hansard home page: e-mail: phone: (07) 3406 7314 … (07) 3406 7314 fax: (07) 3210 0182 first...

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Hansard Home Page: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/work-of-assembly/hansardE-mail: [email protected]

Phone: (07) 3406 7314 Fax: (07) 3210 0182

FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT Page

PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

Subject

Wednesday, 11 July 2012

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1117Presentation to Governor ................................................................................................................................................... 1117

SPEAKER’S RULINGS .................................................................................................................................................................. 1117Disallowance of Statutory Instrument ................................................................................................................................. 1117Dissent from Speaker’s Ruling ........................................................................................................................................... 1117

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................ 1118Suspension of Media from Chamber .................................................................................................................................. 1118

TABLED PAPERS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1118MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 1118

G20 Summit ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1118Carbon Tax ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1119Carbon Tax ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1120Commission of Audit .......................................................................................................................................................... 1120

Tabled paper: Queensland Government Interim Response to Commission of Audit, dated 11 July 2012............. 1120Racing Queensland ............................................................................................................................................................ 1122

HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE ................................................................................................................ 1122Report ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1122

Tabled paper: Health and Community Services Committee: Report No. 4: Report on Subordinate Legislation. ............................................................................................................................................................. 1122

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ................................................................................................................................................... 1122Review of Government Business Units .............................................................................................................................. 1122Review of Government Business Units .............................................................................................................................. 1123Carbon Tax ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1124Review of Government Business Units .............................................................................................................................. 1124Carbon Tax ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1125Review of Government Business Units .............................................................................................................................. 1125Electricity Prices ................................................................................................................................................................. 1126Review of Government Business Units .............................................................................................................................. 1126Carbon Tax ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1127National Parks .................................................................................................................................................................... 1128Carbon Tax ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1128

FS SIMPSON N J LAURIE L J OSMONDSPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/hansard/

Table of Contents — Wednesday, 11 July 2012

Alcohol Management Plans ................................................................................................................................................1129Teachers, Enterprise Bargaining Agreement ......................................................................................................................1129Public Housing ....................................................................................................................................................................1130Carbon Tax .........................................................................................................................................................................1130Public Housing ....................................................................................................................................................................1131Carbon Tax .........................................................................................................................................................................1131Public Housing ....................................................................................................................................................................1132

PENALTIES AND SENTENCES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ....................................................................1132Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................1132

Tabled paper: Penalties and Sentences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012...........................................1132Tabled paper: Penalties and Sentences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, explanatory notes. ...........1132

First Reading ......................................................................................................................................................................1135Referral to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee ........................................................................................1135

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (GREENTAPE REDUCTION) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ................1135Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................................1135

Tabled paper: Agricultural, Resources and Environment Committee report No. 3, Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill—Response from Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection. ....................................................................................................................1135Tabled paper: Track-changed Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. .............................................................................................................................................1137Tabled paper: Queensland Law Society submission, dated 5 June 2012, on the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. ...................................................1138Tabled paper: Agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland under section 45 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, amending the principal agreement relating to environmental assessment. .................................................................................................1138Tabled paper: Redacted memorandum to the Environmental Regulatory Practice Unit regarding interpreting legislation, dated 2012. ........................................................................................................................1141

WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING AMENDMENT REGULATION (NO. 1) ........................................................................1161Disallowance of Statutory Instrument .................................................................................................................................1161

Tabled paper: Extract from the Record of Proceedings, dated 11 June 2012, pages 2184-7, regarding the Appropriation Bills and Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill. .........................................................................1161Tabled paper: Article, dated 14 June 2012, titled ‘Cheaper to dump rubbish on the Coast’. ..................................1163Tabled paper: Extract from Brisbane City Council (Ordinary) Meeting, dated 11 May 2010, pages 18-19. ...........1163Division: Question put—That leave be granted.......................................................................................................1170Tabled paper: Document, dated 10 July 2012, titled ‘The Rubbish Removers current position’.............................1170Tabled paper: Notes of the Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection, Hon. Andrew Powell, for the debate of the disallowance motion regarding the Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2012. .........................................................................................................................................1173Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to. ..........................................................................................1175Resolved in the negative.........................................................................................................................................1175

SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AMENDMENT REGULATION (NO. 2) .............................................................................................1175Disallowance of Statutory Instrument .................................................................................................................................1175

Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to. ..........................................................................................1178Resolved in the affirmative......................................................................................................................................1178

ADJOURNMENT .............................................................................................................................................................................1178National Rugby League ......................................................................................................................................................1178Woodridge Electorate, Programs ........................................................................................................................................1179Junior Touch Football State Cup ........................................................................................................................................1179Bulk Water Prices ...............................................................................................................................................................1180Social Housing ....................................................................................................................................................................1180Samford Show ....................................................................................................................................................................1181Eric Deeral Indigenous Youth Parliament ...........................................................................................................................1181Sunshine Coast, Train Services; Caloundra South Development ......................................................................................1182

Tabled paper: Article from the Sunshine Coast Daily online, dated 11 July 2012, titled ‘Change brings business as usual’...................................................................................................................................................1182

Lytton Electorate, Sporting Organisations ..........................................................................................................................1183Deception Bay, Prime Ministerial Visit ................................................................................................................................1183

ATTENDANCE ................................................................................................................................................................................1184

11 Jul 2012 Legislative Assembly 1117

WEDNESDAY, 11 JULY 2012

Legislative Assembly

The Legislative Assembly met at 2.00 pm.

Madam Speaker (Hon. Fiona Simpson, Maroochydore) read prayers and took the chair.

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Presentation to Governor

Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to inform the House that Her Excellency theGovernor will be pleased to receive the address-in-reply at Government House on Tuesday, 14 August2012 at 10 am. I invite all honourable members to accompany me on the occasion of its presentation.

SPEAKER’S RULINGS

Disallowance of Statutory Instrument

Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it has come to my attention that a number of portfoliocommittee reports tabled in this parliament have recorded incorrect disallowance dates. This error hascome about by the noninclusion of two sitting days, the first two sitting days of this parliament, on whichnormal business was not conducted. The Statutory Instruments Act 1992, section 50(1), provides that—

The Legislative Assembly may pass a resolution disallowing subordinate legislation if notice of a disallowance motion is given bya member within 14 sitting days after the legislation is tabled in the Legislative Assembly.

The Acts Interpretation Act 1954, section 29B, provides that—

In working out a particular number of sitting days of the Legislative Assembly, it does not matter whether the days are within thesame or different Parliaments or within different sessions of Parliament.

In addition, the Acts Interpretation Act, section 36, defines that a ‘sitting day’ means a day onwhich the Legislative Assembly actually sits.

On 10 July 2012, the Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development, Infrastructure andPlanning gave notice of motion to disallow a statutory instrument. The instrument in question is theForestry and Nature Conservation Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 5) 2011, which was tabled inthe House on 14 February 2012. Essentially, in relation to the calculation of sitting days for the purposeof giving notice of disallowance for the instrument tabled on 14 February 2012, the final day on which anotice of motion could be given was 21 June 2012. I therefore rule that the notice of motion given by theDeputy Premier is out of order.

Dissent from Speaker’s Ruling

Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I refer to the notice of dissent from the Speaker’sruling given yesterday by the member for Nicklin. I have taken advice on this matter and have come tothe conclusion that the notice of dissent is out of order.

The member’s notice of dissent relates to my decision to exclude the media gallery’s televisioncameras from the chamber for a period of nine sitting days after breaches of guidelines for the mediawhich cover the recording and broadcast of parliamentary proceedings. This is a very complex matter ofprocedural law. But, essentially, motions of dissent under standing order 250 are only able to be movedin respect of Speaker’s rulings, not matters of order which the Speaker may impose, even summarydecisions by the Speaker regarding order. Matters of order are within the Speaker’s sole discretion and,therefore, not appealable to the Assembly. The decision to expel the media’s cameras are akin tosuspending a member for disorder under standing orders and is not appealable. In this regard I refer tothe ruling by Speaker McGrady on 16 February 2006 at page 191, where he stated—

As this was an order to withdraw, it does not appear to fall under the provisions of standing order 250, which provides for membersto dissent from rulings of the Speaker.

Erskine May’s 22nd edition at page 343 states—

Under Standing Orders the Chair is entrusted with summary and expeditious powers of dealing with disorder.

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/docs/find.aspx?id=0Mba20120711_135955











1118 Ministerial Statements 11 Jul 2012

A Speaker’s enforcement of order is distinct from a ruling on a procedural matter as contemplatedby standing order 250. In this regard, House of Representatives Practice, 2nd edition, at page 224states—A ruling is a decision or determination of the Chair on a matter to do with the business or operation of the House—

usually in relation to a point of order. And at page 520, House of Representatives Practice, 2nd edition,states—Pursuant to standing orders ... if the Speaker considers a Member’s conduct to be disorderly he or she may direct the Member toleave the Chamber ... The direction to leave is not open to debate or dissent.

Further, at page 521, House of Representatives Practice, 2nd edition, states—The Chair has refused to accept a dissent motion to the action of naming a Member on the quite correct ground that, in naming aMember, the Chair has not made a ruling.

Finally, McGee in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, 3rd edition, page 63, provides that the‘Press Gallery is subject to the general control of the Speaker who from time to time makes rules for itsmembers’.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Suspension of Media from Chamber

Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I can confirm for the interest of members that I amadvised television cameras are not allowed on the floor of chambers in federal parliament and themajority of state and territory parliaments within Australia and have only been allowed on the floor ofQueensland parliament subject to the guidelines contained in the Media Access Policy, tabled in 2006.

I now wish to inform the House of some matters in order to correct the public record. The notice ofbreach issued to the media gallery on Monday, 9 July 2012 was preceded by several reminders as tothe current Media Access Policy. On 29 May 2012 the Speaker’s executive officer, acting on my behalf,met with the president of the media gallery to reaffirm, both verbally and in writing, that the MediaAccess Policy tabled in 2006 was current and in effect. These guidelines were reissued to the presidentof the media gallery for dissemination.

The guidelines under which the media gallery operates place no obligation on the Speaker or herdelegate to remind members of the media gallery when they are breaching the guidelines; neither doesit state that there should be a warning given when guidelines have been breached. Notwithstanding that,and during the events of 21 June 2012, there were reminders given by the Speaker and her delegatesthat footage of the public gallery should not be recorded, nor should it be broadcast. Given this, thenature of the offence was an aggravated one and this was taken into consideration when deciding on apenalty.

I take this opportunity to remind all members that the activities of the parliament can be viewedfrom the public gallery via the live feed which is broadcast on the internet or through a video replay.

TABLED PAPERS

MINISTERIAL PAPER TABLED BY THE CLERK

The following ministerial paper was tabled by the Clerk—

Minister for Police and Community Safety (Mr Dempsey)—

503 Queensland Police Service—Authorities for Assumed Identities: Annual Report 2011-12

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

G20 Summit

Hon. CKT NEWMAN (Ashgrove—LNP) (Premier) (2.08 pm): I rise today to advise the House thatQueensland will host the G20 leaders summit in Brisbane on 15 and 16 November 2014 and a G20finance ministers meeting will also be held in a regional Queensland centre. The G20 is made up of thefinance ministers and central bank governors of 19 countries and the European Union. It is the premierforum for international economic development and promotes open and constructive discussion betweenindustrial and emerging-market countries on key issues related to global economic stability.

Clearly the summit is a logistical and organisational challenge, but Queensland is wellexperienced in facilitating international meetings, including the Commonwealth Heads of GovernmentMeeting in 2002, the APEC finance ministers meeting in 2007, and the Pacific Islands Forum in 2009.We will work cooperatively with the Commonwealth to ensure a successful outcome. While this is animportant meeting for Australia, my government has carefully considered the project in terms of the






http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/docs/find.aspx?id=5412T503

11 Jul 2012 Ministerial Statements 1119

state’s priorities. We have examined the impacts of such a significant undertaking, both positive andotherwise, including the resource implications and possible disruption to the community. WhileQueensland is ready and willing to host an excellent summit for those world leaders, the events requiredinvolve considerable expenses, especially when it comes to security and policing.

With the former state Labor government leaving behind a $2.8 billion operating deficit and a debtfast approaching $100 billion, Queensland is not in a position to contribute a significant amount offunding towards the cost of hosting the G20 leaders summit. As this event is clearly a Commonwealthgovernment responsibility, an agreement has been reached that the Commonwealth government willpay the majority of costs, as it has with similar events in other states. I am pleased to report that thePrime Minister has agreed to the Queensland government’s request for funding, including additionalpolice costs, directly associated with hosting the event.

At my request, the Australian government has also given an undertaking that no Queenslandcommunity will be left with inadequate police resources due to the summit. In line with previous majorevents hosted by the Australian government, responsibility for G20 security planning will be dividedbetween the G20 task force, the Australian government and the state government. The Australiangovernment has also agreed, in good faith, to provide an element of funding to bring forward work toupgrade Queensland’s communication network from analog to digital, particularly for the police. This is ameasure for ensuring important public security during this event and will provide a much neededresource for Queensland police ahead of the planned schedule.

Hosting the G20 leaders summit will provide worldwide exposure to Queensland and a significantboost to our economy as some 4,000 delegates and over 3,000 members of the international anddomestic media will visit our state. The summit will provide a direct investment in Queensland throughthe use of hotels, the engagement of local service providers and providing jobs in the lead-up to andplanning of the summit. It is against this background that I am pleased to confirm the willingness of theQueensland government to work with the Commonwealth to ensure a successful G20 leaders summit. Ithank Prime Minister Gillard and her government for making this decision and for backing Queensland.

Carbon Tax

Hon. CKT NEWMAN (Ashgrove—LNP) (Premier) (2.11 pm): As members of the House would nodoubt be aware, the Commonwealth’s carbon tax officially came into effect on 1 July 2012. Mygovernment remains opposed to this unnecessary and ineffective tax, which will achieve nothing morethan harming Queensland’s economic growth and reducing the living standards of all Queenslanders.Make no mistake: this tax will hit Queenslanders very hard, perhaps the hardest. It is a tax on thecompetitiveness of our big industries and, worst of all, it is a tax on Queensland families who will have topay for it on their electricity bills and on everything that they then buy. However, this is a tax that theopposition supports. They were silent in government and they are silent in opposition. We know frommodelling by Queensland Treasury and Deloitte Access Economics in 2011, based on theCommonwealth’s own assumptions, that Queensland’s gross state product is likely to be reduced by upto $9.6 billion in 2020 and employment may be reduced by as many as 21,000 jobs.

My government has already taken action to ease the burden of soaring power bills by freezing thestandard regulated residential electricity tariff, tariff 11, for 2012-13, meaning that the only increase tocustomers should come from the Commonwealth’s carbon tax. While some retailers may increase theirprices, the frozen regulated tariff 11 is available for all Queenslanders. We are moving to further protectconsumers by removing break fees for residential and small business customers if they are beingovercharged by their retailers. We are also taking steps to ensure that the impact of the carbon tax onhouseholds is included on the electricity bill, so that Queensland families will be able to determinewhether the Commonwealth’s compensation is sufficient and to ensure more transparency in the cost ofgreen-energy schemes.

In addition to the needless damage to the Queensland economy and the living standards ofQueenslanders, the carbon tax will directly and negatively impact on the state budget at a time when mygovernment is working to repair the state’s finances. The Commission of Audit has found that thefinancial impact on the state government is likely to exceed previous estimates and could cost up to$1.6 billion over the four years to 2015-16. That is $1.6 billion that could be used to recruit more front-line police or reduce waiting lists in hospitals.

The Commonwealth’s carbon tax is an assault on our state’s economy, our citizens’ livingstandards and the finances of this government. At a time when my government is working hard to getQueensland back on track, the Commonwealth seems determined to make this task harder than ever,and it is supported by this opposition.



1120 Ministerial Statements 11 Jul 2012

Carbon Tax

Hon. JW SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development,Infrastructure and Planning) (2.15 pm): Queensland is the most decentralised and, in many ways, themost diversified state in the Commonwealth. Our resource, industrial and agricultural regionscomplement the state capital as drivers of Queensland’s prosperity, yet the hugely productive regions ofQueensland will be hit hardest by Labor’s new carbon tax. The very industries that Queensland needs,the very industries that our government is determined to grow to underpin our future prosperity, willsuffer from the implementation of this carbon tax.

Coalmining across Queensland, bauxite mining on the cape, copper mining and smelting inMount Isa, nickel and copper refining in Townsville, and alumina and aluminium smelting and refining inGladstone are the targets of the carbon tax. They are also the wealth and job generators of oureconomy. Gladstone is now the nation’s pre-eminent industrial city and ranks as an industrial centre onthe world stage. Gladstone’s Boyne Island aluminium smelter is by far the nation’s biggest. It is thenation’s largest energy consumer. Queensland Alumina’s Gladstone plant is the nation’s second biggestalumina refinery. The expansion of the Yarwun refinery will place it among the top four plants in thecountry.

For decades, these and other such industries have formed a powerful industrial base forQueensland. Soon they will be joined by the massive LNG industry, huge developments in which couldmake Australia the world’s largest LNG exporter. The construction industry, another key pillar of theQueensland economy, is forecast to lose nearly $1 billion in output by 2020 and over 2,000 jobs. Yet theLabor Party and the union leaders who support it are prepared to threaten their future and, indeed, theirexistence and with them the jobs and economic prosperity that they bring by supporting the introductionof this carbon tax.

I refer to an Access Economics report on the impacts of carbon pricing on the nation’s regions,compiled for the Council for the Australian Federation, which found that Queensland would be the worstaffected state with a 2.4 per cent decline in gross state product by 2025. Further, they found that amongthe most affected industries would be aluminium, electricity generation, alumina, thermal coal, naturalgas and bauxite production, which are all key elements of our economy. They found that there would bevery significant falls in output and unemployment with the introduction of the carbon tax.

Of the 10 worst hit regions across the country, four were in Queensland. Central Queensland wasthe stand-out region. The Fitzroy region will be the worst hit region in the country from the introduction ofthe carbon tax. The North-West, Mackay and Northern Queensland will be among the 10 worst hitregions in the country. It is little wonder that industry executives at Rio Tinto have warned that neveragain could they open a major processing facility in Australia, while others will close. Those executivesmay be circumspect about blaming Labor’s carbon tax, but they all warn that it does not help theircircumstance in this country.

Today Prime Minister Julia Gillard is in Rockhampton, in Central Queensland, the region that willbe worst hit by the carbon tax. She should take the opportunity to explain to that community and to mycommunities why her government is so intent on jeopardising their future and this nation’s future, and soshould the members opposite, who continue to support this carbon tax. They should explain why theywant to destroy the future of Queensland. They should explain why they want to perpetuate the terriblefinancial legacy that their government left for every Queenslander. They should explain why theycontinue to support Julia Gillard’s terrible carbon tax.

Commission of Audit

Hon. TJ NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (Treasurer and Minister for Trade) (2.19 pm): Today I tablethis government’s interim response to the Commission of Audit’s interim report and provide memberswith an update of Queensland’s fiscal position.

Tabled paper: Queensland Government Interim Response to Commission of Audit, dated 11 July 2012 [504].

On Friday, 15 June the independent Commission of Audit handed down its interim report intoQueensland’s financial position. The report from the highly respected and independentcommissioners—the Hon. Peter Costello AC, Professor Sandra Harding and Dr Doug McTaggart—made for very, very sobering reading.

The report outlined in detail how the former government allowed the state’s financial position torapidly deteriorate over a six-year period. The state began living beyond its means, and this meant itwas particularly vulnerable to external shocks such as those that occurred with the global financial crisisin 2008 and the floods and cyclones in 2010-11. The report also shows how the previous governmentwas relying on heroic budget assumptions to mask the magnitude of the problem. These heroicassumptions were used to cynically create a false budget surplus at an operating balance level in 2014-15.







11 Jul 2012 Ministerial Statements 1121

The magnitude of the Newman government’s fiscal repair task is huge, and the fact remains thatcurrent levels of expenditure are simply unaffordable. The independent commission proposes thegovernment adopt a two-stage approach to addressing Queensland’s debt levels and returning the stateto a strong financial position. The first task is to stabilise the debt by aiming to achieve a fiscal balance in2014-15. As we stated during the election campaign, we are committed to achieving an operatingbalance in 2014-15. However, to fix the problem Queensland’s finances require a real surplus—not asurplus based on heroic assumptions to meet a political need like an election, not a surplus based onGST revenues that have failed to materialise, not a phony Labor surplus.

I mentioned earlier Labor’s heroic budget assumptions as outlined in the independentCommission of Audit’s report. The commission identified three areas of concern in relation to theforward estimates. They were: the 14 per cent growth in transfer duty projected year on year between2013-14 and 2015-16; the rapid deceleration in employee expenses growth over the forward estimateswhen compared with the previous government’s experience; and the decline in net capital expenditureforecast over the period 2012-13 to 2015-16.

In response to these concerns, the government has requested Treasury update the Mayestimates. The update is contained at table 1 in the document that I have tabled today. I can advise theHouse that the revision undertaken by Treasury to the May estimates will result in the following. Transferduty revenue will decrease by $52 million in 2012-13, $128 million in 2013-14, $242 million in 2014-15and $390 million in 2015-16. This is a total decrease in revenue for the state of Queensland of$812 million over the forward estimates. The Public Sector Renewal Board will be tasked with ensuringthe government meets its three per cent expenses growth target for an extra year, to 2015-16. Thecapital program will also need to be trimmed as part of the 2012-13 budget.

The independent Commission of Audit also identified a number of risks to the budget thatrequired the provision of funding over the forward estimates from the Consolidated Fund that had notbeen previously identified by Labor. This includes: $478 million in additional funding for the Healthpayroll; an extra $100 million for the Community Safety payroll; an extra $50 million to meet thedepartment of child safety deficit; and $220 million in expiring national partnership agreements. Thisresults in a budget adjustment, a downward revision, of $1.66 billion over the forward estimates.

The government’s aim is to ensure debt stabilises around $85 billion in 2014-15, after our policydecisions are implemented. In light of the independent commission’s recommendations, the Newmangovernment will adopt four principles that chart our path to fiscal repair during this term of government.Those principles are, first, to stabilise and significantly reduce the debt. This measure is about regainingthe state’s AAA credit rating. It will require an appropriate level of debt as measured using a debt-revenue ratio. This means having to reduce the billions of dollars of debt that the Newman governmentinherited from the former Labor government.

The second principle is to achieve and maintain a general government sector fiscal balance by2014-15. Although this is a more difficult measure than the operating balance, this government will bemoving to a fiscal balance measure giving a complete picture of Queensland’s financing needs. Duringthe 2012 election campaign the LNP committed, if elected, to achieve an operating surplus by 2014-15.Unfortunately, given the level of debt Labor incurred, achieving an operating surplus is in itself notsufficient for the government to maintain fiscal sustainability or to improve our credit rating. To that end,the 2012-13 budget papers will report both the operating balance and the fiscal balance. This will allowQueenslanders to compare our budget to those of the former failed Labor government.

The third principle is to maintain a competitive tax environment for business. Queensland needsto be an attractive place to invest, and the Newman government is committed to growing a four-pillareconomy for all Queenslanders. The fourth principle is to target the full funding of long-term liabilitiessuch as superannuation in accordance with actuarial advice. This principle is heavily grounded inintergenerational equity and an important aspect of ensuring the government covers off its liabilities.

These principles are totally consistent with those that the LNP released prior to the state election.In order to stabilise our debt and move to a fiscal balance, the Queensland government commits toimplementing expenditure savings and other measures of over $4 billion over three years, and more ifneeded, to achieve a fiscal balance in 2014-15.

The previous government did not just leave Queenslanders and the new government with a$64 billion black hole for 2011-12; they left us with over $700 million in unfunded risks and liabilities.Heroic assumptions have also forced the government to revise transfer duty revenue down by$812 million over the forward estimates.

So the task of achieving an operating surplus in 2014-15 and the independent commission’srecommended fiscal balance in 2014-15 is much harder than anyone could have considered. But thisgovernment will not shirk its responsibility to start this state on the path to fiscal repair. We arecommitted to achieving an operating surplus in 2014-15 and we will deliver. We have already met all ofour commitments in our 100-day plan, without exception. We will continue to make decisions which are

1122 Questions Without Notice 11 Jul 2012

in the long-term interests of Queenslanders. We will not allow the state’s debt to balloon and we will actin accordance with the independent Commission of Audit’s recommendation to get Queenslandfinances back on track. We promised to get Queensland back on track and we will. Today’s responsestarts that process.

Madam SPEAKER: I call the Minister for National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing. You havetwo minutes.

Racing Queensland

Hon. SL DICKSON (Buderim—LNP) (Minister for National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing)(2.27 pm): I refer to the Auditor-General’s report released yesterday into separation payments made tofour top Racing Queensland Ltd executives which has again showed the former Labor government’scontempt for the racing industry. What is glaringly apparent from my initial reading is that seriousquestions have been raised about the conduct of the former RQL board, which included Labor’s hand-picked racing tsar Bob Bentley and AWU boss Bill Ludwig.

We know that in August 2011 the former board of RQL agreed to alter the employment contractsof four of RQL’s top executives, including the addition of a ‘material adverse change’ clause and a30 per cent salary increase. Then, on 26 March 2012, just two days after the state election, all fourexecutives resigned as employees of RQL, receiving separation payments totalling $1.858 million. Thisincluded 14 months salary, redundancy payments and their statutory leave entitlements. The Auditor-General’s report states—The Board’s stated rationale for these contract variations was that they were required as a retention strategy for the fourexecutives. This strategy proved to be ineffective in all but the short term, and cost RQL $1.458 million. A significant proportion ofthis cost is directly attributable to the 30 per cent increase in remuneration of each of these four executives that was also approvedby the Board in August 2011.

The inclusion of the ‘material adverse change’ clause changed the stated retention strategy into an exit strategy for the fourexecutives. Taken together with the substantial increase in remuneration of the four executives, it is not evident that this approachwas entirely consistent with the fiduciary duty of board members and company officers to act in the best interests of the company.The Board did not seek to obtain surety in this regard, despite the fact that it was raised as an issue for the Board to consider. Italso failed to document key consideration that led to its decisions. At best this reflects poor governance practice.

It is evident from this that the RQL board put in place extraordinarily favourable arrangements todeliver these executives the sweetheart deal of the century—never a better deal was done for Labormates: collective payouts of $1.858 million for voluntary resignations. I could go on with plenty more. Iwill be talking to the House about this at a later date. I am sorry, but I just do not have enough time now.This is a damning report on what the Labor Party left us to inherit—heading towards $100 billion in debt.They did us over. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to have the remainder of my statement incorporated inHansard.

Madam SPEAKER: I have not seen the speech. Leave not granted.

HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE

Report

Mr DOWLING (Redlands—LNP) (2.30 pm): I lay upon the table of the House the Health andCommunity Services Committee’s Report on subordinate legislation: report No. 4. This report correctsthe date for disallowance of subordinate legislation in the committee’s portfolio areas that was tabled on14 February 2012. Tabled paper: Health and Community Services Committee: Report No. 4: Report on Subordinate Legislation [505].

The Health and Community Services Committee’s report No. 3, which was tabled on 9 July 2012,considered this subordinate legislation. Report No. 3 showed the date for disallowance as 11 July 2012,instead of 21 June 2012. The committee was advised this morning of the correct date for disallowance,and resolved to correct the information that was previously tabled in the House. I commend the report tothe House.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Madam SPEAKER: Question time will finish at 3.31 pm.

Review of Government Business Units

Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Leader of the Opposition) (2.31 pm): My question is to thePremier. I refer to access given to the Liberal National Party state treasurer to Goprint and its financialreports, and I ask: will the Premier outline the capacity in which the LNP heavyweight was acting toreview a government business unit?









11 Jul 2012 Questions Without Notice 1123

Mr NEWMAN: It is no secret that I have asked all of the ministers to undertake extensive reviewsof their agencies and their departmental budgets. These reviews are being conducted to stopgovernment waste, to streamline this government, to find efficiencies, to sort out inefficient processesand, most importantly, to stop us hitting $100 billion worth of Andrew Fraser and Anna Bligh debt.

Ms Palaszczuk interjected.

Mr NEWMAN: The Leader of the Opposition, who is interjecting, was part of that cabinet that setus on this path into the abyss. We are not just reviewing Goprint, I suppose is my point. The interestingthing is that we have discovered that there are other government printing organisations or businesses.There is one in the Department of Justice and Attorney-General. There is one in the department ofeducation. There is one in the Police Service and there is also a mob called Print ManagementServices. To paraphrase that movie from many years ago, the Three Amigos—there is a plethora ofprinting services. And guess what? They are all losing taxpayers’ money.

Ms Palaszczuk: Answer the question.

Mr NEWMAN: I have to make the point today—and the Leader of the Opposition is bleating on—that printing needs in government have changed. Today we have computers, the internet, desktoppublishing and laser printers on desks. The requirements for printing services have changed in the lastfive, 10, 15 and 20 years. So should there not be a review? The Luddites opposite me clearly think thereshould be no review. I make another point: did they do a review? What did the former state governmentdo? They had a report on Goprint in 2007 and it said that it should be shut down. Even the majornewspapers in this country are reviewing their operations. Goprint is losing $3.6 million every year. Thatis not good business practice. For these reasons I am very, very pleased that Minister Flegg chose toundertake a review, and I understand that he wants someone external from the department and Goprintto undertake the review. I have expressed some concerns about the choice of the particular individualdue to the position he holds and the perception that such a choice may attract. I am reassured by theminister that a more appropriate approach will be taken in the future.


Ms PALASZCZUK: My second question is to the Premier. I ask the Premier—

Mr Rickuss interjected.

Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, could you please resume your seat. I warn themember for Lockyer. I will hear this question in silence. I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Ms PALASZCZUK: Does the Premier stand by his public works minister and his decision toappoint the LNP state treasurer, Barry O’Sullivan, to review the Goprint books?

Mr Crandon interjected.

Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Coomera! I warn the member for Coomera. I call thePremier.

Mr NEWMAN: It is clearly the same question or a very similar question. Yes, I have the utmostconfidence in the minister. I have already remarked on what I think about the choice of individual whohas been doing that work, as reported in the Courier-Mail today. Why do I have confidence in theminister? I will tell you why I have confidence in the minister.

Opposition members interjected.

Mr NEWMAN: They ask the questions but they do not want to hear the answers. The reason Ihave confidence in the minister is that he is getting to the nub of the problems that were created by thewaste, inefficiency and ineptitude of the former cabinet and cabinets that we saw over the past 20 or soyears headed by Labor. I know the member for Rockhampton idolises Robert Schwarten, the formerminister. He idolises him so much that he comes into this place week after week with handcraftedquestions from Schwarto delivered with love. But I digress. What is Minister Flegg trying to do? MinisterFlegg is trying to sort out, firstly, Goprint; we have covered that. He is also trying to sort out the problemswithin QBuild. Why is it that as I go around this state principals of various schools complain time andtime again about being forced to use QBuild? They complain about it because they do not get goodservice and it costs more. So we need to do something about QBuild. Guess what? For the benefit ofthe opposition, I can say that Minister Flegg has his shoulder to the wheel and he is dealing with thatone. What is another one? Who—


Madam SPEAKER: I warn members on my left and I will start naming members. I call thePremier.

Mr NEWMAN: They ask the questions and they do not want to hear the answers. Queenslanderswant to hear the answers. Let us talk about something else that is a problem in that area. What aboutthe mob that were responsible for the Health payroll system? They were in that area, were they not?


What about the great work that Minister Flegg has been doing to sort out the public housing crisis inwhich there are 30,000 families on the waiting list—battlers who need a home, a roof over their heads.These people opposite allowed the system to implode. They sold off public housing in the last financialyear to simply pay the operating costs. What a disgrace! Minister Flegg has a vision, the compassion,the determination and the business acumen to sort out public housing in Queensland. I know that he isgoing to be the most effective housing minister that this state has seen for many years. I have theutmost confidence in my minister.

Carbon Tax

Mr GRIMWADE: My question without notice is to the Premier. Can the Premier please advise ofthe impact of Labor’s carbon tax on jobs in my electorate of Morayfield?

Honourable members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! We will have silence while people are asking questions and also while

people are trying to answer the questions. There are too many interjections across the chamber. I callthe Premier.

Mr NEWMAN: Members of the Labor Party in this chamber did laugh earlier, and their laughterwill be ringing very hollow in the ears of all Queenslanders who know what the impacts will be. In answerto the honourable member’s question, I want to talk in a bit of detail about what is happening across thestate. The simple fact is that the carbon tax is a job destroyer. From Morayfield to Murrumba, fromToowoomba to Townsville, from Cook to Capalaba, the carbon tax is going to hurt Queenslanders andlivelihoods.

The opposition bangs on about Public Service job losses. What about the job losses in the realeconomy—the productive economy that actually delivers the taxes that pay public servants’ wages andallows us to deliver for Queenslanders? These are the jobs that are going to go. These are the jobs thatare suffering because this Labor opposition blindly and recklessly, like lemmings, backs the federalLabor government. The real job killer is the Labor Party carbon tax. Modelling by the QueenslandTreasury and Deloitte Access Economics in 2011, based on the Commonwealth’s own assumptions,has shown that the carbon tax could result in 21,000 jobs being lost in Queensland alone and areduction in real wages of up to $2,940 per annum.

Why do we not hear anything from the opposition? Every week recently they have been coming inand bleating about job losses in the public sector. The job losses in the public sector, as we know, havebeen caused by their poor and reckless financial management, but we never hear them stand up forpeople in Queensland who run businesses, who employ people, who pay tax, who keep this economygoing—the people who fund the public sector. Why? Last year we gave them an opportunity in this placeto stand up to their Labor mates in Canberra and vote against the carbon tax. What happened? Theyfailed. They faltered. They squibbed. They blindly backed Canberra.

I look at their faces this afternoon. They have the thousand-mile death stare. They know what iscoming for Queenslanders from federal Labor. The Prime Minister can do her circuit around the state,but nothing will change the fact that Queenslanders have worked out that the carbon tax is bad.Members opposite know that by continuing to hitch their caboose to this federal Labor train the cabooseis going somewhere, the train is going somewhere—right into the financial political abyss.


Mr MULHERIN: My question is to the Minister for Public Works. Why did the minister approve theLNP state treasurer—someone with no qualifications or knowledge of the printing industry—to reviewthe books of this stalwart printing business rather than a qualified industry expert?

Dr FLEGG: It is a bit like Alice in Wonderland. We had a debate last night in which almosteveryone in the opposition talked about public housing without once mentioning 31,000 families on thewaiting list, and now they mention our efforts to fix up the mess they have left in a whole array ofbusinesses like Goprint. Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, for the benefit of those opposite, a few factsabout Goprint. It was set up by the previous government as a commercialised business unit.

Opposition members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! I warn members on my left. There are too many interjections. I will

start warning individual members under the standing orders. I call the minister. Dr FLEGG: Under the previous government Goprint was set up as a commercialised business

unit. It is supposed to be able to pay its own way as a business. Let us have a look at the figures fromGoprint. This year Goprint will do $8.9 million worth of printing. Out of that it will lose $3.6 million incash—nearly 40 per cent of turnover as a loss. I would not want to be taking business advice from thoseopposite. Since the previous government’s review suggested this was a business that had no future, Ibrought in the printout from Goprint since the 2006-07 year. Remember that this is a business doing$8.9 million worth of business a year. Do you know how much money that business has lost and beenfunded directly out of Treasury in this state since 2006-07? A total of $29.8 million.


Mr PITT: Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The question asked by the deputy oppositionleader was a very specific question related to an individual’s qualifications, rather than—

Madam SPEAKER: Order! What is your point of order?

Mr PITT: I ask you to make a ruling on relevance under standing order 118(b).

Madam SPEAKER: There is time on the clock for the minister to answer the question, but I askthe minister to answer the question.

Dr FLEGG: I think a business run by those opposite that can do $8.9 million worth of business ina year but has a cash loss since 2006-07 of $29.8 million deserves at least a review. I would point outthat the gentleman concerned did so on a pro bono basis. I know that those opposite would love to bringRob Schwarten back and pay him a big fat Labor mates cheque to review the business that he ran intothe ground when he was the minister, but that is not what we are about. This is a serious issue. It iscosting this state tens of millions of dollars. It is our job to fix it and that is exactly what we are going todo.

Carbon Tax

Mrs RICE: My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier. Can the Deputy Premier pleaseinform the House what effect the carbon tax will have on the strategies of the government to grow theeconomy and pay back Labor’s huge debt?

Mr SEENEY: I thank the member for Mount Coot-tha for the question, because it shows that thismember for Mount Coot-tha is concerned about an issue that never concerned the previous member forMount Coot-tha. The previous member for Mount Coot-tha would never have asked a question aboutpaying back Labor’s debt. He did not consider for one moment how he was going to pay back Labor’sdebt. He just kept racking it up. So it is good to see the present member for Mount Coot-tha ask theobvious question: how on earth is Queensland going to pay back Labor’s debt—debt that was racked upby the previous member for Mount Coot-tha and his incompetent colleagues who still sit in this House.That is the question that will exercise the minds of generations of Queenslanders to come. If JuliaGillard has her way, generations of Queenslanders to come will find that task more difficult because theindustries that we need to pay back that debt will be taxed with the unspeakable carbon tax—a tax thatwill make it more difficult to pay back the debt that is Labor’s legacy.

I have spoken in this House a number of times about our focus on growing the economy. Mydepartment is focused on growing the economy and removing some of the philosophically drivenconstraints that are the legacy of the Office of Climate Change and the legacy of DERM. Thosedepartments squashed investment opportunities for so many people and so many corporations inQueensland. That made it more difficult to invest, more difficult for business to grow and more difficultfor the state economy to provide the financial resources necessary to build the state’s infrastructure andto provide the services that Queenslanders need.

We have started to remove those philosophically driven constraints. We have started to take asensible approach to the regulation of industry in Queensland. We have started to even encourageinvestment, to try to get the investment confidence that is needed to have major commitments in financeto construction projects that Queensland needs. While we are trying to do that, the federal Laborgovernment—the colleagues of the people who sit opposite in this House—has sought to introduce aphilosophically driven carbon tax. It is a tax that is all about philosophy. It is all about a twistedphilosophy. It is all about making sure that business is disincentivised, that business is impeded and thatinvestment is discouraged. While that sort of approach prevails on the treasury bench in Canberra, whilethat sort of approach is supported by the Labor Party in Queensland, it will be ever more difficult to payback the debt that was the responsibility of the former member for Mount Coot-tha.


Mr PITT: My question is to the Minister for Housing and Public Works. Given that the Newmangovernment has appointed former Liberal Treasurer Peter Costello to conduct a commission of auditand LNP heavyweight Barry O’Sullivan to review Goprint, I ask: will the minister advise whether anyLNP members or other organisations have conducted or will conduct similar reviews of governmentwork units identified for privatisation in the Costello audit? And, in the Premier’s words, will it besomeone ‘appropriate’?

Dr FLEGG: I am not sure that the honourable member has referred this question to the rightminister. I answered in relation to Goprint and I am sure the member does not want me to necessarilyrepeat that answer.

Mr Bleijie: Repeat it anyway.

Dr FLEGG: I take that interjection, because they want to ask questions about the reviews that arebeing undertaken of various business areas, but I unfortunately have to report that all of them are prettymuch basket cases because they have been run by those opposite who do not have a clue about how to


run a business. There are quite a number of people in this chamber on our side who have been inbusiness. I ask anybody who has been in business to explain how you could run a business on anannual turnover of $8.9 million and manage to have a cash loss in a single year of $3.6 million and acash loss since 2006-07 of almost $30 million. Unfortunately, there are a whole array of businesses thathave been run by those opposite that are not run any better than this.

The people of Queensland cast their decision on 24 March by electing the Newman governmentto get in and fix the basket case that those opposite left not just in Goprint or in a dozen othergovernment business enterprises but across public housing, Health payroll and a whole bunch of otherareas. In order to do that, we need to review, understand and work out how to fix those things, and thatis exactly what we have set about doing.

Many of those business units rest within the Department of Housing and Public Works, and I willseek to get an understanding of how all of them could possibly have got into the position that thoseopposite have got them into. The finances of Goprint are really like Alice in Wonderland. It may be Aliceasking me the question, but I think it is more like the Mad Hatter’s tea party over there that thinks theycan run a business with a $8.9 million turnover and lose $3.6 million a year and not expect us to reviewthe operation of that business.

Madam SPEAKER: Before I call the next member, I remind people in the gallery that under therules of this House you are not allowed to use cameras or mobile phones in the gallery and I ask you tocease doing that. There are notices advising that it is against the rules of the House.

Electricity Prices

Mr SHUTTLEWORTH: My question without notice is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer pleaseinform the House of any developments in relation to electricity prices in Queensland and are there anyalternative policies?

Mr NICHOLLS: I thank the member for Ferny Grove for his question. During the campaign, Ispent some time with the member for Ferny Grove and we campaigned in his electorate and I know thatthe rising costs of living and in particular the rising cost of electricity prices were matters of significantconcern to people in his electorate and also to the member. Unlike the former member for Ferny Grove,who was in fact the electricity minister for a period of time, the new member for Ferny Grove is actuallypart of a government that is going to do something about it.

This government is determined to do everything we can to lower the cost of living for families. Wedelivered on our election commitment within the first 100 days to reintroduce the principal place ofresidence concession, to freeze electricity prices, to freeze car registration and to remove the wastelevy, as well as a variety of other things designed to assist Queenslanders deal with the increasing costof living. That is why it was so disappointing to learn of Origin Energy’s decision to increase electricityprices for tariffs 11, 33 and 31.

After that decision was made, the government sought advice and we engaged law firm MinterEllison to review correspondence and statements made by Origin in relation to electricity prices toascertain whether any of those statements contravened the Competition and Consumer Act or theAustralian Consumer Law. I can today inform the House that I have received legal advice that suggestsOrigin Energy made a public statement to the Australian Stock Exchange about its intended increasesthat may be described as misleading or deceptive.

Since receiving that advice, I have written to Mr Rod Sims, the Chairman of the AustralianCompetition and Consumer Commission, asking him to consider the statements made by Origin asbeing breaches of the relevant laws. I have also written to the federal Treasurer, Mr Wayne Swan, andurged the federal Treasurer to stand up for Queenslanders and, under section 29 of the Competition andConsumer Act 2010, issue a direction to the ACCC and Mr Sims to investigate the statements made byOrigin. Whilst I can refer the matter to the ACCC, they are not obliged to accept my referral toinvestigate but they are obliged to accept Mr Swan’s referral to investigate. In doing so, I call onMr Swan to help protect the interests of Queenslanders, to help maintain a lower cost of living forQueenslanders and to direct Mr Sims to carry out that investigation.

The advice I have received indicates that, because of the media release made and because itwas directed at shareholders and customers, both groups may have been affected by the misleadingstatement. If Origin is found to have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, the court may grant aninjunction, award damages for any loss—

(Time expired)


Mr BYRNE: My question is to the Premier. I refer to the review of Goprint by the LNP treasurer.Does the appointment of a party official to conduct a review of a government entity comply with thecurrent ministerial code of ethics or the Premier’s own much promised and yet to be seen revised codeof ethics?


Mr NEWMAN: I thank the honourable member for the question. I just say that when the new codeis released he will have every opportunity to comment on it. In relation to the existing ministerialhandbook and codes that are there, I have a rhetorical question for the opposition, Madam Speaker. Wequite appropriately ask this rhetorical question in this place this afternoon because we have here in theHouse the former racing minister, the member for Mackay. So I have this question—

Mrs Miller: No!

Government members interjected.

Madam SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs Miller: Come on, answer it.

Madam SPEAKER: I warn the member for Bundamba under standing order 253A.

Mr NEWMAN: My question without notice rhetorically for the former minister for racing is: why didLabor allow Bill Ludwig, a man who knows nothing about the racing industry, to be appointed to theboard that runs it and be paid $60,000 a year to do it—a man who the Auditor-General has found acted,along with his other board members, with little regard for his fiduciary duties? That is my question thisafternoon. He got paid for it and he knew nothing about it, and we see a terrible scandal unfoldingthrough the report of the Auditor-General. That is my question this afternoon.

Mr MULHERIN: Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The previous government did notappoint Mr Ludwig to the board of racing.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Carbon Tax

Mr DOWLING: My question without notice is to the Premier. Can the Premier please describe theimpact of Labor’s carbon tax on businesses like Golden Cockerel that are a major employer in myelectorate of Redlands? What is the government’s response?

Mr NEWMAN: It is great to have a question from an honourable member who actually deals withissues that are of real concern to Queenslanders right now. I am particularly interested to reply given heis showing interest in the impacts on a business that is in his electorate, Golden Cockerel, yet we hearnothing from the Labor Party members about concerns for businesses in their electorates. The memberfor Mackay has many businesses that we assume would be affected by the carbon tax. They are intocoal and heavy engineering in Mackay.

As I have said already, the carbon tax introduced on 1 July is a blight on Queensland businesses,particularly family businesses which are the backbone of our economy. Australian Treasury’s ownfigures show that the carbon tax will cost the Queensland economy almost $350 billion by 2050—$75,000 for every Queenslander. That is $350 billion by 2050. Those are extraordinary figures. It willaffect all facets of Queensland life. Carbon affects all inputs in our economy, particularly of courseelectricity prices. Businesses are in a no-win situation. They will be hit hard. They are aware that gasand electricity will be going up. But they do not know until they get their first bill, so how do they maketheir pricing decisions? What do they do? The costs flow through to every product—every service—thatQueenslanders purchase.

Golden Cockerel is a Mount Cotton family owned business. It is one of only three major poultryprocessing plants in Australia and employs over 500 people—I am sure many of the honourablemember’s constituents. It is a true example of a business success story and we in government, we inthis parliament, should be working to support it and backing it up. I am advised that Golden Cockerelexpects to experience a 21.7 per cent increase—21.7 per cent increase—in its electricity bill from thecarbon tax.

Mr Mulherin interjected.

Mr NEWMAN: It estimates that its increase in costs annually will amount to $1.6 million, and theLabor Party here interjects. It does not care. These are real jobs! These are real people’s livelihoodsthat are at risk, and shame on you for coming in here and interjecting! Listen in silence for once! Listento the real impacts on Queenslanders! We will not let Queenslanders forget that you support the carbontax. Why do they not come in here—

Madam SPEAKER: Premier, please refer to members by their appropriate titles.

Mr NEWMAN: Why does the opposition not come in here and stand up for Queenslanders? Whydoes it not actually speak about the impact of the carbon tax? Why does it not say no to its federalcolleagues and stand up for Queensland?


National Parks

Mr KNUTH: My question without notice is to the Minister for Environment and HeritageProtection. Minister, to support the government’s plan to make national parks better neighbours, giverecreational users and forest trails greater security and save millions of dollars, will the minister nowenforce a moratorium on the former Labor government’s policy of national park expansion until existingnational parks are properly managed?

Mr POWELL: I thank the member for Dalrymple for his question, although a large part of themember’s question actually relates to another minister’s portfolio. I am sure the Minister for NationalParks, Recreation, Sport and Racing would love the opportunity to spend three minutes explaining howhis department, along with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, is doing its bit to deliveron our election commitment to open up our national parks so that people across Queensland can enjoyour fantastic environment. These are not areas that we want to just lock up and create weed and pestinfested areas in the state that are a burden on landowners and which are there to be looked at in glossybooks but not be appreciated by Queenslanders.

I commend the work that my colleague Minister Dickson, the Minister for National Parks,Recreation, Sport and Racing, has done already and the work that he will continue to do over thecoming term in ensuring that Queenslanders have access once again to those beautiful parts of thestate that are considered important enough to protect. I also acknowledge the work he is doing with theMinister for Tourism in terms of encouraging tourism operators to encourage Queenslanders, domesticvisitors from other parts of Australia and international visitors to come and appreciate what we have inour natural environment in Queensland.

There is no question about it: the Newman government is committed to finding the right parts ofour state to protect. But gone are the days that that is about locking it up and throwing away the key.Gone are the days that that is about locking it up and throwing away the key, because we do want asustainable timber industry in this state. To achieve that, we do need to invest in state forests and thosestate forests are not incompatible with other forms of recreation, be it horse riding and bush walking. Asthe member may well know, in my own electorate of Glass House plenty of trail bike riding goes on inthose state forests. That is our intent. If we do identify appropriate parts of the state to invest in withregard to the state forest portfolio managed by my colleague the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries andForestry we will certainly undertake that. If there are parts of the state that we do believe have sensitiveconservation value, we will identify those and we will purchase those—but, again, not to lock them up,not to throw away the key, not to stop Queenslanders from accessing them but so that Queenslanderscan enjoy the fantastic environment we have in this state.

Carbon Tax

Mr HOBBS: My question is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to the LNP government’sstrong progress towards improving medical and health services to rural and remote families, and I ask:in contrast, does the minister have any details of how Labor’s new carbon tax will impact on criticalemergency and rural air services, including the Royal Flying Doctor Service and CareFlight?

Mr SPRINGBORG: I thank the honourable member for Warrego for his question. I want to paytribute to the honourable member for Warrego, who is a very fierce advocate for the rights of the peoplein his electorate and one of the most sustained advocates for the need to increase the amount of flyinghours for the Flying Obstetrician and Gynaecologist in Queensland. For us to be able to do that we needto be able to invest more. Indeed, it is our intention to increase those hours from 400 to 1,000 hoursacross the state of Queensland each year. But it is right to ask the question: how is this likely to beimpacted upon by the federal Labor government’s heartless carbon tax? Indeed, the cost to the RoyalFlying Doctor Service—an icon of Queensland for over 80 years—is going to be $361,000. It will be$361,000! And what are our honourable friends in the opposition saying about it? Absolutely nothing!They are appeasing a federal Labor government that does not care about the people of rural andregional areas of Queensland and the impact of the carbon tax on the Royal Flying Doctor Service.

The carbon tax also has another $116,000 impact on CareFlight aerial retrieval services inQueensland and on the Queensland Emergency Helicopter Network which we use quite extensivelythroughout the Torres Strait. So all of those people across Queensland who rely upon these services aregoing to be substantially impacted upon. This is the real hidden cost of the carbon tax in this state. Whena person gets sick, what they have is Julia Gillard propped up on the stretcher right beside them with herhand in their pocket. When the Royal Flying Doctor Service is doing a retrieval of a mum with a childway out west of Urandangi waiting for a long time for that service to turn up, Julia Gillard is on thestretcher right beside them with her hand in their pocket collecting that carbon tax.

Let us look at the broader cost of the carbon tax on the health system in Queensland. Some$29 million is the estimated cost by our own Treasury. One might ask: does that accord with what GregCombet is saying? Greg Combet, the federal climate change minister, is saying that it will have a 0.3 percent impact. How much does that add up to? Even more than that; more than $30 million a year:


$30 million a year less for employing nurses, $30 million a year less for operations, $30 million a yearless for our hospital beds in Queensland. This is a tax on being sick. This is a tax on our emergencydepartments. This is a tax on surgery. This is a tax on Queensland Health’s rehabilitation services. Thisis a tax on our maternal and child welfare services delivered by Queensland Health, and where arehonourable members opposite? Nowhere to be seen as this insidious disaster has been inflicted on thepeople of Queensland!

(Time expired)

Alcohol Management Plans

Mr KATTER: My question is to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander andMulticultural Affairs. What are the government’s intentions regarding alcohol management plans,particularly for the communities of Doomadgee and Mornington Island?

Mr ELMES: I thank the honourable member for Mount Isa for the question because it is a veryimportant issue not only in Doomadgee and Mornington Island but across all of the Aboriginal andIndigenous communities in this state. We made it very clear during the course of the election campaignthat we would review alcohol management plans. I can advise the House that in the relatively short timethat I have been the minister I have consulted fairly widely with many Indigenous communities, bothformally in meetings with entities such as the ROC group, which is the cape councils, and across theIndigenous leaders conference that was held a few weeks later. Only a matter of days ago I visitedWeipa, Napranum, Hope Vale and Palm Island and I had detailed conversations with the mayors andcommunity leaders in those communities. What I have said to them is that we will review the AMPs, butit needs to be something that they work through very carefully in their community. They have to consultvery widely in their community.

We are not going to liberalise, if indeed that is what the community wishes, some of these lawsand see women and children either bashed or neglected. The plans need to make sure that kids go toschool. The plans need to ensure that kids are fed. The plans need to ensure that women and kids aresafe. It is a whole process that will be done community by community. It cannot be an all-of-Queenslandapproach. So far I have had some mayors and communities say to me that they want to leave the AMPthat they have in place. Others are suggesting that they want to liberalise them to some small degree. Ihave had a couple that have talked about wanting to take them off altogether. But can I say that all of thethings that I have just talked about need to be in place. We will work with those communities very, verycarefully to make sure that they get a good result.

I say to the member for Mount Isa that I have it down in my plans to go up to the Isa. I will let themember know when I am going there because I want to go to Doomadgee. I want to have a meetingwith Mayor Tony McGrady because some of the changes in these communities can have another effectin larger cities that are nearby. So that needs to be managed as well. It will not be a quick process; it is aprocess that we will take very seriously to get the best possible result for the people who live there.

Teachers, Enterprise Bargaining Agreement

Mr HOLSWICH: My question without notice is to the Minister for Education, Training andEmployment. Will the minister update the House on negotiations for the teachers’ enterprise bargainingagreement and the level of representation Queensland teachers are receiving from the QueenslandTeachers Union?

Mr LANGBROEK: I thank the honourable member for the question because many of the othernew members in this House and many of the ongoing members in this House believe that hardworkingteachers in our state deserve to have a pay rise. They do great work in our schools throughout the statesector, the independent sector and the Catholic sector. Any pay rise that we give in the state sector willpass through to the independent and Catholic sectors.

It is a very good question because so far I think the teachers throughout this state have notnecessarily been getting the best representation from their leadership in the Teachers Union. Thequestion ties in with some of the other questions and answers that we have had today about whetherthere have been inappropriate people placed on boards. As I think about my own portfolio, I know that Ikeep seeing unionists, who also do not understand business, being placed in a number of businessunits and on a number of different boards, throughout my portfolio and in others. Clearly, these arepeople who have no concept of business and, therefore, have contributed to the debt and the situationthat we find ourselves in at the state level—people like Andrew Dettmer, Bill Ludwig, Grace Grace andJohn Battams, just to mention a few. Surely, they have contributed to the situation that we find ourselvesin.

The executive of the Teachers Union is exactly in that situation today. When we talk about theoffer of 2.7 per cent that we have made in the current economic climate—an economic climate that, ofcourse, we know is the legacy of the Labor Party here in our state—the QTU has been disingenuous inrelation to the EB negotiations. It would rather engage in political grandstanding than act on behalf of its


members on these pay outcomes. There was a rally outside the parliament at which they asked us tolook at these EB negotiations and to take more urgent action. Since then we have had three moremeetings. We had 25 meetings before those three. There have been 28 meetings about negotiations onthis enterprise bargain and the president and general secretary of the union has been at not one ofthose meetings.

So I ask teachers around this state whether the representation they are getting from their unionleaders is appropriate. The union leaders are confusing on many issues for which they initiallyexpressed support. The issue of the independent public schools is a classic example. They expressedsupport but suddenly, when it comes to an EB negotiation, they are saying to their teachers andprincipals, ‘Don’t be involved in independent public schools.’ But they are not saying the same thing totheir own side. Peter Garrett is empowering local schools. There has been silence about that from theTeachers Union. Yesterday morning they were for reviewing the OP score. By the afternoon theTeachers Union was saying it was against reviewing OP scores.

Public Housing

Mrs MILLER: My question is to the Minister for Housing and Public Works. Will the ministerguarantee that elderly social housing tenants such as principal petitioner Connie Dailey, who still lives inthe house where her husband passed away, will not be forced to pay higher rent under the LNP’s publichousing reform?

Dr FLEGG: I thank the member for the question—at least I think I do, because I am still verymindful of a debate in this place just last night in which almost every member opposite could get up andtalk about public housing and never once mention the 31,000 families—70,000 people—whom theirgovernment failed.

The whole idea of making public housing in this state sustainable—of ensuring that when a houseis sold money is invested in a new house to house somebody, in stemming losses that are projected onthe housing fund to be $140 million a year by 2015 on the budget that we inherited when those oppositeleft government—is a very solemn duty. We have conducted a consultation with the people who live ingovernment operated public housing in this state and it was a resounding success. Twenty per cent—

Ms Palaszczuk interjected. Dr FLEGG: I hear the Leader of the Opposition with her contemptuous scoffing, but the reality is

that we treated people in public housing with the same respect with which we believe people should betreated; that is, we asked them what they think. Those opposite have never done that. Ten and a halfthousand people gave written submissions to us.

Mr Bleijie: How many?Dr FLEGG: Ten and a half thousand out of 50,000—more than 20 per cent. It is one of the

biggest responses that we have seen. Another 6,000 or so gave us verbal responses. They understoodfar better than the geniuses opposite just how serious this situation is. There is no easy solution. Publichousing is difficult in every state in Australia. But when you get to a situation where you have no budgetfor building new houses, no capacity to house those people and you are losing money and sellinghouses to pay for those losses, somebody has to do something. The tenants in public housing do nothave anything to worry about from an LNP government. The only fear in this state is that whipped up bythe opposition members, who want to exploit vulnerable people by misleading them that somehow theyare going to find themselves homeless.

There is the significant issue that we have single people in thousands of three- and four-bedroomhomes that income based rents cannot sustain. Without fixing the effectiveness of that portfolio, all weare going to do is house fewer and fewer people. So we will do that compassionately.

(Time expired)

Carbon Tax

Mr HART: My question without notice is to the Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Small Businessand the Commonwealth Games. Can the minister inform the House of the harm the introduction of thefederal Labor government’s carbon tax will have on the Queensland tourism industry?

Mrs STUCKEY: I thank the honourable member for Burleigh for the question and for hislongstanding advocacy for his electorate. Mind you, the member for Burleigh knows a thing or two aboutthe tourism industry, having been an engineer for an airline for many years. He would have an innerunderstanding of the enormous negative impact that this filthy carbon tax is going to have on ourbeloved tourism industry.

The Newman government is proud of our tourism industry and that is why we are dedicated anddetermined to reposition it to No.1, unlike Labor, unlike federal Labor in particular, who are determinedto cripple it with a carbon tax. They are so determined to ruin it that they are offering absolutely nocompensation to the tourism industry. I say shame, shame on Labor for doing this to our tourismindustry.


This carbon tax will have an effect on electricity as well as fuel. Therefore, we are looking at ourdrive as well as our domestic and our aviation industries. It is the aviation industry that we areparticularly trying to entice here to Australia at the moment through one of our aviation attraction fundinitiatives. To have a carbon tax already on our doorstep makes all of this support just so much moredifficult. However, do not just take my word for it.

Let us take a look at what a Deloitte Access Economics report has said about the impact of acarbon price on our economy. It says the most substantial influence of the carbon price on tourism willbe through the increase in cost of domestic air travel. Honourable members, Queensland is a very vaststate and domestic airline travel is necessary for so many of our people, let alone our visitors. Furtherthough, our international tourists flying into other parts of Australia will not book the extra flight to cometo Queensland and some of these affected visitors we are told may elect to avoid travelling to Australiaaltogether. Queensland could lose up to 12 per cent of its international market as a result.

Government members: Shame!Mrs STUCKEY: Shame! The Accommodation Association of Australia CEO, Richard Munro, said

most tourism operators, many of these small businesses of course, will face increases of up to three percent. I stand here in this House standing by the Premier and our government in opposing this man-madeLabor disaster that is called the carbon tax. As we see the effects of this come in, let us remind everyQueenslander that it is Labor who is doing this to them, who is crushing our tourism industry and oursmall businesses.

Public Housing

Mrs SCOTT: My question without notice is to the Minister for Housing and Public Works. I referthe minister to the axing of $350,000 in funding for the Tenant Participation Program and I ask: will theminister explain to this House and to Ms Jean Succi and Ms Ann Langley, both from Logan City whohave both given decades of volunteer support to housing tenants and today are sitting in the publicgallery, why this important funding was axed?

Dr FLEGG: I can answer the honourable member’s question by saying that this funding is axedbecause a previous government, represented by those opposite, wasted millions of dollars on publichousing to the point where it is running at a loss, where it is in an absolutely unsustainable situation.Quite unashamedly, I am on a mission in public housing to actually house people. When a file comesacross my desk and we are spending money, paid for by rents in public housing out of the housing fund,on programs that are not housing people, then those programs are likely to be axed or will have to havea very good reason not to be.

I wish it were different. I would love to have a viable public housing system with millions of dollarsthat could be thrown into areas of advocacy, garden competitions and other things. To tenants I wouldsincerely say I can understand the value of these things. I am actually very proud of our public housingtenants. I am very proud of the engagement and feedback they have given us during the very difficultprocess of fixing the disaster that has been left to us by those opposite. But the harsh reality is that, in aloss-making housing budget, without any capital works budget to build even a single house comingthrough on Labor’s last budget, when files come across my desk in relation to programs that arespending the housing fund in areas that do not house people, that is not a sustainable situation for us atthis time.

To people who are concerned about this—and I have never at any time said that there areparticular problems with that program—I would point people fairly and squarely to those sitting opposite,those who had no idea how to run public housing, who were happy to see it losing $1 million a fortnightas it does today, who were happy to see 31,000 Queensland families—10,000 of them homeless—sitting on the waiting list and they never ever mention it. When is the last time those opposite ever camein and asked me a question about the waiting list?

Government members: Never. Dr FLEGG: They do not give a hoot about 70,000 Queenslanders, 10,000 homeless families.

Unfortunately, housing money will be spent on housing people until it is fixed.

Carbon Tax

Mrs MENKENS: My question without notice is to the Minister for Energy and Water Supply. Canthe minister please advise the future of Queensland’s investment in coal fired baseload power stationsfollowing the introduction of the carbon tax and what this will mean for power prices?

Mr McARDLE: I thank the member for Burdekin for her question and also for her help when I wasup in her electorate last week meeting irrigators and learning more about their problems. Sixty per centof the power generated in Queensland comes from coal fired baseload power stations owned by theQueensland government. That is a very large figure. They use black coal which, of course, is at thecleaner end of the coal fire generator spectrum. These coal baseload stations are essential in providingcost-effective power for households and to ensure our local industries can be competitive.

1132 Penalties and Sentences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Jul 2012

The concern is that, with the carbon tax to be added to this generating capacity, what we will findis that those who are least able to afford to pay the increased power cost will be those most burdenedbecause of the carbon tax. What we are going to find is that the workers—the men and women whothose opposite claim to represent—will suffer because of the carbon tax being imposed on the powerstations. But it is more than that, because what is going to happen because of the carbon tax is that theasset value of the Queensland government owned generators will decrease by $1.7 billion at the sametime the federal government is entering into negotiations with private generators to compensate themfor decommissioning power stations because of carbon emissions.

Collinsville Power Station is one power station we are looking at very closely to see exactly whatwill happen in the future. We have state owned power stations that are not being compensated for theirdevaluation, but we have private companies that are going to be paid to decommission power stationsbecause of the carbon tax. This mob opposite have not lifted a finger to support those they claim theyrepresent. They have not done one thing in this House to say that the carbon tax is a tax imposed uponthe battler. They have not done one thing to understand what the impact is going to be.

Mr Pitt: When was the last time anyone talked about the household assistance package?

Mr McARDLE: I take the interjection. They have stood in this House and they have supportedthis tax over and over and over again. I repeat: I remember Julia Gillard, hand on heart and hand onBible, saying, ‘I’ll never bring a carbon tax into Australia.’ Then she rolled over. This mob opposite havenot had the tenacity to stand up and say, ‘Gillard, you’re wrong. We’re fighting for Queensland.’ They aresimply gutless.

Public Housing

Ms TRAD: My question is to the Minister for Public Works and Housing. Will the minister advisethe House of any plans by this government to outsource or privatise the management of social housingin Queensland?

Madam SPEAKER: Before the minister answers, there is one minute before the end of questiontime.

Dr FLEGG: In the one minute available to me, I refer the member for South Brisbane to myprevious answer—that is, that those opposite left housing a basket case, losing money every fortnight,no money to house people, mothers with children, people living in the back seats of cars, 31,000Queensland families affected. As with every other mess that those opposite left, I am vigorouslyreviewing public housing and I will make the decisions to make it sustainable, to direct every availabledollar to housing people. I cannot confirm that any decision has been made along the lines that themember asked about. However, I can confirm that I will take the necessary decisions to fix the mess andhouse the Queenslanders whom those opposite ignored.

(Time expired)

Madam SPEAKER: Order! The time for question time has expired.

PENALTIES AND SENTENCES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction

Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (3.31 pm): Ipresent a bill for an act to amend the Childrens Court Act 1992, the Civil Proceedings Act 2011, theCommissions of Inquiry Act 1950, the Criminal Code, the Industrial Relations Act 1999, the IndustrialRelations Regulation 2011, the Justices Act 1886, the Land Court Act 2000, the Penalties andSentences Act 1992, the Penalties and Sentences Regulation 2005, the State Penalties EnforcementAct 1999 and the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 for particular purposes, and to make minoramendments of acts as stated in the schedule for the purposes related to those particular purposes. Itable the bill and the explanatory notes. I nominate the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committeeto consider the bill. Tabled paper: Penalties and Sentences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 [506].Tabled paper: Penalties and Sentences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, explanatory notes [507].

Madam SPEAKER: Minister, before continuing I would say this: members, please show somediscipline. On a number of days I have had to warn members at the close of question time about leavingthe chamber quietly. There are too many conversations while people are leaving the chamber.

Mr BLEIJIE: The Penalties and Sentences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 deliverson two of the government’s key pre-election commitments. It will increase the value of a penalty unitunder the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 by 10 per cent from $100 to $110. It will also introduce anoffender levy. This offender levy will apply to criminal justice matters where an offender is found guilty.





11 Jul 2012 Penalties and Sentences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1133

The amount of the levy for Supreme Court and District Court matters will be $300, and $100 forMagistrates Court matters. This initiative will ensure that offenders contribute to the justice system andto addressing the harm that their crimes cause.

The bill also includes a number of unrelated amendments that should be made as soon aspossible. It will preserve the operation of expired rules under the Land Court Act 2000, the ChildrensCourt Act 1992 and exclude certain court and tribunal rules from expiry and regulatory impact statementrequirements under the Statutory Instruments Act 1992; expand the definition of ‘relationship’ in section67(7) of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 to include a ‘registered relationship’, as defined in section 36 ofthe Acts Interpretation Act 1954; facilitate the recovery of any future wages that might be overpaid toQueensland Health staff by amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1999; and streamline theprocess under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950 for the chairperson of a commission of inquiry toobtain evidence regardless of any oath taken, affirmation made or a provision in any act that may afforda reasonable excuse to a person not to comply with the request.

I will now address each of the individual amendments in further detail. As promised during therecent election, the value of a penalty unit under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 will increasefrom $100 to $110. It is estimated that this measure will raise additional revenue of $22.6 million in a fullfinancial year. The significance of this amendment is that the penalty unit is the base value for mostfines and penalty infringement notices, commonly called tickets. Where legislation provides for anoffence, it will also prescribe the penalty for the offence. In most cases, the penalty is set as a certainnumber of penalty units.

Under section 5 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, the value of a penalty unit is generallyaround $100. For example, the maximum penalty for an offence may be 20 penalty units, which equatesto a $2,000 fine. When the penalty unit value is increased to $110, this will be a $2,200 fine. Usingpenalty units provides a convenient way of updating the level of fines and infringement notices withouthaving to individually amend the fines in offences across the entire statute book. The penalty unit alsoapplies to offences under local laws. However, this amendment to the Penalties and Sentences Act1992 will not automatically increase the penalty amounts under local laws because the penalty unitamount for local laws is stated in the Penalties and Sentences Regulation 2005. The Minister for LocalGovernment will consult now with all local governments to decide how the increase in the penalty unitvalue will apply to local government laws.

The bill amends the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 to introduce a nominal administration feeon criminal justice matters where an offender is found guilty. As indicated earlier, this levy will be $300for matters dealt with in the Supreme and District courts and $100 for matters dealt with in theMagistrates Court. This offender levy will be automatically imposed at the point of sentencing and willnot form part of the sentence. It will be payable per sentencing proceeding, regardless of the number ofoffences dealt with by the court and whether or not a conviction is recorded. It will apply to offencesprosecuted in the Supreme, District and Magistrates courts, including those involving non-stategovernment prosecutors. It will not apply to resentences. It will be refunded if an offender is found notguilty on appeal. It will not apply to juveniles and it will not apply where the only offence committedinvolves a breach of bail. To ensure that the levy does not result in fewer and smaller court imposedfines, the bill amends section 48 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 to provide that a court mustnot take the levy into account when determining the amount of a fine.

The bill also amends the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 to allow the State PenaltiesEnforcement Registry, which is currently responsible for the collection of court imposed fines, to collectthe levy. Collection of the levy will be prioritised after the collection of reparation but before the collectionof fines. Given that the offender levy is not a court imposed penalty, fine option orders and imprisonmenthave been excluded as enforcement options. However, the State Penalties Enforcement Registry willstill be able to utilise fine collection notices—which enable the registry to garnishee wages and moniesheld in financial institutions—enforcement warrants and driver licence suspensions to recover amountswhich remain outstanding. This initiative will ensure that offenders contribute to the administration ofjustice in Queensland.

The Statutory Instruments Act 1992 automatically expires subordinate legislation such asregulations and rules on 1 September in the year occurring after the 10th anniversary of the making ofsuch subordinate legislation. To illustrate the effect of this, subordinate legislation made in January 2002will expire on 1 September 2012. Section 118B of the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 providesan exemption from the automatic expiry provisions for the rules of court. It had previously been thoughtthat this exemption also applied to the Childrens Court Rules 1997 and the Land Court Rules 2000.However, it has recently come to our attention that this is not the case and the Childrens Court Rules1997 expired on 1 September 2008 and the Land Court Rules 2000 expired on 1 September 2010. TheLand Court Rules 2000 prescribe the procedures for the conduct of proceedings from commencementto conclusion. In addition, the Land Court Act 2000 also delegates power to judicial registrars to hearand decide matters prescribed under the rules. The Childrens Court Rules 1997 govern the conduct of achild protection or adoption proceeding from commencement to conclusion.

1134 Penalties and Sentences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Jul 2012

The bill addresses the expiry of the rules by amending the Childrens Court Act 1992 and the LandCourt Act 2000 to: retrospectively apply the expired rules for the period from when they expired; and, toremove doubt, validate anything done or purported to be done under the rules after the dates of expiry,including providing that the rules should always be taken to have applied since the dates of expiry inrelation to a decision made or action taken by a judicial registrar.

Further, the bill amends the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 to exempt the Childrens Court Rules1997, the Land Court Rules 2000, the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 and rules made underthe Mental Health Act 2000 and the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 from future automatic expiry. The billalso provides for certain court and tribunal rules to be exempt from the requirements of part 5 of theStatutory Instruments Act 1992 in relation to regulatory impact statements.

Section 67(7) of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 refers to claims by a spouse of a deceasedperson in dependency claims. This section provides that if the spouse enters into a subsequentrelationship the financial benefits received by the spouse from that relationship are to be taken intoaccount when assessing the spouse’s claim for damages. Subsection (7) then defines relationship to be(a) a marriage or (b) a de facto relationship within the meaning of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954.

The Civil Proceedings Act 2011 was passed immediately before the Relationships Act 2011 andwas overlooked when making consequential amendments for the later act. The bill corrects this byproviding for the section 67(7) definition of ‘relationship’ to include a reference to a ‘registeredrelationship’. The bill also corrects an amendment to section 63(8) of the State Penalties EnforcementAct 2000 included in the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 because the subsection has since beenrenumbered as section 63(11) by the Local Government Electoral Act 2011.

The bill introduces new provisions to the Industrial Relations Act 1999 which will enableQueensland Health to recover any wages overpaid to its employees in the future. The bill will also assistQueensland Health to make improvements to its payroll and rostering processes so that the departmentand its employees can have confidence in the future payment of wages and salaries. Since the newQueensland Health payroll system commenced in March 2010, there have been significant issuesassociated with wage payments to Queensland Health staff. The majority of systems errors have sincebeen rectified, but new overpayments continue to be generated through the payroll system at anaverage rate of $1.7 million every fortnight.

Back in July 2011 the former government suspended the recovery process, creating a difficultfinancial position for Queensland Health. A process for recovery of any new overpayments needs tostart as soon as possible. On 30 May 2012 this government lifted the moratorium on the recovery ofoverpayments, and Queensland Health intends to recover future overpayments.

As it is, the IR Act only allows an employer to automatically recover wages overpaid due toabsence from work. The IR Act also prohibits an employer from making deductions from wages unlessthe deduction is authorised by an award or agreement, by the IR Act or by the employee’s writtenconsent. The amendments in the bill will permit Queensland Health to begin the automatic recovery ofnon-absence related overpayments as soon as possible.

We also need to make sure the errors stop. To provide a more achievable time frame to processroster and pay adjustments prior to pay day, Queensland Health will change its pay date from three daysto 10 days in arrears. The department will make a once-only transitional loan to its employees to helpthem to honour their financial commitments over the time of the transition to the new pay date. The newsection of the Industrial Relations Act empowers Queensland Health to automatically recover this loanat the time that the employee ceases their employment.

On 1 July 2012 the commission of inquiry into Queensland’s child protection system wasestablished. This inquiry is a vital part of this government’s commitment to the StrengtheningQueensland Families policy and to make Queensland the safest place to raise a child. The inquiry willinvestigate the child protection system to ensure that children are afforded the level of protectionexpected by the community and, in doing so, public confidence in the child protection system inQueensland can be restored. It is imperative that this inquiry is able to call witnesses and obtainevidence unhindered by provisions in legislation that may otherwise prevent this being achieved.

Currently, section 5(2A) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950 provides that a regulation may bemade that will override any oath taken, affirmation made or provision of an act that might afford areasonable excuse for not attending before or providing records or documents to the commission. Thebill addresses the concerns about a regulation effectively overriding another act of parliament—what weas legislators know as a Henry VIII clause—by inserting new provisions that will streamline the processfor the chairperson of a commission obtaining evidence at an inquiry and remove the power to makesuch regulations. The bill provides the chairperson with the power to summons a person as a witnessand request the provision of documents and records regardless of any oath taken, affirmation made orprovision of an act that may afford a reasonable excuse to a person not to comply with the request of thechairperson.

11 Jul 2012 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 1135

The bill also inserts two confidentiality provisions that moderate the disclosure of information thatis obtained in the course of an inquiry. This provides an appropriate balance between protecting anindividual’s right to privacy without impacting on the important work of the inquiry. I commend the bill tothe House.

First Reading

Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (3.45 pm): Imove—That the bill be now read a first time.

Question put—That the bill be now read a first time.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.

Referral to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! In accordance with standing order 131, the bill isnow referred to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (GREENTAPE REDUCTION) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Resumed from 29 May (see p. 197).

Second Reading

Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill

Hon. AC POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection)(3.46 pm): I move—That the bill be now read a second time.

The Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill setsout a new regulatory framework for environmentally relevant activities that streamlines, integrates andcoordinates regulatory requirements under the Environmental Protection Act 1994. This bill is the firstexample of the work this government is committed to achieving in making significant reductions to greenand red tape and the regulation of business in this state. We understand that business needs flexibilityand certainty to ensure vital economic growth.

In delivering both of these objectives this bill will deliver benefits to a range of industries,specifically those in the small business sector that have been doing it tough for many years. This billstreamlines approvals while ensuring our high environmental standards are maintained and positiveenvironmental outcomes are achieved.

At this point I would like to thank the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee, underthe leadership of the honourable member for Lockyer, for its constructive comments andrecommendations on the bill and note from the outset that it has recommended that the bill be passed. Ithank the member for Lockyer for that recommendation. The committee tabled its report on 12 June thisyear, putting forward seven recommendations and four requests for clarification. I table thegovernment’s response to the committee’s report.Tabled paper: Agricultural, Resources and Environment Committee report No. 3, Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction)and Other Legislation Amendment Bill—Response from Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection [508].

As a result of the committee’s report I have agreed to make one recommended amendmentduring consideration in detail of the bill and will move further amendments in response to the requestsfor clarification. These amendments also allow greater opportunities for communities to have a say on aproposed application.

Regarding notification periods for responding to applications for large mining and other resourceprojects, the committee has recommended that proposed sections 154 and 155 in clause 8 be amendedto ensure that individuals and community groups are afforded reasonable opportunities to adequatelyrespond. This is a reasonable recommendation and I am pleased to advise the House that I will movethat an amendment be made to the definition of ‘business days’ in section 155 to ensure time frames forcomments exclude the business days between 20 December and 5 January for large petroleumactivities, which includes coal seam activities. This will ensure that community groups and individualswill not have to prepare submissions over the busy Christmas period.

These statutory periods for making a submission are the minimum, and there is flexibility so theycan be extended by discretion depending on the circumstances. In order to achieve the same intent fornotification for mining leases, which is in section 154, we are liaising with the Department of Natural








1136 Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) & Other Leg. A’ment Bill 11 Jul 2012

Resources and Mines as well as my good colleague the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines todevelop a guideline for the mining registrar. This guideline will guide mining registrars in using theirdiscretion about the length of the submission period over the Christmas break to exclude the businessdays between 20 December and 5 January for large mining leases which have not already undergonean environmental impact statement. The guideline would also guide mining registrars in using theirdiscretion to extend the submission period from 20 to 30 business days for these projects at other times.We will consult closely with the Queensland Resources Council, the Australian Petroleum Productionand Exploration Association, environmental groups and other interested organisations in developing thisguideline.

The committee has drawn particular attention to clause 8 of the bill, seeking clarification as towhat action will be taken to ensure the continued suitability of operators of environmental activities. Thematter raised by the committee relates to ensuring that environmental safeguards are maintained onceoperators are registered as suitable operators. In response to the committee’s comments ensuring thatenvironmental standards of operators are continuously upheld, the government has undertaken to inserta new subsection which allows the administrating authority to remove an operator from the register if theoperator has not held an environmental authority for the preceding five years.

Mr Rickuss: Good result!

Mr POWELL: I take the interjection of the member for Lockyer and I again thank his committeefor raising these issues with me and my department. In addition, my department has administrativeprocedures in place to check the suitability of operators by obtaining information on prosecutions forenvironmental offences in other jurisdictions. We will engage in discussions with the Local GovernmentAssociation of Queensland to extend these procedures to local government as well.

Other issues raised by the committee did not require legislative amendment but are importantpoints to clarify. The committee sought clarification regarding how the department would manage therisk of an operator failing to rehabilitate the site after carrying out an environmentally relevant activity. Itis a rather pertinent question given some of the situations we are dealing with across the state at thisstage and specifically in relation to the methodology for calculating residual risk payments as thismethodology is currently under development.

For the information of the House, a residual risk payment may be required if the operator hasmade an application to surrender their environmental authority and the site has not been rehabilitated toan acceptable level. There is no outstanding risk to the state in not having a preferred methodology orcalculation tool completed as the risk may still be quantified on a case-by-case basis. The departmentstill has the discretion to refuse a surrender application if the site has not been appropriatelyrehabilitated to an acceptable level of risk.

Another very important point for clarification is whether the bill will shift costs for administration ofenvironmental licensing on to local government. Let me be clear: this is not the case. The bill will notshift costs for administration of environmental licensing on to local governments. On the contrary, theproportionate licensing system set out in the bill will benefit local governments and their regulatedindustries by reducing application and assessment requirements and the corresponding administrativeburden on local governments. The provision of better guidance material will ensure that all localgovernments are on the same page in this regard.

I note the example given by the Local Government Association of Queensland during the publichearing relating to possible future removal or review of environmentally relevant activities which arelisted under the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008. There are obvious implications for localgovernment in considering this matter but I note that this is outside the scope of the bill. I haverequested that a full impact assessment be done which takes account of any evidence of impacts onlocal governments as well as on business before any further reforms are progressed.

We will continue to consult closely with the Local Government Association of Queensland andwith local governments generally to ensure a smooth transition. I am aware that council budgets willneed to take account of the changes provided for in the bill. I will take this opportunity to mention to themember for Lockyer and the shadow minister that this is one of a number of activities that we areintending to undertake in this portfolio. Many of the issues raised will be addressed in the future throughour ongoing work to look at the Environmental Protection Regulation itself. I look forward to reporting tothe committee in the coming months on our success with regard to that.

This bill offers practical and innovative alternatives to the existing environmental regulatoryframework in Queensland. I am confident that this bill, which has received backing from industry andlocal government, will be supported by both sides of the House as a key regulatory simplificationinitiative. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms TRAD (South Brisbane—ALP) (3.55 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on theEnvironment Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. From theoutset I confirm to the minister that the Labor opposition will indeed be supporting this bill, and I will gointo the reasons for that support very soon.






I am honoured to be a member of the 54th Parliament that will see the passage of this importantand nation-first legislation, which was first introduced in the 53rd Parliament by the former governmentafter years of hard work and extensive consultation. I am honoured to participate in this debate also as amember of the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee, which worked very hard within avery short time frame to analyse this bill and seek public comment. I note the member for Lockyer in thechamber today. I commend him for his efforts as the chair of that committee in this respect.

This bill, similar to the previous bill introduced to this House, attempts to establish a regulatoryframework in order to streamline, integrate and coordinate the regulatory requirements under theexisting Environmental Protection Act 1994. As mentioned by the minister in his explanatory speech, thebill amends a total of 15 pieces of legislation in order to introduce an application and licensing regime forenterprise activities proportionate to any environmental risk. It is suggested and hoped that theseamendments will provide for a flexible and streamlined approvals process which will save the operatorsand the Crown time and money.

In plain English, this raft of amendments seeks to ensure that land use enterprises meetenvironmental standards relevant and proportionate to the activity in the most streamlined and efficientway for their business and for government. It has been predicted that these legislative reforms willdeliver tens of millions per annum in savings for both business and government through a reduction inthe various documentation that is currently required to be prepared and the streamlining of theapplication process, which will also save significant time in administration and processing.

Although this bill will reduce delays in the overall approvals process and provide businesses witha streamlined process, which is great for small to medium enterprises particularly, it also liftsunnecessary administration but it does not neglect its primary focus, which is providing a necessarylevel of protection for the environment. This bill still requires sites to undergo certain evaluations andtesting through a standard, variation or site-specific application in order to assess their impact on theenvironment and to ascertain what condition should be attached to the particular operation.

As previously indicated, this bill has been introduced into the House before. In particular, theformer minister for environment, Vicky Darling, introduced this bill to this House on 26 October 2011. Inote that, unlike the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill explanatory speech, this minister, theMinister for Environment and Heritage Protection, did manage to deliver his own speech and not that ofthe former minister’s, and I congratulate him on that effort. The bill was then referred to theEnvironment, Agriculture, Resources and Energy Committee of the last parliament for evaluation andscrutiny, but the bill lapsed due to the state election.

Contrary to the statements made by the minister in his explanatory speech that under theprevious government this project had stalled, the previous parliamentary committee had reported on thebill in February this year and it was at the stage where it was ready to be brought back into this chamberfor debate—a fact that the minister knows full well. It is a fact reflected in the introduction of this bill onthe second working day of this new parliament. I am advised that the only delay in this project was asmall democratic event known as the 2012 state election, something this minister should not disregardso easily given its impact on his political career.

The current bill introduced into this House by the Minister for Environment and HeritageProtection on 17 May 2012 is substantively the same, with only minor administrative amendments. Itable a copy of the track changes bill for the benefit of the House.Tabled paper: Track-changed Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 [509].

This bill, as outlined in report No. 3 of the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee inJune 2012, is the culmination of extensive work undertaken by the former Labor government throughClimateQ: toward a greener Queensland initiative. This work commenced in 2010 through the formerLabor government’s smart regulation reform agenda under the ClimateQ strategy led by and fundedthrough the recently axed Office of Climate Change. This funding was used to undertake extensiveconsultation on green-tape reduction, with myriad different stakeholders including community groups,government departments, local government and industry, including representatives of commerce andbusiness, primary producers, petroleum, mining and resources, in addition to recycling and wastemanagement sectors being consulted. In addition, departmental representatives also liaised andconsulted with several state and local government departments and bodies, with Synergies EconomicConsulting being commissioned to analyse and prepare a report into the associated costs and burdensbusinesses were under in relation to environmental regulation and how these burdens could bealleviated.

As you can imagine, this extensive consultation process took many months and allowed anopportunity for a wide variety of views to be expressed from a diverse cross-section of the community.Contrast this with the LNP government’s notion of consultation, which only allowed two business daysfor community and industry groups to respond to the Agriculture, Resources and EnvironmentCommittee inquiry. This was raised as a concern by most of the external witnesses to the committee’shearing on Wednesday, 6 June. I refer the minister to the transcript, where every single witnessexpressed concern over the time available for public consultation.



This short time frame allocated for consultation has not allowed for proper scrutiny of the bill, withthe Queensland Law Society stating that it was only able to review up to section 139, with all errorswhich it had pointed out in the previous 2011 version of the bill remaining in this version. I table a copy ofthe Queensland Law Society’s submission for the benefit of the House.

Tabled paper: Queensland Law Society submission, dated 5 June 2012, on the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction)and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 [511].

It just goes to show that this LNP government talks big on issues but when hard work is requiredthey are more than happy to copy Labor’s work and trumpet it as their own. For example, in theminister’s explanatory speech he states—

I am very pleased to put on record that the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation AmendmentBill 2012 offers a substantial contribution to the LNP government’s commitment to cut red tape and regulation by 20 per cent.

Today I am very pleased to put the facts on the record that the minister omitted in his rush to claimcredit and acclaim for the work done by others. The fact is this is a Labor contribution to reducingregulation—commissioned by Labor, consulted on by Labor, crafted by Labor.

Honourable members interjected.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! There are too many interjections. The member forSouth Brisbane has the call.

Ms TRAD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will, however, give credit where credit is due andacknowledge that the minister did not abandon this Labor project and Labor policy as he could havedone, and I commend him for bringing this Labor bill to the House.

After almost 20 years of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 being in force, there has been anincrease in environmental legislation and regulation in this state as successive governments tackle theresponsibility of providing for economic growth and prosperity while protecting and maintaining theenvironment for future generations. This was certainly the driving motivation for establishing the GreatBarrier Reef’s strategic assessment process which was first announced in February this year by theformer Labor government. Unsurprisingly, this government has adopted it as a keystone in its responseto the concerning report from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation—UNESCO—on the impact of coastal development on the Great Barrier Reef.

From the original Environment Protection Act 1994 to the amendment bill we see here today,Queensland Labor governments have successfully and successively endeavoured to ensure that ourgreatest environmental assets are protected whilst encouraging economic growth. From wild riversprotection, reducing waste through a modest levy on industry, ending broadscale clearing of nativevegetation, protecting an additional 1.6 million hectares of national parks, legislating to end sandminingon Stradbroke island, identifying green zones to ensure marine life can proliferate for nature and forfishers into the future and working collaboratively with landowners to reduce chemical run-off into thereef, we on this side of the House understand the importance of protecting our environment as is evidentfrom these initiatives. However, that cannot be said for those sitting opposite. You only have to look atthe Alpha coal debacle to know that the government is clueless when it comes to proper management ofour environment. Do not get me wrong, we believe in having a strong mining industry which strengthensour economy but not at the expense of the environment, which is exactly what this government is tryingto do.

This government signed off on what has been referred to as a shambolic joke of an approval bythe federal environment minister, Tony Burke, to allow a coalmine to go ahead without proper conditionsor safeguards in place to protect not only the land from which the coal is extracted but also the GreatBarrier Reef, which would be used as a superhighway to export the extracted coal. There is a clearprocess for approval for mining projects which is set out in the bilateral agreement between the state ofQueensland and the Commonwealth. I table a copy of the bilateral agreement for the benefit of those inthe House.

Tabled paper: Agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland under section 45 of the EnvironmentProtection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, amending the principal agreement relating to environmental assessment[510].

In particular, I draw the House’s attention to item 6—assessment reports—which clearly statesthat assessment—

Mr Powell: Is that the new one or the old one?

Ms TRAD: I will get to that, Minister. It clearly states that assessment reports must provideenough—

Mrs MENKENS: Mr Deputy Speaker, I refer to relevance. The current speaker seems to be totallyirrelevant and not speaking to the bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am listening very carefully to what the member is saying. She appears,by and large, to be addressing the bill. I call on the member to continue.




Ms TRAD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am addressing the bill in talking about overallenvironmental assessment processes, which is indeed relevant to the Environmental Protection Act, Iwould assume.

In particular, I draw the House’s attention to item 6—assessment reports—which clearly statesthat an assessment report must provide enough information about the action and its relevant impacts toallow the Commonwealth environment minister to make an informed decision whether or not to approvethe action under part 9 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This clearlywas not done and is another example of how those members of the government do not understand themeaning of process and cannot follow the processes that are clearly stated in the agreed bilateralagreement.

I am aware that further meetings have occurred between the state and federal governmentswhich have resulted in an amended bilateral amendment being signed and a significant backdown bythis government. I genuinely hope this new LNP government can meet their obligations to theQueensland economy and the Queensland environment adequately through this new bilateralagreement. At least they cannot assert ignorance having been burnt by their own heavy-handed andthoughtless actions over the Alpha coal assessment process.

As previously mentioned, this bill moves away from the one-size-fits-all application process to amore flexible three-tier application process broken into standard, flexible and site-specific applications.The standard application provides for a unique set of streamlined and fixed conditions which canautomatically be implemented upon an environmentally relevant application. These standardapplications will most likely be used for low-risk activities such as a motor vehicle repair shop,panelbeater or fuel station or for small operators such as a quarry which has a production of less than100,000 tonnes per year. These operations have a low threat to the environment and, therefore, if theindividual site can conform to the particular standard conditions designed for that particular operation,and provided the proponent is a suitably qualified person, then it will automatically be approved withoutfurther investigations being undertaken.

I note that the standard eligibility criteria have not been finalised yet and further consultations willbe undertaken with various industry holders and green groups to ensure that workable criteria can beagreed to that strike the appropriate balance between the interests of industry and the interests of theenvironment. I hope that this next phase of consultation mirrors the initial consultation process over the2011 bill rather than the introduction of this bill.

The second available application is a variation application. These applications are used when theoperator wants to amend the standard application conditions or the regulator wishes to add onconditions due to the nature of the activity and the location of the site where the activity is beingundertaken. This will allow for the efficient consideration of an application, as the only part of theapplication that will be required to be assessed is the variation portion as all other conditions arestandard and thus have already been approved. This is a win for industry as it will enable them tostreamline their processes through the reduction in time it will take for an assessment to be undertaken,thus benefiting the operator and protecting the environment.

The last application is a site-specific application, which is basically the current process where afull analysis is undertaken of the site and the activity that will occur on it. It is suggested that this processwill only occur for high-risk activities, such as large mining sites like Alpha Coal, in order to theoreticallyanalyse the full environmental impacts that may occur. It is clear that through this three-tier approach anew licensing model will be introduced that is proportionate to the environmental risk of the activity, andthis will save businesses time and money and protect the environment. This is the Labor way.

To quantify the savings, the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection has indicatedthat around half of all the current environmentally relevant activities will be streamlined through thestandard application process. This will save on average $20,000 in application preparation costs,reduce the application size by about 150 pages and save an average of 68 days in processing time perapplication.

This is coupled with other reforms such as: allowing flexible operation approvals, which willprovide for the separation of operational and development permits, allowing the operational approval tobe specially amended without affecting the development approval, and this will be a big saving on timeand money; allowing operators of multiple sites to amalgamate all of their different environmentalauthorities into one single application document, which streamlines their paperwork and reporting dates;streamlining the approval processes for mining and petroleum applications through the removal of otherduplicated applications and moving the public notification period and consultation period to beconcurrent with the application, which in turn will save time and money; and, finally, streamlining theinformation requirements placed on operators by providing them with a comprehensive list at thebeginning to reduce the time required to request further information and clarification. All of these reformswill provide a significant saving to businesses that operate within this sphere whilst protecting ourprecious environment.


Although I have listed the many great benefits of this bill which have been identified throughcomprehensive consultations and analysis by the previous Labor government, there remains room forimprovement, and I am pleased to note the minister’s response to the committee’s recommendationsand queries. I want to foreshadow that the opposition also have some amendments that we believe willimprove and enhance this bill.

During the public hearing which was undertaken on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 it became clear thatthere is more work to be done in this space. This could have been undertaken if an appropriateconsultation period had been allowed by the current LNP government, instead of them acting like a bullin a china shop and introducing legislation without detailed further analysis, scrutiny and consultation.


Ms TRAD: You all complained about the time you had. During their submission at the publichearing the Local Government Association of Queensland indicated their concerns over many issues,including the implementation costs and timing. In particular, they stated that many local governmentbodies would have to absorb the cost of establishing internal processes to accommodate the newlegislation with no real compensation from the government other than training on how to interpret thelegislation. The Brisbane City Council representative indicated that it would cost at least $800,000 toupdate their internal systems to align them with the new legislation. I think they are best placed toactually assess how much the internal changes will cost their organisations, not the Minister forEnvironment and Heritage Protection.

In addition to this, the Local Government Association of Queensland was concerned with thetiming of the commencement of the legislation being March 2013. During the public hearingMs Blanchard, the principal adviser on environmental health at the Local Government Association ofQueensland, stated—As for timing of these changes in the bill, the minister in a press release recently advised that changes in the bill will beimplemented by March 2013. The association on behalf of local government requests that this date be reviewed and that 1 July2013 be considered for commencement. This allows local government to budget in the next financial year for any necessaryoperational changes. Budgets for councils for the coming financial year are already set and insufficient time was given through thereview of this bill to local government to provide financial support for these changes in the budget for 2012-13. I suggest that thisis a very reasonable request from the Local Government Association of Queensland and one that the minister should take onboard seriously.

This is another example of how this government lacks the required skills to undertake detailedconsultation with stakeholders. If it did, it would have been made aware of this concern and hopefullyrectified it. This is what Labor did with the introduction of the waste levy. In that case, consultation withcouncils happened for over a year—


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! Those on my right will cease interjecting. Themember has the call.

Ms TRAD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your protection. In the case of the waste levy,consultation with councils happened for over a year, with significant financial assistance available toupgrade waste facilities. I ask the minister: will you change the commencement date to allow for localgovernment organisations to get ready? Silence. Will you provide the adequate resources to allow for aseamless and effective implementation and transition to the new legislative process? You can heckle,but you cannot answer. Or will you dump it on local councils and hope for the best?

Further concerns were raised by community groups, in particular the Friends of South EastQueensland and the Environmental Defenders Office, about the inadequate public notification periodsattached to the applications, especially large mining applications which can last for years or evendecades. Clauses 154 and 155 of the bill indicate directly and through reference to the MineralResources Act 1989 that 20 business days are prescribed for public submissions. This can beinadequate, especially when the application is submitted around Christmas or Easter time, when thenumber of public servants in the department usually decreases, making it difficult for members of thepublic to adequately make a submission. I commend the minister for taking on board therecommendation of the committee in relation to this and excluding those days over the Christmas-NewYear period from the business days in terms of public submission periods.

Concerned as I am to ensure that all the facts are accorded, I acknowledge that it was alsooutlined during the public hearings that the public submission period has been increased from 10 to 20days in this new bill before the House. However, as previously mentioned, the committee heard at thepublic hearing that even this time frame of 20 business days is manifestly short. It does not allow thecommunity an opportunity to group together, discuss the issues and formalise a coherent submission onprojects that may last years if not decades into the future. We on this side of the House listen to thecommunity and stand up for the community. As such, I will be moving amendments to reflect theseviews to protect not only the environment but also the interests of the community.

Mr Johnson: What about the people who have gone bankrupt?


Ms TRAD: I take the interjection from the member for Gregory. If he wants to talk aboutbankruptcy, I refer him to Clem7—Chief Government Whip wannabe minister. In addition to this, theissue of ‘minor changes’ was raised during the hearing process. Submissions were made that raiseconcerns over the fact that if a minor change is made under clause 133 of the bill then no further publicnotification is required to be undertaken. The concern that individuals before the committee had, whichis valid, is that a minor change to the operator could be a major change and have a dramatic impact onthe community and the environment. Therefore, I encourage the minister to seriously look at thisprovision to ensure that the rights of the community are protected.

The issue of suitable operator was discussed at length during the public hearing and is an issuewhich should be raised in this House. The bill allows for the automatic registration of current operatorsholding approvals to be registered on the suitable operators register and for new operators to registerthemselves on it. Once an operator is registered, no re-evaluation takes place and thus they are therefor life unless they breach something in their duties. For example, we could have a situation where asuitable operator creates a major environmental breach overseas which will not be flagged on theQueensland system, ensuring they can continue to operate in this state without evaluation. Therefore, Iencourage the minister and his department to look into better ways to capture information on suitableoperators which provides adequate safeguards to ensure up-to-date information is contained within thesuitable operators database for appropriate decisions to be made on the suitability of operators toensure the adequate protection of our environment.

Our environment is our most vital asset which we must protect at all costs, but we see thisgovernment already trying to cut corners to save red tape and lessen the regulatory burden at theenvironment’s expense. I table for the attention of the House a memorandum issued to the EnvironmentRegulatory Practice Unit by its acting director on 30 May 2012 which states—The government has set out as one of its priorities the reduction of red tape for businesses and the growth of the Queenslandeconomy, while maintaining the current level of environmental protection.

Consistent with this government priority the following principle is to be applied by all members of Environmental RegulatoryPractice Unit when giving advice about the interpretation of the Act or related legislation, effective immediately until further notice:

Where there is ambiguity or uncertainty about:

The meaning of words used in legislation or

Whether a particular activity or thing falls within a definition (including a definition of an ERA)—

and here comes the outrageous part of the memorandum—then the words or definition should be given the interpretation that leads to less red tape and a lesser regulatory burden forbusiness (for example, by excluding an activity from being caught by the ERA).

Tabled paper: Redacted memorandum to the Environmental Regulatory Practice Unit regarding interpreting legislation, dated2012 [512].

This just demonstrates the reckless culture this LNP government displays for environmentalissues, replacing precautionary safeguards with a permissive culture. Those opposite do not care aboutprotecting the Great Barrier Reef, as we saw in the Alpha Coal debacle, and now we see they areinstructing that activities be excluded from the ERA when they can which puts the environment atextreme danger. We on this side of the House value our environment and will continue to stand up forthe environment and support a regulatory framework which is good for our economy and good for ourenvironment.

Not only are those opposite weakening our environmental regulations; they are also attempting tosilence community dissent with last week’s announced funding cut to the Environmental DefendersOffice. The EDO provides critical legal advice to individuals and community groups concerned aboutQueensland’s environment, particularly the impact of excessive development. Again, what we haveseen is those opposite slashing critical services that are on the front line defending our community,providing much needed, free legal advice to communities wanting assistance and information regardinghuge environmental development projects. By cutting funding for the EDO the LNP is seeking to takeaway any opportunity for the community to mount a strong opposition to proposed development. Thoseopposite have no environmental credibility and should hang their heads in shame.

This bill is a monumental step in the right direction. As indicated by departmental staff in thepublic hearings, Queensland is leading the way in terms of green-tape reduction whilst always keepingthe environment at the centre of attention. This 283-page bill did not miraculously appear since 24March 2012; it has been developed through comprehensive consultation and hard work under theguidance of the former Labor government through ClimateQ: Toward a Greener Queensland initiativecalled Reducing Green Tape for Business. This project was a clear demonstration of the previous Laborgovernment’s commitment to reducing regulatory burden so that Queensland remains an attractiveplace in which to do business. This is reflected in the fact that private new capital expenditure increasedover the period between the March quarter 2011 and the March quarter 2012 by a staggering 90.2 percent compared to a 28.32 per cent increase nationally and a forecast economic growth rate of 7.8 percent according to the Australian National Accounts for the March quarter. We on this side of the Houseare proud of our achievements in delivering economic—



Mr Rickuss interjected.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has the call.

Ms TRAD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We on this side of the House are proud of ourachievements in delivering economic strategies geared to grow our state and increase prosperity—


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting. The member has the call.

Ms TRAD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This bill provides for this through a simplified processof environmental applications which do not compromise the environmental standards we on this side ofthe House have strived for over many years. Whilst this is a strong start, as I alluded to in my previouscomments, there are still improvements that can be undertaken with this current bill and I understandthat further regulatory reforms will be undertaken to strengthen the framework around environmentalissues to ensure that business operators are faced with less burden but with the environment remainingat the fore. I wish to flag that I hope the minister allows more time for consultation around the regulationsthan he has with the bill to date.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all departmental officers from the Department ofEnvironment and Heritage Protection, the former department of environment and resource managementand particularly those from the axed office of climate change for all of their hard work and dedication indelivering the regulatory efficiencies without compromising environmental protections which we seebefore us today. I wish to thank the minister, the Hon. Andrew Powell, for enabling a comprehensivebriefing on the bill upon request and I also want to thank the former minister, Vicky Darling, for herleadership, undertaking all the heavy lifting in the development of this bill.

I also want to record my thanks specifically to departmental officer Elisa Nichols, Director ofEnvironmental Policy and Legislation, for all of her extensive work on this bill. It would not have come tofruition without her endeavours. As I mentioned previously, the members of the former Environment,Agriculture, Resources and Energy Committee must be acknowledged for all of their hard work inrelation to the scrutiny and analysis of this bill, particularly the member for Lockyer as chair of thecommittee and also the member for Gympie for his thoughtful and prompt contributions and especiallythe research director, Mr Rob Hansen, and all of the committee staff for working so expeditiously on thisbill. It is a privilege to commend this bill—this Labor bill—to the House.

Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—LNP) (4.28 pm): I rise to say a few words as chair of the parliamentarycommittee that examined the bill. I congratulate the minister for finally getting this legislation to theHouse. I also congratulate the committee. I must admit that the member for South Brisbane is a vital cogin our committee. I congratulate the other members of the committee—the member for Thuringowa andthe members for Whitsunday, Gympie and Maryborough. However, I must admit that I am a bitperplexed. I think the member for South Brisbane at times wears a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde outfit: she is abit like Dr Jekyll when she comes to see us.

Ms Trad: No—2011 and 2012; it’s that simple!

Mr RICKUSS: What the member for South Brisbane highlighted when she was in discussionsabout the bill was the inability of the previous government to be able to do anything.

Mr Berry: To deliver.

Mr RICKUSS: To deliver; that is right. That is a great comment from the member for Ipswich. Thatis what has happened. It just could not deliver this bill. It has taken the new LNP government to deliverthe bill in a timely manner and get things done. As was previously highlighted by the member for SouthBrisbane, there was a lot of discussion. Appropriate consultation had taken place. It was virtually asummary of this consultation so that we could bring the bill before the House. It was something thatneeded to be done. If you give someone a time line they actually get things done. We were given anappropriate time line and we worked extremely hard.

Ms Trad interjected.

Mr RICKUSS: I would like to thank the ministerial staff and everyone who made submissions tothe committee because that was an important part of the whole process. It gave us a greaterunderstanding. That is how the process works. It highlights that the previous government did struggle tomanage not only the economy but also the House because it could not get this legislation through. Itprocrastinated.


Mr RICKUSS: It was not interested in supporting businesses that were involved in this.

Mr Berry: We would have got it through in one day if we didn’t have the member for SouthBrisbane’s speech!





Mr RICKUSS: That’s right. I will take that interjection, the one day interjection. It really is a shamethat it has taken that long. This bill should have been passed 12 months ago. That was really what themember for South Brisbane was highlighting: that unfortunately her government let her down.

I congratulate the minister on picking up on the recommendations that the committee made.There was a fair bit of thought put into them. I would also like to thank Rob Hansen, Ali Jarro and theteam of committee staff. They work extremely hard and assist the committee no end.

In relation to some of the things that have been highlighted, for example the 20 days, at times it isquite difficult to get a response back in 20 days, but the minister or his chief executive officer can extendthat time. If members of parliament have issues in their area please go and see the minister about itbecause he can extend that application time. I went to see Stirling Hinchliffe in the previous governmentabout an issue in relation to mining and had those timelines extended. It can be done. That is really whatbeing a good MP is about. It is about using and understanding legislation and working with thegovernment of either side. As the member for South Brisbane highlighted, this government is not afraidto take on good legislation and make it better. That is really what we have done here. We have takenlegislation, improved it and got it through the House. That is really what it is all about.

The minister has advised that consultation with local government will continue to ensure a smoothtransition. There is always going to be a bit of argy-bargy about whether the state government is shiftingcosts to the local government or vice versa. I think the $800,000 BCC amount that was brought outmight have been an exaggeration. It was a bit like the big fish. I think it was the top end of the spectrumto change their legislation considering that the Brisbane City Council will be affected. There will be somereal benefits to be made with this legislation.

Ms Trad: Are you saying local government lies?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for South Brisbane will cease interjecting. Though it wasnot a direct comment towards an individual, I would just remind the member about unparliamentarylanguage and the use of the word ‘lies’.

Mr RICKUSS: Thank you for your protection. I have found it rather onerous to talk in here with allthat interjecting going on. The committee did a great job in looking at this bill. The minister has done agreat job in getting the bill before the House and taking on appropriate recommendations that have beenmade by the committee. I recommend this bill to the House.

Mr MINNIKIN (Chatsworth—LNP) (4.34 pm): I am extremely pleased to rise to speak to theEnvironmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 on behalfof the Chatsworth electorate. Given my property development background and close association withprofessionals from the resources sector, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about what Iconsider to be significant improvements to Queensland’s environmental legislation that does notcompromise environmental outcomes.

This bill will contribute significantly to promoting a true four-pillar economy in order to getQueensland back on track. It is important to note that the green-tape reduction amendments in this billoffer practical and innovative alternatives to the existing environmental regulatory framework inQueensland. Additionally and significantly, this bill will deliver a substantial reduction in administrativered tape. This bill represents the most significant reform to licensing processes under the EnvironmentalProtection Act 1994 since it commenced. This is welcome news to many stakeholders throughoutQueensland and beyond who have been frustrated by the current red-tape requirements.

At its heart this bill is a coordinated package of legislation, business process and informationsystems reform to the existing licensing application and assessment processes under the EP Act. Thebill rebuilds the approval processes for environmental licensing under the Environmental Protection Actto reduce costs for industry and the government, improve business investment certainty and allow forfront-line environmental regulation to be delivered more efficiently. The essence of this bill continueswith an election promise to streamline approvals and cut through red tape or, as the title of this billsuggests, green tape.

As the minister has alluded to, the green-tape project will produce estimated savings of$12.5 million per year contributing to the government’s policy to reduce regulation and red tape by20 per cent overall. This will be fantastic news to the numerous stakeholders who have experiencedfrustrating and costly approval processes throughout the state.

The bill deletes three chapters of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 with duplicativeprovisions and replaces them with a single process. This will remove 90 pages of regulation from theact. The reforms will reduce delays in approvals and improve certainty for business. This isdemonstrable evidence of the Newman government getting serious on cutting down red tape andconvoluted processes of government. Very importantly, the changes being discussed here will make iteasier and cheaper for small business to establish itself in Queensland. Indeed, the benefits toenvironmental licence holders in particular are many. For instance, the bill amends the EnvironmentalProtection Act to change the way environmental approvals work by introducing corporate licences thatare more flexible for operators. This is an area that they have been crying out for. It is quite ridiculous




that under the current Environmental Protection Act a mining operation that has, for example, anassociated power station or non-mineral extraction operation must have three separate approvals.These include an environmental authority for mining, an environmental approval for the actual powerstation itself and a further environmental approval for extraction. However, once the EnvironmentalProtection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 is implemented this typeof mining operation will be able to amalgamate these approvals to a single environmental authority,thereby allowing a single set of reporting and administrative requirements and removal of conflictingconditions. As I keep saying along with my parliamentary colleagues, the ALP simply does notunderstand business.

I congratulate the minister as this bill represents the most significant reform to licensingprocesses under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 since it commenced. It will assist with driving afour-pillar economy, which was the centrepiece of our election commitment to the people ofQueensland. Practical benefits include making it much easier to amend the approval as the businessgrows and changes and allowing the amalgamation of licences which will reduce reportingrequirements. In practical terms, take a concrete batching plant in the heart of the electorate ofChatsworth at Tingalpa that is expanding and now needs to house fuel for its extra plant and equipmenton the site. Under the current system it would require two permits, one for the concrete batching andone for the fuel storage. The new system allows one permit to take care of both activities. This obviouslysaves business time and money.

The vast size of Queensland brings its own challenges to business. This bill provides substantialbenefits for companies that manage operations in different areas throughout the state. Under the currentsystem the conditions for operation are contained in several different permits that relate to different sitesscattered throughout Queensland. As a result obviously it leads to a large and unnecessaryadministrative workload for a variety of reasons, including permits with complex, varying and at timescontradictory conditions across the different sites; permits that have different anniversary dates meaningfees are due on different dates throughout the year; and permits with annual reports due at varyingtimes.

The new corporate licence system introduced by the bill means that the patchwork of approvalswill be replaced by one corporate approval for all sites and environmentally relevant activities. Onedocument will be the source of all operating conditions, obligations and responsibilities. Varying dateswill be replaced by the one commencement date, obviously meaning that all fees and reports will be dueon one business day. Another bonus is that operator licences will take effect from the date given by theoperator, which means that the operator will not be required to pay an annual fee for the period prior tocommencing the activity.

Despite the obvious benefits, corporate licences are not compulsory. If a company decides thatobtaining a corporate licence does not suit its reporting requirements, it can elect to maintain the statusquo. The flexibility provided by the provisions in the bill mean that businesses have more say in howthey are regulated while ensuring that the same stringent environmental standards are met. TheNewman government is looking at other options including removing the need for small businessenvironmental risk assessments to obtain an environmental authority at all. This could include motorvehicle workshops, small chemical storage and boilermaking businesses, dry cleaning sites et cetera.

The bill provides three ways to apply for an environmental authority for environmentally relevantactivities, ERAs, including an automatic approval process. It is a licensing model proportionate to risk,which industry has been screaming out for. I repeat, it is proportionate to risk. Following fullimplementation, around half of all ERAs will be able to go through the standard application process.Importantly, this will save each applicant an average of $20,000 in application preparation costs, 150pages in avoided application materials and 68 days in processing time. This will result in a reduction ofapproximately 62,000 pages of application documents per year. That is a massive cost saving tobusiness and fulfils an election commitment to assist business and get the state back on track.

Furthermore, changes are being made to how the environmental authority works so thatoperators can enjoy more flexibility with their approvals. The changes will make the process foramending environmental authorities much simpler, to enable a business to grow and change over time.Another benefit is the ability for operators of multiple sites to amalgamate all their differentenvironmental authorities into a single document. This will mean that businesses have only one annualreporting date, as I said before. The timing of public notification has been changed so that publicnotification occurs earlier in the assessment process. This will reduce assessment time frames byaround three months.

This bill also removes unnecessary administrative processes around managing an environmentalauthority, such as the need to apply to transfer the environmental authority when the tenure istransferred. This is extremely important to business because it will remove over 250 transactions peryear. Additionally, small miners will no longer be required to prepare plans of operations, which willremove a 15-page administrative requirement from around 2,400 operators, a reduction of 36,000pages overall. The bill will assist with streamlining information requirements and provide a clear list ofinformation that needs to be in an application for an environmental authority.


The Environmental Protection Regulation is also being reviewed to reduce the number of mattersthat must be considered by an officer to make a decision to approve. This, in turn, will reducethe amount of information that is required to be prepared by an applicant. I am pleased and proud to risebefore the House today and have the opportunity to speak to this important piece of legislation. Ithoroughly commend the bill to the House.

Mr DOWLING (Redlands—LNP) (4.43 pm): This afternoon I rise to speak in support of theEnvironmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. There issuch a positive change in this legislation before the House. I commend the minister for stumbling acrossthe secret to life, the universe and everything: if you reduce delays in approvals, improve certainty forbusiness and make it easier and cheaper for business to operate in Queensland, you will have won thetrifecta. I commend the minister for stumbling across that.

We live in a brave new world. As has been highlighted in previous contributions, this is the mostsignificant reform in over a decade. The savings to business and government will amount to $12 milliona year. I believe that is an underestimate. I believe it will be much greater than that, by virtue of theconfidence that will be felt within our community. People will invest here. Once again it will be the land ofopportunity.

This 20 per cent reduction in red tape and regulation is part of something that we entered intoabout 12 months ago. Commitment and delivery are part of a can-do strategy. The fundamentaldifference between those opposite and those on this side of the House is that we can actually deliverand we can follow through on a commitment. I am sorry: I do not mean my friends on that side of theHouse; I meant those in the small corner to the front of House. Obviously, the ALP is an acronym. Wecould probably move from the Australian Labor Party to ‘another loathsome process’, because that iswhat we have seen historically. In contrast, we have this legislation and the way it will be delivered.Under Labor Party rule our state had a $2.7 billion deficit and an $85 billion debt. I offer this advice tothose opposite: when you are in a hole, stop digging.

The minister has hit paydirt. He has hit the winning trifecta. Business will save potentially $20,000an application. That is a phenomenal saving. That goes into wages. It goes into improving infrastructurewithin the business to grow the business. One hundred and fifty pages of paperwork will be saved on anapplication. That is mind-blowing. Sixty-eight days will be saved in the processing of an averageapplication. That is time and money. That is what has been holding this state back. Labor held the reinsso tightly and were so process driven that, while they may have had the nucleus of an idea, they couldnot deliver on it. I acknowledge that this was started some time ago, but I can tell the House that I amabsolutely certain, based on everything that I have seen from the Labor government, that it would nothave been delivered. We had a payroll system that turned out to be a poisoned chalice. It was anabsolute disaster. We on this side of the House have careful planning. There will be training andconsultation. There is a roll-out strategy for March 2013. The process will be carefully implemented andcarefully designed, and it will be delivered in toto.

How will local governments be affected? They, too, will make savings through streamlining,reduced administration, reduced assessment for DAs, reduced unnecessary referrals, removal of theneed for multiple registration certificates and maintenance of a single approval document. Those are allcommon-sense measures. That is one thing that was certainly far from common in this place underprevious Labor governments. It was far from common. We will see legitimate cost savings in time andmoney. This is all about delivery in Queensland.

Let us look at some of the savings for the state through simplifying administration: $780,000 willbe saved in administration and $360,000 will be saved in streamlining through tenure transfers andplans of operation from smaller miners. Those are all significant savings and they are all important. Theywill deliver good, positive business outcomes.

Unlike those opposite, we actually have the ability to deliver. We have the ability to benefitbusiness in Queensland. This legislation, through the reduction in regulatory compliance burdens, willmake it easier and cheaper to obtain environmental approvals, creating savings of approximately$11.7 million in that area. Obviously, small to medium business will receive the best benefit from the newlicensing system. I cannot get my head around the idea of saving $20,000 on an application. I amsurprised business ever happened under Labor in Queensland. When we look around, we can certainlysee that they were struggling. There were business closures. It is all coming back to me now. I ambeginning to see what it was: Labor was the problem in Queensland, not business. Labor was theproblem.

Mr Johnson: ‘Hard Labor’!

Mr DOWLING: It was ‘hard Labor’! I take the interjection from the member for Gregory. There willbe 150 pages of application that will be avoided. These were unnecessary and time-wastingapplications. It took 68 days to go through the process—that is, two months and eight days. That is astaggering saving in terms of time. There is a saving of 62,000 pages in red tape for business. Thoseopposite talk up their green credentials. Can I tell members that 62,000 pages in red tape for businessamounts to a rainforest. That is absurd.




A government member: The Amazon.

Mr DOWLING: That is an Amazon easily. I take the interjection. Some 62,000 pages of red tapehave been eliminated.

Ms Trad: It is a litany of cheap shots.

Mr DOWLING: There is nothing cheap about this. I take the interjection. This is costly. This redtape was holding Queensland back. This is the sort of process that those opposite created. It is likeunscrambling the egg.

There are opportunities for businesses with multiple sites. They can amalgamate theirenvironmental authorities. What a wonderful opportunity for those businesses to have one processwhere this is all covered off. This is a positive step in the right direction. These provisions will reduce thenumber of conditions, reduce administration costs and reduce duplication through multiple reporting. Wehave to get rid of duplication. Duplication is waste. Businesses will no longer need to transferenvironmental authority when tenure is transferred. That looks to eliminate over 250 transferapplications per year. That is going to be a saving. That is significant.

A-L-P stands for ‘another levy, people’. That is the history that is Labor—time consuming, timewasting, process driven. Early public notification is another step in the right direction. That provision hasthe potential to save three months. That means real savings and real benefits. This is really goodlegislation delivering on our commitments. I commend the minister and I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GRIMWADE (Morayfield—LNP) (4.52 pm): I rise to speak in support of the EnvironmentalProtection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill paves the way for theLNP government’s commitment to cut red tape and regulation by 20 per cent in Queensland. The newregulation framework for environmentally relevant activities presented in the bill offers a substantialreduction in green tape, along with savings for Queensland businesses that amount to $11.7 millioneach year.

Queensland small businesses in particular will see numerous benefits from this bill. For instance,the new licensing approach in the bill moves away from the current, often onerous, system towards amodel that is proportionate to risk. This means that if a person is planning to start a small business inQueensland and they fall into the category of a low-risk business, with lower environmental impacts—such as a motor vehicle workshop or a small fuel storage facility—this bill introduces a much simpler,standard application process. Eligible low-risk businesses can be automatically approved to operateunder a set of standard conditions that take into account the risks associated with their activities alone.

Mr Ruthenberg: Common sense.

Mr GRIMWADE: I take the interjection from the honourable member for Kallangur. It is acommon-sense approach to government and that is what we are about here.

The key point here is that the new licensing translates to big savings for small to mediumbusinesses. Approximately half of all small to medium businesses that are currently regulated will beeligible, with savings as high, as we just heard, as $19,000 per business from reduced application costsalone. That is a massive saving for all small businesses that are planning to grow their businesses herein Queensland. There are likely to be further savings that result from removing time delays andadministrative costs.

For Queensland businesses that are currently operating under an environmental authority anddevelopment permit for an environmentally relevant activity, the bill provides tremendous flexibility. Thebill effectively splits the environmental authority and development permit so that registered operators willhold the environmental authority, but the development approval will remain attached to the land. Thismeans that any amendments to the environmental authority or any transfers can now be made withgreater ease.

As an example, consider a landfill site that would like to introduce drum conditioning on site torecycle and onsell the drums—therefore in reality providing an environmental benefit as well as afinancial profit to that business. Currently, adding these innovations to its landfill site requires theoperator to apply for a material change of use of the development permit under the SustainablePlanning Act and pay a corresponding fee. This applies despite the fact that the primary use of the sitewill not change from being a landfill and that the emissions to the environment will actually be reduced.The changes proposed in this bill mean that the operator will be able to apply directly to amend theirenvironmental authority without affecting its development approval.

Mr Berry: A win-win.

Mr GRIMWADE: I take the interjection. It is a win-win for businesses that are looking to grow theirbusinesses and start up in Queensland. The savings for businesses are estimated to be around $5,000.There will be the added benefits of greater certainty in terms of the application process, assessment andtiming. This provides greater certainty to allow companies to invest in innovations that may also provideadded benefit or improved environmental outcomes for the business.




For our 2,400 small miners in Queensland, such as the opal and gem miners, the bill removes therequirements for a plan of operation. This will remove a 15-page administrative requirement from around2,400 operators in Queensland. This means that a total of 36,000 pages of red tape will also beremoved. This bill will delete three chapters from the Environmental Protection Act and essentiallyremove 90 pages of regulation.

The LNP is a party that understands that we need to take our feet off the throat of small business.We are a party that understands that for far too long—in fact the last 20 years—small and mediumbusinesses in Queensland have had the foot of the government placed on their throat. This wassuffocating those businesses in Queensland. We as a party understand that businesses need to decidehow to run their businesses. By effectively reducing the red tape and regulation placed on them andallowing them to make decisions at a smaller cost, this will bring additional benefits to all businesses inQueensland and subsequently employment opportunities.

Our government wants to make it easier and cheaper for business to operate in Queensland.That is something that has not happened for the last 20 years under the previous government. Insummary, the flexibility provided by this bill translates to a much simpler licensing approach that willdeliver substantial savings to small to medium businesses right across Queensland. It is for this reasonthat I am pleased to commend this bill to the House today.

Mr MALONE (Mirani—LNP) (4.57 pm): It is a pleasure to rise to speak in support of the bill beforethe House today, the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other LegislationAmendment Bill. Firstly, I support the comments that have been made by my colleagues. I will not delvetoo much into the technicalities of the bill, except to say that it is fairly novel to see a governmentactually reduce red tape and green tape across-the-board to enable small business throughoutQueensland to at last see some light at the end of the tunnel. I have some issues concerning smallbusiness that I would like to raise in the House.

I was concerned by some of the comments that were being made by those on the opposite side ofthe House in relation to environmental issues and the running of small business. I thought I would reflecta little on some of the questions asked in the House today in terms of housing. Housing is not a smallbusiness, as most members would realise. It is a very significant business for the Queenslandgovernment. The previous government made some great moves in terms of housing. The fact is thatcurrently 60,000 people are looking for a house in Queensland. Something like 20,000 or 30,000families are currently without a house in Queensland. Many in my electorate are living in cars in carparks or camping in somebody’s backyard or camping under bridges with their young children.

As I said, housing is a business arm of government. When we hear from the minister that over aperiod the previous government had to sell houses to pay for the maintenance of remaining houses, thatgoes to show how good the previous government was at running a business! I suspect that could beapplied to all the operations of that government. Look at Queensland Health—a very big business forQueensland—and somebody was able to walk straight out the back door with between $16 million and$18 million. Initially something like $60 million was spent to put in a new payroll system, but that hasblown out to $400 million. Now we are finding that it could cost over $1 billion to rectify that payrolldebacle—to run just one small portion of the health department. There are people in the healthdepartment who are still not being properly paid. When those opposite talk about their acumen andexpertise, those on this side of the House—people who have fairly substantial experience in running abusiness, and some of them not that small—find it to be a laugh a minute.

I would like to point out some issues that I came across in Sarina, a little town in my electorate,under the former Labor administration. Sarina has a population of 3,000 to 4,000 people and isdeveloping fairly quickly. It is developing so quickly that we have had to look at building anothersewerage plant. Under the EPA that was brought in by the previous government, the local governmenthas had to place some very strict controls on what can be put into wastewater systems. For instance,the hostel that looks after the elderly people from Sarina and its surrounds was put over a barrelregarding the upgrade of their effluent treatment. It took them three months just to get a person to quoteon the upgrade they needed to their wastewater treatment plant, which was going to cost something like$50,000. Incorporated in that is a meter that measures the amount of fluid that goes into the sewer.They were advised that they could not pour the remains of cups of tea down the sink. Instead they haveto pour it into a milk bottle. If they rinse a milk bottle out they also have to store that waste in anothermilk bottle. When that milk bottle is full they then have to freeze it and place it in the garbage bin. At theend of the day they decided to try that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Krause): Order! Members, there are too many conversations beingconducted in the House. I am struggling to hear the member. Could you please keep the noise to aminimum.

Mr MALONE: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought the story I was telling wasreasonably interesting. At the end of the day they were filling 20 milk bottles with this waste material—bits of coffee, bits of milk et cetera—freezing them and putting them in a waste container to go to therubbish dump. I would have thought that all this was doing was transferring waste from the sewerage





plant to the waste transfer station which then has to be carted away. It gets even worse than that. We allhave a garbage disposal unit under the sink in our homes. They had to wipe that out altogether. Sowhen peeling the potatoes or the carrots, they have to store the peelings in a garbage bin and take it tothe dump. At the end of the day, obviously anything that actually went into the sewer was almost sterile.It was quite unbelievable.

Sarina is a small town. It struggles a little with the issue of small cafes. We have a number ofcafes that have to go through this same process. They have to store the waste—milk, tea and all thatsort of stuff—in a milk bottle et cetera. There are a couple of baker shops there as well and they face asimilar situation. It got to the stage where half of the businesses in the centre of town were virtuallygoing to walk away from their shops. They could not afford to actually comply with the environmentalregulations that this previous government imposed on small business. I was able to gain a meeting withthe council and we are certainly working through the issue. At the end of the day, the legislation withwhich they are complying was brought in by the previous government. It was so difficult for smallbusiness to comply with it that small businesses were actually going to close down.

The other issue facing our region is the question of disposal of the material that they pump out ofthe sumps. We have no way of disposing of that in the Mackay district. When a sump is pumped out,that material then has to go to Townsville to be disposed of. Imagine the cost of pumping the sump out,in some instances four to five times a year, and carting that material to Townsville, which is close to 500kilometres away. It is costing a small cafe up to $300 per pumping to get rid of the material.

I am glad that this government has realised that small business has a role to play in ourcommunity. Obviously the previous government had no idea about the impacts of its legislation on smalloperations not only in my electorate but right throughout Queensland. Quite frankly, the previousgovernment had no real understanding of supporting small business—those small communityoperations, those small business people, the ones who struggle from day to day to meet theirrepayments. I am really pleased to be part of a government at long last that is trying its best to supportsmall business. I commend the minister for introducing the bill.

Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—LNP) (5.06 pm): I certainly rise to speak in support of theEnvironmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. Every day inmy electorate I hear how businesses cannot simply conduct their businesses without the pressures ofcostly red tape. In the agricultural sector we have seen farmers who have struggled to keep abreast inan ever-changing environment, which has seen them more consumed with rules and regulation under20 years of Labor instead of doing what they do best—growing crops and contributing to theQueensland economy. Farmers are true custodians of their land. They have a justifiable balancebetween protecting the environment for future generations while also engaging in best farming practicesfor optimal agricultural production. My electorate, the electorate of Burdekin, encompasses miningoperations, which have also been unnecessarily held back with green tape.

In drafting this bill, industry, community and environmental groups were consulted and theirvalued opinions were taken on board. The introduction of this bill will not in any way compromiseQueensland’s environmental laws, with businesses still obligated to adhere to the same environmentalstandards. This bill is about streamlining the administration process. The changes will reduce costlydelays in approvals and improve business certainty. In the mining sector alone, around 2,400 smallmining operators will no longer have to complete a 15-page administration requirement, which will leadto 36,000 pages of green tape being reduced without any environmental standards being compromised.Certainly in my area I am seeing a lot of small operators who are looking towards opening mines. Thepotential is certainly there in all sorts of areas from the mining perspective.

This bill is not about reducing environmental obligations; the Environmental Protection(Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Bill is about helping business and, therefore, helping toget Queensland back on track. Currently, most environmentally relevant activities—ERAs—are groupedunder a one-size-fits-all assessment. The fact that all businesses and, indeed, environments aredifferent has complicated this assessment process. After the full implementation of this bill, around halfof all ERAs—about 410 applications per year—will be able to flow through the standard automaticapproval process. This is going to equate to a saving for each applicant on average of $20,000 inapplication preparation costs, 68 days—that is two to three months—processing time and 150 pages inavoided application materials. This is going to make a huge difference to so many of those smalleroperators who are desperately trying to get a foothold and to get a start.

With amendments to the approval process, the timing of the public notification period will changeso that it will happen earlier in the assessment process, whereas in the past this has happened moretoward the final stage. This is going to allow communities to express any concerns about an applicationto make sure that environmental outcomes are delivered and this, of course, is essential. Overall thegreen-tape bill is estimated to save Queensland businesses $11.7 million each year. It will cutQueensland’s green-tape burden by approximately 62,000 pages per year.

This LNP government is seriously committed to reducing red tape on business. In the lead-up tothe March election, Madam Speaker was the LNP shadow minister for waste watch and she was doinga magnificent job. She would have been aware that a chamber of commerce and industry report into the




spiralling cost of government imposts found that the Bligh Labor government had increased the cost ofred tape by 6.6 per cent in the 2010-11 financial year. The overall burden had indeed grown by awhopping 31.6 per cent since a Productivity Commission report in 2007.

While amassing billions of dollars worth of debt, Labor MPs did not care that businesses werebeing crippled and bogged down in red tape. Thankfully, the people of Queensland showed their hostilityat the 2012 election and overwhelming cuts were made to Labor’s ranks within this chamber.Queenslanders have been struggling with higher cost-of-living pressures. That is no secret to anyone,but this has been further compounded this month by Labor yet again with the introduction of the carbontax.

The LNP government is committed to reining in Queensland’s debt and assisting businesses toonce again go forward. Streamlining environmental legislation and reducing green tape via theintroduction of the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation AmendmentBill 2012 will cut this state’s green-tape burden by approximately 62,000 pages per year. Just think of allthose trees.

This LNP government wants to make it easier and cheaper for small businesses in Queensland,and this bill will go a long way towards that. This bill will reduce the burden on businesses as theyflourish and allow for further investment and job creation within our great state, because it is smallbusinesses who are our employers. It is small businesses who create the job opportunities for peopleacross Queensland. Businesses are varied. Businesses as varied as wooden product manufacturing towaste-transfer stations are the ones that will benefit from this bill, with there being a standard ERAapplication.

This amendment bill puts in place a more appropriate licensing model which is also moreproportionate to risk. Why should those with simpler applications be lumped in the one basket andtreated the same way as those with more complicated applications? The standard application will allowfor automatic approval with standard conditions for ERAs that meet set criteria. A variation applicationwill apply for limited assessment to change the standard conditions and a site-specific application willallow for full assessment of high-risk activities. The process allows for more flexible approvals throughthe environmental authority. However, businesses will still need to comply with environmentalrequirements in standard conditions. Operators of multiple sites will also be able to amalgamate all oftheir varying environmental authorities into a single document with a simplified, single annual reportingdate.

Environmental management plans, which, in effect, were duplicated copies of other applicationforms, will be removed under this bill, which will also streamline the mining and petroleum approvalprocesses. The bill also removes unnecessary administrative processes around managing anenvironmental authority such as the need to apply to transfer the environmental authority when thetenure is transferred. This alone will remove over 250 transactions per year.

The Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection, the Hon. Andrew Powell, and thoseinvolved in evaluating and formulating the contents of this bill are to be congratulated for their work onthis bill, which represents the most significant reform to licensing processes since the EnvironmentalProtection Act 1994 commenced. This really is something that I know businesses are looking forward to.This bill is a solid commitment to business. It is a solid commitment by the Newman government. It willcut 90 pages of duplicated provisions in the EP Act, replacing the replicated process with one single,clear process without any environmental compromise.

This bill clearly sets out all of the information needed to complete an application for anenvironmental authority, hence streamlining the information requirements. This will not only result inobvious reduced costs for industry and the government but will also improve business investmentcertainty and allow front-line environmental regulation to be delivered much more efficiently.

Industry stakeholders have strongly supported the green-tape project and this bill. The proposedcommencement date for the act is March 2013, and this will allow sufficient time to review and updatethe environmental protection regulation, prepare guidance materials, train staff and businesses, andupdate systems. Peak industry associations, key industries and community and governmentstakeholders are looking forward to the progressive and simplified assessment system this bill willprovide, with the bureaucratic paperwork significantly reduced to allow businesses and economies toonce again grow while sustaining environmental goals. I certainly commend the minister for his effortson this bill. I have much pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (5.16 pm): I rise to continue the opposition’s contribution to the debateon the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012.Where I am from in Far North Queensland, our area contains many prestigious and monumental naturalwonders—the Great Barrier Reef, Kuranda and Cape York to name a few. All of these environmentalareas, like many others, are at risk of being destroyed by overdevelopment and human interaction. Thatis why it is crucial that the right legislative framework is implemented—to ensure these areas areprotected for years to come. That is why I, like my colleagues in the Labor opposition, will be supportingthis bill.




I want to echo the sentiments of the shadow minister and member for South Brisbane when sheindicated that the bill before the House is a Labor bill. This bill was drafted by the former Laborgovernment after extensive consultation with myriad different stakeholder groups lasting manymonths—something that some of those on the government benches fail to grasp when they undertakeany form of consultation. This bill will have an effect on 15 pieces of legislation, with the main goal to finda balance between business activities and appropriate environmental risk through a streamlinedprocess which lessens the regulatory burden on the operator whilst maintaining high environmentalstandards.

One of the main ways this will be achieved is through a streamlined approvals process brokendown into three applications. The first is a standard application, which will apply a standard set ofconditions to a project which is deemed to be straightforward and of low environment risk such as apetrol station, like the local Mobil in my electorate at Edmonton. This site would be subjected to standardconditions which would apply to all petrol stations across the state.

The second is a variation application. This application would be used for sites with a unique twistsuch as a petrol station located in a coastal town. It may be subjected to the same standard conditionsas all other petrol stations, but because of its close proximity to water it may require additional safeguardbarriers which would be applied to the site through schedules to the standard condition application.

The third is a site-specific application. This would be similar to the current full-scale applicationprocess, where a full analysis would be undertaken of the entire site to determine what environmentalrisks are associated with the site and what conditions should be placed upon it. An example of thiswould be the Alpha Coal site, which would go through a full site-specific process without corner cuttingor interference by the government of the day in order to ensure the protection of the environmentremains paramount.

As the shadow minister indicated, this bill implements myriad different legislative reforms such asprovision for the amalgamation of multiple different environmental authorities into one document. Thiswill enable operators to have one reporting date and one document, which will allow them to better runtheir business and protect the environment. Another reform will reduce the requirement on operators toprovide information and the points in the process at which they are required to produce information. Thismeans that the bulk of the information will be provided by the operator to the regulatory authority at thebeginning of the process, with only minor communication occurring subsequently, to gain clarifyinginformation. Another reform is the streamlined application process, which I have outlined.

This Labor bill redefines how businesses in Queensland interact with the environment in asustainable, methodical manner which reduces the burden on businesses and operators. Almost noneof those opposite would have an environmental bone in their body. One minute those opposite aretalking hard on environmental issues and talking up their environmental credibility, and I quote from theminister’s introductory speech—I am very pleased to put on record that the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation AmendmentBill 2012 offers a substantial contribution to the LNP government’s commitment to cut red tape and regulation by 20 per cent.

I might add that that was work undertaken by the former Labor government, not those on thegovernment benches now, so it cannot really be claimed as one of their election commitments as it wassomething that was already occurring. Contrast these words with the actions of the government—wherein most recent times it cut funding of up to $97,000 to the Environmental Defenders Office, an officewhich provides community groups with an advocacy service to fight against activities, such as mines,which have an impact on the environment and their community.

I have just been informed that when the minister spoke earlier he tabled the government’sresponse to the committee. Under the section relating to the points of clarification, the committee invitedthe minister to provide advice as to the adequacy of the 20 business day notification period. Whentalking about who would be consulted under this, the minister said, ‘I will ensure that my departmentconsults closely with the Queensland Resources Council, the Australian Petroleum Production andExploration Association and the Environmental Defenders Office in developing this guideline.’ This mayhave been done prior to that decision being made, but it should have been updated. That is a real kick inthe guts to the Environmental Defenders Office because it will not have that funding to enable it tocontinue the job it has been doing.

This government talks the talk on environmental issues but it cannot walk the walk, with manyprograms such as the Environmental Defenders Office being scrapped or provided with less funding.These organisations play an integral part in the environmental landscape of Queensland. It is a shamethat the environment is being used as a target by this government to cut costs just like it is cutting jobs.This Labor bill before the House will play a key role in ensuring appropriate regulations are put in placeto safeguard the environment from diabolical situations, such as the Alpha Coal fiasco again, orquashing the absurd request from Clive Palmer to pump thousands of litres of waste into the GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park from his Queensland nickel operation.

As foreshadowed by the shadow minister and member for South Brisbane, there are still somedeficiencies with the bill that could have been amended and improved if the government did not try andrush the bill through, as usual, and instead allowed for proper and further consultation. One of the main


issues revolves around the fact that the public notification period for community members is manifestlyshort. An example of this is that if an operator is proposing to build a large-scale mine on a site—a minewhich will last for years, if not decades, and extract thousands and thousands of tonnes of minerals fromthe ground—members of the community only have approximately 20 days to be made aware of theproject, gather information, form a group, collate expert and general material, write a submission andlodge it. Prima facie this does not allow much time for the community to rally against a project which willaffect them and their area for many years to come. That is why we will be moving amendments toempower the community and allow them to have a greater opportunity to have their say in their localarea.

This bill did not just pop out of thin air, nor was it drafted after the election on 24 March 2012. This283-page bill was the result of months and months of consultation with key stakeholders and thecommunity by the former department of environment and resource management to ensure a balancecan be maintained between the high priority of protecting our environment and the ability to reducethe amount of regulatory burden on operators. It was led by two former environment ministers of thisHouse—Vicky Darling and the former member for Ashgrove, Kate Jones. All of these people had thedrive and determination to see our state shine in the environmental sphere, unlike those opposite whocome in and claim the work of others as their own in order to fulfil an election promise. I thank each andevery person who has contributed to the success of protecting the environment in Queensland, and Icommend this Labor bill to the House.

Mr DRISCOLL (Redcliffe—LNP) (5.23 pm): I always like to follow these wild and woollyaccusations of members of the now opposition where they slip the little one-liner in there and hope theywill get away with it. I think we all know that this bill, which has been brought in by our minister in goodtime, with good consultation and under the workings of this new parliament of Queensland, is going toactually get things done. The reality is that the opposition when in government could not get thingsdone, yet it still wants to claim the kudos and put its name on it. I am sorry, but fair is fair. When this lotin the opposition simply want to see their name up with the achievements of this government, we allknow that it is the same old thing where they try to steal our policies and try to get in there and takeaway the good work that others do. They are lazy. When in government, they were more inclined toworry about their own political hide than any sort of good legislation—such as the legislation that thisgovernment is now bringing before the House.

When we look at this legislation, we see that it does things like cut the cost to small business,which is the biggest private sector employer in this state. This is something foreign to members of theopposition, but maybe they would like to be educated in what it takes to actually practically run a smallbusiness—then again, maybe not. The interjections and the heckling that they go on with whenmembers of the government try to speak on behalf of small business are testimony to the fact that theywant to remain ignorant, they want to keep their head in the sand and they want to stay in oppositionbecause they are very comfortable over there in their little huddle.

Mr Dillaway: Antibusiness huddle.

Mr DRISCOLL: I take the interjection from the member for Bulimba, who was another successfulmember at the last election. They are anti business. In fact, millions and millions of dollars will nowremain in the pockets of small business in Queensland as a result of this particular piece of legislation.This was legislation that the previous Labor government could not organise. It could not even organise araffle in a state school, and that is why we are left to do the hard yards and the heavy lifting—and we aremore than pleased to do this.

We are seeing the abolition of what were known as chapters 4, 5, 5A and 6. Chapter 5A obviouslywas a bit of an afterthought because they needed to put in some more red tape or, in this case, greentape. We are replacing this with 90 fewer pages of Labor waffle—this is the waffle that they were soproud to bring before the people of Queensland as more confusion, more cost and more laws that weregoing to be anti jobs in this place.

It would be remiss of me not to make reference to a previous speaker on this legislation, themember for South Brisbane, who could not even keep a straight face when she made reference toLabor’s economic credentials. If a member wants to bring this House into absolute hysterics, they justneed to say the words ‘Labor’s economic credentials’ and I think that will pretty much do the trick. Weappreciate a good laugh but I think it is time the opposition got serious and dealt with what needs to bedone in this great state of Queensland. The people of Queensland have been waiting for 20 long yearsand finally they are getting some cut through on things like green-tape reduction.

The opposition was proud of its record. It was proud of what it achieved in building up thismonstrosity of green tape for Green votes and Green preferences. Let us not forget the fact that rightnow across this country Labor and the Greens are having an open debate about whether they should bein or out of bed, whether or not the deals are still on, whether or not the preference swaps are still on—

Mr Watts interjected.





Mr DRISCOLL: I take the interjection from the member for Toowoomba South: is this a registeredrelationship? Are we going to see this turn up on the register of relationships or not? This is somethingthat we might see that reversal form be used for in very short time. It is not a happy camp over there onthe extreme left. We only have to look at the member for South Brisbane’s face when it comes to a lot ofthe progress that this government is already making. The looney left fringe of the Labor Party—thatwhich would dance with the devil and the Greens—

Ms TRAD: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I ask you to rule on the matter ofrelevance. Nothing the member has said for the past three minutes refers to the bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Krause): Order! The member for Redcliffe is addressing the matterand I will ask him to remain relevant in his address.

Mr DRISCOLL: The member for South Brisbane and her Labor colleagues do not like theirgreen-tape record—their accumulation record. Let’s get it really straight: ‘Let’s get the pile as big as wepossibly can to choke business, choke down jobs and appeal to those Green preferences from ourGreen friends.’ They do not like the record. In fact they will do anything they can to stop that recordbeing held to account.

What this lot on the opposition side would prefer to talk about are things like the carbon tax. Theywant to reach back into the hand of business; they want to reach back in and destroy the jobs. They donot want to talk about the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other LegislationAmendment Bill 2012. In fact, they even want to say that this is not good enough. We have fixed up theirmess yet they retrospectively, as Johnny-come-latelies, say that this is not going far enough. It beggarsbelief what in fact the Magnificent Seven’s predecessors must have been doing in this place if they arenow so critical of their legislation that we are cleaning it up but they think it should be going further. Letus wait and see. I would hazard a guess that this is going to be more grandstanding and more nods andwinks to the far Left to make sure that those Greens preferences stay nice and handy, because we allknow they are going to need them!

A couple of former ministers of the department of the environment were mentioned by the formerspeaker. Mention was made of Vicky Darling and Kate Jones—those people who are now in the historybooks and will fade into insignificance, like the rest of the former Labor government will after itsdisastrous record of dealing with the sorts of things that Queenslanders wanted it to deal with, not tolump more green tape on them. We wanted to see an environment department that was going to berelevant to small business, consumers and the environment. It would be nice if we actually had somepractical growth towards dealing with what is good for the environment. We have that now. We havefinally got that, but it took a change of government.

I commend the minister for his hard work on this. I know that this is something that he is verypassionate about. Those on our side of the House are passionate about real and genuine reform tomake sure that both the environment is protected and that opportunities for Queenslanders are ensured.What we do not want to see are environmental extreme policies locking up opportunity in Queensland,because day after day in this parliament we continue to see the carnage that is the aftermath of theformer government. People in Queensland need jobs. We know that there are 30,000-plus people whoare on a waiting list to get into public housing. Those opposite do not like talking about that waiting list,but anyone on our side of the House who has actually owned a business knows that when you employsomeone—when you get those barriers out of the way—you end up with people in jobs. They then getinto a house, strangely enough, because they can actually afford to live with dignity. That is somethingthat the former Labor government would not give a hoot about. It did not give a hoot about the dignitythat Queenslanders deserve. It is this sort of legislation—whether it be green-tape reduction or anyother piece of legislation that this government has already brought in—that is about giving dignity backto Queenslanders and giving practical solutions back to Queensland business and alleviating the greentape, in this case, that falls on the departmental officers who have to wade their way through and wastetheir time going through repetitive forms and applications.

We have a situation again where members of the opposition are more interested in not goingalong with licensing that will be in line with jobs creation and risk. They think that they can do better.When the Magnificent Seven had the few extras around this place they could not do any better, so I donot know what this group thinks they are going to contribute, because they seem to defend everythingthe former Labor government did. In fact, they cannot wait for the carnage that is going to occur againstQueensland businesses as the carbon tax—another Labor tax on doing business in this country—reaches further in and further destroys those job opportunities for Queenslanders.

Mr PITT: I rise to a point of order. This is a bill for particular purposes and I ask you to again ruleon relevance under standing order 139.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Krause): There is no point of order, Manager of OppositionBusiness. Please resume your seat. The member for Redcliffe has the call, with five seconds on theclock.

Mr PITT: With respect, the long title of the bill—


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat please, Manager of Opposition Business. There isno point of order.

Mr DRISCOLL: As much as Labor does not like it, I commend this bill to the House.

Mr HOLSWICH (Pine Rivers—LNP) (5.34 pm): I rise to speak in support of the EnvironmentalProtection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill is an important bill forbusinesses in Pine Rivers, particularly small and medium businesses, as it will ultimately start to reducethe administrative burden of government legislation and green and red tape on these businesses—aburden that has been steadily growing in recent years under the previous Labor government. If there isone complaint I hear from Pine Rivers businesses almost more than any other it is that governmentsseem to make a sport out of inventing new administrative processes for businesses to follow. Too manyowners of small and medium sized businesses that I talk to spend an exorbitant amount of time andmoney completing paperwork and meeting ever-expanding government requirements. So instead ofgetting on with running their business, making a profit and employing more staff, they find themselvessidetracked in an administrative nightmare. It has been estimated that the changes proposed in this billwill save each standard applicant an average of $20,000 in application preparation costs, 150 pagesworth of application and will save an average of 68 days in processing time. It does not take a rocketscientist to figure out that this can only be good for businesses.

There are also other benefits to businesses in this bill. By introducing the single licence type ofthe environmental authority, it offers a degree of flexibility that will allow a business a more simplifiedprocess to alter an approval as their business grows. Businesses in Pine Rivers again regularly talk tome about the hassles that government administration causes when their business starts to grow.Whether it be payroll tax, green tape or charges related to developing new infrastructure, it becomes asad state of affairs when a business would rather stay at the size they are now because it is too muchstress for them to try to grow. Ultimately this attitude that business owners feel themselves forced intoimpedes the creation of new employment opportunities in a business that might otherwise be able togrow to whole new levels.

As well as the obvious benefits for business, I think it is vitally important to note that thesechanges will not reduce environmental standards. These improvements to the administrative processesare just that—administrative improvements—and they will not impact the outcomes that are required bythe Environmental Protection Act 1994. I note also that all current penalties for noncompliance areretained, as well as there being new measures introduced to ensure compliance. The changesproposed in this bill will free up department staff from having to spend as much time assessing low-riskactivities and give greater scope for department staff to put more of a focus into the high-risk activities. Itis quite foreseeable that a consequence of this is that we will actually end up with better assessment ofhigh-risk activities, leading to higher environmental outcomes, whilst at the same time reducingadministrative green-tape burdens on businesses, department staff and local government.

In speaking of local government, it is pleasing to see that this bill will also streamline theadministrative processes for local governments, as well as providing long-term savings for localgovernments in a number of ways. As I mentioned before, it will reduce the administration required forlow-risk activities; it will provide reductions in the assessment processes for development applications; itwill reduce unnecessary planning referrals to local governments; it will remove the need for registrationcertificates; and it will streamline the maintenance of approval documents. The downside to this is thatthere are some short-term implementation costs foreshadowed. However, I think any local governmentwill be accepting of this in order to realise those long-term benefits, and of course these are not justbenefits for councils but flow on to local businesses as well.

I also want to make just a quick comment on the impact this bill will have on the mining andpetroleum approval processes. Whilst this really will not directly impact the Pine Rivers electorate, it isan important step towards strengthening the resources pillar of our economy. The fact that an estimated2,400 small mining operators will no longer need to complete a 15-page administrative requirement aspart of an approvals process will no doubt allow the approvals process to be completed in a more timelymanner, something the previous government struggled to get a handle on at any stage.

It was interesting to hear the contribution from the member for South Brisbane tonight claimingcredit for this bill. I seem to have heard the point that it was only really the election that got in the way ofthis bill being passed under the previous Labor government. The facts of the matter are it had 14 yearsin government to implement legislation such as this, but did it? No, it did not! I have to say that theelection did not just sneak up on it. It knew when it was due. It saw the date on the calendar, or maybeits skills in reading a calendar are comparable with its skills in balancing a budget! The facts are Labordid not implement this legislation. It could not deliver. In just over three months the Newman governmentis delivering.

This Labor opposition seems to have a selective memory. They are keen to claim credit for a billlike this that they did not actually get into legislation. ‘It’s ours, it’s ours; get your hands off it’, is the crythat we hear from them. Maybe the opposition do not get enough credit for the things that they diddeliver for this state. Let us give them credit for what they did deliver. These are some of their




achievements that we do not hear much from them about so I am pleased to mention them tonight andgive them a bit of a run: they delivered the Health payroll system; they delivered 31,000 people on publichousing waiting lists—congratulations!; they delivered 90,000 pages of red tape.

Mr Crisafulli: Tick!Mr HOLSWICH: Tick, exactly. They delivered on that one. Ms Trad interjected. Mr HOLSWICH: They did not deliver as a government, they are not delivering as an opposition.

Forget about any sort of delusions of grandeur, I think the Labor opposition are having delusions ofadequacy. That is what they are suffering from.

Ms Trad interjected. Mr PITT: I rise again on a matter of relevance under standing order 139. This is a restricted title

for particular purposes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Krause): Order! Manager of Opposition Business, please resume

your seat. There is no point of order on relevance. Mr DRISCOLL: I rise to a point of order. I want to point out that the member for South Brisbane is

continually interjecting and is not in her own seat. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Redcliffe, resume your seat. There is no point of order. Mr HOLSWICH: The Newman government made a strong commitment to businesses in the lead-

up to this year’s election. We made a commitment to cut government red tape and government greentape and regulation by 20 per cent. We made a commitment to get out of the way of business as muchas possible and let business owners get on with what they are good at: running their business,employing staff and making a profit. The reforms in this bill will contribute to that commitment and theywill also reduce delays and improve certainty for business and will ultimately make it easier and cheaperfor businesses to establish themselves in Queensland.

I am pleased also to see that the minister has foreshadowed further potential legislative changesthat would benefit other industries and I eagerly await further legislation coming before this House. I ama passionate believer in the value of small businesses to my electorate and to our state and I willcontinue to do whatever I can to help these businesses succeed. I am proud to be a member of agovernment that is making supporting small businesses a priority and I am pleased to commend this billto the House.

Hon. JA STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Small Business andthe Commonwealth Games) (5.41 pm): I rise to join the debate on the Environmental Protection(Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 introduced on 29 May by theMinister for Environment and Heritage Protection, the honourable member for Glass House. On behalfof so many of Queensland’s small businesses I wish to place on record their thanks to the minister forintroducing this legislation. The bill was referred to the Agriculture, Resources and EnvironmentCommittee to report back by 12 June. The committee recommended the bill be passed and made sevensubsequent recommendations. As stated in the explanatory notes, the primary policy objectives of thebill are to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1994 to introduce a licensing model proportionate toenvironmental risk; introduce flexible operational approvals; streamline the approvals process for miningand petroleum; streamline and clarify information requirements; and achieve the above whilstmaintaining environmental outcomes.

Since its establishment the Environmental Protection Act 1994 has become unnecessarilycomplex and difficult to navigate for both government and business, particularly in relation toenvironmentally relevant activities or ERAs. Under successive Labor governments and countlessenvironment ministers green tape has increased substantially with no consideration for the impact onbusinesses that have been caught up in it. This is typical of the regulatory creep that has plagued somany of our industries as a result of Labor’s addiction to overregulation.

The LNP understands the importance of reducing the regulatory burden for businesses andindustry, which is why we have ensured this bill be debated as soon as possible in the new parliament.Most notably, this bill will replace chapters 4, 5, 5A and 6 with a new chapter 5 to simplify the approvalprocess for environmental authorities. Replacing these chapters will remove 90 pages—I repeat, 90pages—of regulation from the act. I certainly congratulate the minister for his determination to see thisthrough. This is a major positive step towards our government’s goal of slashing red tape by 20 per centover six years. It will be a challenging task to reduce the 92,000-plus pages of red tape and regulationinflicted on our state by those opposite and their former colleagues, but I am sure honourable membersin this House will agree it is indeed a great start. If I were to be generous I would say that Labor finallywoke up to the errors of their ways just before the election by introducing a bill to address some green-tape issues and bragging that this was the largest reform to the environmental approval system in 15years, but it was obviously more about saving their own skin than caring about helping small businessesbecause Labor did not even have a small business policy going into the state election.

Government members: Disgraceful!





Mrs STUCKEY: Absolutely shameful. I take the interjections from honourable members. We allheard the confused contribution from the member for South Brisbane, who on one hand claimed that itwas Labor’s bill but then criticised us for not allowing enough time for consultation while admitting thatthe process commenced in 2010. However, I think the honourable member for Pine Rivers hit the nail onthe head. Conversely, the LNP are committed to providing real relief for the Queensland businesscommunity, particularly for the 412,000 small businesses that have been choking under reams ofcumbersome regulations heaped on them by a Labor government that dislikes small businesses.

Currently most ERAs must go through what is best described as a one-size-fits-all siteassessment. Primarily this bill will streamline the application process by implementing a licensingsystem that is proportionate to risk. Firstly, a standard application for lower risk businesses that met setcriteria will be automatically approved to operate under set conditions; secondly, a variation applicationwill allow applicants to apply for limited assessment to change the standard conditions where the activitydoes not meet the set criteria; and, thirdly, a site specific application will be used where a fullassessment is required for high-risk activities.

I reiterate the minister’s comments in his introductory speech that small and medium sizedbusinesses will benefit most from automatic approvals. The introduction of this system will see around50 per cent of all applications processed become standard—that is, automatic—which I understandwould amount to approximately 410 applications per year. Individual applicants will save an average of$20,000 in application preparation costs, 150 pages in avoided application materials and 68 days inprocessing time. Furthermore, according to the explanatory notes, businesses will benefit through theability to obtain, transfer or amend licences in a simpler and clearer manner. There will also be lessadministrative burden for businesses through the application of corporate licences and thestandardisation of conditions across multiple sites. Undoubtedly these provisions will go a long way toreducing unnecessary and bothersome processing delays.

As many members in the House would know, as many in the government have a small businessbackground, for small business time means money. Time spent filling in forms can steal over 500 hoursper year from a range of small and micro businesses. A common complaint from businesses that Isurveyed as I travelled our great state as the shadow minister for small business was one-size-fits-all fordealing with government departments. I visited the minister’s electorate. Not just Montville, Minister, alsoMaleny—a very pretty part of the world, indeed. Guess which government department on my travelswas mentioned the most? DERM! The former monstrosity under Labor that businesses automaticallyassociated with delay, duplication, endless paperwork and frustration. Tourism businesses especiallywere being given the run-around, hindered by mounds of application forms and permits, not to mentionthe unsustainable increases in fees and charges. The streamlining provisions in this bill are good newsfor our state’s small businesses as they will add up to a reduction of 62,000 pages of paperwork per yearand save the Queensland business community an estimated $11.7 million annually.

I was also pleased to hear that the minister has asked his department to review the list ofenvironmentally relevant activities in the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008 to identifyopportunities to deregulate small businesses that are not licensed in other states. We promised toimprove the regulatory environment of our small businesses and we are delivering.

Members may be aware that the Newman government’s inaugural DestinationQ forum was heldin Cairns in the last week of June. It was attended by over 320 delegates from the tourism industryacross the state and it was declared a resounding success. A key focus stream of the forum wasecotourism, which is a sector that the Newman government is keen to see returned to its former gloryhere in Queensland. In recent years our ecotourism industry has been stifled, largely due to an increasein green tape from not just one department but several.

During the DestinationQ forum, the industry worked with our government to identify some keypriorities to revitalise ecotourism, and this bill contains provisions that will enable us to begin doing justthat. Those include developing a long-term ecotourism plan incorporating Indigenous cultural heritageand adventure tourism, addressing land-use planning issues around ecotourism developments,reducing the current permits required to access national parks and finetuning the Tourism in ProtectedAreas initiative. Over the coming 12 months, my tourism cabinet colleagues and I will be working hard toensure we can create the right environment for sustainable ecotourism opportunities to flourish andprovide clarity and certainty when it comes to environmental controls for operators.

This legislation will ensure the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act to protect ourenvironment is maintained, while offering clearer and simpler approval processes for our businesses.Again I congratulate the minister on his commitment to reducing green tape, particularly for our smallbusinesses. With Labor’s looming man-made disaster in the form of a carbon tax slugging our smallbusinesses where it hurts them the most, the LNP is all the more determined to assist the backbone ofQueensland’s economy, our 400,000-plus small businesses, and ensure environmental protection isvalued in a sustainable manner.

Mr BOOTHMAN (Albert—LNP) (5.52 pm): Today I stand here in support of the EnvironmentalProtection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, which is long overdue inQueensland. This bill is about introducing a licensing model that is proportionate to environmental risk,introducing flexible operational approvals, streamlining the approvals process for mining and petroleum,






streamlining and clarifying information requirements, and achieving that while maintainingenvironmental outcomes. This bill is good for business and it is certainly good for employment. Onceagain it shows that this government is committed to building this state, building a better future for allQueenslanders and, most importantly, maintaining strong environmental safeguards in the state.

Since taking office in the electorate of Albert, I have been inundated by small and medium sizedbusinesses requesting support through the reduction of red tape and government bureaucracy. I ampleased to state that the pleas of business are being heard by this proactive Newman government. Theelectorates of Albert and Coomera form the manufacturing hub of the south-east corner, and we rely onchanges to environmental policy acts to better service businesses in our areas.

Our government is committed to building a four-pillar economy. This legislation has the potentialto produce $12.5 million per year in savings for business, which is surely good for business. Since itsestablishment, the Environmental Protection Act 1994 has become increasingly complex for businessand government to administer. Furthermore, environmentally relevant activities have not been reviewedsubstantially since their establishment within the Environmental Protection Act 1994. By simplifying theenvironmental regulatory framework, we can implement a more proportionate regulatory context toensure activities with higher environmental risk receive adequate attention. The current regulatoryenvironment has become unnecessarily complex, time consuming and difficult to navigate.

The objectives of this bill are to create single approval processes for environmental authorities. Itdeletes three duplicate chapters in the Environmental Protection Act which removes 90 pages ofregulation. In addition, no longer will there be a requirement to submit an additional environmentalmanagement plan as the environmental management plan has been merged into the applicationprocess. That is smart. It will save business time and money and will streamline the application processto a more logical format.

As previously stated, the creation of a regulatory framework proportionate to risk in comparison toa one-size-fits-all assessment will create efficiencies that will reduce delays in approvals and will givebusiness certainty while maintaining strict environmental safeguards. Environmental authorisation canbe applied for in three ways, based on the risk posed to the environment. The first is standardconditions, which allows business to review published eligibility criteria. This provides applicants withclarity on expectations and gives applicants the ability to ensure their businesses are situated inappropriate locations. Examples of businesses making standard applications include wood productmanufacturing and screening.

Secondly, this bill allows for limited assessment changes. The bill provides for flexibility whereoperators cannot meet all standard conditions. Operators may apply for a variation to the application,which may alter some of the conditions. Finally, there is a site-specific application, which is a full siteassessment for high-risk activities.

To further reduce red tape, the bill allows companies that hold environmental authorities atdifferent sites to amalgamate those licences into a single environmental authority. This will create anenvironment of single administrative conditions and promote business investment through a simplifiedapproach. The changes will make the process for amending environmental licences far simpler,enabling business to grow and adapt to future changes. This bill will allow each applicant to save onaverage $20,000 in preparation costs and avoid 150 pages of red tape and, on average, 68 days inprocessing time.

After full implementation the department estimates that around half of all ERA applicants will beable to apply for a standard automatic application process. This has the potential to save 410 applicantsper year additional cumbersome paperwork. Other possible green-tape reforms may include thedepartment exploring the removal of the requirement for small business ERAs to obtain anenvironmental authority at all. This has possible ramifications for motor vehicle workshops, boilermakers, sheet metal and chemical storage businesses.

Once again, it proves the Newman government is proactive in helping Queensland businesses.This legislation will help businesses and residents in Albert by creating jobs. It gives applicants clearcriteria on what to expect in carrying out environmentally relevant activities. This gives Albertbusinesses the ability to embark on proactive approaches in establishing and situating theirenvironmentally relevant business in appropriate locations.

This Newman government is committed to building business while implementing strictenvironmental safeguards. It is about building jobs. It is about giving certainty to business and acting onour commitment to reduce green tape. Unfortunately, this cannot be said about our current federal Laborgovernment and its promise to reduce red tape. With the implementation of the carbon tax, a whole newlevel of bureaucracy has been created, creating enormous expense for business and forcinghardworking families, singles and pensioners into uncertain futures. I commend the Hon. Andrew Powellon introducing this bill and commend it to the House for careful consideration.

Mrs MADDERN (Maryborough—LNP) (6.01 pm): I rise to speak on the Environment Protection(Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. Over the past 20 years myhusband and I have owned an independent valuation business. Registered valuers in the business,





myself included, have over this time provided advice to developers and financiers in terms of assessingrisks associated with proposed projects. Financiers, in particular, base many of their decisions on theadvice provided. The impact of red tape—and in the case of this bill green tape—on our work and theadvice we were able to provide was significant.

Over the past 10 years the processes required for development approvals and environmentalapprovals for environmentally relevant activities have become complex, time consuming and costly interms of the supporting documentation required. Probably an even bigger negative impact relates to thepossible changes in market conditions which could happen or were happening over the extended periodrequired for approvals. Changes in market conditions could well impact negatively on the viability of aproject. The uncertainty in the time line for approvals in itself puts pressure on financiers to increasetheir risk factors for borrowers resulting in an increase in holding charges and development costs. Asvaluers we also factored in the risk associated with the uncertainty which resulted as a consequence ofthe processes and time involved in gaining approvals, further complicating the whole developmentprocess.

I have spoken to other professionals who provide some of the supporting documentation fordevelopment and approval processes. Their comment is that they have continued to spend greaterproportions of their time reading legislation and regulation in an effort to understand the process and theinformation required. They find this frustrating, time consuming and expensive. Quite often, afterconsiderable work, they find that they have to revisit and rework the whole process to comply.

Given the current financial state of affairs in Queensland and the quite fragile global financialenvironment, it is critical that business be supported and encouraged to grow and expand. I believe thatproviding certainty in the application process, both for the developer-business entity and the bankingsystem is a significant step in ensuring growth in the business sector.

I note the research carried out by the Chamber of Commercial Industry Queensland in a paper ofDecember 2011 where it stated—78% of respondents indicated that government regulation has affected their ability to employ staff

70% of respondents indicated that government regulation had prevented them from investing in business growth

Regulation is acting as a disincentive to business growth, particularly where business size and turnover trigger additionalcompliance responsibilities.

This research underpins the need for a streamlining of applications and processes in order to build ourbusiness sector.

This bill seeks to introduce a licensing model proportionate to environmental risk, introduceflexible operation approvals, streamline the approvals process for mining and petroleum projects andstreamline and clarify information requirements whilst maintaining environmental outcomes. It willintroduce a single integrated approval process for all environmentally relevant activities from the smallmotor vehicle workshops to the largest mines. However, while there is a single approval process, it isnot a one-size-fits-all process, as is the current situation.

The bill will provide three ways to apply for an environmental authority for environmentallyrelevant activities including: one, a standard application which gives an automatic approval withstandard conditions for ERAs that meet set criteria; two, a variation application triggers when anapplication meets almost all of the criteria for a standard application but there are a small number ofactivities which do not fit the criteria—this application form gives the capacity for just those activitieswhich do not fit the criteria to be assessed rather than having all factors assessed as in the currentmodel; and, three, a site specific application which will require full assessment for high-risk activities.

My focus is on small business as the engine of the economy. It is small business which has alesser capacity to absorb the costs and uncertainty of the application process due to the very fact that itis a small business.

This bill will give a small business proposing to establish an operation requiring an ERA theopportunity to check the risks and requirements before proceeding. If the proposed operation fits withinthe criteria for a standard ERA, the business owner will know what conditions will apply, how long thetime frames for approval may be and the costs in complying. Certainty in all of these areas encouragesa commitment to a business operation, both by the owners and developers and also by the financiersbacking the venture. In addition, since the conditions are already specified, there is no requirement forcosts to be incurred in seeking professional advice to establish what conditions may apply for anenvironmental approval for a standard application.

The department has advised that it is estimated that approximately half of all applications—estimated at around 450—per annum will be able to access the standard or automatic approval process.This is a significant saving to business but also to government in terms of the cost to process approvals.It currently costs in the order of $20,000 to prepare an application. This is expected to fall to around$500 for the preparation of a standard application. It is further estimated that the time taken to process astandard application will be reduced by around 68 days. Given that most projects incur holding andinterest charges during this process, this will be a significant saving to business. The total savings in


terms of application costs and holding and interest charges is estimated to be $11.35 million per annumfor those businesses accessing the standard application process. In addition, there will beadministrative savings to state and local governments. Further, there is the capacity for those proposedoperations which do not quite fit the standard to have only those areas of risk which do not fit the criteriaassessed and conditions applied with the resultant savings in cost and time both for the proponent andalso the government.

The bill provides for a streamlined process for ERAs for mining and petroleum projects withremoval of duplication, a change to the timing of public notification which will reduce the overall timeframe for an approval and in some cases the removal of the need to prepare plans of operation for smallminers. The bill will implement processes which will reduce ongoing administrative costs suchas amalgamating approvals for multiple sites into a single document with one annual reporting and fee-paying date and simplifying the process of amending an environmental authority to enable business togrow and change over time.

In a further effort to minimise costs and delays in the assessment process for environmentalapprovals, the bill will establish a register of suitably qualified persons and environmental auditors. Theregister will be accessible to the public, allowing applicants to access qualified support in the applicationprocess. A suitably qualified person will be able to provide advice, but the application will still have to befully assessed by the department. However, documentation provided by an independent environmentalauditor will be accepted by the department without further investigation.

There will also be a register of suitable operators. Persons on this register will have beenassessed as being suitable to hold an environmental approval. A person will be able to apply to beassessed as a suitable person to hold an environmental licence without actually having applied for suchlicence. If the applicant is already registered, the assessment process for an environmental approval willbe further shortened. It is proposed to develop detailed guidelines and supporting information to assistbusinesses in the application process.

This legislation, both in the previous format and the currently presented format, has hadsignificant scrutiny from the community, stakeholders, local government and government departments.As with all proposed legislation, there are parts of the legislation which are subject to differinginterpretations of the future impacts on stakeholders. I note that the member for South Brisbane hasclaimed that the scrutinising of the legislation was carried out under the previous government and thecommittee report was ready for tabling, although this process ceased due to the election. However, themember is now claiming that insufficient consultation has taken place. I note that the committee wasgiven access to all the previous consultation. There seems to be some inconsistency in the assessmentof the consultation process by members of the opposition.

The Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee, of which I am a member, has givenserious consideration to the feedback provided, and this is reflected in the report which has beenprepared and tabled. There were seven recommendations and four points of clarification. The ministerhas noted the issues raised by these recommendations and points of clarification in his speech, and Ithank him for the work put into addressing these issues. While the consultation process has raised anumber of areas of concern, with due consideration these concerns can and will be appropriatelymanaged.

I note that the explanatory notes indicate a period of three years as proposed by the departmentfor the development of the standard risk assessments and the standard conditions to be utilised for thestandard and variation applications. Expediting this process will contribute towards the implementationof the application process of this bill in a timely fashion.

In summary, the purpose of the bill is to encourage growth and development of business andindustry, to increase employment, while at the same time ensuring that appropriate environmentalstandards are maintained. Increased economic activity is required to support tertiary services such ashospitals, schools and the public sector. This bill will implement policies and procedures to streamlinethe application process for environmental approvals and, in the process, provide more certainty in termsof time and cost for the proponents of new developments or businesses while at the same time reducingassessment costs in the department.

I thank the member for Lockyer, the chair of the Agriculture, Resources and EnvironmentCommittee, for his leadership of the committee in scrutinising this legislation. I thank also my colleaguesand the parliamentary staff. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr CRANDON (Coomera—LNP) (6.12 pm): I rise to give a very short contribution to theEnvironmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. I mustsay that I felt a little underprepared to debate this bill—a little bit ‘ALP-ish’, if you like. Then I cameacross this, a statement from the minister—The Greentape Reduction Bill is the most significant reform to licensing processes in over a decade. It will save businesses andgovernment $12.5 million and contributes to the Newman government’s target of reducing red tape and regulation by 20 per cent.

After consulting with industry it is evident that businesses need certainty to invest and flexibility to allow for growth. Theamendments will deliver just that.





There you have it—very succinct. The Liberal National Party stands for efficiency. The differencebetween the LNP government and the ALP government is that we get things done. Many have spokenabout the intricacies in this legislation, so I will just congratulate the minister, the committee and themembers who have put so much effort into their speeches about this bill. The passing of this bill will gotowards getting Queensland back on track. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—LNP) (6.14 pm): This is a very big revision bill of probably the mostcontentious area of politics in the last 30 years—that of the environment. Interestingly, it is occurring at atime when green politics are now being seriously questioned by a large bulk of the previous cheersquad, the Australian Labor Party. Sam Dastyari, Paul Howes, Greg Combet and Joel Fitzgibbon havepublicly condemned the Greens as the extreme left of politics and, by default, not representative ofanything to do with the environment. They have been compared to ‘Hansonism’—One Nation lunacy.Therefore, the environmental true champions have become the conservative parties as Labor lurched tojoin the extremists. Labor leaders have called on their party to come to common, sensible ground. Thatis where this green-tape reduction bill is taking us.

Labor has a responsibility to support this bill, and I was pleased to hear that their members will doso if for no other reason than their own leadership is challenging them to do so. I would like to give a fewmore reasons why all parliamentary members might support this bill. In no particular order, they are thatthis bill improves access, it decreases costs, it reduces time delay, it increases transparency, it is easierto process and especially it is what the public voted for.

All speakers have gone through the acts affected or amended by the bill. These includeeverything from the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill 2003 all the way to the Water Supply (Safety andReliability) Act 2008. The relevant Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee has assessedthe bill and made appropriate recommendations. The tortuous 18-month path has been detailed byeveryone—the minister to the committee chair and various new committee members have highlightedthose things. I endorse all the comments made by the member for Lockyer, who stated clearly that thishas been good legislation made even better. Former minister Vicky Darling does deserve some credit,as does the new minister, Andrew Powell, who followed her in that portfolio.

This legislation does everything that one might hope occurs during the transition of governmentwith good governance and justifies the need for regulation. Streamlining is the key offered by the bill toanyone from small to big business. In doing so, it appears the department removes itself from being theobstacle and, hopefully, becomes the vehicle. This bill will result in 90 fewer pages of regulations, anaverage $20,000 saved on ERA application costs, 150 fewer pages in terms of paperwork and twomonths less processing time. Thankfully, some small businesses will be saved the need to obtain anenvironmental authority at all. The minister highlighted motor vehicle workshops, boilermakers, smallchemical storage places—for example, pool suppliers were being affected by this.

The previous legislation was a nonsense and, for too many, a regulatory nightmare. It becameeasier not to do business at all because the paper chase required due to environmental protection hadbecome an absolutely confusing and difficult area with threatening penalties and was prohibitivelyexpensive. It simply was not worth the effort. If the internet and retail problems were already not hardenough in the last five years following on from the 2007 credit crunch, we had Labor green-tingedgovernments lurching for reasons to block not just existing businesses but newly emerging ones whenwe desperately needed them. Bureaucracies were built layer upon layer to service and process thepaper demanded from suppliers. The customers were oblivious to what was going on other than thatthey were losing suppliers—and this was highlighted today by the member for Mirani—especially criticalsuppliers in regional towns. This was for no other reason that they were aware of than it was too hard todo business.

It is arguable that these changes do not go far enough. I intend to give a small example in myelectorate of Gaven. It is fairly humble, but it goes to show how many times this might happen. I wasrecently contacted by a constituent living under a body corporate who wanted to remove a 25-year-oldficus tree from his front yard as he was concerned it would impact on his home if it fell during a storm.The tree’s extensive root system was damaging the body corporate’s roadway, gutters and curbing andpotentially my constituent’s home’s foundation. He gained approval from the body corporate and thensubmitted a form to the local council. He was visited by a local parks officer who advised him that hecould not access the tree because it was not on public land and that he needed a state government formfor tree removal from private land—read DERM. He paid $47 for the application and is now waiting on avisit from council.

My constituent argued that the state government should trust local government to administer treeapplications on both private and public land. Furthermore, the body corporate administers applicationson their land without the need to refer to other jurisdictions. My constituent’s body corporate is aresponsible entity and cares for several acres of parkland along the Nerang River and Crane Creek inconjunction with the local government and Land for Wildlife, and DERM is involved with that anyway.Over the last 12 years it has undertaken a weed eradication program and extensive planting. That is onesmall example.





In a broader example, we had a problem where we had a lot of flooding rain last year and we hadto involve the former DERM. What we saw was the most confused situation. We had major felled logsblocking Clagiraba Creek, which is on my south-western border with the electorate of Mudgeeraba. Thelogs were being felled upstream by the military in accordance with the demands by DERM to controltheir own waterway. The logs were possibly going to destroy the causeway—this is a major causeway—because the flooding rains were continuing. We were told that nothing could be done. The departmentcame out along with some engineers and some other people. We could not even remove the cut logsbecause it was deemed that they were part of the river. A lot of paperwork was exchanged, and we weretotally ignored. Upstream damming then occurred. There was flooding of the property. Land wasdestroyed along with fencing, housing and a lot of wildlife, but nothing further could be done. Under theold DNR, the local timber getter would have been allowed to sneak the logs with a single phone call.Can anyone tell me what the legislation that has been imposed on us for 20 years has actually done?

Like many members, I had the great privilege of having a rural experience growing up. As ayoung adult I had to learn everything from operating a small sewerage plant, growing food forcommercial sale and being self-sufficient. Legislation for average Queenslanders and small businessowners throughout Queensland over the last 20 years by Labor in government went from puerile to jobdestroying to ultimately government destroying. This is no mean feat. The sustainability declaration,introduced in another bill, was absolute proof—if anyone needed it—that we had moved beyond positiveregulation to regulation for regulation’s sake and at a ridiculous level. Honestly, we can never go backthere. This green-tape reduction bill is part of that process.

There are parallels between this bill and what is slowly happening in the financial system, whichwe discuss day after day in parliament, where the world has begun an epic, long-term balance sheetadjustment. Just as the credit unleashed 30 years ago—and a Labor government 20 years ago—allowed unhinged governments such as the former Labor government to go on spending sprees,leading to near insolvency, we had new-age departments, such as DERM—the former EPA and DNRlinked together—go on a social science experiment that ended in near disaster for the state. Thankfully,it became extinct and the government was routed. These departments became overweight, like thebanks. They decided that bigger was better and if the customer could not pay directly then theprovider—read businesses, and that is small and large and lots in between—would pay. It never works.It was a policy driven by ego and pride and not enough by reality and humility. Just as the banks must goback to collecting savings and paying interest, the environmental authorities have to return to providingsage advice and facilitating sound business proposals involving the environment. Correctly the memberfor Redcliffe stated that the former legislation was anti jobs. In fact, it was job destroying.

Honourable members, we must go further. I put it to the minister that the committee continues totry to shrink this legislation even further over the next 12 months. We have an historic opportunity at atime when Labor has declared the Greens the enemy, and we might just get real action as we combinetogether to get that solved.

Mrs FRANCE (Pumicestone—LNP) (6.23 pm): I rise to support the Environmental Protection(Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I have spent many years as anenvironmental scientist labouring under the Environmental Protection Act and its onerous, costlyrequirements that do nothing more than defy common sense and good business practices. I am thrilledto be able to stand here today as an environmental scientist and commend this bill to the House.

While there are many excellent features of this bill, I would like to draw the House’s attention tothe green-tape reduction benefits in relation to resource activities which deliver significant benefits toboth the mining and petroleum industry and the regulating body. As Assistant Minister for NaturalResources and Mines, and coming from a background as an environmental scientist, I believe that thisbill provides for long-overdue reform while maintaining environmental outcomes. The LNP governmentis committed to cutting red tape and cutting costs, and this bill does both.

The bill streamlines the approval process for mining and petroleum activities by replacing thecurrent process, which is considered unnecessarily onerous, with a clear step-by-step process frominitial application through to decision stages. This amendment effectively replaces three chapters of theEnvironmental Protection Act with one simple, easy-to-follow chapter, deleting more than 90 pages oflegislation in the process. These changes bring a number of additional benefits to the mining andpetroleum industry including removing the requirement for an environmental management plan—whichduplicated other application requirements—which is to be replaced with a clear list of requirements aspart of the application for an environmental authority.

For small miners, the bill removes the requirement for a plan of operations for standard miningoperations, previously known as level 2 mines, benefiting approximately 2,400 mining lessees. This willremove a 15-page administrative requirement for around 2,400 operators in Queensland. When you addit up, this means a total of 36,000 pages of red tape removed and a huge time and cost saving foroperators.

The bill also streamlines the resource tenure and environmental authority approval process inalignment with the Streamlining Mining and Petroleum Approvals Project, led by the Department ofNatural Resources and Mines. The environmental authority will now be linked to the resource tenure




11 Jul 2012 Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1161

and will transfer automatically with the transfer of tenure. This will remove the need for transferapplications under the Environmental Protection Act, meaning over 250 applications per year will nolonger be required. This represents a significant cost saving for businesses.

The money and time saved by these measures will benefit state and local government as well asQueensland businesses, all the while maintaining the state’s high environmental standards. Up untilnow the mining and petroleum sector has experienced unnecessary duplicated steps in the applicationprocess and an excessive and unnecessary administrative burden on mining operators. For example,operators have been required to make multiple reports at different dates and have differentmanagement systems and training for each site to cope with the differing conditions. The streamlining ofprocess achieved by this bill will be greatly welcomed by operators.

This bill introduces a new corporate licence system to replace numerous approvals with onecorporate approval for all sites and environmental activities. I expect that both operators and regulatorswill breathe a sigh of relief when these new simplified and streamlined amendments come into force.The LNP government has made a commitment to reducing red tape, and this bill is another step in theright direction. It is clear that this kind of reform will be welcomed by an industry currently caught up inthe bureaucratic processes of the past Labor government.

It is a good environmental outcome and business solution and this is what is important, notonerous and unnecessary administrative requirements and excessive fees. This bill is a good exampleof what can be achieved and the savings that can be made when a government is serious about workingfor its people. This bill is just good, common-sense thinking. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mrs France, adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 6.28 pm to 7.30 pm.

WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING AMENDMENT REGULATION (NO. 1)


Ms TRAD (South Brisbane—ALP) (7.30 pm): I move—That the Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2012, Subordinate Legislation No. 77 of 2012, tabled inthe House on 10 July 2012, be disallowed.

The repealing of the Queensland waste levy is belligerent and an unthinking decision. It is entirelyconsistent with this LNP government, although it is not surprising coming from a government that wantsto take Queensland back—back to the good old days, back to a time when you could call your LNP mateand send them down to the government printers to measure up before moving in, back to a time whenthere was no accountability, no answers, no FOI, no RTI, and certainly back to a time when there was nofuture thought about the environment and how to protect it for future generations.

It is even more inconceivable that a government in the 21st century would seek to repeal a wastelevy and bring the state out of step with the rest of Australia when you look at the outcome that effectivewaste management strategies have had on modern civilisation—from proper sewerage systems thathave led to improved public health and better urban environments and that are the cornerstone ofmodern society, to council rates levied to ensure the proper processing of domestic waste and ensureour streets are clean, and then to air quality which is cleaner because making polluters pay and makingpollutants more expensive means changes in behaviour.

I know the minister has heard this before. He was present at the Landcare state conference whenAustralian of the Year, Tim Flannery, articulated just this. Either he just does not get it or he just does notcare. If we want a cleaner environment, we have to use the levers available to government to changebehaviour. Today I rise to oppose the repeal of the waste levy because Queensland cannot go backnow.

The introduction of a waste levy was a move designed to bring Queensland into the 21st century.This fact was acknowledged by the member for Noosa and then opposition spokesperson, Glen Elmes,in parliament on 11 June 2010. He stood in this House and said—Queensland is the last state in Australia to introduce such a levy. On World Environment Day, the Premier, the Treasurer and thethen acting minister jointly confessed that Queensland’s waste management industry would finally be dragged into the 21stcentury ... This certainly is a win for the recycling industry, with a promised 7,000 jobs and an expanded industry, and it is a win forthe environment if it reduces landfill by a third as projected.

These were the words from the member for Noosa. I table a copy of the member’s speech for thebenefit of the House.Tabled paper: Extract from the Record of Proceedings, dated 11 June 2012, pages 2184-7, regarding the Appropriation Bills andRevenue Legislation Amendment Bill [513].

With such a well-researched and considered opinion, I look forward to the member for Noosasupporting this disallowance motion in the House here tonight.




1162 Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 11 Jul 2012

As members would know, the previous Labor government unveiled plans to introduce a wastelevy as part of the Waste Reduction and Recycling Strategy 2010-20. The Waste Reduction andRecycling Act 2011 outlines the waste levy charges which were introduced in December 2011. This levyadds $35 per tonne to general waste, $50 per tonne for low hazard waste and $150 per tonne for highhazard waste. Despite what those opposite claim, the levy does not apply to domestic or householdwaste. It is a charge on industry and it is avoidable if businesses act to reduce their landfill disposal. Theintroduction of the waste levy is good Labor policy. It was built from years of careful consideration—


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! Those on my right will cease interjecting. Themember has the call.

Ms TRAD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your control of the chamber. It was built from yearsof careful consideration and consultation. In the process of developing the legislation, Labor sought tobring people together—councils, businesses, environmentalists and academics. The waste levy is anexample of what Labor does best: it delivers for future generations. Indeed, Labor continues to have oureyes firmly set on the future—a future where sustainable business practices are rewarded and ourdependence on landfill is reduced, a future where Queensland is the No. 1 state in the country forrecycling and reusing.

The waste levy was a major step forward towards achieving this future. The revenue raised fromthe levy goes directly back into protecting our environment. Over the next four years, the $380 millionraised from the levy would have helped councils—and government members claim to be the friends ofcouncils—introduce and maintain sustainable waste practices as well as provide much needed fundingfor environmental initiatives. These initiatives included: a $120 million local government sustainabilityfund for council funded environmental projects aimed at improving waste management facilities andpractices; a $150 million waste avoidance and resource efficiency fund to assist businesses andindustry reduce the amount of waste they generate and to increase industry investment in newtechnologies, particularly in regional Queensland; and any surplus funds to be dedicated toenvironmental initiatives, including the Koala Response Strategy, the Cape York World Heritagenomination and acquisition of national parks. Without the revenue from the waste levy, these programswill be slashed, ripping funding out of local councils and vital environmental programs.

Mr Powell: That is not true.


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is too much crossfire across the chamber. The memberhas the right to be heard.

Ms TRAD: Mr Deputy Speaker, it is clear from the comments made by the Minister forEnvironment and Heritage Protection that they do not intend to slash these environmental initiatives so Ithen ask this question: how will they seek to fund them? How many public servants will be sacked to payfor these funds? How many? The fact is that these funds and projects are not simply an investment inour environment but they are also an investment in Queensland jobs. As the member for Noosa statedin 2010, the revenue raised from the levy and the projects it funds were set to create an estimated 7,000new green jobs in Queensland. Do you need me to go slower?

Waste management is an industry where Queensland has previously missed out on new jobopportunities. In Victoria, there are more than 13,000 green jobs associated with waste management.Queensland only has 5,000 equivalent jobs, but those opposite have no regard for long-term securejobs for Queenslanders. They have shown that recently, haven’t they? They fail to show any ability tothink that far ahead. Instead, the LNP are today pushing a short-sighted decision through the parliamentwithout consideration and based on politics not policy.

Queensland faces a significant challenge when it comes to dealing with our waste. Thesechallenges require long-term solutions. Queensland generates more than 32 million tonnes of wasteevery year. That is enough to fill 16 Suncorp Stadiums to the roof.

Mr Cripps: That is visionary. Tax them.

Ms TRAD: I will take the interjection from the honourable member.

Mr Cripps interjected.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hinchinbrook!


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hinchinbrook!


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hinchinbrook! Order! Member for Hinchinbrook, I calledyour name and your seat three times. I would like to hear what the member for South Brisbane has tosay on this matter.


Ms TRAD: The obvious conclusion of what the honourable member is asserting is that we shouldnot have had a flood levy, that the federal government should not have applied a flood levy after theworst natural disasters in Queensland’s recorded history. Shame on him!

On top of that, Queensland recycles only a third of its waste, making us one of the worst states forrecycling. This is not only embarrassing; it is also unsustainable. As our population continues to expand,so does our landfill and it is costing Queenslanders money. The fact is that as landfills increase so dorates. Councils are reporting that waste management is becoming an ever-growing burden on their localbudgets. In 2010 Local Government Association of Queensland spokesman Greg Hoffman highlightedthe need for urgent action, saying—

Costs are growing, landfill is getting harder to find, business and industry need to recycle more, so to do nothing is not financiallyor environmentally sustainable.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! There is too much noise in the House. I call themember for South Brisbane.

Ms TRAD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your protection. While Labor’s waste levy wouldhave cut landfill by 33 per cent, the LNP is choosing to do nothing. Queensland is the only mainlandstate without a waste levy—the only one. Every other state recognises that landfill should not be the firstand easiest option. Even conservative state governments with a higher general IQ than those sittingopposite understand that we must provide an incentive to recycle not only for our environment but forour budgets, too. Indeed, not only are Liberal-National governments retaining their states’ waste levy;many of them are actually increasing the levy rate. For example, the New South Wales waste levy of$31.20 a tonne is set to rise to more than $40 a tonne in the new financial year. As the only state withouta waste levy, the Newman government is sending an open invitation to interstate businesses to dumptheir waste in our backyard.

This was an issue raised by the Gold Coast City Council—and the member for Mermaid Beachshould be well versed in this good piece of journalism—at the public hearing on the Waste Reductionand Recycling Bill 2011 in September last year. When then shadow minister for the environment AndrewPowell asked if the Gold Coast City Council was concerned about cross-border waste, the spokesmanresponded by saying—

It is, yes, of course. While the disposal rates are higher somewhere else there is always going to be a tendency for people wantingto transport waste to a cheaper location. Obviously, transport costs are significant so there is a limit to how far people will go, butobviously DERM is considering people are coming as far as Tasmania. We obviously need to have systems in place to try andminimise that.

So what is the LNP’s plan to minimise the amount of interstate waste being dumped inQueensland? There is no plan. Without a plan, the issue of interstate dumping is not going to go away. Itwas again raised in the Gold Coast Bulletin last week, and I table an article for the benefit of the House.

Tabled paper: Article, dated 14 June 2012, titled ‘Cheaper to dump rubbish on the Coast’ [514].

The concept of a waste levy is nothing new. South Australia introduced its levy over a decadeago, and since that time it has had an incredible impact on the state’s environment. South Australia’srecycling rate is over 70 per cent and is among the world’s best. In fact, South Australia continues toinnovate and invest in sustainable practices with the goal of creating a zero-waste state.

The concept of a waste levy is not even a controversial or overtly partisan one. On top of theLiberal-National governments I mentioned earlier, there have been other notable conservativesupporters of a waste levy. Indeed, when the Premier was Brisbane City Council mayor he praised thegovernment’s initiatives, stating that reducing landfill was the biggest piece of unfinished business leftfor councils—or was he not briefed well enough on the matter? Then Lord Mayor Newman went as faras to praise the work of former environment minister Kate Jones, saying—

I must say how impressed I am with Minister Jones’s approach.

I table the City Hall transcript for the benefit of the House.

Tabled paper: Extract from Brisbane City Council (Ordinary) Meeting, dated 11 May 2010, pages 18-19 [515].

What a monumental backflip from the Premier—but not the first one we have seen to date. ThePremier has gone from a practical and considered approach to one of slashing and burning—anapproach that leaves Queensland decades behind the other states, an approach that will cut funding tolocal councils and leave them struggling with the rampant spread of landfills and with the ballooningcosts associated with waste disposal, an approach that shows no regard for Queensland’s environmentby ripping funding out of important environmental projects and inviting interstate businesses to useQueensland as their dumping ground.

This is an unthinking approach. It is a belligerent approach and it only serves to take Queenslandback to the dark old days of environmental destruction, where this LNP government wants it to be! TheALP—the people on this side of the House—care about the environment, which is why we are moving




this disallowance motion. I urge all members opposite to support this motion. I urge all members whohave children and who have a sense of responsibility to their children and their grandchildren to supportthis motion to deal with this escalating problem now and not leave it to our children and their children todeal with.

Mr GRIMWADE (Morayfield—LNP) (7.44 pm): I rise tonight to speak against the disallowancemotion moved by the member for South Brisbane. It simply astounds me that the member has movedthis motion tonight and again attempts to kick small business owners—the people who employ millionsof people throughout Queensland—right in the guts and attempts to increase the cost of living for allQueenslanders alike. This levy, like most levies, was introduced in this House by the previousgovernment simply to raise taxation in an attempt to pay for Labor’s woeful financial record. We havealready heard about Labor’s woeful financial record, which this tax was designed to assist, in that italready has a forecast $100 billion debt on the books in Queensland. The state’s debt spiralled out ofcontrol, and then Treasurer Andrew Fraser—who is now bearded up and hiding away—looked at waysto increase taxation in Queensland with levies and charges et cetera to pay for Labor’s wastefulspending.

I want to provide the House with some local examples of how the waste levy would stifleemployment opportunities and increase the cost of living for all Queenslanders, seniors and pensionersthe hardest way possible. I will put some reality back into this debate tonight when I give the Houseexamples of how employment opportunities and pensioners living in aged-care facilities will be thehardest hit by this disallowance motion. I start with a local business in Narangba, and I know themember for South Brisbane knows Narangba quite well. Throughout my campaign I visited a businesscalled Kennedy’s Aged Timbers. This business is another family-run business run by a man who ispassionate about growing his business, providing employment opportunities for locals and looking afterthe environment. Kennedy’s Aged Timbers consists of a team of passionate timber specialists who havebeen supplying recycled and ecosustainable timbers to the commercial and residential building industrysince 1995 as an Australian family-run business. This business, which, I might add, recycles timbers tomake its products, will be significantly impacted in its operational cost and subsequent opportunity tooffer employment by this levy. This levy will give a free kick, in fact, to the rainforest sawmills of South-East Asia and will also see an explosion of imported timbers that will have a distinct market advantageover our recycled timber industry in Queensland.

The member for South Brisbane claims to be an environmental champion, but all the member isdoing by moving this disallowance motion is effectively championing the destruction of rainforests inSouth-East Asia by making it more attractive for businesses to access wood from Asia rather thanrecycle wood here. This is a perfect example of yet another business that is doing the right thing byQueenslanders in that it is offering employment opportunities and looking after the environment all inone. This business would be hammered under Labor’s waste levy reforms. I will not stand here as amember of this parliament and allow small business to be hammered by Labor’s policy as contained inthis disallowance motion moved tonight.

I want to provide another local example of how this bill will impact the cost of living in ourcommunity. The Moreton Bay Regional Council has made it very clear that the waste levy will actuallyresult in an extreme administrative cost to that council. Despite what the member for South Brisbaneclaimed earlier—that councils will be provided with additional funds and will be financially better off—theMoreton Bay Regional Council has said that it will actually be $800,000 worse off in administration costsalone. This is yet another cost that council would have to pass on to its local ratepayers, furtherincreasing the cost of living for all Queenslanders.

I was interested to hear the mover of this motion, the member for South Brisbane, make criticalcomments in relation to the Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection on his green-tapereduction bill. She made reference to the minister ‘off-loading’ costs onto local governments. Effectivelywhat this levy does is push this cost and red tape onto local government that will no doubt have to bepassed onto ratepayers, again increasing the cost of living for all Queenslanders.


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! The member for South Brisbane will ceaseinterjecting. You have had a really good go. You have made a speech. I want to hear the member forMorayfield.

Mr GRIMWADE: Thank you for your protection. Clearly those on my right cannot behavethemselves. Effectively what this levy has done is push up the cost of red tape and increase localgovernment costs.

I finish tonight by providing one more example of how this levy will impact on the local communityand the cost of living of elderly pensioners. The introduction of this levy will increase the waste chargespaid by residential aged-care facilities by at least 35 per cent, a massive increase in cost that will againbe passed onto residents. During my election campaign I joined the then shadow Treasurer—nowthankfully the Treasurer of Queensland—in a visit to a local aged-care facility. The waste levy was





discussed with residents and they were concerned that this tax would mean an increase in cost-of-livingcharges. Several residents actually pleaded with me throughout that meeting to reduce the cost of living,and I gave a commitment to do exactly that. Since being in this place that is what this side ofgovernment has done through a number of measures that are already on the record.

In summing up, I will never stand in this place and support legislation that will deliberatelyincrease cost of living, destroy Queensland jobs and kick small business owners right in the guts. It is forthis reason that I will not be supporting this motion before the House tonight.

Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Leader of the Opposition) (7.51 pm): I rise to support themember for South Brisbane’s disallowance motion in relation to the waste levy. For the benefit of newmembers I will give a bit of history because they were not in this House back in June 2010 on WorldEnvironment Day when the previous Labor government announced that this policy was about creatingjobs and cutting landfill. That was the main purpose of the Labor government going down this path.

What are some of the waste facts? Let us get that on the public record. Queensland generatesmore than 32 million tonnes of waste. That is the equivalent of 16 Suncorp Stadiums filled to the roofevery year and that number is growing. It includes heavy industry waste placed in indefinite storage.Secondly, Queensland recycles only about a third of its waste—one of the worst rates in the country.Thirdly, Queensland is the only mainland state to not have had a levy on non-domestic waste. This is theother premise that I do not think members understand. This levy did not impact on domestic householdwaste. That was made very clear.

Mr Newman interjected.Ms PALASZCZUK: If the Premier wants to interject I am more than happy to take his interjections

from his seat. While the Premier is here I am happy to talk about the Premier’s position. When he wasLord Mayor he came out in support of this. When he was Lord Mayor he had green credentials and heknew that recycling was a big issue. He supported the then environment minister introducing this intothe House. This was a fundamental reform bringing Queensland into line with the rest of Australia,essentially making sure that we were going to be environmentally responsible and at the same timegenerating jobs for Queenslanders.

What the member for South Brisbane said is absolutely correct: what was happening then, whatis happening now and what will happen in the future is that those councils that are in northern NewSouth Wales will continue to dump their waste into Queensland. Queensland will become the dumpingground for northern New South Wales. Do not be under any illusion here. These are the facts. We knowthat councils in northern New South Wales have used Queensland as a dumping ground and they willcontinue to do so.

The Treasurer talks about cutting waste. This was about cutting waste and recycling. It was aboutchanging business practices and people’s attitudes. What else did this waste levy do? It actually broughtin an income stream as well. The new government wants to cut an income stream of some $300 millionover four years. That is what the government are doing by repealing this waste levy. This is aboutchanging people’s behaviour; it is about generating jobs. At the time the minister for environmentstated—The strategy sets out a new direction for waste management in Queensland, by establishing goals and targets for wasteavoidance, recycling and resource recovery over a 10-year period.

The waste strategy levy had a vision to grow green jobs and value reusing and recyclingmaterials. We want to see more recycling and the reuse of waste as a first option before it is sent tolandfill. I had the opportunity to go to Archerfield and look at companies that are actually creating newbusinesses by recycling waste which means that waste does not have to go to landfill. As a result abrand new industry is created that generates the jobs I mention.

Mr Newman interjected.Ms PALASZCZUK: Once again if the Premier has something to say I am more than happy to

take his interjection if he sits in his seat. As the member for South Brisbane said, every other state has alevy. Those opposite are moving Queensland out of line with every other state.

Mr Young: How does it generate jobs?Ms PALASZCZUK: If you were listening, I explained it very clearly to you.Mr Young interjected.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Burleigh, you have had a pretty good go. There are too

many interjections. Ms PALASZCZUK: What were the third-party comments that were made when the introduction of

this waste levy was announced? Many organisations came out on the public record supporting it. TheQueensland Conservation Council said, ‘It should double recycling rates in line with governmenttargets.’ The World Wildlife Fund said, ‘This innovative “trash to treasure” approach ... puts Queenslandahead of other states in terms of funding new protected areas.’ The Wilderness Society described theinitiatives funded from the waste levy as ‘some very important conservation commitments which westrongly welcome’.




The Local Government Association of Queensland said that there were ‘sensible, equitableinitiatives in a new waste strategy’. The Council of Mayors South East Queensland website still statesthat ‘waste remains a key regional priority for South-East Queensland’ and that a key item of focus is‘future waste levy funded projects’. And, of course, let us not forget what the now Premier said in Marchlast year as Lord Mayor of Brisbane City Council: ‘Council strongly supports a levy implementation dateof 1 July 2012,’ and his words in the council chamber that ‘waste going to landfill is still requiringsignificant attention’.

If the Premier wants to contradict me, if he wants to get up here and put it on the public recordthat what he said in council is now completely different to what he has said as Premier, he has theopportunity to speak in the debate tonight. He has the opportunity to stand up in the House and put it onthe public record. Premier, that is my challenge to you tonight. Stay in the chamber, stand up and put iton the public record.

Mr Gibson: You changed the draft bill.

Ms PALASZCZUK: No. This is a backflip—one minute we support it and the next minute wedon’t. That is what the Premier did.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gympie will cease interjecting.

Ms Trad: The party bosses told him not to.

Ms PALASZCZUK: I will take that interjection from the member for South Brisbane: probablybecause the party bosses told him so. The money generated from this fund will go back not only—

Ms TRAD: I rise to a point of order. If the Minister for the Arts wants to interject, she should goback to her chair. She is interjecting consistently.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind all members that if they do wish to interject they need to be intheir seats.

Ms PALASZCZUK: I am encouraged that the Premier is in his seat and might be getting ready tostand up and contribute to this worthwhile debate, because we would like to know why your positionchanged, why you no longer support the generation of jobs, why you do not—


Ms PALASZCZUK: We know that you are cutting 20,000 to 30,000 jobs. We know you have thefigures, but you are not telling us.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will address her comments throughthe chair.

Ms PALASZCZUK: We would be more than happy for the Premier, at any time, to come into thechamber and tell us how many jobs are going. We know that the government knows. In QueenslandRail, 2,200 jobs are going. We know that the CBR Committee is meeting and that those figures aregoing through the CBR Committee process.

I return to the disallowance motion before the House: we know that this was the right policy. Weknow that this was good policy for the creation of jobs and that it was good environmental policy,because the money would then go into environmental projects such as koala habitat, North StradbrokeIsland and Cape York. I am quite sure that in this place there are LNP members who support thoseworthwhile projects. It is disappointing that the government has chosen to go down this path. At the endof the day, the people of Queensland will be at a loss because this is consistent with what has happenedin other states. Essentially, we will see Queensland become the dumping ground for New South Wales.We will have more of their waste. Because there are no costs imposed, they will avoid their taxes, theywill avoid their fees and they will avoid their levies by bringing their rubbish over the NSW-Queenslandborder and dumping it on our doorstep. That is what this House is doing tonight and it is verydisappointing.

(Time expired)

Hon. CKT NEWMAN (Ashgrove—LNP) (Premier) (8.02 pm): This evening I am going to enjoythe opportunity to rise to speak in this debate. In particular, I will address my comments to some of thenonsense that we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition this evening. This has been going onfor about 12 months and it is time to correct the record. We know that the Australian Labor Party is goodat saying things again and again and again. It is a technique. They must do courses in it. They take aGeorge Orwell approach, whereby if you keep repeating it eventually people will believe that black iswhite. We will not let them do that.

The facts are these: prior to the 2009 state government election, the South-East QueenslandCouncil of Mayors, which I led as chairman, wrote to the then Labor state government, the LiberalNational Party and the Greens and asked a few questions about various policy matters. One of thequestions that we put to the two major parties and the Greens was: what is your position in relation to awaste levy? As I recall it, the answer from the LNP was that it opposed a waste levy. The answer that we




received from the Australian Labor Party, in black and white—I do not have it with me this evening, butI am happy to bring it into the chamber and table it—was contained in a letter that stated there would beno waste levy under a future Bligh government.

I see the very wet-behind-the-ears member for South Brisbane objecting, because she is one ofthe machine people of the Labor Party who will do and say anything for political power. That is what wesee. Clearly, the Australian Labor Party made a statement that they would not introduce a waste tax orwaste levy. Do members know why I am so convinced of that? A number of the mayors involved stillbelong to that council and they will bear this out. The council published a table in the Courier-Mailnewspaper and we had the various policies of the various parties going into the 2009 election. Theposition of the Labor Party was faithfully recorded as not supporting a waste levy; that they said theywere not going to bring in a waste levy.

Then the election occurred and what happened? You could have knocked me over with a feather,because within about three weeks as I recall it—my memory may be slightly wrong on the timing, but Ithink it was about three weeks later—the new minister for the environment, the Hon. Kate Jones,contacted the Council of Mayors and said, ‘I want to have a meeting.’ We turned up to the meeting. Irecall Mayor John Brent was there. The minister sat us down. That bloke who used be the director-general of the Premier’s department and who was her director-general at the time—we do not want toremember his name—sat us down and said, ‘We want to talk about the new waste levy.’

We had just had an election. There was going to be no waste levy and they had put that in writing.We put that in the newspaper. We told the people of South-East Queensland, through the Courier-Mail,that there was not going to be a waste levy if the Labor government was re-elected. Three weeks laterthey said, ‘There’s going to be a waste levy.’ To say that we felt betrayed is an understatement. To saythat we felt that they were shonky is an understatement. That is what they did. They had a three-yearterm and a gun against our heads.

We said, ‘If you’re going to have a waste levy, surely it should be only for the purposes ofreducing waste? It should be about landfill, about weighbridges, about trying to encourage people toreduce their waste.’ As mayors, as leaders of local governments that had put in recycling schemes andpaid for that without any help from the former Labor government, we were quite committed to reducingwaste to landfill. Guess what? Minister Kate Jones ratted on that one as well, as they say in thevernacular. Initially, to get our reluctant support after they had backflipped and reneged, she actuallysaid that it would go only to the reduction of waste and not to buying national parks, dealing with weeds,employing rangers or whatever. We were told it would go only to waste.

The other thing that we were adamant about was that it would not apply to municipal waste.Contrary to the way that the Leader of the Opposition misled the House only a few short minutes ago, itwas going to apply to municipal waste and I will tell the members opposite how that was to occur.People in suburbia who hire a miniskip, which is municipal waste, were to be hit with it. They did noteven know what their legislation was about. They did not even know how the former director-generalwas going to manipulate them. A bloke called John Bradley used to manipulate the schmucks in front ofhim. I withdraw that if it is unparliamentary. Those people were hoodwinked by people like Mr Bradley,because they did not have a clue about the legislation they brought into this place. Miniskips—bins hiredby ratepayers and property owners in South-East Queensland—were going to be hit with this levy. Thatwas another solemn commitment from the then minister for the environment, Kate Jones, that wasbroken.

I will wrap up. The idea of a tax fuelling a wonderful new industry, as we heard from the Leader ofthe Opposition, just shows what financial and economic illiterates the Australian Labor Party are. A taxsupporting a brave new world: where have we heard that? The carbon tax! The carbon tax is not a tax; itis a wonderful, economic reform. For many years I have heard spin from the Australian Labor Party, butI can tell members now that their breathtaking efforts on both the waste levy and the carbon tax reallytake the cake.

Mr Springborg: They are rippers. Mr NEWMAN: They are just rippers. It is not an environmental thing anymore; it is a brave new

economic reform! The carbon tax is going to transform our economy! It is a brave, new, clean-energyfuture! We can all stand up and salute ‘Comrade’ Gillard.

Opposition members interjected.Mr NEWMAN: I have got to the honourable members opposite, going by their interjections. Their

ongoing spin and relentless nonsense is finally being exposed. Mr Springborg interjected.Mr NEWMAN: Yes. No new tax ever spawned a wonderful new industry. Those of us who have

worked in the private sector, who have actually filled out a BAS, who have employed people, who havemade payroll, who have had the responsibility of looking after employees and remitting their PAYE tax tothe tax office, know that a brave new tax never created an industry. A tax never created a great newindustry.


What have the Australian Labor Party come to? Once a upon time, the benches comprisingAustralian Labor Party members had one thing: people of integrity. They had people who built thingswith their hands. They had chippies. They had coalminers. They had sparkies. They had people whoworked for councils. They had people who dug ditches. They had people who drove steamrollers.Nowadays, what do we have in the Australian Labor Party? We have university educated union hacks,spin doctors, complete fibbers—people who could not tell the truth under water if they were forced to.

These people have lost their way. They do not understand the economy. They do not understandfinance. They have never run businesses. They are incompetent. They racked up $100 billion worth ofdebt. They do not understand that we have to get this state back on the straight and narrow.


Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Bundamba, you already have one warning.

Mr NEWMAN: They have not one single idea in their brains about how to take this state forward.They will sit there on those benches and bleat confidently, I am sure quite, because nobody acrossthere represents business. Nobody across there represents the good, honest Labor values that Ihappen to greatly respect. I respect real, decent people, and I have known a few—people like HughieWilliams, my friend who used to run the Transport Workers Union and understands what it is like tostruggle and to deal with adversity in life and overcome that adversity. But, sadly, the members of theTWU are about to be hit with a carbon tax. I can tell members one thing: they and their businesses arenot going to be hit with a waste tax.

Hon. DF CRISAFULLI (Mundingburra—LNP) (Minister for Local Government) (8.12 pm): I rise tospeak against the disallowance motion that has been moved because it goes to the heart of tworeasons I am in this place. Firstly, like many people in Queensland, I looked and saw a government thatwas completely incapable, incompetent, out of touch with the everyday person, out of control, arrogantand unable to conduct itself in a dignified fashion. Secondly, we had a government that continued toattack local government. It took every opportunity to belt local government.

I just cannot help but reflect on some of the comments made by the member for South Brisbane.There have been some absolute doozies. I like the one: ‘This will not impact on households; it will onlyimpact on small business.’ It will only impact on small business? She just does not get it. Her problem isthat she just does not get it. Let me explain how small business works.


Madam SPEAKER: Order! Members, there are too many interjections across the chamber. I amhaving difficulty hearing the member with the call. I call the minister.

Mr CRISAFULLI: I want to explain a little bit about small business. The only way the member forSouth Brisbane would ever be able to create a small business is if somebody gave her a big one. But letme just explain to her how small business works.

Ms TRAD: I rise to point of order, Madam Speaker. I find the comments made by the ministeroffensive and I ask that they be withdrawn.


Madam SPEAKER: Order! Members on my right. Minister, I ask that you withdraw thosecomments under the standing orders.

Mr CRISAFULLI: I withdraw. I not only withdraw them—


Madam SPEAKER: Minister—

Mr CRISAFULLI: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: I took your withdrawal. I am just drawing attention to the interjections acrossthe chamber. Minister, you have the call.

Mr CRISAFULLI: I am sorry to have dented the small business credibility of the memberopposite. There was the matter of—

Ms TRAD: I rise to a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Member for South Brisbane, what is the point of order?

Ms TRAD: Madam Speaker, that was a withdrawal with qualification which I understand, underthe standing orders—

Madam SPEAKER: Make your point of order, member for South Brisbane, not a speech. Are youmaking another point of order?

Ms TRAD: I ask the member to withdraw without qualification.

Madam SPEAKER: Take your seat. The minister did withdraw the first time. Another point oforder has been made for the minister to withdraw. I ask the minister to withdraw.




Mr CRISAFULLI: I withdraw. What I was explaining is the way small business works. There is nomagic funding for small business; it is money in and expenses out. That is how it works. What happensis that if a government is putting its hand in your pocket you need to get that money from somewhere.There is no magic pudding. What happens is that that money actually comes from customers—andmore often than not the customers are people!

I will move on because I want to get to the real issue I wanted to speak about tonight, and that islocal government. I love the quote from the member for South Brisbane: ‘This would have helped thecouncils. It would have helped them.’ I enjoyed the member for Gympie’s interjection because themember for Gympie actually understands the process.

What the councils were hoping was that the money did not go to fund green ideology. That is whatthey were hoping for. They were hoping that it might go back to resources. So what happened with localgovernment? I will talk about the process in a second. Local governments were asked to collect a levythey did not believe in, and the sting in the tail was that they also had to pay it. It had to pay it itself on itsown business units. I love when I hear the enthusiasm of those opposite that somehow they are fightingfor truth and justice in the Local Government Association of Queensland.

I have been doing a little bit of travel and speaking to a few councils. I am not sure whether themember for South Brisbane has spoken to many councils in the last few months, but I have. I am up toabout 50 of the 73. As I go, I mention the removal of this levy.

Mr Cripps: Cheers.

Mr CRISAFULLI: Yes, cheers.

Mr Cripps: Celebration.

Mr CRISAFULLI: Celebration, happiness, joy—not one bit of condemnation. They are overjoyed.The cost to smaller councils in particular was a concern.

I am going to talk about another issue that might be a bit close to home, and that is the way thatregional communities work—places like Belyando. It is not where the whales are. What happens insmaller local governments is that, because they have larger areas, they have a number of thesefacilities. There was this ridiculous one-size-fits-all approach and somehow each and every littleoutstation had to have all these grand facilities. It was a huge whack.

I listened with disbelief when I heard the phrase ‘Labor’s careful consultation with council’. I haveto say that I was part of that ‘careful consultation’. I would have to say the ‘careful consultation’—


Madam SPEAKER: Order! Members, I know that everyone is in a very jovial mood for somereason, but there are too many interjections across the chamber. It is making it difficult to hear theminister. I ask people to cease interjecting. I call the minister.

Mr CRISAFULLI: I was just saying that, to me, ‘careful consultation’ with councils felt like a bit ofa big battering brick. That is how it felt where I was standing and I can tell honourable members why.Councils were saying, ‘Look, we really don’t like it. We really don’t think bringing it in on 1 December,which is not even midway through a financial year, is a good idea.’ Councils were saying to the thengovernment, ‘Perhaps just give us a couple of months to see how this all unfolds,’ which is code for ‘weknew the position pretty clearly of the gentleman sitting to my left’, and that was to get rid of it. Yetbecause that government was captive of DERM and because DERM was running the formergovernment, it was rushed in.

Why was it rushed in? Because somehow they thought we would be in too deep. Somehow theythought that, once it was there, it would be there forever. No, nothing gave me more pleasure than tosee that wound back. Even though that figure of $35 a tonne for commercial waste was replaced withabout $20 a tonne in the form of Julia’s carbon tax, even though we were giving with one hand and theirmates in Canberra were taking with the other, there was still a feeling of satisfaction that just maybe wemight have cut small business a break, that maybe for once we might have helped a local council ratherthan poking them in the eye.

I do not support this disallowance motion. It was a despised waste levy. It was removed on 1 July,and I say good riddance to bad rubbish!

Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (8.20 pm): Madam Speaker—

Mr Johnson: Fight the losing argument, Des.

Mrs SCOTT: I also have a document from a small business in support of the levy, which is veryinteresting. I rise to speak in support of the disallowance motion moved in relation to the WasteReduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation. The industry waste—





Mrs SCOTT: I am sorry but government members are now making fools of themselves. Theindustry waste levy was established by the previous government with the aim of creating a low-wastestate that looked for creative ways of reducing waste production in the first place and by treating wastethat cannot be avoided as a resource rather than a problem.

Mr POWELL: Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The member for Woodridge madereference to a document. We are wondering if the member for Woodridge would please table thatdocument so we can consider the positive feedback that was provided to her from a member of thewaste business industry.

Mr Stevens interjected.

Madam SPEAKER: Order! Manager of Government Business. Member for Woodridge, do youhave the document here in the House?

Mrs SCOTT: I am planning to quote from it, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: There has been a point of order with respect to the tabling of a document inthe House. I will take advice.

Mrs Miller interjected.

Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Bundamba, you are not in your correct seat. Minister, youhave raised a point of order. You would have to seek leave to move a motion for that document to betabled.

Mr POWELL: I seek leave to move that the document that the member for Woodridge is referringto be tabled.

Division: Question put—That leave be granted.

In division—

Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, the minister sought leave and I provided thewrong advice. He did not need to seek leave in that regard. So the motion to seek leave as such is notrequired. The question that has to be put is that the minister is seeking to move a motion under thestanding orders regarding the issue that he referred to before. I apologise for the lack of clarity. Is theminister seeking to do so?

Mr POWELL: Yes, Madam Speaker. I am seeking for the document to be tabled pursuant to amotion moved without notice, amendment or debate by me. So under standing order 30, I move—That the document referred to by the member for Woodridge be tabled.

Question put—That the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs SCOTT: Madam Speaker, I am only too happy to table this. If you would like to read it, Iwould like to incorporate it into Hansard. Tabled paper: Document, dated 10 July 2012, titled ‘The Rubbish Removers current position’ [516].

Madam SPEAKER: The member has agreed to table it. I have not seen the document so itcannot be incorporated.

Mrs SCOTT: This document comes from a business called The Rubbish Removers. Thedocument is titled ‘The Rubbish Removers current position’, dated 10 July 2010. It states—The previous government changed the entire waste industry by adding a levy to businesses dumping into landfill. The reasonsgiven were

1. Prevent the transfer of waste from NSW to QLD. (NSW already having a waste levy in place and dumping in QLDrepresented a significant saving in dumping costs)

2. Promote recycling and change the attitude towards landfill.

The waste levy was introduced with a sweetener that the levy funds would provide infrastructure grants to those in the wasteindustry who changed business practice from land fill to recycling.

Over the years we had seen tonnes of ‘good’ recyclable product being dumped from our skip bins and saw this as an opportunitywe could take to start recycling with two huge viability factors.

• Our competitors would need to raise the cost of their skip bins to cover the waste levy fee, we therefore could put ourprices up in line with them but use the extra margins to help cover the daily overheads of recycling.

• The promised grants would help towards the massive start up infrastructure cost.

So The Rubbish Removers changed practice. Landfill to Recycling. From a tidy small cheap office with good hours andcomfortable life style to an expensive 1500sq m shed, long hard hours, and a life style that no one would be jealous of. All binswere hauled into the depot and hand decanted by us. Long hours and long weeks as we could not afford full time staff. Greenwaste, cardboard, metals, re-saleables, charity donations and residual waste was waste streamed. Saturdays became a workingday as we ran a ‘garage sale/tip shop’ to sell the resaleables to cover the cost of the rent. We kept going because we believe thatAustralia does not deserve her soil filled with our discarded resources and that the government believed the same way, and weresupporting us with finances for infrastructure.



The grant applications closed 5th April 2012 and we had aligned the ‘next steps’ of our business plan to coincide with funding. Thiswas to purchase mechanised sorting & recycling equipment and to get serious in our discussions with ‘Social Ventures’ as wewere aiming on utilising marginalised employment—giving employment training and skills to disengaged and unemployed people.

Several weeks later—after us calling DERM/EPA for time line estimates of the grants we were told they had been cancelled.Leaving us high and bone dry.

We have been ringing Andrew Powell’s Office since (chief of staff Troy Collings) for the current Governments waste policy—however this has not been forthcoming. As an aside it is very hard to run a small business with the comings and goings ofgovernments. We had believed that ordinances made through parliament could be relied on—but apparently not.

So we have come too far to turn back. And despite the Government’s lack of support for recovering resources from productdestined to landfill we believe that what we are doing is right for our land and resources.

Our chances of survival have slimmed down to poor odds. The cost of dumping in Brisbane varies across the locations—but wecan dump C & D for $33+gst tonne.

The cost of recovery—particularly in leasing premises and employing staff makes recycling non viable long term. Our ownpersonal (and our families) money has been used to provide some of the infrastructure we needed. Our chance of employingmore people has been cut to the barest staff requirements.

Dot point Overhead costs are higher to recycle. To make it clear to the ‘non business’ people our skip bins competitors can nowslash their prices for rubbish removal. Their overheads are running an office/trucks and dump fees. Whereas our overheadsinclude the cost of leasing, staff and equipment for recycling the product. There is some income from the salvage of re-saleablesand metals, but much of the product is non profit. (Green waste, cardboard, charity, clothing etc) It is therefore harder to remaincompetitive in the market place.

The bottom line, it is easier and cheaper to LAND FILL—so why shouldn’t we follow the governments lead and fill our landfill pitswith recoverable resources?

Minister, I think it is a disgrace that you are not taking this seriously.An opposition member: Just like his staff.

Mrs SCOTT: Yes. The industry waste levy was established by the previous government with theaim of creating a low-waste state that looked for creative ways of reducing waste production in the firstplace and by treating waste that cannot be avoided as a resource rather than a problem. This isbecause the current rates of waste generation, resource wastage and disposal in Queensland areunsustainable. Moving towards a more resource efficient society will reduce the environmental, socialand economic impact of waste and place a higher value on recovering resources previously consideredwaste.

Effective waste management is not only an environmental issue; it also has economicconsequences and it creates job opportunities for Queenslanders. The waste levy was one of a raft ofenvironmental policies that the LNP pledged to cut before the last election. These cuts included theQueensland Climate Change Fund, Queensland Renewable Energy Fund, Queensland Smart EnergySavings Fund, Queensland Future Growth Fund, Solar Initiatives Package, Solar Flagships Program,Waste Avoidance and Resource Efficiency Fund and Local Government Sustainable Future Fund.

Soon after the election stakeholders were told in a letter from Tony Roberts, the AssistantDirector-General, Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Environment and HeritageProtection, ‘This levy will not be replaced and programs that may have been funded by this levy havebeen suspended.’ In response to a letter that warned that discontinuation of the levy will make iteconomically attractive to send waste from Sydney and the Hunter regions to South-East Queensland,Mr Roberts responded—Your concerns in relation to the interstate waste coming into Queensland are noted. Although the levy will be repealed, provisionsof the Act relating to waste disposal and recycling reporting at landfills will be retained. Information that waste disposal sites willstill be required to provide an annual report that includes the amount and type of waste and where it came from. This gives thedepartment the ability to monitor interstate waste movements.

When the waste levy was repealed, the provisions of the Waste Reduction and Recycling Actremained operational. Minister Andrew Powell has said that the levy could be returned if there wassupport for it at a general election. Nonetheless, pursuant to sections 152 and 153 of the act, reportingentities such as landfills and recycling centres must provide an annual report on waste types, amountcollected and the origin of the waste. Without the levy, there will be no incentive for industry to reducewaste disposal to landfill. I therefore support the disallowance motion.

Ms MILLARD (Sandgate—LNP) (8.40 pm): I am extremely honoured to be standing here tonightand talking against this disallowance motion. This issue has not necessarily affected my electorate, butit has definitely affected the industry in which I spent 20-odd years—the metals manufacturing industry,which is a heavy-engineering sector that is struggling at the moment. Late last year I had many phonecalls from people in small, medium and large manufacturing processing companies and they said to me,‘What is this sneaky little tax on our bills?’

Mrs Frecklington: Another Labor tax.

Ms MILLARD: That is exactly what I said after I found out about it because, like many, I had to goand search to find out what it was all about. From that point on, I started to talk to plenty of people in theindustry to make sure they were all aware of it. It might not seem like a lot to be saying $35 a tonne, butwhen you have tonnes and tonnes and tonnes of waste—





Mr Symes: It all adds up.

Ms MILLARD: It all adds up and it is killing these businesses. It may not seem like a lot to some,but to those businesses every cent is worth it.

The other issue is that it was not just some sneaky little tax that was put on their bill. The fact isthat it was uncapped. I do believe—but I must not be quoted—that the other states have pushed theirsup and up and up, and I think some of the other states are sitting at around $90 a tonne. My other pointis that you do not make some people suffer because other people are doing the wrong thing. You do notput a tax on something to try and stop a problem which in turn means that those who are doing the rightthing are the ones who end up paying. That is what this was all about.

My other issue is that the environment minister at the time was the honourable Vicky Darling, whowas the previous member for my area. It was really interesting because I have a lot of business ownersin my area. There are plenty who do not have their businesses in the area, but those who do have theirbusinesses there did not know about it, either. The then shadow environment minister—and I am veryhappy to say that he is the current environment minister—Andrew Powell, actually came to Sandgate totalk to people and make it known that there was this sneaky little tax and that we would make sure it nolonger hurt businesses across this state. I am so happy to be able to stand up for an industry that I haveworked long and hard for for over 20 years—manufacturing. I am happy to be able to do that.

Hon. AC POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection)(8.43 pm): It is my great privilege to conclude by opposing this disallowance motion regarding the wastereduction and recycling regulation. I will start by referring to some of the comments made by membersopposite. For starters, the member for South Brisbane referred to the LNP government as belligerentand unthinking. Let me focus on that word ‘unthinking’, because I think that is in the manifesto of theALP. ‘Unthinking’ is when you are confronted with a problem and your only solution is a tax—when thereis a problem, the solution is a tax. If there is a problem with waste, the solution is a waste tax. If there isa problem with—

Ms Trad: With the LNP, if there is problem, you sack them.

Mr POWELL: We’ll get to that, member for South Brisbane.


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! Those on my left will cease interjecting.

Mr POWELL: Before the member for South Brisbane gets too irate, I will say that I did agree withone thing she said—that is, we cannot go back. This state cannot afford to go back to a Laborgovernment. This state cannot afford Labor—not at the state level and not at the federal level. It was ourpolicy coming into the election to repeal this waste levy. We have delivered on that because that isdelivering cost-of-living savings through businesses to each and every Queenslander. We asQueenslanders cannot afford to go back to Labor government and Labor taxes.

The member for South Brisbane also correctly identified that this was a charge on industry at atime when the Labor government should have been working with industry to give industry opportunitiesto grow and offer incentives to employ more people. Did those opposite hear that word—‘employ’? Iknow that those opposite like to say the word ‘sack’, but at a time when they should have been workingwith industry to employ more people they were putting their hand in their pockets, as the member forMundingburra rightly pointed out, and making it ever harder for them to do so. The member for SouthBrisbane also referred to the waste levy as ‘good Labor policy’.

Ms Trad: I should have said ‘great’.

Mr POWELL: Not only is it by the Labor book in terms of yet another tax; but if ‘good Labor policy’destroys jobs with no recognisable environmental outcome then your judgement of what good policy isis sadly lacking. It is here at the state level through the former Labor government bringing in this wastetax. It is mirrored at the federal level through the federal Labor government under Julia Gillard bringingin a carbon tax that, again, will destroy jobs for no environmental outcome. We cannot afford to return tothat. We know that both taxes were not about environmental outcomes; they were about filling the statecoffers and the federal coffers in the case of the carbon tax.

We committed from day one, when this levy was first mooted, to repealing it and we have donethat. But in doing it we have acknowledged that we will protect some of the initiatives, particularly theenvironmental initiatives that the former government was going to fund as a result of this levy, becausewe see that they are important environmental issues. The member for South Brisbane mentioned thekoala response strategy. Not only have we protected that funding; we have enhanced it by offeringfunding for vaccinations and funding for rescue and rehabilitation.

What we saw from the member for South Brisbane was yet more Labor hypocrisy. They bleatabout Public Service jobs—and let me reiterate the words of the Premier and a number of otherministers over the last couple of days: we are fighting for Public Service positions and we are fighting forfront-line positions.





Opposition members interjected.Mr POWELL: We are. If anyone thinks it is a light matter that we have 20,000 more public

servants than we can afford and that we make these decisions lightly or even with jocularity, it is just notfair, it is not correct and it is not true. While the members opposite bleat about protecting Public Servicejobs, they have no problem whatsoever with destroying private sector jobs. As the member for SouthBrisbane said, this was a charge on industry and it was destroying jobs in the industry. I made notewhen we first mentioned how we intended to repeal this levy that, in the time since the levy wasintroduced, seven miniskip businesses in South-East Queensland alone had already gone out ofbusiness. Seven miniskip businesses—in the short time between when the former Labor governmentbrought this levy in and the time we put on the record how we intended to—

Ms Trad: Table it.Mr POWELL: I am happy to table my documents. I am very happy to table them. There you go. I

table my documents as per the request by the member for South Brisbane.Tabled paper: Notes of the Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection, Hon. Andrew Powell, for the debate of thedisallowance motion regarding the Waste Reduction and Recycling Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2012 [517].

Seven miniskip businesses have gone out of business. What do we hear from those on the otherside? The only jobs they are interested in—

Ms TRAD: I rise to a point of order. I have asked the minister to table—Government members interjected.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! I will hear the point of order.Ms TRAD: He is referring to information regarding the collapse of seven businesses as a direct

result of the waste levy. I am asking him to table the evidence.Mr Bleijie: He tabled the documents.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: My understanding is that the minister—Ms TRAD: The evidence, not his scrawl!Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for South Brisbane, I have heard your point of order. The

minister tabled the document that he had in his hand. The minister is at liberty to refer to whateverdocuments he likes, but you asked him to table a document and he tabled the document that he wasreferring to. I am not aware of any other document that the minister has that he is referring to in order totable it.

Government members interjected.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting. The minister has the call.Mr POWELL: The member for South Brisbane talked about private sector jobs created by the

waste levy in Victoria. She called them green jobs. Victoria has green jobs not because of a waste levybut because it has already delivered the policies that this government has said we will deliver—that is,having a national parks system that people can access. That has created jobs—green jobs—in theenvironment by encouraging tourism through encouraging Victorians to access their national parks andthe protected areas of that state. That is where green jobs lie and that is where we, through the work ofthe Minister for Tourism and through the work of the Minister for National Parks, will deliver green jobsfor this state.

Ms Trad: What about brown jobs?Mr POWELL: The member for South Brisbane also referred to the flood levy and said that, by

definition, our opposition to all levies includes the flood levy. Let me put it this way: if the federal Laborgovernment under Rudd and Gillard had saved for a rainy day, that flood levy would not have beennecessary. If the Rudd and Gillard governments had not squandered the money put aside for them bythe former Howard government, that flood levy would not have been necessary. At the end of the day,the underlying reason why this levy had to go was that it was a dog of a levy. There was barely anyonewho could raise a positive thing to say about this levy. It was a levy where certain things were in andother things were out. If I recall correctly, at the time of opposing the original bill that is now the act Ireferred to—

Mr Stevens: The hokey-pokey.Mr POWELL: Thank you, member for Mermaid Beach; I referred to it as the hokey-pokey. It was

a case of waste in, waste out, and that created an administrative nightmare.Ms Trad interjected.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for South Brisbane will cease interjecting. In fact, I warn

the member for South Brisbane under standing order 253A.Mr POWELL: As I said, it was waste in, waste out. What the former Labor government created

was an abysmal levy that passed on an administrative burden to each and every local government andeach and every private contractor in the waste industry to manage so they could provide the necessaryreports. We heard from the member for Morayfield—and I commend him for his contribution this



evening—that for the Moreton Bay Regional Council alone that was going to cost the council $800,000each and every year simply to administer. As the Minister for Local Government pointed out, if it was soin favour of this levy, why did it cheer, why did it applaud and why has it since sent me letters ofcongratulations for removing the levy from the moment we made it clear that we would repeal this levy?

A number of members on the opposite side have also referred to the interstate dumping issue.This was the justification in the first place for the waste levy. I refer to my speech during the secondreading debate following the then committee’s consideration of the act where I raised specific questionsabout interstate dumping, because if it were such a crucial issue—if it were such a disastrous state ofaffairs—then surely we would have had the evidence to support those statements. When former DERMemployees were asked about this, the response was—It is somewhat difficult to quantify for materials that are not regulated. We do have information about regulated waste comingacross the border. In relation to other more opportunistic decisions that are made, all we have is pretty much anecdotal informationin relation to that.

As I said, at the time we had two opportunities to explore what this interstate dumping materialpotentially was. The first was regulated waste. What we were able to receive from the DERM officers,for which we were very grateful, was a table of regulated waste. What it showed was that it waspredominantly soil and sludge coming from other states and as far away as Tasmania, but it was only10,000 tonnes—hardly apocalyptic, hardly cataclysmic—of soil and sludge. The other area where it wassuggested we should look for this so-called interstate dumping was anecdotal evidence from councilsthat border New South Wales in particular. For starters, the Goondiwindi Regional Council never wantedto be part of this waste levy. It never wanted to be part of the waste levy zone. If it had an issue withinterstate dumping, surely it would have been asking the then government to be included in the wastelevy zone, but it was not.

Let us turn to the other border council, the Gold Coast City Council. When asked, Mr MatthewFraser, the then Acting Manager of Waste and Resources Management at Gold Coast City Council,admitted that the council was concerned about cross-border waste transfers and that it obviouslyneeded to have systems in place to try to minimise that. He also confirmed that at that stage the GoldCoast City Council did not prohibit waste coming from outside the area. He also confirmed that therewere far simpler solutions to this issue; namely, differential rates—that is, different disposal feesapplying to waste from external to the state. He suggested that another simple solution would be theproof-of-residency approach which is currently employed by other SEQ councils. So the whole basis onwhich this waste levy was established—

Mr Mulherin: So once this is abolished will we see a reduction in waste charges in council?

Mr POWELL: No. I take the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s interjection. He asked if we willsee a drop in council waste levy rates at landfill. You will certainly see some movement in that the $35waste tax is gone but in its place, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, is the carbon tax—$23 a tonne oneach and every tonne going into landfill. So whilst we have done our part for Queensland, forQueenslanders and for Queensland businesses and for Queensland councils, federal Labor has filledthat gap by putting the carbon tax on waste heading into landfill. The Leader of the Opposition in hercontribution this evening talked about the fact that domestic waste was excluded. I refer to thecomments made by the Premier. That certainly was not the case, because each and every individualwho called for a skip bin to deal with domestic waste on their site at their home was getting slugged thiswaste levy. As I said, as a result of the waste levy, seven businesses went out of business within thetime it took us to repeal it.

In terms of domestic waste, no mention so far has been made of the aged-care sector. Becauseof the fact that aged-care facilities require commercial waste contractors to collect their residentialwaste, each and every resident at an aged-care facility was being slugged this business tax. Clearlythose opposite did not care about some of our most needy. All of us would have a grandmother or great-grandmother or a mother or father who has resided at some point in our aged-care sector. Every singleone of those people was going to be paying more for their day-to-day living through this waste tax. TheLeader of the Opposition also referred to the opportunities that this so-called waste tax would bring. Ithink she was playing on the words of the member for South Brisbane with this idea that a waste taxwould actually create a whole stack of jobs to replace the ones that it was destroying in the privatesector.

Perhaps those in the long-established and strong waste industry in this state would take offenceat the fact that this would create brand-new jobs. There are many people involved in the waste industryalready. We heard from the member for Woodridge about one of them. On that note, let me add thatsome of the facts portrayed by the member for Woodridge are not true. My office and my departmenthave been in regular contact with the Erhards—have sent numerous letters, have made many phonecalls. We have bent over backwards for the Erhards, but the reality is that the Erhards haveunfortunately made business decisions based on a Labor tax that from day one we have declared wewill repeal. I am sorry for the position they are in, but they have made business decisions based onadvice they have received from the previous government in the full knowledge that from day one ourintent was to repeal this waste levy.

11 Jul 2012 Sustainable Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 1175

Let me conclude with a couple of comments in my opposition to this disallowance motion.Margaret Thatcher once said, ‘Socialism is a great idea until you run out of everyone else’s money.’ Letme repeat: ‘Socialism is a great idea until you run out of everyone else’s money.’


Mr POWELL: Tax, tax, levy, levy. Those opposite will have you believe that the waste tax wasabout environmental outcomes. We can achieve environmental outcomes by working with the industry.We are working with the industry and we will deliver improved recycling rates and less littering. We willdeliver it without a tax because at the end of the day those opposite brought in a tax not forenvironmental outcomes but as part of their socialist experiment of taking more money off those whogenerate the jobs in this state and as a result they were costing businesses and they were costingQueenslanders jobs each and every day. Like DERM before it the levy is dead, the levy is buried, thelevy is cremated and I oppose this disallowance motion.

Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to. AYES, 7—Byrne, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad. Tellers: Miller, Scott

NOES, 77—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli,Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Douglas, Dowling, Driscoll, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington,Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Hopper, Johnson, Judge, Katter, Kaye, Kempton, King,Knuth, Krause, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch,Powell, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout,Walker, Watts, Wellington, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Menkens, Sorensen

Resolved in the negative.

SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AMENDMENT REGULATION (NO. 2)


Mr WALKER (Mansfield—LNP) (9.09 pm): I move—That the Sustainable Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 2) of 2012, Subordinate Legislation No. 42 of 2012, tabled in theHouse on 17 February 2012, be disallowed.

Tonight I move to disallow the Sustainable Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2012. Thedisallowance of this regulation will give local governments and communities a say in developments intheir areas and put an end to uncertainty. The Sustainable Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 2)2012 was made, tabled and commenced on 17 February 2012, amending the Sustainable PlanningRegulation 2009. This regulation was quietly announced just days before the caretaker provisionscommenced. The regulation exempted existing schools and public hospitals in Queensland fromdevelopment assessment against local planning schemes. No consultation occurred with localgovernments, the Local Government Association of Queensland or other stakeholders during thedevelopment of this regulation. In the Mackay Daily Mercury on 24 February 2012 a Bligh governmentspokesperson was quoted to have said—Local governments’ compulsive need to control every minute detail is strangling the ability for core community infrastructure to bedeveloped.

Local governments and the Local Government Association of Queensland have been stronglycritical of the former Bligh government’s decision to exclude local governments and the community fromthe planning and approval process. One of the fundamental tenets of this government is to give backpowers to local governments that have been eroded over time by the former Labor government. Theprevious Labor government did not undertake any investigations of unintended consequences and noinformation was provided to local governments or other stakeholders on the effects or commencement.There is a lack of clarity amongst stakeholders about the regulation, including its commencement dateand whether it is currently in effect. Consequently, there is also a lack of clarity about local government’sability to issue infrastructure charges notices.

Disallowing this regulation will reinstate local government and community involvement in theplanning and approval process for existing schools and public hospitals and reinstate a publicconsultation process. Disallowing this regulation will prevent inconsistent approaches between existingschools and public hospitals, which are covered by the exemption, and new schools and publichospitals, which are not covered. In disallowing this regulation, we are delivering on yet another electioncommitment. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (9.12 pm): The opposition willbe opposing this disallowance motion because it increases the red-tape and cost burden on schools andhospitals in Queensland, particularly Catholic and independent schools and private hospitals. At a timewhen the LNP talks constantly about the cost of living and reducing red tape, it is moving in this House amotion that will add to the cost and time taken to upgrade schools and hospitals. Disallowing thisregulation will make it more expensive and more difficult for schools and hospitals to expand or modifythe facilities on their existing premises.







1176 Sustainable Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 11 Jul 2012

I must emphasise that this regulation applies to existing schools and hospitals, not greenfieldsites. I emphasise this point to allay any concerns that could exist in some members’ minds that schoolsand hospitals are no longer subject to council oversight. That is not true. If a school buys an adjoininghouse to expand its facility, it will still have to go through a relevant council approval process, but thisregulation allows existing schools and hospitals to avoid the unnecessary costs and delays associatedwith capital works on sites that already provide either education or medical services and that willenhance the services available. I should point out that the exemptions contained in this regulation wereused successfully during the Building the Education Revolution program to streamline approvals atQueensland schools.

Mr Seeney: It doesn’t change that.Mr MULHERIN: When LNP representatives have turned up to schools in my area they have

never criticised the school halls and school libraries that came from the Building the EducationRevolution program. The hypocrisy of it! That program allowed buildings to get off the ground and itcreated the jobs that were necessary during the GFC. Members of the government should know that,when they vote to support this motion, upgrades to schools and hospitals in their electorates will costmore and take longer. Those are the consequences of their action and they will not be able to shy awayfrom that. They will be voting for increased costs and project delays. They claim to be the party of cuttingwaste and red tape, but tonight they are creating it.

I am concerned that the government has not given due regard to the financial impacts of thismotion on the state’s budget. Each year hundreds and possibly even thousands of capital worksprojects are conducted at state schools and government hospitals. My understanding is that someschools and many hospitals will be subjected to council fees for capital works if this motion issuccessful. Therefore, I ask the minister and the assistant minister to answer a number of importantqueries: how many capital works projects were conducted in state schools and the public health systemlast financial year; how many of those would have incurred fees for council planning approvals with therescinding of this regulation; and what is the total amount of extra fees the Queensland governmentwould have been subject to if fees had applied to those projects?

I hope that the government has done this level of analysis and modelling. Surely the governmentwould have taken the time to quantify the impacts this change will have on state agencies, so the figuresshould be readily accessible. The Minister for Health and the Minister for Education, Training andEmployment should know and be able to tell us those figures. If they cannot produce the figures, itmeans the LNP government has not conducted the more basic analysis of its policy position. It showsthe inexperience and cavalier attitude the LNP takes to government. They do not believe they shouldhave to account for their actions or face proper scrutiny.

For every council approval required to be lodged, an application fee will be payable. This is anexpense that the Labor policy would have avoided. Of course, it is not just the application fee for councilapprovals that the state government will now have to pay. There is the time and expense in preparingcouncil planning applications that again will have to be borne by education and health departments. Forlarge capital works projects, this could be a very significant expense. Unfortunately, we do not know howmuch unless the government releases some information about the impacts the disallowance of thisregulation would have.

Tonight the LNP is creating more work for public servants by requiring them to once again prepareand lodge applications for planning approvals for schools and hospitals, but at the same time they aregutting the Public Service and cutting about 20,000 jobs. How will the increased demand on smallerworkforces affect the timelines for projects in our state schools and public hospitals? Unfortunately,applications will take longer to prepare with fewer staff and resources, and important projects that wouldbenefit the community will be delayed. For once, the LNP government will not be able to blame Labor forthose delays. They will have to take the responsibility because the delays will be directly related to thedecision made tonight.

Of course, it is not just the state government that will be adversely affected by the changes.Private hospitals and Catholic and independent schools will also be required to once again submitplanning applications to councils for projects on their existing sites. In relation to schools, there are onlytwo possible impacts of this decision: increased school fees or reduced services. For a government thatcontinually talks about the cost-of-living pressures on families, this policy will do nothing to help. In fact,it will hurt all the families that send their children to Catholic and independent schools, which cater forabout one-third of all students in Queensland. Those families now face the real prospect of feeincreases, particularly if their school is planning building works over the next few years. The same goesfor private hospitals. The extra costs will be passed on to patients, adding further to medical bills andcost-of-living pressures. The change also means more expenses for those institutions and delays fortheir worthwhile projects. We will be opposing the disallowance motion because it increases the costsand red-tape burden for public and private schools and hospitals, and it is likely to add to the cost-of-living pressures for many families.

Hon. JW SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development,Infrastructure and Planning) (9.19 pm): The government will be supporting the disallowance motionmoved by the member for Mansfield. In the short address that he gave to the parliament the member for





11 Jul 2012 Sustainable Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 1177

Mansfield demonstrated an understanding of what this issue is about. I congratulate the member forMansfield on the insight that he brought to what is a fairly basic planning issue. I commend the memberfor Mansfield for the comments he made about returning proper authority to local government becausethat is what this is about. It is about returning the authority to local government that the former Laborgovernment totally ignored.

The contribution that was made by the member for Mansfield stands in stark contrast to thecontribution that was made by the member for Mackay. If anybody in Queensland wants to understandwhy the former Labor government ended up in such a mess, why Queensland ended up in such a messand why Queensland ended up with $100 billion worth of debt, they only need to listen to thecontribution that the member for Mackay made tonight. This man was a minister in the formergovernment for a considerable period of time and yet he has no ability to understand the basic argumentthat the member for Mansfield put to this House tonight.

Not only did the member for Mackay not try to understand the issue; he came in here with aspeech that was written by a junior geek down at ALP headquarters and read it without understanding it.He made no attempt to understand the speech and no attempt to understand the issue and came inhere and sprouted nonsense gobbledegook. I say to the members who were not here for all those yearsthat the member for Mackay and his ministerial colleagues did that day after day after day in thischamber. That is why the state is in such a mess, my honourable friend. You and your colleagues neverthought about the nonsense that you came in here and repeated and you never understood theimplications of it.

Let me go through the issues one at a time. For the benefit of the member for Mackay I will gothrough the issues one at a time, if he can remember what he actually read. He made some commentabout public servants having to do more work because they now have to go through planningprocesses. Wrong. That is not what this disallowance will bring about. There is nothing in what themember for Mansfield said that would indicate that. There was nothing in this regulation that wouldindicate that. He is completely wrong. There is no basis for that nonsense. That is a completemisunderstanding of what the regulation does.

The member for Mackay talked about the BER projects suddenly costing more or being moredifficult. Wrong. They are not affected by the regulation. That has nothing to do with it. It is completelyirrelevant nonsense, like the irrelevant nonsense that the member and his colleagues sprouted in hereyear after year after year as the state went further and further and further into debt and we ended upwith that shameful legacy that the member for Mackay and his colleagues will live with for the rest oftheir days and that generations of Queenslanders will struggle to repay because of the incompetencethat we saw demonstrated again tonight.

This has nothing to do with the BER program. It has nothing to do with delivering the buildingsthat are necessary for year 7 to move into high school. It is all about returning a level of control to localgovernments—recognising the autonomy of local governments and returning a level of control to thoseduly elected local governments. If honourable members followed the logic that somebody wrote into thespeech for the member for Mackay to read to its obvious conclusion, we would not have a planningscheme at all. We would not have planning applications for anything. We would not have any planningschemes, no control for councils.

Mr Crisafulli: That’s how they plan.

Mr SEENEY: Exactly. That is how they plan. I take the interjection from the minister. That is howthe former Labor government planned. They had no planning. They had no control. It was just what wasconvenient on the day. It was just what they could fit into their allocated time in this House. They wouldread nonsense that they did not understand.

This is a sensible reversal of an action that was taken by the previous government that they didnot understand. They did not understand the consequences of it. They did not know what it was going todo. They did not know the effect that it would have in local communities. Of course, we are going toreverse it. Over a period of time we will reverse a lot of other similar decisions that were taken by theinept member for Mackay and his inept colleagues who sat around the cabinet table for so long.

The disallowance motion that has been moved tonight is just one small step in returning to localgovernment the recognition that they should have—the ability that they should have to control theircommunities. It is relevant to remember that this was introduced without any consultation—noconsultation at all. I heard the Minister for Local Government in an earlier debate tonight talk aboutconsultation being like a blunt brick, I think he said.

The Minister for Local Government knows full well the level of consultation with local governmentin those days by a government that did not care about local government. They did not understand therole of local government. But worse than that, they did not care about the decisions that they made inthis place. They did not even care or think about the effects of their decisions. They did not try tounderstand, just as the member for Mackay did not try to understand what the member for Mansfield


1178 Adjournment 11 Jul 2012

said tonight and did not try to understand the nonsense that was written for him that he was sent in hereto regurgitate. It was an absolutely shameful performance. This House should support the member forMansfield and support this disallowance motion.

Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to.

AYES, 77—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli,Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Douglas, Dowling, Driscoll, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington,Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Hopper, Johnson, Judge, Katter, Kaye, Kempton, King,Knuth, Krause, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch,Powell, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes,Trout, Walker, Watts, Wellington, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Menkens, Smith

NOES, 7—Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Scott, Trad. Tellers: Byrne, Miller

Resolved in the affirmative.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (Manager of Government Business) (9.32 pm): I move—

That the House do now adjourn.

National Rugby League

Mr COSTIGAN (Whitsunday—LNP) (9.33 pm): I wish to advise the House of some history thatwas created in the great city of Mackay on Sunday, 24 June 2012 when the NRL came to my hometown, the centre of the biggest regional economy of the north, thanks to the Canterbury Bulldogs andthe Melbourne Storm. Although the biggest Bulldogs supporter in the House, the member for Gregory,was nowhere to be seen that day—

Mr Johnson: I was working hard for the electorate. Where do you think I would be?

Mr COSTIGAN: I will have to call for protection, Mr Deputy Speaker! I can advise the House thatthe biggest rugby league fanatic in the House certainly was at the game, along with thousands of leaguelovers from not only my electorate of Whitsunday but also much further afield. The game was played atMackay’s Virgin Australia Stadium, all thanks to the vision and commitment of the Bulldogs, originallyscheduled to play in Adelaide—

Mr Johnson: Who won the game?

Mr COSTIGAN: Canterbury are still coming, aren’t they? The game was originally schedule to beplayed in Adelaide but, due to venue unavailability, Canterbury brought their home game against theStorm to Mackay, the home town of Bulldogs star Ben Barba. And what a game it was, with the Dogswinning with Ben Barba, whose family is well known in local rugby league circles, the star of the show. Itwas great to catch up with Ben and his father, Kenny, and family after the game. Despite terrible weatherthat day, the attendance happened to be around the 12,000 mark. It was also a great showcase for notonly rugby league in Mackay and the Whitsundays but also our region in general, with Fox Sportsbeaming the game live right around Australia and abroad through international affiliates such as SKY TVin New Zealand.

We have a great rugby league heritage in Mackay and the Whitsundays. Like other places aroundthe north and, indeed, regional communities around Queensland, it is part of our social fabric. There arethree senior clubs in my electorate. All of them had their fans there on 24 June, cheering for either theBulldogs or the Storm—or perhaps neither. That is because they just wanted to be part of history orbecause they simply love rugby league—the greatest game of all.

I might add: our heritage for league is encapsulated in the fact that, ever since Dale Shearerrepresented Queensland in State of Origin in 1985, the Mackay-Whitsunday region has boasted at leastone local boy in the Maroons team every year bar one, if memory serves me correctly. I will list a few ofthem: Martin Bella, Wendell Sailor, Kevin Campion, Owen Cunningham, Neville Costigan, Brett Dallas,Travis Norton, Clinton Schifcofske, Paul Bowman, Josh Hannay, Steve Jackson, Matt Sing, MikeMcLean and, of course, more recently Dane Nielsen, a member of this year’s successful Queenslandside that made it seven consecutive series wins against New South Wales. It is a great nursery forleague. It was a great event on 24 June not only for local league but also for local commerce. Icommend my former colleague, Bulldogs CEO Todd Greenburg, for bringing the game to my hometown. I look forward to more NRL games coming to this rugby league mad community in the years tocome.






11 Jul 2012 Adjournment 1179

Woodridge Electorate, Programs

Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (9.36 pm): Tonight I wish to pay tribute to one of our most trustedand effective youth services, the PCYC, and in particular the four PCYCs in Logan City. Widely knownas one of the most successful clubs in Queensland, the Logan Central club occupies the mostinadequate and antiquated building, which is bursting at the seams. We are hopeful that one day wemay see a sparkling, bright, new, large building to increase the club size. However, the work that is donein that space is simply remarkable. The usual gymnastics, dance and many other activities are regulars.

I particularly want to bring to the attention of the House tonight a very innovative program devisedby Sergeant Rachel Whitford to assist our young people who have difficulty attaining the 100 hoursrequired to get their P-plates. Seed funding was received from DEEWR and DEEDI for the Breaking theCycle program, which commenced in June. Rachel has been hugely successful in attracting volunteersto assist with this program. I have now heard her twice on ABC Radio outlining the vision to assist youngpeople, many of whom are from disadvantaged backgrounds with little hope of attaining the required100 hours. Listeners quickly warmed to the idea and very soon Rachel had a number of people willing toassist. Two cars were donated by the ASU and we now have over 20 young people on their way tobeing able to work towards being licensed, thus assisting those requiring a licence for employment toovercome one very significant obstacle. To date, 96 driving hours have been totalled and it is hoped thatthis program will be able to be sustained as this is one of the very real barriers that many young peopleface when seeking employment.

Funding has also been provided in conjunction with the Logan Child Protection Investigation Unitof the QPS to run a Child Protection Week program called Elf. Elf was the miniature horse draggedbehind a car in Grantham who has now been rehabilitated. This program is to encourage young peopleto feel safe to talk about issues that have hurt or affected them.

There are so many wonderful programs I could talk about. The Tudor Park facility has a youthworker working on three different youth programs. The Duke of Edinburgh program, the Team Upprogram and 15 other activities regularly happen at that centre. The Crestmead centre, which is ournewest centre and is also in my electorate, has many, many innovative programs. I just want tocommend each worker there and the volunteers in particular.

(Time expired)

Junior Touch Football State Cup

Mr SORENSEN (Hervey Bay—LNP) (9.39 pm): I am pleased and proud to bring to the attentionof the House that last weekend Hervey Bay held the annual Queensland Junior Touch Football StateCup. Hervey Bay has held this event for the past two years. For the Queensland Junior Touch FootballState Cup, teams come from South-East Queensland to Rockhampton to compete in the three-daycarnival run by the Queensland Touch Association. Age divisions include under-10s, under-12s, under-14s, under-16s and under-18s, with both boys and girls teams. It was a great weekend for everyone.

The Hervey Bay sporting complex, which encompasses the Hervey Bay United Sports Club, theHervey Bay Hockey Association and the Hervey Bay Rugby League Football Club, has all the facilitiesneeded to host such a large event, catering to all participants and supporters. The sporting complex issituated off Boundary Road and Tavistock Street. It is the ideal venue, with 21 to 25 fields, and it is easilyaccessible with ample parking. This venue is only a few minutes drive to the esplanade of Hervey Bayand to the beach and its 16-kilometre paved exercise track, where restaurants and shops are situatedalong its length.

Hervey Bay has a full complement of accessible, affordable accommodation for families and is inthe top five destinations in Queensland for a holiday. Team nominations for the 2012 carnival exceededthe 160 from last year, with 179 teams from Queensland competing this year. I believe that Hervey Bayis an ideal destination for events, as we capture all of the South-East Queensland population within afour-hour drive from Rockhampton to the border.

This is definitely an event for players, parents and spectators to come and support their regionalteam and enjoy the great climate and hospitality which Hervey Bay has to offer. Accommodation wasbooked heavily for the three-day event and it is reported that it brought over 5,000 visitors to the FraserCoast. We are proud to host such a wonderful event that is growing in popularity.

I congratulate the hard work put in by Gary Madders, Peter Bevan, the CEO of Queensland TouchFootball, and Warren Pryde, the chairman of Queensland Touch Football. They did a fantastic job inorganising nearly 180 teams including umpires throughout the whole weekend.








Bulk Water Prices

Mr KNUTH (Dalrymple—KAP) (9.42 pm): I wish to bring to the attention of the House thegovernment’s adoption of the Queensland Competition Authority’s recommendation for SunWater bulkpricing. This is disastrous for irrigators and sounds the death knell for many farmers who will fold underunsustainable water and electricity price increases. This government has the opportunity to prove thatagriculture is a priority by reducing the cost of production and ensuring that farmers can afford to farm.The QCA found that irrigators were already paying too much for water, but because of the Laborgovernment’s policy of fleecing farmers at every turn the authority was instructed that lowering priceswas not an option.

By pushing through with the Queensland Competition Authority recommendations and notenforcing its own terms of reference, this government has effectively blocked any reduction in thecrippling cost of water and cast doubt on its commitment to double food production in Queensland. Theonus is now on the government to prove that its pre-election rhetoric was more than just a slogan to winvotes.

In the Mareeba-Dimbulah SunWater irrigator scheme, relift costs will go up by between 40 and60 per cent, which is very different from the $2 plus CPI being spruiked by the minister. In real terms alarge irrigator will be paying $23,500 more for the same water in five years time and will have paidalmost $100,000 extra for the water over that period.

With increased electricity prices, farmers will also be slugged with increases of 10 per cent to72 per cent on top of the federal government’s carbon tax. The combined impact of unsustainableelectricity and water costs on farmers and farming in Queensland will be devastating. Farmers cannotpass the increased cost to consumers. They have their backs to the wall. While government turns up thecost of utilities on one side, Coles and Woolworths drive down farm-gate prices on the other. We are nottalking about facts and figures; we are talking about people’s lives. Their livelihoods, their history, theirculture and their future are being taken away by the very government which promised to look after them.

Primary producers are on their knees and many will have to walk away, at a great personal loss.Unfortunately, as farms close down our food security, the capacity of Queensland and the rest ofAustralia to feed itself, will be compromised. Millions of dollars in revenue will be under threat as farmerswho are protected by governments in other countries are able to provide food at a lower cost. There areactions that the state government can take and must take that will relieve the cost of production. I call onthe Premier to step in before it is too late.

The QCA terms of reference for water pricing and electricity pricing were set by the former Laborgovernment and can be changed by this government. A moratorium on water price increases can beimplemented to enable the restructuring of water management and delivery. Water management can bereturned to local communities rather than profit motivated enterprises. These are some of the changesindustry groups are crying out for so that irrigators can remain viable. I call on the Premier to take thenecessary actions to restore confidence in our agricultural industry and revitalise primary production inQueensland.

Social Housing

Mr SHORTEN (Algester—LNP) (9.45 pm): I want to share with the House tonight my thoughts onthe social housing situation in my wonderful electorate of Algester. Honourable members mightremember that in my maiden speech I mentioned that I am a product of social housing. I grew up in thehousing commission estate at Coopers Plains. My mother still lives in that housing commission estateafter 60 years. I have a sister who lives in social housing and I have a brother on the waiting list. Apartfrom the Minister for Housing, there is no stronger advocate for social housing in this place than me.

I was privileged enough to be with the member for Stretton and the honourable minister BruceFlegg at a social housing forum held in the electorate of Stretton two weeks ago. We spoke to a numberof stakeholders within the industry. I can tell the House that the feedback after that forum was wonderfulto hear. Honourable members may know that the former member for Algester was also the formerhousing minister. They spoke to me and said it was wonderful that they had been given moreinformation in one sitting of an hour by the now minister than they had ever been given by the formerminister.

There are 274 government homes in my electorate of Algester. There are 179 three-bedroomhomes and 53 four-bedroom homes. Of that number, 82 dwellings are classed as underoccupied. Thereare 253 families on the waiting list for housing. Ninety-one of those are rated ‘very high’ or ‘high’. Wehave seen in the statistics released from the consultation undertaken by the minister that tenants ofsocial housing understand that the social housing product does not suit the market that we need now.We have a lot of three-bedroom and four-bedroom homes where we need single- or two-bedroomhomes.








We have heard tenants of social housing say in consultation with the minister that theyunderstand that there are issues. They understand that the solution lies with the tenants and lies withthe minister. They are happy to engage in dialogue with the minister and the department to find solutionsto the issues. I offer myself up to the tenants of social housing in my electorate. If they want to come andspeak to me about it, I will more than happily meet them on the corner outside their homes. I will morethan happily take up their issues with the minister, and I will advocate strongly for social housing in myelectorate.

Samford Show

Mr SHUTTLEWORTH (Ferny Grove—LNP) (9.48 pm): I rise in the House this evening to paytribute to the Samford and District Show Society and the event of the Samford show, which is on thisweekend. The Samford show is in its 44th year. The showgrounds are situated approximately 25kilometres from Brisbane city and seven kilometres from Samford Village. They are located in a lushcountry setting surrounded by mountains and are a worthy location to showcase local business andcommunity groups throughout the show weekend.

This year the show society expects approximately 14,000 attendees from far and wide. To enticethe visitors, the committee has packaged together a huge array of local community groups andbusinesses. There are also a few drawcards such as Erth’s Dinosaur Petting Zoo, the DreamtimeReptiles show, helicopter rides, sheep shearing, wood chopping, a world champion sand sculpture anda wide array of equestrian events, as you would expect in such a show. The crew from Better Homesand Gardens will also be assisting throughout the show and attending to the official opening formalities.

As is always the case, the show will also have myriad sideshow alley rides, novelty giftware, showbags and soft toy stalls to entice families and children. Without a doubt, though, the highlight for myyoung family will be the cheering on of our sponsored pig in the pig-racing events throughout theweekend. To assist the race caller and eliminate the risk of becoming tongue-tied, my children havenamed our black piglet Bloink, and I wish it well in its racing career.

As with all rural show societies, this event would simply not be possible without the support oflocals and businesses. The Samford show executive is made up of the following people: president TerryHogan, vice-president Frank Lippett, secretary Ingrid Hutton, treasurer Brian Chu, stalls convenor HilarySmith and committee members Ray Rose, Dot Millar, Doug Haigh and Richard Ward. There areupwards of 100 sponsoring businesses, and their contributions, in conjunction with the Queenslandgovernment grant, the Moreton Bay Regional Council grant and the contribution from the Samford anddistrict progress association, have ensured that the Samford and District Show Society, which is a not-for-profit community organisation, can continue to provide this annual event.

Special thanks must also go to the Samford Rotary and Lions clubs for their assistance inpreparing the arena and field for the show, the Golden Valley Keperra Lions for their assistance inticketing and the Samford State School for their assistance in organising the specialty children’s eventsin the main arena. I encourage everyone to make the effort to visit the show over the course of theweekend and witness what is truly one of the best rural show events of the calendar year.

Eric Deeral Indigenous Youth Parliament

Mr DAVIES (Capalaba—LNP) (9.51 pm): I rise to inform the House of the recent Eric DeeralIndigenous Youth Parliament which I, along with others in the House, had the pleasure of attending andplaying a small part in. This event is part of the wider week-long Indigenous youth leadership programwhich was run in partnership by the department of communities’ Office for Youth, Xstrata Coal and theQueensland parliament. Young people from Bamaga, Yarrabah and the Torres Strait as well as manyfrom the south-east corner of the state attended the event, and their enthusiasm, skill and commitmentwere infectious. One of the ways that I contributed was by helping with the speech writing. It was a realpleasure to be involved in that and to meet many of the young people who were involved. I was helpingthe opposition in their speech writing.

Mr Latter interjected.

Mr DAVIES: I know. It was a tough call, but they were great young people. One of the young guysI helped was a boy named Tyson. I enjoyed working with him. He was a boy of fuller figure, as I am, butthe one thing about Tyson was that he was very nervous. He had real problems putting his thoughts onpaper, and I was able to sit with him and talk with him about some of the issues he had gone through. Itwas a pleasure to see him get up and make his speech with confidence. He spoke about his issues withgetting an education and, to be honest, I had a little tear in my eye when I saw Tyson get up and delivera very, very good speech. One of the other young ladies I had the pleasure of working with was theyouth parliament leader of the opposition, a young girl called Renee. Renee gave a speech that wouldnot be out of place in the House here today. She gave a great speech so I was very privileged to beinvolved with those folk. For quite a number of those who participated, especially those from the TorresStrait, English is their second language. Some even included their mother tongue in their speeches andincorporated aspects of their culture and community to argue their case.








This event was attended by its namesake, Mr Eric Deeral. Mr Deeral was Queensland’s firstIndigenous MP and he will be 80 this year. He was the first Indigenous person to be elected to anAustralian state parliament. He represented the seat of Cook for the National Party, I am proud to say, inthe Queensland parliament from 1974 to 1977. It was a great honour for me to shake his hand and toget a photo with this great statesman. I would like to commend Madam Speaker, Fiona Simpson, fortaking the initiative to obtain the permission of Uncle Eric—

(Time expired)

Sunshine Coast, Train Services; Caloundra South Development

Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (9.54 pm): This evening I offer the Premier another suggestionon what the state government could do with the taxpayers’ money it could save by not proceeding withthe politically motivated High Court challenge to the federal government’s mining resource rent tax. Ibelieve it is absolutely ridiculous in these times of hardship that the state government intends to join in aHigh Court challenge over the federal government’s mining resource rent tax when it is obvious toeveryone that after the federal election scheduled for next year Tony Abbott will be the next AustralianPrime Minister. Whether you like it or not, it will happen and there will be no mining resource rent tax andno carbon tax in Australia.

My suggestion to our Premier is that the savings from the abandoned court proceedings could bebetter spent on providing toilets on the trains that travel between the Sunshine Coast and Brisbane. It istotally unacceptable that train passengers who take this trip from the Sunshine Coast to Brisbane butwho need to visit a toilet during the journey have to get off the train at Caboolture, visit the toilet and thencatch a later train to continue their journey to Brisbane. I believe that if the Premier proceeds with thisHigh Court challenge it will show the double standards of this government—by depriving our elderly anddisabled train passengers—

Mr BLEIJIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The member for Nicklin is misguided.There is no challenge. There is no joining.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): That is not a point of order, Attorney-General.

Mr WELLINGTON: I believe that if the Premier proceeds with his High Court challenge it showsthe double standards of this government—by depriving our elderly and disabled passengers ofimportant toilet facilities on our trains while claiming that the government has no money. What adisgrace—because at the same time they are going to waste taxpayers’ money on pandering toFortescue’s mining interests, simply because they can. That is what is on the parliamentary record.

While I am on my feet, I table an article published in today’s Sunshine Coast Daily written byMr Bill Hoffman about the Caloundra South development.

Tabled paper: Article from the Sunshine Coast Daily online, dated 11 July 2012, titled ‘Change brings business as usual’ [518].

Can I say that I share the concerns of Mr Hoffman and the former mayor of the Sunshine CoastRegional Council, Bob Abbot, about this significant development, which, when completed, membersmay not be aware, could be of a size equal to Gladstone.

Mr Bleijie interjected.

Ms TRAD: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. If the Attorney-General wants to interject,he should go back to his own seat.

Mr Bleijie: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am Acting Leader of the House. This is where the Acting Leaderof the House sits.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat.

Mr WELLINGTON: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope my actions in tabling this articletonight—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WELLINGTON:—might prompt the Premier or any of his ministers to pick up the telephone,speak with Mr Hoffman and respond to the serious—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nicklin! I am on my feet! Do you want to leave theHouse early?

Mr WELLINGTON: Sorry.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would help if you paid more attention to what was happening in theHouse.

Mr WELLINGTON: I thought there were interjections from them and I did not want to take them.






Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order by the member for South Brisbane, the Attorney-General is within his right as the Acting Leader of the House to make points of order from where he isseated. The member for Nicklin has the call.

Ms TRAD: Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: is that the Acting Leader of the House or theActing Manager of Government Business?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is actually Acting Leader of the House. I consider that to be a mostfrivolous point of order, especially so close to the finish of the day. The member for South Brisbane hasalready been warned under standing order 253A, so now under 253A the member for South Brisbanewill leave the chamber for one hour—basically the duration.

Whereupon the honourable member for South Brisbane withdrew from the chamber at 9.59 pm.

Mr WELLINGTON: I hope my actions in tabling this article tonight might prompt the Premier orany of his senior ministers to pick up the telephone, speak with Mr Hoffman and respond to the seriousissues raised not just in this article about the Caloundra South development but also in previous articlesthat he has written about this significant development which is about to happen in the hinterland of theSunshine Coast south of Caloundra. I agree that we need economic development, but let us make surethat the reasons for the decisions are all aboveboard and in our community’s best interests.

Lytton Electorate, Sporting Organisations

Mr SYMES (Lytton—LNP) (9.59 pm): Tonight I rise to speak about community sport in Lytton. Theelectorate has a rich history and diversity of sporting clubs and organisations, with nearly every type ofsport or leisure activity being accommodated within the Brisbane bayside. Some of the most famousAustralian sports men and women have played sport in this district over the years, including legendWally Lewis, Colin Scott, Greg Dowling, Rod Morris, Samantha Riley and Adam Dale, just to name afew. The most prolific sporting club in my electorate is that of the mighty Wynnum Manly Seagulls.

A government member: Go the Seagulls!

Mr SYMES: Go the Seagulls; that is right.

Mr Driscoll: Not as good as Redcliffe!

Mr SYMES: We are going to win this year as well. I am a member of the club as well as theirleagues club. Last year the mighty Seagulls were the jewel in the Queensland Intrust Super Cup crownby winning their first premiership in over 15 years. Wynnum Manly’s victory was a good-news storyabout not only sport but also local pride. The streets were decorated in green and red as WynnumManly partied for nearly a week after their historic win. Some say that we are still celebrating from 2011,as the mighty Wynnum Manly Seagulls are still sitting on top of the 2012 ladder under Paul Green’sguidance. This is just one great example of how community sport can have a positive impact on not justthe participants of that sport but also the community. It is also a testament to the great team of WynnumManly that it was well represented in the Queensland residence side for the State of Origin pregamematch last week where Nathanael Barnes, big Charlie Gubb, Jake Granville—

Mr Driscoll interjected.

Mr SYMES: I take that interjection. As I was saying, Wynnum Manly was well represented bythose players as well as Jon Grieve and Dan Wallace and coached by Wynnum Manly’s own PaulGreen. Queensland won. In my first 100 days as the member for Lytton I have attended numerouscommunity sporting organisations to meet club officials and participants, including the Bayside UnitingSoccer Club’s sign-on day, Darling Point Sailability club and numerous others. Also last week I was withthe member for Chatsworth at the Wynnum Manly District Cricket Club and we look forward to going tothe Cricket World Cup next week.

Deception Bay, Prime Ministerial Visit

Mr GULLEY (Murrumba—LNP) (10.02 pm): I rise today to speak of the disappointment of hostinga Prime Minister in my electorate last Sunday. I refer to Sarah Elks’s article in Monday’s Australianwhich detailed that Julia Gillard visited Deception Bay on a sunny Brisbane morning in a bid to shore upsupport in the deeply unfriendly north. Deception Bay is a small community. After a couple of quickinquiries, I found out that the Prime Minister of Australia chose to visit Deception Bay at the beautifulwaterfront location of the Captain Cook Parade parklands.

A government member interjected.

Mr GULLEY: I take that interjection. This is arguably the most out-of-the-way and secluded parkthat exists in my electorate, which makes me think that Julia Gillard was actually hiding and actuallyskulking away out of sight of the community. Is she so ashamed that she needs to hide? Are we thatdeeply unfriendly in Deception Bay that she wants to hide and avoid us?

Mr Krause: Deception Bay is very appropriate.







1184 Attendance 11 Jul 2012

Mr GULLEY: I take that interjection. I also checked the community noticeboards and foundnothing. That is right: we host the Prime Minister of Australia in Deception Bay and yet she is soashamed to show her face in the deeply unfriendly north that not only does she choose an isolatedlocation so that no-one finds out she is there but also she goes out of her way to make sure that no localis notified in advance. On behalf of Deception Bay, I say to the Prime Minister: if she is ashamed to meetus, then we will be ashamed of her and remain the deeply unfriendly north.

Question put—That the House do now adjourn.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10.05 pm.

ATTENDANCE

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

hansard home page: e-mail: phone: (07) 3406 7314 … (07) 3406 7314 fax: (07) 3210 0182 first...

Documents