation scheme; it was a rehabilitation and return-to-work scheme to ensure that workers could be best established to go back to work. The only thing I can say to the member for Gladstone—if anything—is that we have thought long and hard about this over the last six months since the inquiry was conducted. We think we have a fair balance. We know that not everyone is going to be happy. We know that the personal injury lawyers who make a living from personal injuries under the five per cent threshold will not be happy. However, we think we have the balance right and we have not rushed the decision. I know the Law Society are not happy. They put forward recommendations to not touch the common law threshold. However, the government has to make a decision in the interests of all Queenslanders and we think that the best thing we can do here is to have the best scheme in Australia. We think we should have the most accessible statutory system available, which is a good statutory system with good money attached to it and of course medical expenses paid. We also think that we need to show business some faith in Queensland—and small to medium enterprises. It is concerning that opposition members in the Labor Party think this is all about big business. It is not. Small businesses also pay workers compensation. You could have a mum and dad small business with, say, five employees who will probably save about $300 a year. To a small businessperson $300 a year is a lot of money, and a lot of small businesses do not make any profit from their business. It might be $300 profit that they will make for the first time. This is not about big business; this is about small business in Queensland, the small to medium enterprises, the backbone of the Queensland economy. Every small business in the electorates of honourable members opposite pays workers compensation. We are saying that with these objectives we can save their small businesses around 12 to 15 per cent on premiums. That is a good thing for small business. There is nothing that will stop people with minor injuries at workplaces getting a payout—going to WorkCover, filling out the forms, getting 100 per cent of their wages paid for the first 26 weeks and 75 per cent of their wages potentially for the next five years. We think we have come up with a fair, balanced scheme. We have not pleased everybody. We have not pleased the business community; they wanted more. We have not pleased the lawyers; they wanted less. Maybe we have the balance right if both sides are not entirely happy with where we have landed on this issue. Work is very important and the debate that has taken place tonight is going to be important to how we are perceived in our society. In relation to injured workers who have a permanent impairment of five per cent or less, I want to see WorkCover and the self-insurers in the Queensland scheme have a stronger and a more active focus on rehabilitation and return-to-work outcomes. Where possible, these injured workers should be returned to their pre-injury employer. Where this is not possible, they should be actively case managed and assisted to find gainful employment with a new employer. The bill also amends the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation to remove the table of injuries and references to the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. These will be replaced by the Queensland Guide to Evaluation of Permanent Impairment using nationally agreed assessment guidelines based on the American Medical Association Guide to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment fifth edition. Chapter 18 of the AMA 5, which is devoted to the assessment of chronic pain, will not be included in the Queensland guide. Work is being undertaken by the University of Sydney’s Pain Management Research Centre that will enable such a chapter to be drafted for consideration in the future. Consistent with the committee’s recommendation, there will be an increased onus on workers to prove that psychiatric and psychological disorders are work related. Workers with a psychiatric and psychological disorder will have to satisfy insurers that their employment was the major significant contributing factor to the injury or aggravation in order to be entitled to compensation. Psychological and psychiatric claims had an average finalised time lost claim cost of $40,742 in 2012-13, almost three times the average time lost claim of physical injuries of $13,211. Further, around 62 per cent of

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3505 Amendment Bill claims are rejected indicating that more clarity is needed in the broader community to differentiate perceived and actual connections between employment and the injury. In addition, employers will be able to require prospective workers to disclose any pre-existing injuries that could be reasonably aggravated by performing the duties of employment. If workers do not comply, their entitlement to compensation or damages for an aggravation of a pre-existing injury ends. It is in a prospective employee’s interest to voluntarily disclose any pre-existing injuries to minimise the potential for an aggravation of an injury. Employers can already require prospective employees to undergo a pre-employment medical assessment to determine suitability for a role. Employers will also be able to request a prospective workers’ claims history summary for a fee and with the worker’s consent. However, employers will be prohibited from passing on this information to others. Allowing access to claims histories from consenting prospective employees will help to prevent employers placing workers in positions or duties for which they are not suited and which may carry the risk of re-injury or aggravation of a pre-existing injury. The bill will also increase the maximum penalties for persons who defraud or attempt to defraud insurers from 400 penalty units, or 18 months imprisonment, to 500 penalty units, or five years imprisonment. I turn now to the structural arrangements. As I said in my opening remarks, the Queensland government is committed to reducing the costs of doing business in Queensland. The structure of the Queensland workers compensation scheme is the most complex in Australia, given it operates as three separate agencies: WorkCover Queensland, Q-Comp and the Office of Fair and Safe Work Queensland. This has resulted in duplication, overlap and increased scheme costs. On assent of the amendment act, Q-Comp will cease to operate as a stand-alone statutory authority. Its functions will be undertaken by the Office of Fair and Safe Work Queensland in the Department of Justice and Attorney-General. Q-Comp staff will be transferred to the department. The merging of the workers compensation scheme’s regulator with the electrical health and safety regulator will provide economies of scale and go towards developing a more integrated corporate identity, regulating injury prevention, injury management, claims management and return-to-work services. To ensure the orderly transition to the new scheme structure, the board of Q-Comp will continue to administer its functions and powers until its term expires on 30 June 2014. As part of the structural alignment, WorkCover and the Office of Fair and Safe Work Queensland will commence integrating their internet sites and call centres so they will have a single point of contact for safety and compensation matters. This will achieve efficiencies and seamless services to Queensland employers and workers. Under the new structure, regulatory independence from WorkCover will be maintained and WorkCover will continue to act as the sole provider of workers compensation insurance in Queensland. The Bar Association of Queensland has proposed some minor changes that would clarify aspects of the legislation, which I would like to address. I do foreshadow an amendment that I will introduce during the consideration in detail stage in relation to these issues. I thank the Bar Association of Queensland for meeting my office earlier in the week. I thank the Bar Association president and another representative for meeting me today and for having these issues discussed in a grown-up manner rather than out the front of parliament or in the media. The Bar Association of course have certainly lived up to their expectation as one of the most professional bodies in Queensland and have worked with me and come up with a couple of good amendments that I am more than happy to address, which I will be doing in the consideration in detail. These amendments that I will move later in the bill better clarify the intention of the prospective worker’s obligation to disclose a pre-existing injury or medical condition and provide injured workers with another avenue for medical assessment if they dispute their initial degree of permanent impairment. We are also providing an alternative avenue for an injured worker to dispute their initial degree of permanent impairment through a doctor agreed to by both parties, the worker and the insurer. This would occur before an MAT decision, meaning that some disputes could be resolved before even getting to the MAT for final determination. This is similar to a process that is used in New South Wales. I would like to clarify that under the amended section 237, a notice of assessment for an injury includes a reference to all injuries that arose from the same event and that have been assessed together under section 179, excluding psychiatric and psychological injuries. In relation to privacy and discrimination concerns around the provision of workers’ claims histories and disclosure of pre-existing injuries, I am confident that current safeguards around privacy are sufficient and that the amendments do not impinge on a worker’s employment prospects.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3506 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

Can I thank members on all sides of the political divide for their contributions to today’s debate. This is an important issue for Queensland, Queensland workers, business and the Queensland economy. I will quickly address the consultation issue. Under the workers compensation act Queensland, I was required to conduct a statutory review. What would have been the ordinary course of events under the Labor Party is the statutory review would have been conducted inhouse by the department. One of the first decisions that this government took was to set up and use our committee system for a parliamentary inquiry on an issue that had not been before the parliament. It was not just a bills committee; it was actually a parliamentary inquiry to look at a relevant issue. I thank the chairman of that committee for that parliamentary inquiry. They came up with the report that the honourable members have discussed tonight. The government’s response to the review, of course, was not to accept some of the recommendations and to accept others. Bearing in mind that this House granted a 12-month extension of that review, I think it was one of the best reviews we have had in Queensland in terms of comprehensiveness and consultation. But these reviews and committee inquiries were never set up to be a rubber stamp for government later on so that we would get the report, bring it in here, have the government rubber stamp it and say, ‘We’ve got the report we wanted.’ It was about having an inquiry and having all the submissions put on the table and then, in a grown-up manner, looking at all of the issues which were then addressed and assessed, looking at the recommendations and opinions of the opposition and crossbenches and coming up with something that the government thinks is the right balance between workers and employers. We had the committee’s report, and the government took its time to go through the report in a grown-up manner and consider the pros and cons. We looked at all of the 246 submissions that were made. I met with the Law Society on numerous occasions throughout the past 18 months, and I can certainly understand the Law Society’s submission. We had very fruitful discussions. I also had regular meetings with the Bar Association; I met with the CCIQ on occasion; we met with employers; we met with workers; and we discussed some of these issues through the workplace health and safety round table. If the opposition want to talk about consultation, there has been one and a half years of consultation on this issue. Ultimately at the end of the day, upon taking all matters into consideration, the cabinet and the government have taken a view and we are responding with what we believe is the right balance. We want to make sure that every worker in Queensland is covered by the statutory scheme. I know the deputy opposition leader talked about facts and he stamped the lectern. Let’s talk about the real truths and not the mistruths which came out of the mouths of those opposite. Fact: every worker in Queensland will be covered by the statutory scheme. Fact: every worker in Queensland will have access to the statutory scheme. Fact: every worker in Queensland will fill out a form to put in a claim for workers compensation, WorkCover. Fact: every employee in Queensland if successful in their claim without any threshold—this is a statutory claim—will have 26 weeks of their wages paid for the first 26 weeks of their injuries. Fact: after that for the next four and a half years they will have 75 per cent of their wages paid. But honourable members may be interested to know that in approximately 80 to 90 per cent of workplace injuries, workers are in fact back at work after 26 weeks. The majority of people have gone back to work after the first 26 weeks, and they are happy with their statutory claims. We can develop a system whereby if an employee is injured in an unfortunate workplace injury, their wages will be paid while they recover, they can go back to work and they can get a lump sum payment from the statutory scheme. We then move to the common law scheme. We think that by saving some money on the premiums, the minor injuries for less than five per cent will be satisfactorily covered by the statutory scheme. What concerned me this evening was that some of the members opposite on the crossbench talked about common law claims because of negligent business owners or negligent employers. We have a no-fault scheme. The worker does not have to prove negligence when they put in a statutory claim. No-one is at fault: the worker is not at fault and the employer is not at fault. We have to try to invest in looking at businesses. I can tell the honourable members that Mal Meninga and I have been around the state recently. Mal Meninga is the Queensland safety ambassador. Mal Meninga is our— Mr Pitt: It is a very personal issue to him. Ms Trad: What is it they’re talking about? Ha, ha!

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3507 Amendment Bill

Mr BLEIJIE: I note the member for South Brisbane’s laughter. Let me explain why Mal Meninga— Ms Trad: Ha, ha! Mrs Miller: Ha, ha! Mr BLEIJIE: The members for South Brisbane and Bundamba are still laughing. Let me explain why Mal Meninga is the safety ambassador. Mr Pitt: We know! It is a very personal issue— Mr BLEIJIE: Because he lost his father in a workplace incident— Opposition members: We know! Mr BLEIJIE:—are laughing at the fact that— Mr PITT: I rise to a point of order. Mr BLEIJIE: No, no! No personal offence! I was talking about the member for South Brisbane. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Attorney-General, take your seat, please. What is your point of order, Manager of Opposition Business? Mr PITT: I have been indicating to the Attorney-General that this was a very personal issue to Mal Meninga, and whether he was or was not taking my interjections, that point was made by the opposition. So I do find any suggestion that anyone on this side of the House was— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I fail to see, Manager of Opposition Business, how that was a personal reflection. Mr Mulherin: It is on the record. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I would appreciate it if you did not make statements in the middle of me giving guidance from the chair. Ms TRAD: Mr Deputy Speaker— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am assuming that the member for South Brisbane has a point of order. I hope it is not the same one as I have just ruled on, otherwise I would suggest you sit down. Ms TRAD: The Attorney-General asserted that I was laughing at Mal Meninga’s personal story. That is not right. I take personal offence— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for South Brisbane will take her seat. It is a point of view; not a point of order. I saw no personal reflection— Ms TRAD: I find the Attorney-General’s statements— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You are speaking while I am speaking. I warn you under 253A. The Attorney-General has the chair. Mr BLEIJIE: Mal Meninga, a great Queenslander, lost his father in a workplace incident. He has now come on board as our Queensland safety ambassador and is doing a fantastic job attending places right around Queensland—seeing thousands of employers. We are actively encouraging employers and businesses right around Queensland to get involved in the safety campaign, to get the safety message and to improve workplace practices. However, there are some environments that are so dangerous that you could do everything in your power—you could spend every dollar you had or did not have—but unfortunately accidents would still happen. That is why it is important to have the best statutory workers compensation scheme in Australia. These reforms are for the future of the scheme—to make sure that anyone injured in a workplace incident has access to the statutory scheme. I know the strong financial position that WorkCover is in. I congratulate the new board of WorkCover that we appointed when we came to government to make sure that remains the case. I refer to the common law thresholds. Under the Labor Party, the former chair of WorkCover, Ian Brusasco, recommended that common law thresholds of 10 per cent to 15 per cent be introduced. Ian Brusasco, members will know, is the chair of Labor Holdings, the big fundraising arm for the Labor Party. He recommended a common law threshold of 10 per cent to 15 per cent. We reject that. We are saying that we think we have a better balance with the introduction of the five per cent common law threshold. We have seen a lot of misinformation in the last few days. I note honourable members’ contributions to the debate with respect to where that misinformation is coming from with respect to ads in newspapers from the Australian Lawyers Alliance. I know that members of parliament have received threatening letters from certain personal injury lawyers. As a member of the legal profession

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3508 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

I have to say that I am pretty disappointed that the profession would use the language it has over the last 48 hours. I am disappointed that the profession sent the types of letters that it has to members of parliament—members carrying out their duty, function and responsibility. But I think it reflects more on those individuals than it does on anything else. That is why I have not entertained the debate over the past 48 hours with respect to personal insults, innuendo, gossip and everything that some personal injury lawyers have thrown at members of this House. I think at the end of this debate we can say that we have taken the moral high ground on this matter because we did not entertain that sort of silly debate in the public domain. This is a serious debate. That is why we set up a 12-month parliamentary inquiry. That is why we have taken a few months to make sure we have got it right. I think honourable members on this side of the House have got the balance right. We support the workers in this state. We support them going to and from work and having access to journey claims. We also support employers in this state—to make sure they can continue to employ people, employ more people and grow the economy in this state and to make sure that we do not have people making fraudulent claims. We need to make sure the system does get the balance right. I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I think the government has got the balance right for all interested parties in this issue. Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. AYES, 59—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Emerson, Flegg, France, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Pucci, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker. Tellers: Menkens, Sorensen

NOES, 13—Byrne, Cunningham, Douglas, Judge, Katter, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott Resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

Consideration in Detail Clause 1— Mr PITT (10.32 pm): There are issues with this legislation that were specifically raised during the debate that I did not hear the Attorney-General address in his summing-up, so I ask the Attorney-General again: what undertaking was given to the CCIQ at the last election about making changes to the workers compensation legislation? What gave it the impression that a commitment had in fact been made and is being delivered by the Attorney-General’s decision to overrule his own MPs? I want to be very clear here: I understand that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland has a role to play in advocacy and, from that perspective, I think it is well and truly entitled to ask questions and seek commitments from the government. So I ask the question again regarding the CCIQ and the comments that there was a promise prior to the election that there would be changes made. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Manager of Opposition Business, please if you could help me. I am struggling with relevance to that clause. Mr PITT: Clause 1 is the short title of the bill and we are able to follow up and ask questions on any clauses, as I understand it, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am asking a question that I do not believe was answered by the Attorney-General during his summing-up. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: At this stage I am going to allow it, but I am going to keep a very tight rein on speaking to clauses and being relevant to clauses. Mr PITT: It is the short title of the bill, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay. Mr BLEIJIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, the short title of the bill mentions nothing about CCIQ. It is absolutely irrelevant. Mr PITT: Just as a follow up, so I want to confirm that the Attorney-General will not be answering the question? Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clauses 2 and 3, as read, agreed to.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3509 Amendment Bill

Clause 4— Mr PITT (10.35 pm): I should start by saying that many of the issues to be raised in the consideration in detail stage by the opposition would have been better dealt with in a proper committee process where interested stakeholders would have had the chance to put their views and concerns on the record, but of course that was denied by making this bill an urgent bill. With regard to this clause, removing work related impairment and inserting the DPI measurement breaks the important nexus between the workplace injury sustained and the ability to do the pre-injury work. The whole principle underlying a fair workers compensation scheme is to try to get people rehabilitated and back to work or, if that is not possible, to provide the care and support required that is necessary for the injured worker and their family. As I said in the debate, if I suffered a permanent injury to my foot in a work related injury, I could still come to this place and speak on the floor of parliament. Somebody who suffers a similar injury—whether they be a carpenter, a linesman, a nurse, a bus driver—may not be able to undertake their pre-injury work. That is because the assessment of whole- person impairment, or the DPI, in this legislation is not related to a person’s ability to undertake the work that they did prior to actually suffering that injury as a result of negligence from their employer. Mr BLEIJIE: I can advise the honourable member that there will be no noticeable difference— no noticeable difference—between the WRI and DPI for injured workers other than a simplification of terms and streamlining of numerous impairment tables. Statutory lump sum entitlements will remain exactly as they are now. The table of injuries will no longer be required and neither will references to the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment 4th Edition. These will be replaced by the Queensland Guide for Evaluation of Permanent Impairment using nationally agreed assessment guidelines based on the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment 5th Edition. The total lump sum payments to workers made during the current WRI are not expected to change with the introduction of DPI, that is, overall, it will be cost neutral to the scheme—exactly what I said in my summing-up. Division: Question put—That clause 4, as read, stand part of the bill. AYES, 58—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Emerson, France, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Pucci, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker. Tellers: Menkens, Sorensen

NOES, 13—Byrne, Cunningham, Douglas, Judge, Katter, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clauses 5 to 11, as read, agreed to. Clause 12— Mr PITT (10.45 pm): Again, this is a question that could well have been asked during committee deliberations, but I will seek an answer from the Attorney-General this evening. The guide for evaluation of permanent impairment imposes criteria that is not appropriate for assessing workplace related injuries and the rights of injured workers. Using that standard breaks the connection between injury and ability to complete work. In developing the guide, I ask the Attorney-General to explain in more detail the process to deliver the guide and when it will become available, noting that the legislation will apply from its introduction, Tuesday. Mr BLEIJIE: In terms of the WRI and the DPI, I think I satisfactorily answered that before. With respect to the guide, the AMA guide is currently available. In terms of the Queensland guide, the AMA guide will become the Queensland guide. I will get that information to the member before we finish the consideration in detail today. Mr PITT: Thank you. Clause 12, as read, agreed to. Clause 13, as read, agreed to. Clause 14— Mr PITT (10.47 pm): In some respects this is a follow-up question to the Attorney-General. It relates again to the GPI. Clause 14 deals with the phrase ‘in consultation with the minister’. It could be a bit of an oxymoron having the words ‘consultation’ and ‘minister’ in the same sentence, given the

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3510 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill track record of the Attorney-General of not asking anyone for advice on anything as part of the know-it-all Newman government. What instructions will the Attorney-General give? What is the framework? What is the time frame? Will there be ongoing consultation? He may well be able to answer that with the production of the guide, as promised per clause 12 when we spoke about that, but I am certainly interested to hear the Attorney-General’s thoughts on what this phrase ‘in consultation with the minister’ will mean in practice. Mr BLEIJIE: The advice that I have from the department says that the guide has to be approved by the regulator and gazetted. This will occur around assent. So I suspect that, if the legislation passes the parliament tonight, upon assent then the regulator will approve it and the guide will be gazetted. I would expect that will occur in the next couple of weeks. In terms of consultation, we will continue to talk to all relevant people as we have over the past 18 months through the committee process and then the establishment of this bill tonight. Clause 14, as read, agreed to. Clauses 15 and 16, as read, agreed to. Clause 17— Mr PITT (10.49 pm): I move the following amendment and table the explanatory notes— 1 Clause 17 (Amendment of s 237 (General limitation on persons entitled to seek damages)) Page 18, after line 23— insert— (1A) However, if a worker has received a notice of assessment from the insurer for an injury sustained and the DPI for the assessed injury is 5% or less (a prescribed injury), the worker is entitled to seek damages for the prescribed injury if the Regulator issues a certificate of entitlement for the prescribed injury. (1B) An application for a certificate of entitlement for a prescribed injury must— (a) be in writing; and (b) be made by the worker within 1 year after the worker receives the notice of assessment; and (c) state the following— (i) the nature of the impairment; (ii) the nature of the worker’s employment-related duties; (iii) how the impairment has resulted in a loss of earning capacity for the worker; (iv) that the worker wishes to seek damages as a result of the prescribed injury; (v) any other relevant matters. (1C) Within 1 month after receiving the application, the Regulator must— (a) if satisfied the prescribed injury is an exceptional circumstances injury—issue to the worker a certificate of entitlement for the prescribed injury; or (b) otherwise—give the worker written notice of the Regulator’s decision to refuse the application, including reasons for the decision. (1D) For subsection (1C), the prescribed injury is an exceptional circumstances injury if— (a) it results in a permanent impairment to the worker; and (b) as a result, the worker will or may suffer a significant loss of earning capacity. Example of an injury that may be an exceptional circumstances injury— A concert pianist losses the tip of a finger that is a DPI of 1%. As a result, the pianist can no longer perform to the same standard and will suffer significant loss of income. Tabled paper: Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes to Mr Curtis Pitt’s amendments [3802]. My amendment seeks to limit the damage that this legislation will do through its imposition of a five per cent threshold for accessing common law rights. I will deal with the substance of the threshold issue in greater detail when discussing the clause itself, but I wish to outline some of the harsh consequences that this poor policy option will create. Imposing an arbitrary threshold without any provision for exceptional circumstance will inevitably lead to perverse outcomes and, certainly, some injustices. Our amendments would provide a provision for exceptional circumstances where significant loss and injustice would be imposed in certain circumstances. There could be a case where a labourer is assessed as having DPI under this legislation of four per cent where he has a knee injury caused to him by the negligence of an employer. This injury prevents him from walking on uneven ground or carrying certain weight, preventing him from returning to his former position or anything similar. He could be illiterate with little

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3511 Amendment Bill schooling or education and with little or no realistic chance of retraining for a job that would enable him to re-enter the workforce with his condition caused by the negligence of his employer. With the LNP legislation, with the strict five per cent threshold, with no room for extreme particular circumstances, these kinds of people may well be left to fend for themselves. Yes, we acknowledge that a statutory system exists, but that payout will not cover the pain, suffering, loss of income and other expenses that the injured work may face as a result of negligence of his employer. I want to make it absolutely clear that the opposition does not believe a threshold should be put in place at all, but if the LNP is going to go down that route then here is an amendment that provides a common-sense check against the most outrageous cases of injustice that will inevitably pop up. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: As the member for Mulgrave has said, in supporting this amendment I do not support the introduction of a five per cent threshold. However, when any prescriptive legislation relates to people, particularly people who are in difficult circumstances who have been traumatised, there will always be incidents where people, as we colloquially refer to it, fall through the cracks, whether it is state or federal legislation. They are the people who often come to our office. If this will give some comfort to those people, give them the opportunity to present in a factual way why they should be given an opportunity to seek damages, then I believe it is an opportunity that should be afforded them. Mr BLEIJIE: I note that the intention of the honourable opposition member is to essentially put a narrative test in. We do have some severe problems with this. Victoria did this. Victoria has a 30 per cent common law threshold. If I can read something from WorkSafe Victoria’s annual report for the 2011-12 period it will show the reason why narrative tests do become a problem. While Victoria has the highest common law threshold in the country, this has been eroded through the use of the narrative test. Over 90 per cent of common law claims are made under the narrative test. WorkSafe Victoria’s own annual report for 2011-12 stated that the common law threshold is becoming diluted now as increasingly less serious injuries are litigated. It also noted that common law claims costs now represent around 30 per cent of all payments. Victoria’s external actuaries have identified the increasing lodgements as a significant financial risk to the scheme. Tasmania received a report in 2008 recommending it introduce a narrative test in its scheme. To date it has not done so because of the Victorian example. In 2008—some years ago—the Tasmanian government got a report saying it should introduce narrative tests but it has not done it because the Victorian example has not been effective. A narrative test would not meet the government’s policy objective of simplifying regulatory processes and ensuring that compensation is available to help injured workers get back on their feet. Further, the narrative test will not strike a better balance between providing appropriate benefits for injured workers and the reasonable costs of premiums for employers. Just to round off, Victoria has a narrative test. It has become very problematic for the common law system. In 2008 it was recommended that Tasmania have a narrative test, just like the opposition is requesting tonight, but in fact it has not implemented it—a Labor government has not implemented it—because of the problems Victoria now has with the narrative test. Mr PITT: I think it is important to stress that the recent WorkCover annual report clearly said that statutory claims have actually settled and we saw a decrease this year. That is a result of many years of work, including the most recent review prior to this parliamentary review that occurred over the last 18 months that made recommendations in 2010. Those recommendations have been implemented and I believe that has been part of the stabilisation of the claims we have seen. We are putting this forward as a mechanism to allow some right of appeal and we think that that should be something that the government considers notwithstanding the Attorney-General’s comments. Question put—That the amendment be agreed to. AYES, 13—Byrne, Cunningham, Douglas, Judge, Katter, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott

NOES, 58—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Emerson, France, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Pucci, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker. Tellers: Sorensen, Menkens Resolved in the negative. Non-government amendment (Mr Pitt) negatived.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3512 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! All future divisions on this bill will be one minute. Mr PITT: I want to speak on the substance of clause 17 as it stands. It really is at the core of this misguided legislation. I remind the House of the statement made by the Queensland Law Society— The Society opposes the change. A threshold would change the scheme from a short-tail to a long-tail one. It would cause serious damage to a currently financially sustainable and fair scheme. It would disadvantage employers and employees alike. It would be completely inconsistent with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Workers’ Compensation Scheme that states ‘The Committee recommends retention of the existing provisions relating to access to common law. We believe this clause is an affront to the legal system. It is an affront to injured workers and the LNP members of this House who know that a threshold will hurt workers and will hurt their families, as well as weaken the system itself. It also represents the LNP’s general approach to try to rule people out, compared to our view of trying to make sure that more workers are actually covered. For example, it was the committee’s unanimous recommendation to include fishing and trawler crews under the scheme. I give the member for Gladstone a lot of credit in that space. She talked at length about that particular subset of workers, who should have been included in the scheme. We were trying to cast the net wider instead of limiting who has access to it. Unfortunately, that is what we are seeing under this LNP government. On the change to the definition of ‘worker’, again let us not forget the dirty little inquiry that was set out. The Finance and Administration Committee was asked to look at the definition of ‘worker’ expressly. Halfway through that inquiry and before the committee had handed down its report, obviously the Attorney-General realised that he was not going to get the answer that he wanted so he introduced that change. He made plenty of excuses, although none were credible, for changing the definition of ‘worker’ before the committee had even finished its deliberations. We know that that was about trying to align it with the ATO definition, as I remember. That ATO definition is not for the same purpose as the definition of ‘worker’ would be under the workers compensation scheme. It really was apples and oranges. As we know, placing a threshold will strip away around 50 per cent of injured workers who currently access common law rights. Those who receive common law decisions do so because of a legal judgement that the negligence of an employer contributed to the injury of that worker. Those injured workers deserve access to their legal rights. Always, it is at a time in their lives when they need it the most. The Labor opposition will be voting against this clause. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I want to take a couple of minutes to say that I listened to the Attorney-General’s comments in his summing-up and I appreciated what was said in relation to the introduction of this clause, that other states have a higher threshold. To that extent, it is commendable that this legislation will not introduce a higher threshold for impairment. We have moved from a work related impairment to a degree of permanent impairment. It must be said that the adjudication of that percentage does have to take into account in some way the person’s employment and the impact of that impairment or that injury on the ability of the person to fulfil what has been their traditional position. When I was speaking, there was an interjection as I was relaying the example of the piano player and the lack of detail around the advertisement. Certainly the advertisement was there to infer that the guy got $600,000 because he hurt his finger. However, if he were a musician that would have been the end of his career. If a world champion soccer player had a leg amputated, it would be the end of his or her career. Not just the degree of permanent impairment but also the implications for the person’s life and their ability to gain employment have to be taken into consideration. As I said, I appreciate the Attorney-General’s comments in his summing-up, but I still oppose the implementation of the threshold. Mr BLEIJIE: I thank the member for Gladstone. I do not think the Manager of Opposition Business actually asked a question. He just repeated his speech from earlier on this evening. I appreciate the contribution to the debate by the member for Gladstone. Mr Pitt: I don’t have to ask questions. We’re actually not allowed to ask questions and we’re going to get in trouble for making statements. Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection. The consideration in detail is not a re-prosecution of the second reading speech. It is a debate about the clauses. It is not restating a position that has already been stated by all opposition members. Perhaps the member could learn from the member for Gladstone. The member for Gladstone takes the proper approach to consideration in detail and I

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3513 Amendment Bill thank her for that. I appreciate her comments about how I spoke about the threshold and why the government was introducing the five per cent threshold. The member for Gladstone has indicated that she will still oppose the introduction of a threshold. I completely respect the independent right of the member for Gladstone to do so. There are occasions where the under five per cent are minor injuries and people can go back to their original work. The member raised the issue of a piano player. In terms of whole-person impairment, they may not go back to piano playing. They would in that situation be able to access a statutory claim for the first 26 weeks and have 100 per cent of their wages and then for the next 4½ years 75 per cent of their wages, medical costs and so forth. If we look at an under five per cent example of a security worker who had facial scarring, that would be considered a minor injury. It may not seem minor at the time, but in terms of their impairment to go back to work as a security provider they can do that. They would not have access to common law but they would certainly have access to the statutory scheme. Without re-prosecuting the issue I point out that I think we have got the balance right without going too far, as other states have, with respect to impairment. I acknowledge and appreciate that there may be instances—like the one the member for Gladstone raised in relation to the piano player—where they cannot go back to their industry because of permanent impairment. Division: Question put—That clause 17, as read, stand part of the bill. AYES, 58—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Emerson, France, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Pucci, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker. Tellers: Menkens, Sorensen NOES, 13—Byrne, Cunningham, Douglas, Judge, Katter, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 17, as read, agreed to. Clauses 18 to 28, as read, agreed to. Clause 29— Mr BLEIJIE (11.14 pm): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 29 (Amendment of ch 5, pt 12, div 1 hdg (Costs applying to worker with WRI of 20% or more, worker with latent onset injury that is a terminal condition, or dependant)) Page 25, lines 7 to 8, ‘terminal condition’— omit. I table the explanatory notes to the amendments. Tabled paper: Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes to Hon. Jarrod Bleijie’s amendments [3803]. Amendment No. 1 corrects a drafting error where the phrase ‘terminal condition’ was incorrectly inserted twice in lines 7 and 8. Amendment agreed to. Clause 29, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 30 to 47, as read, agreed to. Clause 48— Mr PITT (11.15 pm): Clause 48 removes the requirement for business to provide a declaration that they have rehabilitation and return-to-work policies in place. I understand that this will be put forward under the guise of removing red tape. The LNP is suggesting that it is removing the impetus for employers to actively turn their minds to ensuring rehabilitation and return-to-work procedures are in place. We believe that that is something that is absolutely necessary. Rehabilitation and return-to- work efforts should be at the core of what injured workers need. It is good for workers and also good for the boss to have procedures in place to get the injured worker the rehabilitation and care they need to get back into the workplace.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3514 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

We have a terrific return-to-work rate in Queensland of around 98 per cent. That is something that we are enormously proud of from our time as stewards of this iconic workers compensation scheme. We think that education plays a very important role and we certainly think that this is not a massive burden on employers. I am pleased to say that I have not heard too much in this debate yet about the pages of legislation that are going to be cut as part of the red-tape reduction measure. That is an improper measure. We ask the Attorney-General to give consideration to looking at this. It is very important. I stress again that rehabilitation and return-to-work efforts are at the core of what injured workers need. Employers having those return-to-work policies in place is an important part of that process. Mr BLEIJIE: The regulator will not require one to be kept but there will be a template. The whole scheme is structured on return to work. We want employees to go back to work as soon as possible. I quoted some statistics before. For a claim duration of up to four weeks, for example, under the statutory scheme 62 per cent of people go back to work. For the claim duration of four to 13 weeks the figure is 82 per cent. For between 13 and 26 weeks the figure is 91 per cent of people go back to work. Within the first year, between 26 and 52 weeks, 97 per cent of people actually go back to work. Although the regulator will not require the policy to be kept, it will certainly be a focus. We want as many people to return to work as there are returning at the moment. I think businesses in Queensland are doing their best. A lot of businesses across Queensland have joined our Zero Harm at Work leadership forums. I have been to many honourable members’ electorates across the state where we have had business breakfasts with our safety ambassador Mal Meninga. The regulator will not require business to keep a policy but there will be a template available so if businesses require it they can still use it. Clause 48, as read, agreed to. Clauses 49 to 58, as read, agreed to. Clause 59— Mr PITT (11.18 pm): This clause deals with psychological injuries, in particular changing the standard of proof from ‘a contributing factor’ to ‘the contributing factor’. I can remember that this was one of those issues on the committee that we took quite some time to debate, as we certainly did on many matters that related to psychological injuries. I need to mention in relation to considering psychological injury assessment that it is a shame the Attorney-General, in the government response, has rejected several important recommendations of the Finance and Administration Committee. In relation to the proposal to have psychological injuries being considered in two categories, I want to acknowledge the work by the member for Moggill in putting that forward. I think he very clearly talked about those absolute no-brainer circumstances. Unfortunately we heard about some very distressing cases that might well have gone into the first category, category A. They were cases where you just know that someone would suffer post-traumatic stress or a similar outcome—for example, a rail worker seeing a suicide at a train station or someone in another occupation who is involved in attending motor vehicle accidents. Those things quite clearly would have a psychological impact. We thought that they could be fast-tracked and agreed to in a very quick way. Splitting those injuries into two categories would have helped to make that happen in a more streamlined way. There was also a recommendation put forward about whether psychological injuries should be dealt with under their own provisions. There was another recommendation that looked at the role of the Queensland Mental Health Commission in having input into framing these considerations and keeping an eye on the review period between the most recent parliamentary committee review and the next statutory review that was due to take place. The Queensland Mental Health Commission was the brainchild of the previous government. I am pleased to acknowledge the Minister for Health for continuing the establishment of a mental health commission in Queensland. We certainly do disagree on the model, but it is a worthy group that I think will have a lot to offer, particularly when we know that psychological injuries and mental health issues, both work related and non-work related, will continue to play a very important role in our community. I want to sum up by saying again that the recommendations put forward by the committee in the area of psychological injuries, I think, were very worthy of consideration. I have read the government’s response and, from my understanding, other areas have been ruled out so therefore they could not be considered. But I do think the legislation misses a good opportunity to make an improvement in this regard.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3515 Amendment Bill

Mr BLEIJIE: The reason why we are doing this is that we have heard information with respect to this issue of psychological and psychiatric injuries where someone will have a statutory claim and then a period of time passes—say, two years—and they may form a psychological illness but it is not a psychological illness or psychiatric illness arising out of the injury that occurred at the workplace, so it was not the contributing factor. That is why we are amending the definition to ‘the contributing factor’. So if it happens at a later date for whatever reason, they have to at some stage draw it back to the fact that it was the injury that took place at the workplace that caused or was the significant contributing factor to the later psychological or psychiatric illness. So that is why it is there. We have said in the government response to committee recommendation 10 that amendments to the definition of injury for psychological injuries are not supported at this time due to the potential for unintended consequences, but we will continue to monitor the impact of psychological injury claims on the scheme and report to parliament where issues emerge. Clause 59, as read, agreed to. Debate, on motion of Mr Stevens, adjourned.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Allocation of Time Limit Order Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (Leader of the House) (11.23 pm), by leave, without notice: I move— That, under the provisions of standing order 137, the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill having already been declared an urgent bill, the following time limits apply to enable the bill to be passed through its remaining stages at this day’s sitting— (a) consideration in detail to be completed by 11.57 pm; (b) third reading by 11.58 pm; and (c) long title agreed by 12 am.

If the stage has not been completed by the time specified, Madam Speaker shall put all remaining questions necessary to pass the bill, including clauses and schedules en bloc and any amendments to be moved by the minister in charge of the bill, without further amendment or debate. Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (11.24 pm): I rise to oppose the motion moved by the Leader of the House in terms of truncating this debate and putting time frames in place. Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order, members! The Manager of Opposition Business has the call. Mr PITT: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you. I am going to be short and sweet on this one to say that there has already been a rushing of this legislation through the House. That is well-worn territory. We know that this government has introduced this particular bill this week and rushed it through under the cloak of bikie legislation, under the cloak of MP pay rises and plenty of other distractions— Mr Bleijie: What pay rise? Mr PITT:—including the so-called casino licensing policy. While we are speaking on the issue of MP pay rises, I think the comment was made this week that Queensland has the hardest working MPs in the country. It is just a shame that they are all sitting on this side of the House. Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members! I call the member for Gladstone. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (11.26 pm): I rise for just a moment to oppose the guillotine. There were accurate interjections from the government side to say, ‘Cop that,’ and, ‘Now you know what we had to put up with.’ All of that is true. The Labor government guillotined some very, very important bills at a most inopportune time, but it does not make it right. This is a very personal bill. It is a very emotive bill and it is one that we have not had a lot of time to either digest or to properly debate. I think it is regrettable at best that this is being guillotined and I will be opposing the guillotine.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3516 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (11.27 pm): I rise to oppose the guillotine. If I could just reflect on the amendments that have been moved to date by the opposition, I think they have been quite reasonable amendments. I think Queenslanders would say they are reasonable amendments. We have not seen the— Mr BLEIJIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. We have dealt with the amendments. The member is not addressing the issue at hand which is the guillotine motion. We have dealt with the amendments. He cannot now support the amendments that the opposition has already moved and we voted down. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! I encourage the member for Nicklin to focus on the guillotine motion. Mr WELLINGTON: What I am trying to say is that amendments I thought have been reasonable. They have not been frustrating and dragging out debate willy-nilly. We have not seen, as we have seen in the past in this chamber under previous governments, where members would stand up and argue over pedantic words in clauses just to drag things out. I do not believe that that has happened to date. I believe it is reasonable to guillotine debate when there are not a lot of amendments to be moved. Division: Question put—That motion be agreed to. AYES, 58—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Emerson, France, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Pucci, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker. Tellers: Menkens, Sorensen

NOES, 13—Byrne, Cunningham, Douglas, Judge, Katter, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott Resolved in the affirmative.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Consideration in Detail Resumed from p. 3515. Clauses 60 to 68, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr BLEIJIE (11.32 pm): I move the following amendment— 2 After clause 68 Page 39, after line 25— insert— 68A Replacement of s 186 (Worker’s disagreement with assessment of permanent impairment) Section 186— omit, insert— 186 Worker’s disagreement with assessment of permanent impairment (1) This section applies if— (a) the worker’s degree of permanent impairment has not been assessed by a medical assessment tribunal; and (b) the worker does not agree with the degree of permanent impairment stated in the notice of assessment (the original notice). (2) The worker must advise the insurer within 20 business days after the original notice is given (the decision period) that the worker— (a) does not agree with the degree of permanent impairment; and (b) requests— (i) that the insurer has the worker’s injury assessed again under section 179 by an entity mentioned in section 179(2) and agreed to by the worker and the insurer, (other than the entity that gave the report to the insurer under section 179(3)); or

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3517 Amendment Bill

(ii) that the insurer refer the question of degree of permanent impairment to a tribunal for decision. (3) If the worker makes a request mentioned in subsection (2)(b)(i), the insurer must decide, within 10 business days after receiving the request, whether to have the worker’s injury assessed again under section 179 to decide if the worker’s injury has resulted in a degree of permanent impairment. (4) If, under subsection (3), the insurer decides to have the worker’s injury assessed again under section 179, the original notice is taken to have never been given. (5) If the insurer has the worker’s injury assessed again under section 179, the worker can not make a further request mentioned in subsection (2)(b)(i). (6) If— (a) under subsection (3), the insurer decides not to have the worker’s injury assessed again under section 179; or (b) the worker makes a request mentioned in subsection (2)(b)(ii); the insurer must refer the question of degree of permanent impairment to a medical assessment for decision. (7) The degree of permanent impairment may then be decided only by a medical assessment tribunal. New clause 68A is inserted to replace section 186, which provides the process a worker must follow if they disagree with their assessment of permanent impairment. The amendments provide that an injured worker who disagrees with their initial notice of assessment of permanent impairment has an additional avenue for reviewing this assessment. A worker will be able to elect to have the assessment reviewed by another doctor who has been chosen and agreed to by the worker and the insurer. If the worker does not agree with this new assessment they will then be able to have this assessment reviewed by a medical assessment tribunal. This allows for resolution of disputes about permanent impairment without the need for the parties to go directly to the medical assessment tribunals. This adds an extra element for the worker. After they have had their initial assessment and if they want a further assessment, the injured worker and the insurer can then go and have a second opinion and they can go to the medical assessment tribunals. Mr PITT: This appears to be a tokenistic effort to provide a small avenue of appeal. It appears that it is at the discretion of the insurer, giving them the power. I am happy to be proven wrong. We have had limited time to look at these amendments. Mr Bleijie: The worker will choose the reassessment. Mr PITT: As we can see, it provides an appeal for the decision of the tribunal. We will not be voting against this. We welcome the amendment as it does offer a small avenue of appeal. I am not going to suggest that we should be cheering for the retention of journey claims in the same way, though. I will just put on the record once again what a red herring that was. That was all about saying, ‘We did not do quite as much nasty stuff as we were going to.’ We will not be dividing or voting against this. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I would like to commend the Attorney-General for this. One of the situations that I deal with in my office is the case of a worker who is dissatisfied with the doctor who has done the assessment. The fact that there is this second opportunity, if it is approved and agreed among the parties, of assessment with the next medical officer whom the worker and the insurer have agreed on is a very fair approach to take. I commend the Attorney. Mr BLEIJIE: I met with the president of the Bar Association today regarding this amendment. They put it forward and I thought it was a sensible amendment to give the worker an additional avenue. It is on the election of the worker, but the assessor has to be agreed to by the insurer and the worker, which I think is a fair process. So it actually puts in another mechanism of review for the worker. This amendment actually came from the Bar Association in conversations I had with them today. That is all we could ask for: grown-up discussions about these matters in a grown-up way rather than doing it with press conferences out the front of parliament. I congratulate the Bar Association of Queensland on meeting with my office during the week and also today to have these grown-up discussions. We said to the bar that if they can come up with some sensible amendments such as this, I am more than happy to look at it, which we have done. Mr PITT: I have a point of clarification and I am hoping that the Attorney can provide a quick answer to this. In terms of the arrangements for the panel of doctors, who will be determining that panel, if indeed it is a panel? Is that something about which you can provide more information?

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3518 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

Mr BLEIJIE: There is no panel. It is up to the insurer and the worker to work out. Mr PITT: Thank you, Attorney. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 69 to 81, as read, agreed to. Clause 82— Mr PITT (11.36 pm): Clause 82 deals with the merging of Q-Comp into the department. I think there are legitimate questions around the proposed merger of Q-Comp into the department. There may be some efficiencies to be had in administration, which I assume is the purpose of the move. I would ask: what protections are in place to ensure the complete separation and independence of the decision makers and the insurer? It is interesting to see this restructure because the Attorney-General rejected a suggested change of the committee. When contributing to this debate, the Attorney-General and many of the other LNP members in the chamber today have waxed lyrical about reducing premiums. One of the unanimous recommendations of the committee was to give the Attorney-General the power to make reductions to premiums, but he rejected the notion. He talks big, but when it came to actually reducing the premium and having that power, he squibbed it. Members opposite really do amaze me. We hear a lot of talk, and most of the attention was focused on what this will mean to the business community. Quite rightly, it is important that all consideration is given to all members of our community. Members opposite have talked a lot about business and how friendly they are to business. One cannot help thinking that this entire process around introducing a threshold and attacking a scheme which really did not need fixing has something to do with the fact that the LNP delayed the reduction in payroll tax thresholds. Is this legislation a make-good? We know that before the election the LNP promised to lift the payroll tax exemption for all Queensland businesses by $100,000 per annum for six years. After the election the promise was to no longer apply a flat exemption to all businesses as promised. In this year’s budget the LNP decided to defer this year’s increase. Was this change to the entire workers compensation scheme all about making good on a broken promise in another area? There was no need. The definition of ‘crazy’ in this particular point of view is that, at $1 million, it was already the highest threshold in mainland states, and that was the excuse used by the government when deferring it. What we know is that it was a competitive tax position that was actively maintained by the previous government. If we are going to start talking about what reducing premiums will do, there is no guarantee that that is going to be the case. The Attorney-General has not taken that option up, despite a recommendation that would have allowed him to do so. We know that there is continued talk by this government about the great things that they are doing for business. When you look at regional businesses, the fire levy is going to be an absolute cracker come 1 January. There are going to be some small to medium enterprises which are going to be paying a new levy in excess of $64,000. This is not friendly to small business. Again I ask the Attorney why this has not been considered. The point is you have the power to make the determination to reduce premiums, and you did not take up that option. I would also like to look at the issue of what the restructure of Q-Comp into the department will mean in terms of jobs. Will the Attorney-General give a guarantee that there will be no job losses for workers at Q-Comp and the department through the merger? Bringing the scheme under the control of the Attorney-General could be described by a more cynical person as a chance to set the body up for privatisation. We have seen the profitability of the scheme. We saw the WorkCover annual report. We know that it returned a profit of $517 million, which is up from $199 million. This is a profitable scheme. In the debate tonight, the member for Coomera mentioned that during the inquiry period there was a line of private sector entities trying to swoop on a potentially privatised WorkCover. Hopefully this is just the product of someone’s wild imagination, but when you look at the fact that there is a scheme with a half a billion dollar profit, and then you look at a five per cent threshold, it could be considered an attractive proposition for somebody if that is the way you think about the scheme. We hope that the Attorney-General would be able to rule out this being the first step towards a potential privatisation of the scheme, and we look forward to your response. Mr BLEIJIE: The permanent employees will come across. Contract staff will be a matter for the director-general, but permanent staff will just come across. We do not anticipate much will change there. The director-general will work with that.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3519 Amendment Bill

In terms of the separation of the offices, we have the Independent Regulator, the Electrical Safety Office and the Workplace Health and Safety Office. Q-Comp will work the same as they operate, which is quite successfully across the state. If memory serves me correctly, Q-Comp will operate until 1 July next year to allow the transition. The Q-Comp board and staff have been told just recently, and I am advised that there is not too much dissatisfaction from the Q-Comp staff about coming across. They have all been told, so I have not had any negative feedback from any of the staff in Q-Comp. One of the reasons why we are doing this has to do with efficiencies. Q-Comp was established as a separate body. It used to be in the department. We are putting it back for efficiencies, because if memory serves me correctly, Q-Comp has increased costs by 40 per cent over the last seven years. There are efficiencies to be made. For most of the staff I suspect nothing will change. They be in the department working as an independent regulator as they are now, like the Electrical Safety Office and the Workplace Health and Safety Office, and that will start 1 July. The board knows, I am advised the employees know and there has not been too much concern from the employees. Mr PITT: I think everyone would appreciate putting this to bed. It was raised by the member for Coomera in his speech. I am not the first person to talk about it this evening. I would like to find out if this Attorney-General can rule out that this is not the first step towards a privatised workers compensation scheme here in Queensland. Mr BLEIJIE: This is for efficiencies. I currently have no plan to privatise Q-Comp. I am simply putting it into the Department of Fair and Safe Work Queensland. It is going operate as an independent regulator. No work has been done in terms of that, and it is going to operate independently with Workplace Health and Safety and the Electrical Safety Office. Clause 82, as read, agreed to. Clauses 83 to 92, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr PITT (11.44 pm): I move the following amendment— 2 New clause 92A Page 55, after line 7— insert— 92A Replacement of s 515 (Finality of tribunal’s decision) Section 515— omit, insert— 515 Appeal from tribunal decision A worker affected by a decision of a tribunal may appeal, as provided under the QCAT Act, against the decision, within 90 days of the worker receiving notice of the decision. This amendment introduces an appeal process for the medical assessment tribunals. With the removal of the common law routes for about 50 per cent of those common law cases, there is a great need for a simple and just appeals process for the statutory decision-making process. I am sure the Attorney-General will stand up and say that an appeal option does not apply any more, so why would we introduce one now? The truth is that under the current system, the right to access common law rights provides injured workers with an avenue to pursue their interests when an unjust decision is made. With that right stripped in 50 per cent of cases, the need for an appeals process should be self-evident. I urge those opposite to show some common sense and support this amendment. I also want to read into the record the submission from the Queensland Law Society circulated to members yesterday. We consider that a right of review or appeal from the MAT decision is a fundamental issue of natural justice and equity.

We strongly urge you to support an amendment to the bill to enable a worker either to appeal to an appropriate court or tribunal; or to use the existing mechanisms available to parties to seek a review of a workers compensation decision from Q-Comp, with subsequent appeal rights to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission and beyond.

The Society believes that in the circumstance where the right to access common law will rest on a decision by a medical tribunal, then natural justice must allow appropriate appeal rights. To do otherwise would also be inconsistent with the rights which are available in other jurisdictions with access thresholds, including New South Wales and Victoria.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 3520 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

I table that letter from the Queensland Law Society.

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 16 October 2013, from the Queensland Law Society regarding the Worker’s Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 [3804]. I believe that this is about common-sense, and I would urge members of the chamber to support this amendment.

Mr BLEIJIE: This is an interesting amendment but we will be opposing it on quite solid grounds. The current review mechanism is to the medical assessment tribunals. They are made up of 170 eminent medical professionals in Queensland that the Governor in Council appoints—just as they were appointed when the Labor Party was in government. The medical assessment tribunals have three of those members. So we have dedicated medical assessment tribunals set up. Its decisions are final and binding. The system has operated successfully in its current form since the 1960s. Fresh medical evidence may be considered by a review panel of the tribunals, preserving natural justice. Decisions of the tribunals are also subject to judicial review. Members will be very interested to know that the tribunals were originally introduced as a body of final determination of medical matters because of delays in determinations and settlement. As Sir Gordon Chalk stated when Treasurer of Queensland during the debate about introducing further tribunals in 1967—

To whom would the appeal lie? Obviously it could only be to another medical tribunal; it could not be to a lay tribunal.

…

If we already have the advice of three eminent physicians, or men of other appropriate professional status, to whom could there be an appeal? The degree of permanent impairment is determined by medical fact assessed by eminent medical specialists. It is not decided by lawyers engaged in technical legal argument. So in an appeal of a matter before the court you would go to a judge with legal experience to deal with the matter. This appeal goes to three eminent medical professionals—some of the best in their fields in the state. As Sir Gordon Chalk said when he introduced this tribunal back in 1967, to whom could there be an appeal? Why would you send it to QCAT, where lawyers would be assessing the injuries, when you had just had it assessed by three eminent medical professionals who, you would think, would know a little more than lawyers in terms of injuries to one’s person?

Mr PITT: I thank the Attorney for his response. I would like to quickly put on record that the manner in which he has been conducting the consideration in detail tonight thus far has been appreciated. It has not been as combative as usual, for whatever reason. I am not sure whether it is all the talk tonight about growing up—I am not sure anyone else has been told to grow up—but I am pleased to see that this is being done in a grown-up way. I reinforce that the reason the opposition is putting this forward is, quite simply, that there will not be any access to common law because of the threshold that has been introduced. Allowing more options for people to seek justice where they require it is something we should all be favouring. This is a safeguard against the removal of that threshold. That is why the opposition has moved this amendment. We believe that the right of appeal would be very important to people, given that access to common law for those under five per cent WPI is still necessary. Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to.

AYES, 13—Byrne, Cunningham, Douglas, Judge, Katter, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott

NOES, 57—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Emerson, France, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Pucci, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker. Tellers: Menkens, Sorensen Resolved in the negative. Non-government amendment (Mr Pitt) negatived. Clauses 93 to 97, as read, agreed to.

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation 17 Oct 2013 3521 Amendment Bill

Clause 98— Mr PITT (11.55 pm): I move the following amendment— 3 Clause 98 (Insertion of new ch 14, pt 1, div 1 and ch 14, pt 1, div 2 hdg) Page 78, after line 26— insert— 571BA Use of information about pre-existing injury or medical condition (1) This section applies if, under section 571B, a prospective worker discloses to a prospective employer that the prospective worker has a pre-existing injury or medical condition. (2) The prospective employer must not use the information about the pre-existing injury or medical condition for deciding whether to engage the prospective worker, other than to the extent the injury or condition directly relates to performing the duties the subject of the employment, and no other purpose. Maximum penalty—100 penalty units. This legislation introduces requirements for prospective employees to provide information to prospective employers about a previous injury or claim. This raises serious issues of privacy and possible employment discrimination. This amendment ensures that the information provided may not be used inappropriately by the prospective employer in considering the application. The current drafting of the legislation does not place any requirement on the employer to ensure any consideration of the information provided should apply to the work that is actually being asked to be done. This amendment ensures that information can only become a factor for the employer if the previous injuries or claims actually relate to the specific duties and tasks that are involved in the position for which the prospective employee is applying. Mr BLEIJIE: Employers will be able to request a prospective worker’s claims history summary from the regulator for a fee and only with the worker’s written consent. Employers will be prohibited from passing this information on to others. Allowing access to claims histories from consenting prospective employees will ensure employers can better match workers to positions or duties. This will assist in ensuring workers are not placed in positions to which they are not suited and in which they can carry the risk of re-injury or aggravation of pre-existing injury. The government is satisfied that the balance is appropriate and does not breach privacy legislation. I note that when I travel the state and go with local members to businesses, particularly manufacturing businesses, in their electorates and we talk to small businesses and medium enterprises, one of the issues that does come up is about claimants who have a WorkCover claim but then employers find out there has been a series of prior claims at different employers. This is particularly bad in the agriculture sector, on farms. I have talked to the Deputy Premier about this. We certainly want to address this issue. That is why we will not be supporting the amendment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! Under the provisions of the resolution agreed to by the House and the time limit for the consideration in detail of the bill having expired, the question is— That clauses 98 to 122 and schedules 1 and 2 and the Attorney-General’s amendments as circulated be agreed to. Amendments as circulated— 3 Clause 98 (Insertion of new ch 14, pt 1, div 1 and ch 14, pt 1, div 2 hdg) Page 78, line 15, after ‘worker’— insert— knowingly 4 Clause 98 (Insertion of new ch 14, pt 1, div 1 and ch 14, pt 1, div 2 hdg) Page 79, line 1, before ‘makes’— insert— knowingly 5 Schedule 2 (Minor and consequential amendments relating to chapter 3) Page 115, line 21, ‘567D(2)’— omit, insert— 576D(2) Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Clauses 98 to 122 and schedules 1 and 2, as amended, agreed to.

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 3522 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

Third Reading Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! Under the provisions of the resolution agreed to by the House and the time limit for the third reading of the bill having expired, the question is— That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time.

Long Title Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! Under the provisions of the resolution agreed to by the House and the time limit for the long title of the bill having expired, the question is— That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (PUBLIC INTEREST DECLARATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL Resumed from 16 October (see p. 3302).

Allocation of Time Limit Order Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (Leader of the House) (11.59 pm), by leave, without notice: I move— That, under the provisions of standing order 137, the Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) Amendment Bill having already been declared an urgent bill, the following time limits apply to enable the bill to be passed through its remaining stages at this day’s sitting: (a) second reading by 1.30 am; (b) consideration in detail to be completed by 1.58 am; (c) third reading by 1.59 am; and (d) long title agreed by 2 am.

If the stage has not been completed by the time specified, Madam Speaker shall put all remaining questions necessary to pass the bill, including clauses en bloc, without further amendment or debate. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

Second Reading Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (12.00 am): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Leader of the Opposition) (12.00 am): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) Amendment Bill 2013. Let me make it very clear from the outset: the opposition will be opposing this bill because it strikes at the very heart of democracy, breaching one of the fundamental tenets of a Westminster government—the doctrine of the separation of powers. Tonight—or, should I say, this morning—the LNP has reached a new low. I noticed from tonight’s speaking list that the government is pulling out the big guns—the member for Ipswich West and the member for Mount Ommaney! Not one single other cabinet minister is prepared to stand side by side with this Attorney-General with this draconian legislation that is being introduced into this House tonight. Where are the lawyers in the LNP? Why aren’t the lawyers prepared to stand side by side and support the Attorney-General? What does the Minister for Science and Information Technology think? What does the Minister for Transport—I think he has a law degree—think? What does the Treasurer think? I note that the member for Ipswich, a former president of the Law Society, has struck his name off the list. Not one other cabinet minister— not the Premier, not the Deputy Premier, not one other cabinet minister—is prepared to stand in this

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 17 Oct 2013 3523 Amendment Bill

House and support this draconian legislation that tramples on the fundamental elements of democracy—the separation of powers—because that man over there wants to be judge, jury and executioner! It is a disgrace! Tonight is a disgrace! Let there be no doubt: this bill is not a bill solely about sex offenders; it is an unabashed grab at power by a megalomaniac Attorney-General who has no qualms about trampling on the rights gained over centuries of struggle. Protection of the community is one of the foremost responsibilities of government. Protection of some of our most vulnerable citizens—our children, those who cannot look after themselves—is one of the reasons why I am here in this parliament. Protection of our democratic system of government is another of those reasons, and the first cannot be used as an excuse to destroy the very basis of democratic government in this state. Let me remind people about the Fitzgerald era. As the Fitzgerald report stated very clearly— The separation of judicial power from legislative and executive power is fundamental to the system of checks and balances designed to achieve a stable democracy. The Labor government developed the toughest sex offender laws in the country. We developed those laws in consultation with the Solicitor-General to ensure that they would withstand the scrutiny of the High Court. Other states such as New South Wales and Victoria had introduced legislation that purported to be tougher but, when struck out by the High Court as invalid, left those states without any protective legislation to ensure that sex offenders who remained a danger to the community after the end of their sentence could be detained in custody. But the approach of the previous government to proceed with caution is in stark contrast with the approach of this government, because what is included in this bill is a get-out clause. We like to refer to it as the ‘house of cards clause’. Part 4A of the bill is a set of transitional provisions—not unusual. Most bills contain transitional provisions, but part 4A of this bill applies to the situation where the bill could be declared invalid by a court. That is right: the bill is drafted in contemplation of being declared invalid. I guess in the circumstances that is the wisest thing about this bill, because in the opinion of many of Queensland’s best lawyers that is the likely fate of this bill. This is unprecedented. I have never before seen a bill drafted in the full knowledge that it could be declared unconstitutional. The normal practice is to draft a bill that is likely to be valid, but that highlights the fact that this bill is nothing more than a publicity stunt by this Attorney-General, who seems to be drunk on the notoriety he is receiving for his outrageous actions, particularly this week. It seems that the Attorney subscribes to the political theory that there is no such thing as bad publicity. I note that in an article published in Proctor shortly after the 2009 election the Attorney-General, when asked which historical figure he would like to dine with, listed Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. That does not surprise me. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen had the same lack of interest in and respect for the doctrine of the separation of powers. I remember the Fitzgerald inquiry when Joh Bjelke-Petersen was asked to explain the doctrine of the separation of powers. This has become an infamous moment in Australian politics which has been celebrated far and wide. I want to quote from a speech made in the Western Australian parliament by the Hon.— A government member: Forty years ago! Ms PALASZCZUK: And we will never forget what happened in the Fitzgerald era. We will never forget what happened, and members of this parliament should never forget what happened in that era. I want to quote from a speech made in the Western Australian parliament by the Hon. Peter Collier, Deputy President of the Legislative Council and Minister for Energy, in 2008. He stated— There is a bit of a problem when we blur the lines of responsibility in the different levels of government, and when one level encroaches on another, we go down a very slippery slope. I just draw the house’s attention to the following article to reinforce what I have just said on the separation of powers. The article from Oz Politics, under the heading ‘Separation of powers’, reads—

... The doctrine of the separation of powers had a celebrated moment in the history of Queensland politics. It occurred in December 1988, at the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct. In spite of his 19 years experience as the Premier of Queensland, the by then retired Sir John Bjelke Petersen was unable to explain the doctrine to the Inquiry. Quite simply, the ex-Premier had no idea. Evan Whitton ... reported part of the exchange as follows: Michael Forde (Counsel examining Sir Joh Bjelke Petersen): What do you understand by the doctrine of the separation of powers under the Westminster system? Sir Joh Bjelke Petersen: The Westminster system? The stock? Forde: The doctrine of the separation of powers under the Westminster system?

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 3524 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

Bjelke Petersen: No, I don’t quite know what you’re driving at. The document? Forde: No, I’ll say it again. What do you understand by the doctrine of the separation of powers under the Westminster system? Bjelke Petersen: I don’t know which doctrine you refer to. Forde: There is only one doctrine of the separation of powers. Bjelke Petersen: I believe in it very strongly, and despite what you may say, I believe that we do have a great responsibility to the people who elect us to government. And that’s to maintain their freedom and their rights, and I did that—sought to do it—always. Forde: I’m sure you’re trying to be responsive to the question, but the question related to the doctrine of the separation of powers or the principles— Bjelke Petersen: Between the Government and the—Is it? Forde: No, you tell me what you understand. Bjelke Petersen: Well, the separation of the doctrine that you refer to, in relation to where the Government stands, and the rest of the community stands, or where the rest of the instruments of Government stand. Is that what—? Forde: No. Bjelke Petersen: Well you tell me. And I’ll tell you whether you’re right or not. Don’t you know? Mr Johnson: What’s that got to do with the debate?

Ms PALASZCZUK: Absolutely everything, member for Gregory, because this government is trampling on the doctrine of the separation of powers. It is extremely relevant, member for Gregory. Mr Johnson interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I should be able to be heard in this House. Mr Johnson: We are trying to protect the kids in this state. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! Mr JOHNSON: My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not see you on your feet. Ms PALASZCZUK: It is quite obvious that some members of this House do not want to hear the history of the doctrine of the separation of powers and what this government is trying to do. Less than a year later, in September 1989, when Russell Cooper replaced Mike Ahern, who had replaced Bjelke-Petersen in December 1987, ABC journalist Quentin Dempster asked the Premier-elect the same question— What do you understand by the doctrine of the separation of powers under the Westminster system? For all to see the question was met with a similar display of incomprehension from Cooper. The Attorney-General seems to have the same level of comprehension as the two former Premiers. He has already shown— Mr Choat: You can’t even pronounce ‘Westminster’. Ms PALASZCZUK: I am looking forward to the contribution from the man who runs pigeon competitions. The Attorney-General has already shown this week that he is not fit to be the first law officer of this state. Members of the legal profession have been highly critical of his actions. Honourable members interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: Madam Speaker, I am not taking interjections. I am trying to have my voice heard this evening. Madam SPEAKER: Order! Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The president of the Queensland Law Society, the professional organisation to which the Attorney-General belonged, has taken the unusual step of criticising the lack of consultation and the rushing through of this legislation without reference to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee. Today on ABC Radio she very diplomatically skirted around the question of whether the Law Society has confidence in the Attorney-General because, as the Law Society has said—and as many members of the legal profession have felt duty-bound to point out since the announcement of these laws yesterday—judicial decision making should be exercised by judicial bodies, not by a member of the executive government.

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 17 Oct 2013 3525 Amendment Bill

The Law Society has put out a number of tweets on social media today—executive overreach a danger to all; legislative rush impacts the rights of Queenslanders; the separation of powers, government makes the laws and the courts interpret them; this week has seen significant legislative developments from Queensland government which impact on profession and rights of all Queenslanders. The president made the following statement— Proposed amendments to the Criminal Act would allow the government to bypass our judiciary to effectively keep certain offenders in jail for life.

The separation of powers is a fundamental principle that has always applied in Queensland. By shifting the responsibility for determinations on detention from the judiciary to the executive government, it means arbitrary detention will be the sole determination of the executive.

These are ill-considered changes that would send Queensland back to its colonial roots when offenders were held in custody at the Governor’s pleasure. I know that my colleague the Leader of Opposition Business quoted from a media statement by Peter Callaghan, SC, President of the Law and Justice Institute on Tuesday night in relation to the bills being debated then. I now wish to read the following statement he has issued in relation to this bill— Attacks on the separation of powers in Queensland are coming on a daily basis. In civilised countries, individual liberty can only be restrained by a member of the judiciary. The government should declare its confidence in the judiciary and stop interfering with its function as if it was just another part of the executive. Unlike the Attorney-General, the opposition has confidence in the judiciary of this state. The many checks and balances that exist ensure that every person has a right to have their case reviewed right up to the High Court. If one party thinks a judge gets it wrong, there are others who are charged with responsibility for reviewing those decisions. That should not be the Attorney-General or any other member of the executive. I understand that the Attorney-General has delusions of grandeur. I understand that he sees himself as a great legal mind who is vastly superior to all those around him, including the judges of the Supreme Court. I refer to a publication called Profile, which has an interview with the Attorney-General back in 2008 when he was endorsed as the candidate for Kawana. He was asked where he sees himself in 10 years time. I would like to share with the House the Attorney-General’s response to that question— Many places, in the courtroom as a judge, in Parliament, the Lodge. It is a very interesting article. Mr BERRY: I rise to a point of order. The Attorney-General’s musings has no relevance in this debate tonight. If there is, perhaps the opposition leader can help us out, but it is just irrelevant. Madam SPEAKER: I ask the Leader of the Opposition to address the bill. Ms PALASZCZUK: Tonight, what is happening is the Attorney-General is making himself judge, jury and jailer. This legislation gives a judicial power not only to this Attorney-General but also to all subsequent Attorneys-General. Mr Johnson interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: The member for Gregory is perfectly entitled to put his name on the speaking list, which contains the names of only two backbenchers. Mr Johnson: I’ll have a go all right, sister. You wait and see. Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory, I ask you to cease interjecting. I also remind you to use a member’s appropriate title. Ms PALASZCZUK: The member for Ipswich wants to stand and interject. I ask him to please feel free to add his name to the list. I would love to hear from the great legal mind of the member for Ipswich and his views in relation to this draconian legislation. We in the opposition are reluctant to give this Attorney-General any more power in relation to appeals. Mr Bleijie: Playing the person. Playing the man. Ms PALASZCZUK: I would not say ‘man’. Honourable members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! I appreciate that the hour is late and that the issues are being debated in a heated way.

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 3526 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

Ms PALASZCZUK: I turn now to the consideration of the specific provisions of the bill. This is an extraordinary piece of legislation. A government member: It sure is. It’s fantastic. Ms PALASZCZUK: For goodness sake! Honestly, if members want to stand in this place and make a contribution, please do so. But at least give some courtesy to a person who is on their feet and trying to contribute to the debate on this piece of legislation which makes this person judge and jury. Honourable members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: There are too many interjections in the House. The issue is a heated one and I appreciate that members are contributing across the floor, but it would help the House, given the lateness of the hour and the issues to be debated, to cease interjecting. I call the Leader of the Opposition. Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you very much. Mr BLEIJIE: I rise to a point of order. Madam Speaker, I thank you for your ruling. Earlier this evening the opposition leader called me a megalomaniac, among other things. I just ask that if the opposition leader requests— Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order? Mr BLEIJIE: My point of order is that if the opposition leader requests the silence of other members and the respect of other members, perhaps she should give the same courtesy to other members in this House. Madam SPEAKER: I ask the Attorney-General to take his seat. That is not a point of order. I am not ruling on issues that were before the House previously. Ms PALASZCZUK: As I said, this is an extraordinary piece of legislation. It amends the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945. I understand there are currently three prisoners detained under that legislation in Queensland. This act has not been used since the 1980s because there have been alternative schemes for the indefinite detention of prisoners and their release date in operation. The Penalties and Sentences Act allowed for a court to make an indefinite sentence. Then in 2003 the Labor government introduced the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act. It applies to a relevant person, which is defined in the bill to mean a person who was under a continuing detention order under DPSOA or who has been under such an order but has been released on a supervision order. The minister is then able to make a recommendation to the Governor in Council to declare that a relevant person can be detained if satisfied the detention is in the public interest. In deciding that question the minister or Governor in Council may have regard to any matter he or she considers relevant. The matters that may be relevant cannot be limited by the provisions of this act or any other act. There are no guidelines that the Attorney must take into account. There are no matters that the Attorney is not permitted to consider. The Attorney may consider anything. This is in contrast to the obligations of the courts under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 which must have regard to set criteria. In making an order under that act the paramount consideration is to be the need to ensure adequate protection of the community, and rightly so. The court must also consider whether adequate protection of the community can be reasonably and practicably managed by a supervision order and whether the requirements can be reasonably and practicably managed by corrective service officers. Under this act currently under consideration the only information that the Attorney is required to provide to a person against whom he wishes to recommend the making of an order is the serving of a notice on the person advising that he intends to recommend that the Governor in Council makes a public interest declaration, the grounds on which he considers detention would be in the public interest and notice that the person may make a written submission to the Attorney. But despite these safeguards the Attorney need not comply with those requirements if he considers it necessary because of urgent circumstances. The Attorney decides what are urgent circumstances. Decisions as to what are urgent circumstances are not included in the limitation of review section so I ask the Attorney to please explain during consideration in detail what review rights exist in relation to that decision. The bill then provides for annual examination of the detained person by two psychiatrists appointed by the CEO of the Department of Corrective Services. They must provide a report to the CEO. The CEO must give a copy of the report to the person detained, their legal representative and to the Attorney as soon as practicable. Once the Attorney receives the report he must consider the

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 17 Oct 2013 3527 Amendment Bill report and decide whether to make a recommendation that the order should end. If an order is ended, either through this process or if a Supreme Court finds there is jurisdictional error, the DPSOA order that applied prior to the declaration is reinstated. This is similar to the provisions that will apply if the act is declared invalid. The second most extraordinary aspect of this bill, other than the provisions which apply if the bill is invalid, is the limitation of review set out in division 6. The only grounds on which a decision can be reviewed are under part 5 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 to the extent that the decision is affected by jurisdictional error. As the Attorney can have regard to any matter the minister considers relevant, and as the matters that may be relevant cannot be limited by any provision of this act or any other act, the opportunity to review a decision will be extremely narrow. Other than this very narrow opportunity for review, the bill provides that the decision (a) is final and conclusive; (b) cannot be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed, set aside or called into question in any other way under the Judicial Review Act 1991 or otherwise, whether by the Supreme Court, another court, a tribunal or another entity; and (c) is not subject to any declaratory, injunctive or other order of the Supreme Court, another court, a tribunal or another entity on any ground. I guess the Attorney is also contemplating that he would make a lot of mistakes because he recognises his lack of capacity to be entrusted with his extreme powers and in contemplation thereof has limited the capacity of people to challenge his decisions even on justifiable grounds. Another unusual aspect of the bill is the fact that the Attorney can make a declaration provided any appeal has been finally dealt with and, if there is no appeal, provided any appeal period has expired. There is no requirement for the Attorney to have exhausted his appeal rights. If he is unhappy with the decision of a Supreme Court he can ignore that decision. He does not have to appeal the decision in the usual way. He can merely make a declaration that the person continue to be detained. The Attorney has said that the laws will only be used as a last resort. However, he can use the powers instead of asking the courts to review the decisions he is unhappy with. The legal stakeholders have expressed extreme disquiet with these new laws, but they are not the only ones. The Premier himself has expressed reservations about the new laws. Even Hetty Johnston of Bravehearts has expressed concern about the amount of power it gives to one person. The essence of this bill is that the Attorney has set himself as Judge Judy, jury, jailer and the High Court. Mr Bleijie: You’ve used that one before. Ms PALASZCZUK: I enjoyed that one. Mr BLEIJIE: I rise to a point of order. I find the comments offensive and I ask the member to withdraw. Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to withdraw. Ms PALASZCZUK: I withdraw. The President of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology, Professor Rick Sarre, says the changes could have the opposite effect to how they were intended. He states— Juries who are making a decision about a particular person who thinks ‘yes, this person is guilty but I wouldn’t want him being held at the ... discretion of the Attorney-General for the rest of his life’ are more likely to find that person not guilty. He further states— That’s not protecting the community. The most appalling thing about this legislation is the lack of consultation that has been undertaken in respect of this bill. We see from the explanatory notes that consultation occurred with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Queensland Treasury and Trade and the Department of Community Safety. No consultation was undertaken with external stakeholders. The Queensland Law Society and the Bar Association of Queensland have called for the bill to be referred to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee for its consideration. The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties, which seemed to be the stakeholder of choice to quote when the LNP was debating the Criminal Organisation Bill in 2009, also called for the bill to not be passed, but to be referred to the committee. The Council for Civil Liberties has called on the Premier to ‘first thing today’ order his Attorney-General to refer his new ‘Judge Jarrod’ laws to the Queensland parliamentary committee system for examination and review before it is put to a parliamentary vote.

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 3528 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

Civil liberties council vice-president Terry O’Gorman said— Reports in the Courier-Mail today that the legislation be passed by parliament without scrutiny by the committee system after Mr Bleijie stamped it urgent are disturbing. There is absolutely nothing urgent about this new law. We call on the Attorney-General to state the facts and reasons for the urgency. The urgency is a falsely manufactured con job by Mr Bleijie. The President of the Bar Association, Mr Roger Traves QC, issued a media release on behalf of members. It states— President of the Bar Association of Queensland, Mr Roger Traves QC, said in relation to the Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) Amendment Bill 2013: The Bar Association of Queensland opposes the Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) Amendment Bill 2013 and strongly encourages the government to let the bill lie in the parliament while it is given further consideration. Under the law as it presently stands the decision as to whether a sexual offender remains in prison is made by the court, after assessing, as the act requires, whether there are reasonable grounds for finding that prisoner is a serious danger to the community. There is legitimate public concern about the release of some prisoners but that is not a reason to disregard long-held principles. This legislation means that the Executive, should the Court decide after the appeal process that the prisoner can be released, can overrule the Court and decide nonetheless that the prisoner should remain imprisoned. Unlike the Court, which is to apply legislation which defines its discretion, the Executive may act solely on what it believes to be the ‘public interest’. Unlike a judge’s decision, which is subject to appeal, the legislation precludes review of the decision of the Executive save in the very narrow circumstances of jurisdictional error— Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, please pause the clock. Members, there is too much noise in the chamber, and there is also some electronic equipment in the chamber, if someone could turn that off. Ms Miller: No, it is outside, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER: Right, OK. Honourable members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: It has been a day of too much amplified noise from the outside. I call the Leader of the Opposition. Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will continue— The Executive ought not to decide who stays in prison and who leaves prison, any more than it should decide who is imprisoned in the first place. That is the role of the Court. If the Parliament wishes to make it more difficult for sexual offenders to be released, then it ought to consider making the test for release by the Court more stringent.

What it should not do, whatever the perceived problem, is to put decisions about sentencing, which ought to reside with the Court, in the hands of the Executive, the decision of which is to be determined without right of challenge and according to an ill defined test of ‘public interest. Consultation on this bill should have been undertaken with the external stakeholders, but even consultation with the government stakeholders was limited. I notice that the institutions in which persons can be detained under the act include correctional facilities and the Park Centre for Mental Health. However, there was no consultation with the department of health on whether the Park Centre has the capacity to hold any additional prisoners who might be detained there. There was also no consultation with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. The bill requires reports to be provided by two psychiatrists who are registered under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, yet the body representing those persons was not paid the courtesy of being consulted. Wide consultation is the hallmark of good legislation and it is the hallmark of good government. This bill should have been referred to the committee to allow stakeholders to provide their input. On Tuesday night, the Attorney-General had to amend the bill because of deficiencies identified by the opposition. I will not be surprised when the Attorney is forced to come back to this House with amendments to this bill, nor would I be surprised if these laws were to be declared invalid. The opposition is appalled by this bill. I believe Queenslanders are appalled by this bill. We will oppose this bill. This is not good government. This is an abuse of power. Mr CHOAT (Ipswich West—LNP) (12.32 am): This evening I rise to contribute to this extremely important debate on the Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) Amendment Bill 2013. As the member for Ipswich West, I am compelled to speak on this bill because my community has a real interest in this, given that the previous Labor government had no problem in dumping both Robert John Fardon and the infamous Dennis Ferguson in our suburbs. I can recall the Queensland Times took up the fight to stop that blatant disregard for community safety. I remember both Mayor Pisasale and Cameron Thompson MP, the then member for Blair, spoke out very strongly about what

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 17 Oct 2013 3529 Amendment Bill the state Labor government was trying to do. I also remember the state Labor members ducking for cover and pleading ignorance. In 2007, state Labor attempted to stash Fardon in Lowry Street, North Ipswich just a stone’s throw from parks, Ipswich North State School and our great Norths rugby league club. It was residents who led the charge to get rid of him, not the Labor member of parliament. As if this attempted sleight of hand and betrayal of the Ipswich West community was not bad enough, it came on the tail of the Ferguson debacle from 2005. At the time, a grandfather of seven children, Mr Noel Watterson, was dubbed a vigilante by the courts after he had led a strong campaign to rid his community of notorious sex offender Dennis Ferguson. I can also remember some tough talk from then Premier Peter Beattie about Mr Watterson, who was actually charged with stalking Ferguson when he took action after Ferguson would be seen standing at his window leering at Mr Watterson’s grandchildren playing in the backyard. Mr Watterson was fined $300 and had his licence disqualified for three months as punishment for chasing Ferguson down the street. The stalking charges were later downgraded to making threats, but Mr Watterson received a six-month suspended jail term. At the time, Mr Watterson was called ‘Dennis’s menace’ and was a hero to the community for his tough stance against a predator who history shows was set to reoffend. Noel Watterson stood up for our children, not just his own, and deserves our favour as a local hero. Within a week of Mr Watterson’s case being heard, Ferguson was charged with serious sex assault on two young girls in Dalby. We all know the rest of the saga that relates and have seen too often dangerous prisoners released into the community only to reoffend and sometimes those offences are more than the community can bear. The bill serves to protect our community and, in particular, those who are most vulnerable: our children and, of course, women. With this bill we are saying that the risk of reoffending by the filth of our society is just not worth the potential pain and suffering of innocent people. I make no apologies for my strong support of this bill. It amazes me that anybody could oppose it. I have heard the nonsense about rights and ask: what about the rights of those two little girls from Dalby who suffered at the hands of Ferguson? He should never have been released and neither should his ilk. On behalf of my community I thank the Attorney for taking as tough a stance as he has with the introduction of this bill and for taking steps to ensure the safety and welfare of decent Queenslanders and particularly of my community. In life I have been taught to take responsibility for my mistakes. I have made a few, as many have I am sure, but nothing truly bad and nothing that has hurt another person. In my view and that of my people, the release of monsters such as Ferguson and Fardon is a mistake. This bill goes some way to prevent such mistakes. The bill amends the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945 to empower the Governor in Council to declare that a relevant person must be detained under the new Part 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act if satisfied it is in the public interest to make a public interest declaration. A public interest declaration will result in a relevant person being detained in prison, subject to an annual review conducted by two psychiatrists who will report on the level of risk posed by the relevant person should they be released into the community. This bill does represent a fundamental change of law, however, I believe for very good reasons. I also believe the bill will save the state millions of dollars, which can be better spent servicing the needs of decent Queenslanders and perhaps helping the victims of crime. In closing, I thank the Attorney-General for his courage in bringing about this legislation, which will certainly have a positive impact on community safety, which the people of Ipswich West appreciate. I make reference to the Leader of the Opposition’s comments as she tried to debase the great sport of pigeon racing. A Labor gentleman of this House from 1960 to 1974, Mr Douglas Sherrington, was more of a man and a person than those opposite. That is an insult to his memory. Ms TRAD: I rise to a point of order. I am not sure what relevance pigeon racing has to this bill. Honourable members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! I will hear the point of order. Member, what is your point of order? Ms TRAD: My point of order is that pigeon racing has no relevance to the bill before the House. Madam SPEAKER: Please take your seat. I believe the member was referring to an earlier comment in the debate, but I do ask the member to address the bill before the House. Mr CHOAT: I have and I have finished.

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 3530 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

Ms TRAD (South Brisbane—ALP) (12.38 am): This morning I rise to speak against the Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) Amendment Bill 2013. I note the member for Ipswich West’s contribution to the debate tonight, where he put a great defence of vigilantism and mob rule above a dispassionate and independent judiciary. Let me begin quite clearly by stating that as a mother of two young children, like every Queensland parent and other Queenslanders who are not parents, I am disgusted by the horrifying crimes committed by sex offenders. They are a scourge on society and should face the full force of the law. For anyone in this House to suggest, hint or imply that to oppose this bill is a show of support for child abusers is itself a disgusting distortion of reality. Labor opposes this bill because it is a dangerous departure from legal principles on which our modern, post Bjelke-Petersen democracy is founded, including the doctrine of the separation of powers. Labor opposes this bill because it is a departure from an independent, judicial system. Most importantly, Labor opposes this bill because it is a cynical departure and diversion from the main game this week—that is, the slashing of Queensland’s renowned WorkCover scheme. The Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) Amendment Bill is one of five bills introduced this week that have been declared urgent and have not gone to committee for adequate scrutiny or any scrutiny whatsoever. On five separate occasions this week the Newman government has shown complete disregard and disdain for the parliamentary process and in doing so has trashed the democratic process in this state. They have rushed these bills through the House to avoid scrutiny and because they arrogantly refuse to hear criticism. Kerry Splatt, a senior lawyer, former member of the LNP and the most recently departed chair of the LNP’s law and justice committee, said on radio yesterday morning— I fear that the Premier and the Attorney-General listen to no-one. They do what they want. Those opposite believe they have a monopoly on all wisdom. To use Tony Abbott’s words, perhaps they think they are the ‘suppository of all wisdom’. They are arrogantly dismissing the concerns of the community and stakeholders. Yesterday when we were debating the urgency in relation to this bill the Deputy Premier rose in this House, before he guillotined debate on that motion, and prosecuted a sorry excuse for an argument that this bill was urgent and that the former parliament had no parliamentary committees that provided scrutiny for any legislation that came before the House. There were no committees he said. That is completely false. That is a complete fabrication. Members who were members of previous parliaments know that parliamentary committees were functioning in this House in previous parliaments. We had the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee that provided advice to this chamber. It was the Bligh Labor government that was brave enough to reform the committee system, dramatically increasing the level of scrutiny and consultation on legislation. So why did the Deputy Premier prosecute this statement when discussing the urgency in relation to this legislation? I am not entirely sure. But maybe it had something to do with the grumpiness that he has been experiencing all week. Clearly after he completely bungled the greedy, indefensible 42 per cent pay rise for politicians the Deputy Premier is no longer the go-to guy for getting the government’s dirty deeds done. Mr BLEIJIE: I rise to a point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER: Member for South Brisbane, take your seat. What is your point of order? Mr BLEIJIE: I ask about relevance. The member is speaking of matters that are not relevant to the bill. Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Attorney-General. Member for South Brisbane, I ask you to address the legislation. Ms TRAD: I was talking about the urgency in relation to this bill and why we are up at a quarter to one on a Friday morning debating this bill and why it did not go to a committee. These were the arguments prosecuted yesterday. I think it is quite clear that after the Deputy Premier bungled that issue and given the fact that the Treasurer wants to keep himself nice for any future aspirations that means the only go-to person in this chamber for dirty deeds is the Attorney-General.

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 17 Oct 2013 3531 Amendment Bill

Mr BLEIJIE: I rise to a point of order, Madam Speaker. I find those comments offensive and I ask the member to withdraw. Madam SPEAKER: I ask the member to withdraw those comments. Ms TRAD: I withdraw. This bill also violates the key legal doctrine of the separation of powers. It is a point that has been persuasively made by the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber tonight. We are told that apparently the member for Kawana is a lawyer or at least that he is in possession of a law degree. I do not think he was listening during the introduction to legal principles 101 lecture because any self-respecting lawyer or someone professing to be the first law officer of the state would surely think twice before embarking upon a course of action that so thoroughly repudiates and is repugnant to the principle of the separation of powers. Clearly he is also absent of any understanding of Queensland’s political history because there can be no other explanation for why someone from the Liberal-National side of politics in Queensland would seek to fundamentally compromise the doctrine of the separation of powers in this state. As the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned earlier, it is part of Queensland’s shameful history that we had a Premier in Joh Bjelke-Petersen who could not explain the doctrine of the separation of powers—someone who reigned as Premier in this chamber for 19 years. Mr Choat: And what a great 19 years it was. Ms TRAD: Yes, it was a great 19 years. I will take that interjection from the member for Ipswich West. It was a great 19 years where corruption became institutionalised in Queensland and it reached across all of the democratic institutions of this state. That is the reason— Government members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! Take your seat! I ask for the interjections to cease. I do acknowledge that there is a heated debate taking place and members are responding to that. I would ask for comments to be directed through the chair and for the interjections to cease. I call the member for South Brisbane. Ms TRAD: It will now be written in Queensland’s political history that in Campbell Newman we have a Premier who does not care about the doctrine of the separation of powers. The last long-term Liberal National Party Premier of this state could not explain it and the current Liberal National Party Premier of this state does not care about it. Once again, Queensland is to be the embarrassing cousin in the federation of our modern national democracy. Once again Queenslanders are to be made to feel the shame of living in a state where an independent and objective judiciary are to be replaced by an Attorney-General who has a number of working years outside this place that we could count on one hand. This is a party that has lost its soul in the pursuit of complete power. The only thing guiding those opposite is a complete devotion to advancing their own interests. The only people who have the ear of this government are those few at the big end of town—casino developers, multimillion dollar corporations and mining companies. If this week has shown us anything, it is that these are the people the LNP are really here to serve not ordinary, everyday Queenslanders. This bill is ultimately a distraction, as I said earlier this evening. It is a diversion. We have seen sensational headlines in the media in relation to this bill. They were headlines designed to grab attention away from the real agenda here this week. Mr Johnson: There’s a real agenda here: it’s keeping these grubs in jail. Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory, I am now going to warn you under standing order 253A. I call the member for South Brisbane. Ms TRAD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have seen, on the announcement that the Attorney-General intended to introduce this bill, sensational headline-grabbing news stories. So ultimately this bill is a diversion from the real story of this week, and that is the LNP government playing true to form by stripping two million working Queenslanders of their rightful entitlements under the workers compensation scheme. That is the way the LNP wants it. They want Queenslanders looking the other way, focused on sensational laws where the independence and the objectivity of the legal profession is put at risk by an Attorney-General who wants to be the judge, jury and jailer of— Mr BLEIJIE: Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find those words offensive and ask the member to withdraw. Madam SPEAKER: Member, I ask you to withdraw.

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 3532 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

Ms TRAD: I withdraw. Just to conclude, we must always continue to look at ways to protect our vulnerable members of the community, including our kids, from predators and paedophiles. Mr Bleijie: Support the bill. Ms TRAD: Madam Speaker, the interjection from the Attorney-General that I support paedophiles is an offence— Mr Bleijie: I did not. I said, ‘Support the bill.’ I didn’t say that you support paedophiles. Ms TRAD: Oh, right! Okay. Madam SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms TRAD: I do not believe that there is a member in this House who would disagree with that—disagree that we must keep our children and the most vulnerable people of our community safe and protected from predators. Mr Hart: Do you agree they should stay in jail? How about that? Do you agree? Ms Palaszczuk: Get up and speak if you want to. Make a contribution. Put your name on the list. Madam SPEAKER: Order, members! I call the member for South Brisbane. Ms TRAD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. But ultimately this is not what this bill is about. This bill is about a departure from the core legal principle of the separation of power. It is a departure from the democratic process and it is a diversion from the LNP’s agenda of attacking workers’ rights and, once again, serving their own interests ahead of the interests of millions of working Queenslanders. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (12.52 am): In speaking to the Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) Amendment Bill 2013, I am conscious of the time and I want to say that this bill raises all sorts of concerns in the community. I thank the minister for the information that I received this afternoon, but I have had to give some really serious thought to this because of the people that this bill addresses. I hear the comments from the Leader of the Opposition and the member for South Brisbane, and no doubt the member for Bundamba too, about the separation of powers and how important it is that the judiciary does the job that it has to do. It has been given a job to take judicial action. I look at this bill and my question is this: isn’t the Attorney-General not interfering with the judicial process? In this particular bill he is saying, ‘This is not something that the judiciary will have responsibility for. It is not that I am going to be interfering with it; it is that I am not passing this responsibility on to the judiciary.’ I note that the Attorney-General will not be overturning or contradicting a judicial officer’s decision. The decision to take action under the Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declaration) Amendment Bill 2013 appears, to my understanding, to only take effect when the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 has been exhausted. A very, very limited number of people will be affected, and that trigger is a person who is subject to a continuing detention order or a person who is subject to a supervision order where immediately before the supervision order was made the person was subject to a continuing detention order—and a supervision order means a supervision order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003. I am very concerned about the precedent that this piece of legislation is establishing and I will be listening to the rest of the debate. It is a staggering precedent to set in taking away what has been a judicial officer’s role, but I believe it is being taken away because the community has been offended by the small number of these oxygen thieves who have been returned to the public arena. I believe that, if I were to be swayed by the majority of people in my community, overwhelmingly they would be suggesting alternatives that would be unparliamentary to say in this chamber because their belief would be much more severe. I will be listening to the rest of the debate. I do have some serious concerns. But my understanding of what is going to happen is that the Attorney will not be overturning or contradicting judicial officers’ decisions. He is taking this element of the legislation and giving it up to his office—not to him but to that office—to interpret on behalf of the public interest. I look forward to the remainder of the debate.

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 17 Oct 2013 3533 Amendment Bill

Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (12.56 am): To avoid the inevitable spurious accusations, I will start by making a very clear statement to this House. I am no supporter of paedophiles. My colleagues on this side of the House support appropriate incarceration of sex offenders. We do not believe that serial offenders who molest and abuse children should be treated with kid gloves. We are prepared to consider any reasonable and well-considered measures to further protect vulnerable citizens from the monsters who have no place in our society. It is an insult to be accused by this Attorney-General of being a friend of paedophiles merely for speaking up in support of the continuation of the freedom of the judiciary. Let me say that if every Queenslander who had reservations about the Attorney-General’s desire to be a self-appointed cross between the Pope, a law lord and a witchfinder general was a supporter of sex fiends then those sex fiends would have a huge number of supporters. There has been an unprecedented outcry in legal circles about the Attorney-General’s intention to seize powers from the judiciary. Yet he and the Premier seem to be the only ones who cannot get it through their heads the reasons why. Actually even the Premier has expressed some reservations, even though today in this chamber he gave his inexperienced colleague a hearty vote of confidence. Maybe they need to be told over and over and over again until they finally understand why this proposal has sparked such outrage. This week even this arrogant, self-opinionated, know-it-all Attorney-General must have noticed that more people than usual— Mr BLEIJIE: Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find the comments offensive and ask them to be withdrawn. Madam SPEAKER: Member for Bundamba, I ask you to withdraw. Mrs MILLER: I withdraw. More people than ever this week, both in this House and outside this House, in all sorts of media, have questioned this Attorney-General’s competence. That is a matter of fact and a matter of the public record. That is a lot of people. They include the Queensland Law Society. We also have lawyers up and down Queensland questioning the Attorney-General’s competence. Ms Trad: Even LNP lawyers. Mrs MILLER: I take the interjection from the member for South Brisbane. Even LNP lawyers think this Attorney-General is incompetent. That is a matter of fact. That is a lot of people who believe that the separation of powers between those who make the law and those who apply it is one of the most important and fundamental pillars of a healthy democracy. Where is the pillar of the LNP that talks about democracy? The chorus of disapproval gets even louder. Since he was appointed, this Attorney-General has given Queenslanders many reasons to question the Premier’s wisdom for even retaining his services. Yet incredibly the Premier believes his ‘Boy Wonder’ is doing a good job. The Premier thinks he did a good job. Madam SPEAKER: Member for Bundamba, I would ask you to refer to members by their appropriate titles. Mrs MILLER: The Premier thinks that the Attorney-General did a good job when he oversaw the farcical boot camp debacle. Really? He did a good job when presumably— Mr BLEIJIE: I rise to a point of order. The standing orders require relevance. The member is not relevant. This is such a serious debate that I would ask that she be called for relevance. Madam SPEAKER: Member for Bundamba, I ask you to address the legislation before the House. Mrs MILLER: I am addressing the legislation before the House. Honourable members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order, members! I would also ask other members not to contribute their interpretation of the standing orders with their interjections. I call the member for Bundamba. Mrs MILLER: Thank you for your protection, Madam Speaker. I return to talking about the Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) Amendment Bill. For the benefit of the House, I would like to table the speaking list, which has crossed off the people who were supposed to speak including the member for Ipswich; the member for Broadwater, who is outside; the member for Bulimba; the member for Toowoomba North; and the member for Southport as well. They were crossed off this list. Tabled paper: Speaking list for the Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) Amendment Bill 2013 [3805].

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 3534 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

Mr Crandon interjected. Mrs MILLER: I return to the subject of the Attorney-General. The Premier thought he was doing a good job as well when during estimates he said he had abolished special circumstances courts when in fact a special circumstances court was sitting that very day. That is doing a good job? Really? He did a good job when he introduced legislation to force unions to ballot members for expenditure of more than $10,000 including on campaigns! Mr BLEIJIE: I rise to a point of order. Madam SPEAKER: I think I know what the point of order is. Mr BLEIJIE: The member continually does not show relevance. Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Attorney-General. I would ask the member for Bundamba to come to the legislation and address that. The hour is late; the time is short. Please address the legislation. Mrs MILLER: Thank you very much for your— Mr Crandon interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Pause the clock. I now warn the member for Coomera. Mrs MILLER: I know it is very late at night, but it is certainly not late enough for some people to be partying outside. Today after the Queensland Law Society president failed to declare— A government member interjected. Mrs MILLER: Madam Speaker, we do have one person in the House who is interfering with the delivery of my speech. I find his behaviour quite appalling. Honourable members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order, members! There are a number of interjections across the chamber and there is also a heated debate taking place, but I would ask the member to come to the legislation and I ask for the interjections to cease. Mrs MILLER: Thank you very much. I appreciate your protection again. I will return to the legislation. What we have here is an Attorney-General who considers that he knows better than the judiciary and has a desire to award himself more powers than any other politician in any parliament which adheres to the Westminster system. Uniquely, across these democracies, he wants the power to judge whether offenders should remain in jail until they die. Some people might well have committed such heinous crimes that they deserve to spend their lives behind bars; I understand that. However, those on this side of the House believe that such decisions must remain with the courts because judges are trained to make such vital determinations. The independence of the courts is far too important to sacrifice to a politician who is liable to be influenced by public opinion or the prejudices of a handful of others. There is a reason why the separation of powers is a principle cherished by democracies across the globe. If the Attorney-General had the humility to consult expert opinion, he might understand that principle. If the Attorney-General was prepared to listen, he might hear that there are those who suggest that juries will be less likely to convict those accused of sexual offences if they think they will be condemning them to life imprisonment on the whim of a politician. This week we have seen the Newman LNP government use its majority to rush through highly contentious legislation in what I believe is an absolute abuse of the democratic process. So much for openness and transparency! So much for consensus and consultation! Good governance goes out of the window again in pursuit of sensationalist headlines. This proposal by the Attorney-General is the most audacious attack on democracy that this state has seen. The state opposition will be voting against this bill. Hon. JM DEMPSEY (Bundaberg—LNP) (Minister for Police and Community Safety) (1.05 am): I have never heard so much rubbish and rhetoric on such a serious issue as the lives and the safety of young children who will be exposed by these people to the most serious abuse not just in terms of their lives but also in terms of their future dreams and aspirations. Those in the opposition talked about rights, freedoms and the separation of power. They had 20 years in which to do what the community wants in relation to this and to meet community expectations. Then they talked about the

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 17 Oct 2013 3535 Amendment Bill separation of powers and the judicial system when the judicial system has been completely expended in terms of what it can do. The opposition have known this for over 10 years, yet they have sat on their hands, been subservient to their union masters, the Socialist Left and the rest of the greenies that they have had to rely on in order to stay in this parliament. Ms PALASZCZUK: I rise to a point of order. Madam SPEAKER: Pause the clock. What is your point of order? Ms PALASZCZUK: Relevance! Madam SPEAKER: Order, members! There are a few members who— A government member interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Capalaba— Mr Davies: It wasn’t me. Madam SPEAKER: If it was not you, I apologise, but I will soon start giving people an early night if they keep interjecting and do not pay attention to the chair. I call the police minister to address the legislation. I appreciate that there are interjections across the chamber and the debate is heated. Mr DEMPSEY: This government makes no apologies for having the toughest legislation in the whole of Australia to protect our most vulnerable Queenslanders, the young children of this great state. The opposition have had many years in which to bring legislation before this House. We all know of the difficulties that the judicial system has experienced over the years and the fights by both the opposition and the government of the day in relation to meeting community expectations. What did those opposite do in their 20 years? Nothing! They procrastinated, they pushed it back, they used and abused the judicial system by not having the full support of the people of Queensland. I ask the opposition not to politicise such a serious issue in relation to these sexual perpetrators. All I have heard from those opposite throughout the sitting week is them demeaning the Attorney-General, bringing in other issues and not addressing this serious issue of ensuring that we meet community expectations, that we listen to what the people of Queensland are saying to their representatives in this great House, which is that they want to see the worst of the worst sex offenders behind bars. Madam SPEAKER: I call the Attorney-General and Minster for Justice. Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (1.10 am), in reply: This would be one of the most important debates that this parliament will probably have in this term— Mr KNUTH: I rise to a point of order, Madam Speaker. We had two speakers on their feet. Madam SPEAKER: Member for Dalrymple, there were numerous speakers who jumped to their feet, but the first one who jumped up and called that I heard was the Attorney-General. Please take your seat. I call the Attorney-General. Hon. JP BLEIJIE: It is one of the most important debates because we are dealing with the most vulnerable people in our community, and that is our children. I am saddened tonight to see the level of immaturity displayed by the Leader of the Opposition and her colleagues this evening in this debate. As I said, this would be one of the most important bills this parliament will debate, and the level of immaturity exhibited tonight by the Leader of the Opposition and the members for South Brisbane and Bundamba will go down in history. I think it will be a matter of interest to their constituents at the next election when they observe the low level to which the honourable members opposite have sunk during the debate tonight. The members opposite have forgotten one thing about this debate. This bill amends the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945. That act allowed the courts to sentence someone indefinitely, to be released only by the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council could release someone without the judiciary having any say and without the discretion of the court. That legislation was introduced by the Australian Labor Party. In 1945 the Australian Labor Party introduced the bill that I am amending this evening. It meant that prisoners would be detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure and would not be released unless the Governor in Council said so. I found the debate interesting tonight when the honourable members opposite spoke of the separation of powers, considering that they were in fact the ones who introduced the 1945 legislation which detained people indefinitely. What we are doing in this debate is amending the legislation to ensure that we are getting the worst of the worst sex offenders off our streets. I make this

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 3536 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill commitment to honourable members tonight: I hope I never have to use this legislation. I hope we never have to invoke the declarations under this legislation, because if we do it means that an innocent child is likely to have been sexually abused by one of these predators in our community. As Attorney-General, I will do whatever I can to stand up for the most vulnerable in our community. I will always stick up for the rights of children in this state. Over the last 1½ years we have seen this government take an unapologetically strong view on sex offenders. We have introduced the first two-strike legislation in the country which means that an offender, if convicted of a second offence, will receive mandatory life imprisonment—which is equal only to a murder sentence in this state—with a non-parole period of 20 years. That is about making sure that sex offenders, these predators who groom our young people, never see the light of day outside of a prison cell again. These people, by their own admission, are hardly ever rehabilitated. These people, by their own admission, hardly ever change. That is why we have got to make sure that this parliament does whatever it can to make sure that we protect our young people. If the 1945 legislation that was introduced by a former Labor government was so bad, why didn’t the Labor Party repeal the legislation? The act was sitting there and there were prisoners. No, they did not repeal it. They let it sit on the statute book and we are debating it tonight. We are not proposing new legislation; we are amending current Labor Party legislation. If the bill was so repulsive, why did they let it sit on the statute? In the early 2000s they knew they could not politically repeal the legislation, so they tinkered at the edges and allowed a parole provision to come in. But they discovered that parole boards have never given parole to three prisoners under the current legislation. In the hearts and minds of the Labor Party they know they do not want to release sex offenders on our streets either, but they cannot bring themselves to vote for this legislation tonight for whatever reason. Ms Palaszczuk: Because it is about the separation of powers! Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition, who has spoken a lot about the separation of powers. I did interject on the opposition leader to ask, ‘Who wrote the separation of powers?’ I interjected on the member for Bundamba and asked, ‘Who wrote the separation of powers?’ None of them knew. None of them could answer when the first philosopher, the first theorist, wrote about the separation of powers. It does not surprise me, but they actually would not know and appreciate that there is no strict separation of powers in the state of Queensland. The separation of powers attaches to the Commonwealth. There is no strict separation of powers in the state. The earliest theorist in terms of the separation of powers, of course, was Baron de Montesquieu, who wrote the first theories on the doctrine of the separation of powers in The Spirit of the Laws in 1748. Opposition members interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: I can understand why those opposite are discussing this, because they probably do not know who Baron de Montesquieu is. They have talked a lot about the separation of powers, but I do not think any of them actually know where it came from, what it means and who wrote the early theories. There is some debate about whether Baron de Montesquieu got it all correct in the first instance, but then it developed over the years. The separation of powers deals with the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. We on this side the House fully appreciate and understand that, but what we have to also understand is that we are in modern times. We are dealing with modern criminals that breed like no other; modern criminals who are so entrenched and ingrained in our system that it calls for tough measures. We have debated about criminals a lot this week. We have debated about the worst of the worst. We have debated about criminal motorcycle gangs. I heard those opposite whinging and moaning in this debate tonight about the new laws—new laws that they supported 24 hours ago. I know they supported it so that at the next election they can tick the box to say that they supported the government of the day, but let the record of what they said stand. Last night they essentially opposed the reform, they opposed this tonight— Ms PALASZCZUK: I rise to a point of order on relevance. The Attorney is talking about a previous bill. He is not addressing the bill currently before the House, and I ask you to please rule on relevance. Mr BLEIJIE: I am referring to the debate instigated by the Leader of the Opposition when she referred to the—

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 17 Oct 2013 3537 Amendment Bill

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! I did not hear specifically what the Attorney-General said. I do ask the Attorney-General to address the bill in his summing-up. Mr BLEIJIE: Baron de Montesquieu wrote about the separation of powers. We are dealing with modern criminals. Many members would not have experienced the inside of a jail cell. When I was shadow corrections minister, I had the unfortunate experience of going to jail cells in Queensland. They do have protection units at jails, and that is where they house the worst of the worst sex offenders. I note the opposition leader laughing again during this serious debate, just as she was in her contribution tonight. They keep the worst of the worst sex offenders— Ms PALASZCZUK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find his comments offensive and I ask him to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): The Attorney has been asked to withdraw. Mr BLEIJIE: You were laughing. Ms Palaszczuk: Not at that! Mr BLEIJIE: I withdraw. Mr Newman interjected. Ms Palaszczuk interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Who would like to leave first? Attorney, you have been asked to withdraw. Mr BLEIJIE: I withdrew. We are dealing with a modern criminal. This week we have debated legislation relating to criminal motorcycle gang members. Sex offenders are like no other criminal in this state or around the world. They prey on the most weak and vulnerable in our communities. It is the legislator’s job to ensure we put in place all the protective mechanisms we have at our disposal to make sure these people are kept behind bars. The Premier and I both said yesterday that we are reluctant to do this. We are reluctant to introduce these types of laws. As I also said in my contribution earlier this evening, I hope that I never have to use them. I hope that I never have to make a declaration. I hope that the Governor in Council never has to sentence someone to indefinite detention. But when we consider the likes of Ms Tomlinson, the victim of a serious sex offender who has to live year in, year out this hellish nightmare, as other sex attack victims do, we owe it to them to do all we can to protect them from these types of people in our community. These people are amongst us—everywhere. You would not recognise them in the street. I mentioned that I had been to a protection unit at a jail. I can say that these people look like you or me. They do not look like the criminal motorcycle gang member. That is why they are able to prey—and they get away with it a lot of the time—on the young and vulnerable in our community. Parliaments have a responsibility to ensure the community is protected. The parliament thought that in 1945 when it passed the Criminal Law Amendment Act, introduced by the Labor Party. They saw a need to ensure that people who could not alleviate their sexual instincts were kept behind bars and virtually never released. The Labor Party in 1945 understood that. In this bill, in this serious debate tonight, we are adding provisions. We have seen criminals adapt to our modern society and modern world. We have to ensure we have in place appropriate laws to deal with these people. We have the dangerous prisoners sex offenders law, but we have seen time and time again Attorneys-General of both political persuasions having to, year in and year out, apply to have these people deemed a serious risk to our community and kept behind bars. It is not just me who has done it as Attorney-General; Paul Lucas did it as Attorney-General and other Labor Attorneys-General have done it. There is nothing new in this. We owe something stronger to the victims in our community. It is a fact that these sex offenders get released into our communities. It upsets communities and it upsets the victims, particularly when those offenders have no remorse or have shown no sign of rehabilitation—taken no courses or had no work to do outside of the jail. Other jurisdictions are not immune from this issue. Every jurisdiction and every government deals with this. We have taken a tough stance on criminal motorcycle gangs. I note that the Courier-Mail just issued already talks about the fact that, in the space of 48 hours since this parliament passed the toughest laws in the country, the criminal motorcycle gangs are running scared. That is because this parliament passed legislation 48 hours ago with severe penalties. It has the criminal gangs running. That is what this parliament is about.

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 3538 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

I would hope that the legislation this parliament debates tonight will send a message to serial sex offenders in this state that this parliament takes the matter seriously, just as the parliament in 1945 did, that this parliament takes the issue of child safety seriously, just as the parliament in 1945 did, and that this parliament understands that these measures are necessary. I make a commitment to the people of Queensland tonight that these laws will be used only in the most extreme of circumstances. These laws will not be abused by anyone, either by me as Attorney-General or when another first law officer serves as Attorney-General. They are powers that should be reserved for the most extreme cases and for the worst of the worst sex offenders in this state. That is why we took the position we did. The honourable member opposite talked about the separation of powers. I have dealt with that by explaining to the honourable Leader of the Opposition where the separation of powers came from—Baron de Montesquieu. None of them, when questioned, actually knew where the separation of powers came from. They all espoused it in their speeches but none of them could say where it actually came from. I guess Wikipedia may have assisted them somewhat. Ms Palaszczuk: You can’t explain it. Mr BLEIJIE: I have explained it. You have the three levels in the state parliament—the judiciary, the legislature and of course the executive. The High Court has said that the executive and the legislature can be treated as one and the judiciary separate. We are not taking a power from the courts. The courts maintain the jurisdiction, as the member for Gladstone said, under the dangerous prisoners legislation. But this is about what happens when one of the worst of the worst sex offenders is released into our community. I am asking parliament to act tonight by passing this legislation. Parliament has a responsibility. Governments have a responsibility to the people. Ms Palaszczuk interjected. Mr Newman interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection of the honourable Premier. A few weeks ago, when I applied for a stay in a particular matter—I will not talk about it because it is before the Court of Appeal—the opposition leader made a comment on the news. She said, ‘This Attorney-General is more worried about naming and shaming young juvenile offenders than he is keeping serial sex offenders behind bars.’ That was only two weeks ago. I remember it because of the hypocrisy of it. I remember it because of the hypocrisy of the statement back then and where we are tonight. Just like with the criminal motorcycle gangs: police state, support it, tough, we don’t like it, okay, we’re going to support it. They flip-flopped last night in relation to criminal motorcycle gangs. The member for Rockhampton said that the Labor Party would never, ever support mandatory sentencing. He voted for mandatory sentencing last night. Likewise, the opposition leader said on TV two weeks ago that I was not doing enough to keep sex offenders behind bars. Here is her chance to support this government in doing something to keep sex offenders behind bars. Ms Palaszczuk: No way—not when it breaches the doctrine of the separation of powers. Mr BLEIJIE: The member again talks about the doctrine of the separation of powers, which she could not articulate. She mentioned it a lot in her speech but she never actually explained what it was. None of the opposition members did. The member ought to read a case called Kirk. The member is a lawyer. Has she read Kirk? Ms Palaszczuk: It is not question time. You are on your feet. You raised it. Mr BLEIJIE: The member has not read Kirk and would not understand it. The judgement in Kirk categorically said that the Supreme Court has the power to judicially review jurisdictional error at every available opportunity, just as this bill does tonight. Nothing can negative that. The Supreme Court has already held that for jurisdictional error purposes the Supreme Court will always hold judicial power to review, and nothing changes in this debate tonight. This is a reluctant exercise that we are doing, and we understand that there is some community concern amongst the legal profession with respect to these tough laws. We understand that these are tough measures. We understand the legal profession— Mr Cripps: Mums and dads are concerned. Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection from the Minister for Natural Resources. We understand what mums and dads in our community expect of us as parliamentarians—people with or without children expect of us as parliamentarians. This is a historic night for this parliament if it passes this legislation, because this will protect our children in our state. This will protect our children. We have

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 17 Oct 2013 3539 Amendment Bill made sure that our responsibility to our most vulnerable in our community is being upheld, but I stress again in conclusion that these laws will be used on the most rarest of occasion for the worst of the worst sex offender. If we can keep sex offenders behind bars, that means fewer children in this state will be sexually abused. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! Under the provisions of the resolution agreed to by the House and the time limit for the second reading having expired, the question is— That the bill be now read a second time. Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time.

AYES, 63—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Douglas, Dowling, Emerson, France, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Judge, Kempton, King, Knuth, Krause, Langbroek, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Pucci, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Sorensen, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker, Wellington. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens

NOES, 7—Byrne, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad. Tellers: Miller, Scott Resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

Consideration in Detail Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! Members should note that the ringing of the bells for all divisions will be for one minute. Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Clause 3— Mr KNUTH (1.38 am): The clause states— for the treatment and punishment of offenders convicted of sexual offences, to provide for the detention in the public interest of a particular class of offenders convicted of sexual offences On reading this clause, I say to the Attorney-General that there is already a bill before a committee at the present moment called the Child Protection (Offender Reporting—Publication of Information) Amendment Bill. As this clause acknowledges the detention in the public’s interest, two psychologists have to assess whether the paedophile is ready to be released. I also say this to the Attorney-General: shouldn’t the community also have the opportunity, if these offenders are to be released into society, to access through a public register where those serious sex offenders are? What I am saying is that we had an opportunity to strengthen this bill if it had gone through the committee system. Fast-tracking this bill means that we have lost the opportunity to make this legislation stronger and give the community the opportunity to know where these serious sex offenders are. Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members! Order! Ms Bates: There’s no bats in this bill! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am still on my feet. Member for Mudgeeraba, I was on my feet and I suggest you pay attention to the chamber. Member for Dalrymple, how is this relevant to the clause? Mr KNUTH: I am putting a question to the Attorney with regard to this clause about— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have five seconds to get to the clause. Mr KNUTH: I am referring to the public interest after that sex offender is released into society. A government member interjected. Mr KNUTH: That is true, and dangerous sex offenders—the worst of the worst. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr KNUTH: What protection is there just in case those— A government member interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The minister will cease interjecting.

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 3540 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

Mr KNUTH: What is the plan and procedure in place if the psychologists get it wrong and a sex offender goes back into society and commits serious child sex offences? That is the question I am asking, because this is a watered down bill— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Dalrymple will resume his seat. Mr KNUTH:—but because it has been fast-tracked and has not been given the opportunity to go to a committee— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Dalrymple shall resume his seat. The member for Dalrymple has not addressed the clause, as I have asked him to do. Does the Attorney want to address that in any way, shape or form? Mr Nicholls: Just say it’s somewhat batty! Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection from the Treasurer. It would have to be some sort of batty response to answer that! A government member: Go, Boy Wonder! Government members interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: I am going to get these offenders in the Batmobile! These offenders will be going in the Batboat down to Her Majesty’s prison! Member for Dalrymple, I would love to answer your question, but I fail to understand what the question was—or the statement—other than that you are supporting the legislation but then saying that I am not being tough enough in this legislation. I cannot win. I am too tough; I am not tough enough. For the benefit of the member for Dalrymple, the whole point of this legislation is to keep the prisoners behind bars for a very long time. ‘Indefinite’ is the definition. I think that is a satisfactory response to the batty question. Clause 3, as read, agreed to. Clauses 4 and 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6— Ms PALASZCZUK (1.43 am): Clause 6 is the nuts and bolts of what we have been discussing tonight. This clause inserts a new part 4 and part 4A. The entire substantive content of the bill is contained in this clause, so I will address those parts that are of most concern to the opposition. New section 20 provides that the minister or Governor in Council may have regard to any matter they consider relevant. That is a very widely drafted clause and offers no guidance as to what must be considered or what may be considered and the relevant weight to be given to these considerations. When these types of discretions are exercised by a court, which is the appropriate body to exercise judicial functions, the court usually has some direction on what it may consider. Rather than transfer the exercise of such decision-making power to the executive, the parliament should look at how it can extend the existing powers of the courts within constitutional limits to enable them to make decisions. I now turn to new sections 21 and 22, which relate to the making of the declaration. New section 21(2)(b) allows the minister to make a declaration once the appeal period has expired after the making of a DPSOA order, even though the Attorney-General has not exhausted all of the appeal rights. I now turn to new section 22C, which provides for an annual review of the detained person. New subsection 22C(3) provides that two psychiatrists are to carry out the review and are to be appointed by the CEO of Corrective Services. I want to raise these matters with the Attorney-General and for him to respond. Under the DPSOA, the psychiatrists are appointed by the independent court. To maintain procedural fairness, the choice of persons to carry out certain functions within the act should be made by someone who is independent of the process and has no interest in the outcome. That just makes sense. The Attorney-General has not consulted with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists and, because the courts have been eliminated from the process, because there is no independent person involved in the decision-making process, it could be that a body such as the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists could have been charged with responsibility for appointing the psychiatrist. That would have at least maintained some degree of independence in the process. I now turn to new section 22G, which sets out what is to happen if a public interest declaration stops applying. But it only applies when the declaration stops applying because there is a declaration made to end the detention or the Supreme Court rules that the order was made under a jurisdictional error. The original DPSOA order is reinstated and the prisoner is further detained under the detention order or released on supervision. If the supervision order has expired during the period of the

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 17 Oct 2013 3541 Amendment Bill currency of the declaration, the Attorney-General can make a new application for a supervision order under new section 22J. If a review has become due, that must also be carried out under new section 22H. Division 6 contains new section 22K, which sets out the limitation of review under this amendment. The only grounds on which a review is possible is on the grounds that the decision is affected by jurisdictional error. All other appeal and review rights are precluded. That means that the Attorney-General is the final arbiter. There is no higher authority. This is the Attorney-General making himself the High Court—or else it is an admission that he is likely to get it wrong so often that he does not want anyone to have access to the appeal mechanism. I will leave that to the judgement of others. I now turn to part 4A, which contains new section 22N, which is very similar in nature to the earlier provisions setting out what is to happen if a public interest declaration stops applying. However, it applies in certain circumstances other than where the declaration stops applying because there is a declaration made to end the detention or the Supreme Court rules that the order was made under a jurisdictional error—that is, where the order stops applying because the act is declared invalid. This is an extraordinary provision and I would like the Attorney-General to address this provision. I have never seen a similar provision before, but I am pleased that it is in the legislation, because if prisoners are detained under this legislation, and it is declared invalid, it would be terrible if they were to just be released. I am pleased that there are provisions to ensure that the previous orders under the DPSOA are reinstated. However, it is also a stark admission that the Attorney-General believes that this particular legislation could be challenged. That is why these provisions are here. I made it very clear earlier that there has been no external consultation. These are far-reaching powers making the Attorney-General the decision maker and taking away the discretion of the courts in deciding these matters. Part 4A is something that we have not seen before. One could almost call this the house of cards clause. Essentially it is saying that if the Attorney-General’s provisions fail in the High Court the house of cards comes tumbling down and they are going to revert back to the original DPSOA legislation. I would ask the Attorney to address those matters. Mr BLEIJIE: The first part of the question was in relation to the public interest test. It is a very broad public interest test and it will be taken into consideration in the ordinary meaning of public interest test which is, in the scheme of things, a very broad definition of what the public interest is. So when I make a public interest declaration I take all things into consideration. If I intend to make a public interest declaration I have to get a submission from the person who is detained. The opposition leader just made some crazy statements. Mr Newman: Is that new? Mr BLEIJIE: It is not unusual. The opposition leader just said that because we have a fallback provision in this legislation, which means if anything ever happens with the legislation there is a fallback through the dangerous prisoner legislation, ‘It would be terrible if they were just released back into the community.’ Hang on. We have put them in through Corrective Services by this legislation, she has opposed it and now the opposition leader is saying that if it falls over it is terrible that they get released back into the community. Where does the Leader of the Opposition stand on this? Ten minutes ago the opposition voted opposing the legislation. Now the opposition leader is saying that if it falls over in the High Court it is going to be terrible because these people are out on the street. We are doing this to keep them off the streets. If the opposition leader thinks these people who will be subject to this legislation are so terrible and abhorrent then support the legislation. If the opposition leader does not want these people on the streets of Inala, in her community, then vote for the legislation. Have the ticker to vote for the legislation. We have the ticker on this side of the House. The independents did. I notice the Katter and the Palmer party had the ticker to vote for this legislation. We believe in the security and safety of the most vulnerable in our community and that is our kids. We will do everything we can to protect the kids, in contrast to the Labor Party who are all over the place on this. One minute they want bikies in jail; next we are being too hard on the bikies, we are a police state because we are being too hard on the bikies. Then last night they do not want mandatory sentencing; then they voted for mandatory sentencing. Now the opposition leader says this is terrible legislation but it will be terrible if it falls over in the High Court because these terrible people are going to be released into our community. Where do you stand? Have a position? What do you believe in? Have a position and stick to it, opposition leader. You have never been able to stick to a position. One thing we on this side of the House do is make a decision and follow through with it because we have values. We will put children ahead of sex offenders any day of the week.

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 3542 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

Ms PALASZCZUK: From what I can understand— Mr Newman interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Ms PALASZCZUK: I do note that the Premier had every opportunity to raise issues and participate in the debate and chose not to. Mr Newman: The A-G is doing a great job. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members, the Leader of the Opposition has the call. Ms PALASZCZUK: And he is not slurring his words. Mr Newman: Well, you’re slurring yours. Ms PALASZCZUK: No, I am not. I find that offensive and I ask the Premier to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Premier, you have been asked to withdraw. The member finds it offensive. Mr NEWMAN: I am unclear about what she is asking me to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would help the House, Premier, if you could just withdraw. Mr NEWMAN: I withdraw. Ms PALASZCZUK: I know it is very early and I want to wrap it up. Mr Bleijie: Do you support it now? Have you changed your position? Ms PALASZCZUK: No, I definitely have not changed my mind. From what the Attorney-General was just saying, it appears now that he has admitted that he put these provisions of Part 4A into this bill because he believes he could have some expectation that it could fall over. Why would these provisions be in here? Government members interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: I want to put on the public record that these provisions in the house of cards clause have been put in here because this government does not have confidence that this legislation will stand up to a High Court challenge. Mr Dempsey interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: Minister for Police, if I wanted your expert legal opinion I would ask for it. I have the call. I am trying to raise serious issues here. Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Those on my right will cease interjecting. Ms PALASZCZUK: What happens when the house of cards tumbles down and the High Court challenge is upheld? What will this government do? It will revert back to the DPSOA legislation. It will revert back to the original legislation. Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members, it is late. We are near the end. Ms PALASZCZUK: It is late. Mr Crandon: Bring it home, Annastacia! Ms PALASZCZUK: He is not calling me by my correct title. Government members interjected. Mr Crandon: Bring it home, Leader of the Opposition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Coomera, did you rise on your feet to withdraw or something? Mr CRANDON: Sorry. The Leader of the Opposition was pointing out that I did not address her by her correct title. I was just addressing her by her correct title. I am sorry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, just in explanation, I did not hear specifically what he said. If you took offence to it— Ms PALASZCZUK: He did not call me ‘member for Inala’ or ‘Leader of the Opposition’, he called me by my Christian name.

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 17 Oct 2013 3543 Amendment Bill

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear that. The member for Coomera will address the Leader of the Opposition in future by her right title. Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you very much. In conclusion, all I wanted to say is— Government members interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: Arrogance. That is complete arrogance. A government member interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members, we are nearly done. We have one minute to go. The Leader of the Opposition has the call. Ms PALASZCZUK: I am prepared to stand up here for the Bar Association of Queensland. I am prepared to stand up here for the Law Society of Queensland. I am prepared to stand up here for the Council for Civil Liberties. I am prepared to stand up here for the children in this state. Government members interjected. Mr Newman interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Ms PALASZCZUK: I find the Premier’s comments offensive and I ask them to be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear what the Premier specifically said. Mr NEWMAN: I withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: But thank you, Premier, for your withdrawal. Mr Cox: So you stand up for the paedophiles. Good on you! Ms PALASZCZUK: I find the member’s comments offensive and I ask them to be withdrawn. Mr Newman: But they are so true. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Thuringowa, you will withdraw. Mr COX: I withdraw. Ms PALASZCZUK: I find the Premier’s comments offensive and I ask him to withdraw. Mr NEWMAN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Premier. Ms PALASZCZUK: In conclusion— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Opposition leader, the time has expired. I thank the Premier for his good grace. Under the provisions of the resolution agreed to by the House and the time limit for the consideration in detail of the bill having expired, the question is— That clause 6, as read, be agreed to. Question put—That clause 6, as read, stand part of the bill. In division— Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members, I am on my feet. The House is required to be in order at all times, whether or not the bells are ringing. I will not hesitate to allow a few people to leave the chamber. We are almost finished. Mr Cox interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Thuringowa, you have been warned. I warn the member for Thuringowa under standing order 253A.

AYES, 64—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Douglas, Dowling, Emerson, France, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Judge, Katter, Kempton, King, Knuth, Krause, Langbroek, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Pucci, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Sorensen, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker, Wellington. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens

NOES, 7—Byrne, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad. Tellers: Miller, Scott Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 6, as read, agreed to.

Criminal Law Amendment (Public Interest Declarations) 3544 17 Oct 2013 Amendment Bill

Ms TRAD: I rise to a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for South Brisbane, what is your point of order? Ms TRAD: I find the comments from the Premier across the chamber incredibly offensive. I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear specifically what was said. Mr Newman: Division. She needs to learn the rules, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: According to the standing orders, it makes no difference if it is in a division or not. Offence can still be taken across the chamber. Again, I did not hear specifically, with all the noise, what was said. Ms TRAD: Mr Deputy Speaker— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have not finished ruling. If the Premier could withdraw? Mr NEWMAN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have said nothing in any interjection that in any way was personal. There is no basis for withdrawal on this one, I am afraid. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am going to rule that because I did not hear anything I am going to take the record of what the Premier has said in defence of himself as the end of the matter. Ms TRAD: Mr Deputy Speaker, I find the comments— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not going to rule further on that after I have already ruled. Ms TRAD: I am not asking you to rule— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for South Brisbane, I suggest that you write to the Speaker and you can question my ruling, but that is my ruling. Ms TRAD: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a new point of order and I am entitled to have it heard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will hear a new point of order, but time is relevant. Ms TRAD: I understand, Mr Deputy Speaker. With your indulgence, I find the comments from the member for Thuringowa that I am backing paedophiles extremely offensive and I ask them to be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Again, I did not hear a specific reference from a member to you. However, if the member for Thuringowa feels that he has said something that could be offensive, would he withdraw? Mr COX: I withdraw if they find that offensive. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Unconditionally? Mr COX: Unconditionally. Mr PITT: I rise to a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order? Mr PITT: The conduct in the House this evening—and this is not a reflection on the chair— Government members interjected. Mr PITT: You will listen to my point of order, thank you very much. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members! Very briefly, Leader of Opposition Business. I will make a judgement about whether this is a new point of order. Mr PITT: This is a matter about the conduct of this House this evening. I have grave concerns that— Mr Newman interjected. Mr PITT: This is about the one-year anniversary since the Premier was last pulled up for having unusual conduct in this House and I am not going to be— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Mulgrave, this is not sounding like a valid point of order. I will give you a few more seconds to finish. Mr PITT: I am being interrupted on my point of order. They are interjecting on my point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Wrap it up very quickly, please.

17 Oct 2013 Adjournment 3545

Mr PITT: Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask that you and the Speaker take grave consideration of the conduct in the House this evening. Government members— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mulgrave, I invite you to write to the Speaker. You are within your rights to write and to request there be consideration for whatever is it that you have concerns about. Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am making a ruling. Member for Mulgrave, you have every right to write to the Speaker. I think that is the best way to satisfy your concerns.

Third Reading Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Under the provisions of the resolution agreed to by the House and the time limit for the third reading of the bill having expired, the question is— That the bill be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time.

Long Title Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Under the provisions of the resolution agreed to by the House and the time limit for the long title of the bill being agreed to having expired, the question is— That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

PRIVILEGE

Ethics Committee Report No. 137 Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (2.07 am): I rise on a matter of privilege in response to the Ethics Committee report No. 137. It is important at all times to ensure accuracy in one’s statements in the House and it was acknowledged by the committee that I did not intend to mislead. I thank the committee for its consideration and its unanimous acknowledgement of my many years of service to the nursing profession. I can confirm that, although I was a registered nurse of some 30 years, at the time I made the relevant statements to the House I was not. I did not intend to convey that I was a registered nurse and I apologise to those who may have felt I misled by my statements. I am fully aware that the title is protected. However, I am very proud to have been a registered nurse from 1981 to mid-2012. I will continue to be a vocal advocate for health issues and particularly the future of nursing in this honourable place.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (Leader of the House) (2.08 am): I move— That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until 9.30 am on Tuesday, 29 October 2013. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (Leader of the House) (2.09 am): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

3546 Adjournment 17 Oct 2013

St Patrick’s Church, 50th Anniversary Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (2.10 am): I rise to speak about an important Mackay landmark that has recently celebrated its 50th anniversary. The St Patrick’s Church located in the Mackay CBD at River Street was opened in 1963. The church has served Mackay’s Catholic community for the past 50 years as the most prominent Catholic Church in the city. On 27 June I was privileged to attend the 50th anniversary celebratory mass conducted by Bishop of Rockhampton, the Right Reverend Father Brian Heenan and current and past priests of St Patrick’s parish. A celebratory dinner followed the mass. The Catholic Church has had a long history in Mackay with the first St Patrick’s Church built in 1866. It was the first church of any denomination in Mackay. Successive churches bearing the name of St Patrick’s were built in 1873 and 1901. In the late 1950s the previous wooden St Patrick’s Church, located adjacent to the current building, was starting to show its age. The church was built by the Catholic parishioners who were nevertheless surprised when the parish priest Monsignor Daniel Tiernan announced that a new church would be built in the style of a cathedral. The timing of the construction of the new church was fortunate for the Mackay region. The foundation stone was laid in September 1961 during the recession triggered by the Menzies government’s credit squeeze. Over the next 21 months the construction of the new church, in conjunction with the construction of the St Francis Xavier Church in West Mackay, provided much needed work for local builders, plumbers, concreters and electricians. The construction of the new church was also a boon for local suppliers with large orders of materials required for the new church. For example, the construction required an estimated 500,000 bricks. At the time of the construction of the new church, in the early 1960’s, Mackay had very few buildings to match the size of the new church. Motorists and passers-by would often stop during construction to review the building’s progress. As mentioned earlier, the new St Patrick’s Church was opened on 27 June 1963 to much fanfare across the community. A special guest at the opening was the rector of Mackay’s Holy Trinity Anglican Church, Archdeacon JHR Innes. Rector Innes was warmly welcomed by Monsignor Tiernan to the opening. Monsignor Tiernan was raised in Northern Ireland and always made it clear that he hated bigotry. The completion of the cathedral building was satisfying for the local community, and specifically so for Monsignor Tiernan who was the driving force behind the planning, financing and construction of the church in challenging economic circumstances. Monsignor Tiernan would enjoy the new church for many years to come as he remained parish priest for 16 more years—until 1979. St Patrick’s parish community still treasures the church to this day as the centre of its spiritual life. (Time expired)

Ashgrove Electorate, Safety and Security Hon. CKT NEWMAN (Ashgrove—LNP) (Premier) (2.13 am): I rise tonight to provide an update to the House on several safety and security matters I have been working on with the local community in the Ashgrove electorate. Of course, at the moment, as Premier, I am extremely determined to deal with significant safety and security issues as a result of organised crime on the Gold Coast. But of course I am equally focused on ensuring, as a local member, I have the safety and security of the people living in the Ashgrove electorate also front of mind. I have been working hard with the local schools and Neighbourhood Watch groups to make Ashgrove the safest place it can be. I recently put out an electorate-wide survey asking people exactly what they thought about issues that mattered most to them, and I had an overwhelming response when it came to crime. Some 83 per cent of people said that they felt safe within the local area. Some 53 per cent said they would consider joining a Neighbourhood Watch group. Some 77 per cent said they were concerned about hooning and graffiti. Based on this feedback from local residents, I have met with the heads of all of the local Neighbourhood Watch groups—The Gap, Ashgrove, Mitchelton and Gaythorne—and we have started a plan to engage people who want to join their local Neighbourhood Watch group. I look forward to working with them in the future on their events and plans to make the local area a safe place to live, work and raise a family.

17 Oct 2013 Adjournment 3547

Earlier this year I worked to get funding to fix the dangerous pedestrian crossing outside The Gap State School. People were driving straight through red lights and children were almost getting hit as they crossed the pedestrian crossing on Settlement Road. The local councillor and I have teamed up together to get this dangerous crossing relocated to a better location that will increase safety for the local school. I have also been working hard to have the school zone along South Pine Road reinstated to improve road safety, particularly around the two primary schools. Representatives spoke to my office requesting that the zone be re-established. This school zone has now been reinstated. I have already had flashing lights installed at Payne Road State School as part of my election commitment. Within the next year flashing lights will be installed at Hilder Road State School, Hillbrook Anglican School and Our Lady of Assumption Primary School. I am also very pleased to report that the Samford Road and Wardell Street intersection upgrade is progressing very well. This vital intersection upgrade will provide relief to commuters whilst also increasing safety on the road. Delivering on another one of my election promises, the Glen Retreat Road intersection upgrade and the Irvine Street intersection upgrade, are also progressing well. These upgrades are not just about improving access for local residents but also improving safety for the students and parents of Mitchelton State School. I would also just like to quickly acknowledge and congratulate all those who have been nominated in my inaugural Can Do Awards. These awards recognise 33 local residents, teachers, community groups, businesses and volunteers. It has been a great privilege working with the community on many important projects and issues this year. But the year is not over yet. I look forward to reporting again before the parliament breaks over summer.

Maroochydore Electorate Ms SIMPSON (Maroochydore—LNP) (2.16 am): As Speaker, I represent the whole parliament, but I am also the member for Maroochydore where I am a passionate advocate for my area and region. It is in this capacity I rise to report on some great outcomes I have been working with my colleagues to deliver locally on the Sunshine Coast. It is a positive report card of new infrastructure worth billions of dollars, road upgrades and new front-line staff. It is also a report card on cutting red tape for small business and working to create the economic climate where business can create the jobs our region needs. This week I welcomed a great announcement which helps a project I have championed—the upgrade of the Sunshine Coast Airport. The state government’s support for the new Sunshine Coast Airport expansion by gifting crown land to council will help create jobs and get this project off the ground. It is up, up and away with a brighter future for the Sunshine Coast under a government with a ‘can-do’ attitude. I thank the Premier and the Deputy Premier for their support of this significant land transfer. This ‘can-do’ attitude is not only about money being spent, but about common-sense decisions. After years of obstruction and red tape from the previous government, we got a win from this new government within months. Thanks to transport minister, Scott Emerson, we approved a bigger lease for the Coast Guard at Mooloolaba so they have space to train their volunteers and store their equipment. These wonderful volunteers had been stymied but now they are powering ahead. I commend the wonderful Mooloolaba Rotary Club for doing the work which is bringing this building to fruition. I also welcome new private sector investment as we work with local council who have the planning responsibility to get the balance right—more jobs while looking after our natural environment. Business confidence is returning, boosted by the state’s $1.8 billion investment in our new Sunshine Coast University Hospital—a hospital equivalent to the size of the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital—which will deliver public health services for free. In other wins, Maroochydore Road has benefitted from a $3.2 million makeover, with an extra $5 million commitment for work on further sections to take place this year. The Bruce Highway upgrade will now be delivered thanks to a funding partnership with the new federal government. Some $7 million is being spent on our new bus station. The Sunshine Motorway has also received half a million dollars for safety upgrades north of the Maroochy River and south of Coolum which has made a huge difference. We have also spent about a million dollars improving the safety of the Mooloolaba harbour entrance.

3548 Adjournment 17 Oct 2013

There are 19 more police officers in the Sunshine Coast region and five extra intensive care paramedics based at Maroochydore. Our schools now have the choice to be able to employ local contractors to drive their dollar further with their maintenance budget. Pacific Paradise Primary School has loved it. Many other schools are finding they are getting much better value and are able to focus on great education outcomes.

Newman Government, Performance Ms TRAD (South Brisbane—ALP) (2.19 am): I have to commence my adjournment speech with a reflection on how unruly this chamber was earlier this evening. It was this government and this Premier that promised to govern with humility, dignity and grace, and what we saw from the conduct of those opposite was anything but those three things. One thing I did notice, as I have noticed all week during the debate on all of the urgency motions before the House, is the absence of the Treasurer from the inner circle. He is obviously not being involved— Mr BERRY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Mr Bleijie: He was at a mine, opening a big investment. Ms TRAD: Mr Deputy Speaker, it is obvious that the Queensland Treasurer— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! Please take your seat, member for South Brisbane. What is the point of order? Mr BERRY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I was of the understanding you could not mention the absence of a member. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member could take his seat. The member needs to be aware of the standing orders. It is generally not the convention to talk about another member absent from the chamber. However, the member has the call. Ms TRAD: Mr Deputy Speaker, ‘inner circle’ is not a reference to this chamber. ‘Inner circle’ is a reference to a clique. Okay? Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very conscious of not referring to someone’s absence and that is not what I am doing, for the benefit of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Ms TRAD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is my adjournment speech and I will give it the way that I want, thank you very much. But I did think that the Queensland Treasurer’s absence from the debate on all of the urgent bills before the House this week was very peculiar. It was, I think, very peculiar— Mr BLEIJIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The member is clearly reflecting on the fact that a member in this House did not participate in a debate. Ms TRAD: Contribute to a debate, yes. Mr BLEIJIE: Excuse me, I am on my feet on a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for South Brisbane. Mr BLEIJIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, the member has directly referred to whether the Treasurer may not or may have participated in a debate. That is pretty clear that she is reflecting on the absence of a member. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Attorney-General. I have tried, member for South Brisbane, to give guidance to not reflect on the absence of someone from the chamber and I would instruct you to move on past that point. Ms TRAD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was, in fact, the Attorney-General who noted my absence from the debate on one of the bills earlier this week. Thank you very much. But what I think this is all about is the fact that the Treasurer on Monday announced that he plans to make the electricity generator sale front and centre of the LNP’s re-election strategy at the next state election. This is obviously a position that puts the member for Clayfield at odds with the Premier himself. As we know, the Premier said last year, ‘The poles and wires—transmissions stuff—I believe, should be owned by the people because they are natural monopolies.’ But we have heard on Monday that the Queensland Treasurer has different thoughts. We know that the Queensland Treasurer, being unable to get his position up in the LNP caucus— Ms Bates: We don’t have a caucus. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

17 Oct 2013 Adjournment 3549

Ms TRAD: Party room—I am happy to stand corrected. An honourable member: There’s always a party. Ms TRAD: There is always a party. I take that interjection. It is clear that the Queensland Treasurer, after being unable to get his position up in the LNP party room, is prosecuting this through the media. Let me reassure the Queensland Premier and the LNP and the Queensland Treasurer that the Labor Party will be happy to campaign on this issue. (Time expired)

Bohlevale State School Hon. AP CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Mines) (2.23 am): The northern beaches region of Townsville is one of the fastest growing areas of North Queensland. In particular, the suburbs of North Shore, Bushland Beach, Burdell and Mount Low are growing very rapidly. This area is popular with families and, as a result, there are a large number of school-age children attending schools in the area. In particular, Bohlevale State School is a very large primary school servicing these suburbs with about 680 students. Ahead of the 2012 state election, the LNP announced a commitment to deliver flashing lights in 300 school zones across Queensland. This $10 million election commitment kicked off late last year and has already seen more than 100 schools benefit from the initiative. Priority has been given to school zones that have a significant crash history, a high level of car and pedestrian traffic, higher speed limits or visibility problems. These flashing lights in school zones raise the awareness of drivers that they are in a school zone and that they need to take extra care and pay extra attention to the road. Bohlevale State School is 102 years old this year. Bohlevale State School was originally built out in the bush but, as Townsville has grown, it became a school servicing the outer suburbs, and now that area can only be described as an urban area with all the hazards that come with it. Tonight I am taking the step of calling on the Minister for Transport and Main Roads to ensure that in the next round of flashing light projects he ensures that Bohlevale School Road, Burdell, is on that list. Bohlevale School Road nowadays connects the suburbs of Burdell and North Shore, as well as being connected almost directly with the Bruce Highway. Bohlevale State School does have a designated pick-up and set-down area on Bohlevale School Road, which does offer a relatively safe area for students and parents to arrive at and depart from school. However, in recent years, with the continued growth of the suburbs on Townsville’s northern beaches, the traffic has grown significantly and the drop-off and pick-up areas are sites where several hundred children from prep to year 7 move through every day. For obvious reasons, I think Bohlevale School Road is a very strong candidate for one of the school zone flashing light projects. I believe the parents of the students at Bohlevale State School would very much appreciate this safety initiative. School zone flashing lights would be an important safety enhancement, providing flashing lights between 7 am and 9 am, and again between 2 pm and 4 pm, on either side of the school zone on schooldays, reminding drivers to take care while in this zone. I commend the Minister for Transport and Main Roads for his initiatives so far with the flashing light zones, which demonstrate that we are committed to providing improved safety for Queensland’s children. I simply wish to draw the attention of the Minister for Transport and Main Roads to this situation in my electorate of Hinchinbrook and request his assistance in addressing this matter as soon as possible.

Everton Electorate Hon. TL MANDER (Everton—LNP) (Minister for Housing and Public Works) (2.26 am): I rise tonight to give an update on some of the great things that have happened in my electorate of Everton in recent times. I begin with congratulating Everton Park State High School for their fight and the proposals that they put forward to the Minister for Education that were accepted with regard to its ongoing viability. I congratulate the school because right from the start I encouraged them not to fight this battle on emotion but to actually address the issues of viability, which they did extremely well. I congratulate Principal Sue Wallace and also the head of the P&C David Brock who led this battle. It was a great

3550 Adjournment 17 Oct 2013

day when it was announced that Everton Park’s future is assured. I look forward to working with the school to see what it will look like in the future, as it still remains a small school but obviously it will get a lot larger than it is at the moment. I would also like to thank the Minister for Local Government for some money that was given for a betterment project in the electorate of Everton. I know that it is a bit unusual to get this project in a suburban electorate, but we had a causeway, a pedestrian crossing across Kedron Brook, off Maba Court, Everton Hills. This was a commonly used area for residents to cross the creek and go to the Oxford Park train station. For years this particular pedestrian crossing would flood. It is great to see that, rather than replacing like for like, we have actually invested $200,000, with $100,000 that has come from the local Moreton Bay Regional Council, and that work is under foot. I would like to thank Councillor Brian Battersby, who has played a major role as well in making all of this happen. The residents there are looking forward to that improvement. I would also like to congratulate Albany Creek State School, which has just been nominated as one of the new independent public schools. It joins another school in my electorate, McDowall State School, which is already an independent public school. This school is ideally placed for this scheme, led by a very hardworking and innovative principal, Mr Paul Kingston, and a fantastic progressive P&C association, the president being Kerri-Lee Halas. These people do a fantastic job. I am looking forward to seeing how that school will develop over the next few years as an IPS. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the fact that we now have flashing lights at McDowall State School and Northside Christian College. The roads outside both of those schools are busy. It is good to see that the Minister for Transport has now made those schools a safer place for children, and I thank him very much for that.

Physician Assistants Mr KATTER (Mount Isa—KAP) (2.29 am): I rise to speak on a matter of utmost importance to people in rural and remote communities. For a number of years medical professionals such as Dr Dennis Pashen, who is the Director of James Cook University’s Mount Isa Centre for Rural and Remote Health, have pushed for a new rural medical generalist qualification—not for doctors or nurses, but for physician assistants. Currently we have a cohort of physician assistants studying at James Cook University who will be ready to graduate at the end of next year, December 2014. We also have two cohorts of PA graduates from the University of Queensland—30 in total. I understand there are some barriers to them working in the public health sector at present pending sign-off of policy from the government. Some of these outstanding issues that need to be resolved include the application for scope of clinical practice, clinical supervision and practice report, generic physician assistant experienced job description, general physician assistant graduate job description, PA competencies, PA governance guidelines and practice plans. I am raising this matter as I have been approached by several PA students and graduates who are concerned about the delay in approval to work in the public health sector in Queensland. We have a desperate need for this kind of rural medical generalist in rural and remote areas in my electorate where it is virtually impossible to get doctors to stay. I am pleased to say that the minister took a meeting with me this week and advised that positive steps have been made in this direction and they are working towards having these issues resolved, and I am very grateful for that. A physician assistant, or PA, works under the oversight of a medical practitioner, filling in the gaps between nurse practitioners and doctors. They pose no threat to the medical system but are an adjunct to the system, enhancing and strengthening what we already have in place. The degree is structured to only accept students who already have a background in medicine whether it be paramedic, nursing or some other field of medicine. So the students already have a medical background. The PA degree simply channels them into the kind of skills needed for rural and remote areas. I understand that the government framework and employment arrangements for physician assistants to work within the public health system have been developed. For the sake of the graduates who are ready and waiting to work in the public sector, for the sake of many hospitals and health services, many of which are ready and willing to take on PAs, for the sake of those PA students currently studying and due to graduate next year and not least for the sake of rural and remote patients, resolution of any outstanding policy issues would be greatly beneficial. It seems we have part of a solution to our rural and remote doctor shortage in this way. I know there will be

17 Oct 2013 Adjournment 3551

problems further down the track with Medicare and PBS funding, but that is for the federal government to sort out. We can make a start by granting approval and resolving these outstanding issues to get these PAs into the system.

Redlands Electorate, Community Organisations Mr DOWLING (Redlands—LNP) (2.32 am): This morning I rise to recognise some community champions, people or organisations who epitomise community spirit and community service in the Redlands. I begin by recognising a young lady, a student from Carmel College, Amye Fairbairn. She was a YMCA youth parliament member; coincidentally, she was the member for Redlands. She also represented young people at the Queensland Plan. What an amazing young ambassador for the next generation! I also recognise the volunteers at Victoria Point Sharks Sporting Club, the committee, the members and the supporters. I congratulate all the recipients of awards at the Dowling medal presentation night last Friday night. That is no relation to my family; it is an independent local family named Dowling who started the club many years ago. I also recognise all the juniors who had a fantastic day—and a fantastic season—at their combined presentation and Family Fun Day held on Sunday. I pay special tribute to the bingo ladies. They keep the club spirit alive and well and they raise countless thousands of dollars every year. I would also recognise the RNA, the Redlands Netball Association, who had a terrific season. I was pleased to be able to present a number of trophies to many of the teams at their presentation day on Sunday. I also say thank you to a number of generous souls who dug deep and donated to support a local resident, Brian Amor. Members may remember seeing the terrible images on the news of a boat fire off Coochiemudlo Island and the owner’s desperate attempts to save it, suffering burns at the time. The community has rallied around. They started a collection and rallied to help a mate down on his luck. That community crusade was led by divisional Councillor Lance Hewlett, Ian Rowland, Denise Foley-Burns and the Victoria Point community branch of the Bendigo Bank. They launched an appeal and together they are setting out to help young Brian. I am pleased to advise all members that there will be a cheque presentation this Sunday to Brian Amor. I say thank you very much to the community of Coochiemudlo Island for their support of a mate down on his luck. Today I was joined by school leaders from Victoria Point High School, Candise Roberts-Barnett and Hamish Pearce and also Kimberley College leaders, McKinley Fiveash—and remember that name; he is going to be a parliamentarian in the future. He has a keen interest in politics. I also acknowledge Tahlia Castles. They were accompanied by their respective principals, Richard Usher from Victoria Point and Paul Thomson from Kimberley College. Coochiemudlo residents and visitors welcome the Coochie lifesavers back on the beach. They are back on patrol. I pay special tribute to their executive, which is doing an amazing job in protecting swimmers on Moreton Bay. (Time expired)

Member for Nicklin; Rural Firefighters Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (2.35 am): During the debate on the previous bill I was very conscious of our limited time. At this point I wish to place on the record my appreciation of the member for Nicklin. My discussions with the member certainly assisted me to clarify certain issues, and I wanted to express my appreciation. I rise to acknowledge the work of emergency service workers: the ambos, the firies, both rural and urban, yellow and red pumpers. At this time of the year our firies face increased call-outs. Only several weeks ago John and I were privileged—and I use that word loosely—to receive their help. While using a slasher, our neighbours ignited grass on their property and the fire quickly spread to our place. Both John and I were at work and the neighbours rang to advise that the firies were on their way out. By the time I was able to get back home, both red and yellow pumpers were out and had started to back-burn. The fire restarted the following day. Thanks to our other neighbours, John was alerted as were the people on whose block the fire commenced. They also, again, called out the firies, who commenced additional back-burning and eventually brought the situation under control. It raised in my mind the tenuous nature of all of us, particularly those living in rural Queensland. We are going to have a corker of a fire season unless we get some steady and regular rain over the next few months. The yellow firefighters in particular, the rural firefighters, turn out in some very rough

3552 Attendance 17 Oct 2013

terrain with equipment that they hope will be adequate. I have to say that over the last few years the fire services minister has improved the equipment and facilities that these firefighters have at their disposal. Because of the regular nature of their call-outs it has been particularly difficult for those firefighters to accept the decision of government that none of the funding from a levy that was placed on rural property owners will be returned to the rural fire brigades who have the main responsibility of firefighting in that levy collection area. Both the red and the yellow pumpers turn out to rural fires. It is not restricted. However, overwhelmingly, it is the rural firefighters who turn out to the big grassfires and they turn out for days on end at times. I ask again for this government to reconsider the allocation of the total of that levy away from the rural firefighters. At least give them some part of it. It is being collected in the area in which the yellow pumpers, the rural firefighters, work. I think it is only fair and reasonable that they get some recognition for the wonderful work that they do.

Burleigh Electorate Mr HART (Burleigh—LNP) (2.38 am): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise tonight and advise those present that in three or four minutes we can all go to our various abodes and try to get three or four hours sleep before our day commences again. I know that my staff have scheduled me for a 6.30 info booth at Goodwin Terrace on The Esplanade in Burleigh. I would like to advise those thousands of Burleigh residents watching the live telecast tonight that there is a chance that I may not be there at 6.30. A very important event happened in my electorate on 5 September, and I was very pleased to attend the Burleigh Heads Mowbray Park Surf Lifesaving Club for their 90th anniversary celebration. I was asked by the president, Michael Boyce, to address the members for a short period of time about their history and the club in general, and it was a wonderful day with hundreds of people there. I learned a few things about Burleigh when I was looking at the history of the surf club. It is interesting to note that in 1871 Burleigh actually had 65 surveyed allotments that were put up for auction. Those allotments went for the wonderful amount of £2. The first cottage was erected in Burleigh in 1885. By the Christmas holidays of 1912 there was reported to be hundreds of people in tents enjoying themselves on the beaches in Burleigh over that Christmas period. By 1918 there was in fact an advertisement placed seeking lifesavers. That advertisement apparently read— competent men to patrol various beaches during Christmas holidays. Applicants must hold award of the Society. £3 allowed for expenses, and fare paid each way. Tent also provided. Around 1922-23 the club was actually formed by a group of people from Nerang, and they took care of the club until the Mowbray Park swimming club came down from Brisbane and they actually got that club together. They would drive down on the weekend and they would have to cross two rivers to get there, the Logan River and the Coomera River, and it would take them four hours each way to drive down, spend the weekend protecting those people swimming on the beaches, enjoying themselves over the breaks, and then spend four hours driving back. That is how dedicated these lifesavers are, and nothing has changed at Burleigh. There have been 1,100-odd volunteers over the years. They are still doing a fantastic job, and I praise them for the work that they do— (Time expired) Question put—That the House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 2.41 am (Friday).

ATTENDANCE Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Byrne, Cavallucci, Choat, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Cunningham, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Hopper, Johnson, Judge, Katter, Kaye, Kempton, King, Knuth, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, Menkens, Millard, Miller, Minnikin, Molhoek, Mulherin, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Robinson, Ruthenberg, Scott, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Simpson, Smith, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trad, Trout, Walker, Watts, Wellington, Woodforth, Young