hansard home page: e-mail: phone: (07) 3406 7314 fax: (07 ......1 december 2008 tabled paper:...

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSHansard Home Page: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/hansard/

E-mail: [email protected]: (07) 3406 7314 Fax: (07) 3210 0182

FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT Page

PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

Subject

Wednesday, 3 December 2008ASSENT TO BILLS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4031

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 1 December 2008, from Her Excellency the Governor to Mr Speaker advising of assent to bills on 1 December 2008. .................................................................................................................. 4031

PRIVILEGE ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4031Correction to Record of Proceedings ................................................................................................................................. 4031

PETITIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4032TABLED PAPERS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4032MINISTERIAL PAPERS ................................................................................................................................................................. 4032MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 4032

Interest Rates; Mortgagee Fire Sales ................................................................................................................................. 4032Tabled paper: Property Law (Mortgagor Protection) Amendment Bill 2008. .......................................................... 4033Tabled paper: Property Law (Mortgagor Protection) Amendment Bill 2008, explanatory notes............................. 4033

Infrastructure Projects ........................................................................................................................................................ 4033Disability Carers; Companion Card .................................................................................................................................... 4034Infrastructure Projects ........................................................................................................................................................ 4034Electricity Prices ................................................................................................................................................................. 4035Interest Rates ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4036Skin Cancer Prevention ...................................................................................................................................................... 4037Currimundi State School, Surf Safety ................................................................................................................................. 4037Sex Offenders, Management ............................................................................................................................................. 4037Public Transport, Disability Access .................................................................................................................................... 4038Storm Damage Repair, Building Industry ........................................................................................................................... 4039Roads Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................................................... 4039Rural Fire Service ............................................................................................................................................................... 4039Moreton Bay Marine Park ................................................................................................................................................... 4040Environmental Protection Agency, Land Transfers ............................................................................................................ 4040Department of Child Safety, Staff ....................................................................................................................................... 4041Tourism Industry ................................................................................................................................................................. 4042Pet Shop Code of Practice ................................................................................................................................................. 4042

NOTICE OF MOTION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4043Electricity Prices ................................................................................................................................................................. 4043

M F REYNOLDS N J LAURIE L J OSMONDSPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER

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

Table of Contents — Wednesday, 3 December 2008

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...................................................................................................................................................4043Risk Analysis Matrix, Adverse Publicity ..............................................................................................................................4043

Tabled paper: Document, dated 5 March 2007, titled ‘Risk Analysis Matrix—Rating the Level of Risk’.................4043Risk Analysis Matrix, Adverse Publicity ..............................................................................................................................4043

Tabled paper: Extract from the Queensland Public Hospitals Commission of Inquiry Report (pages 189-190 and 537). .................................................................................................................................................................4043

Economic Management ......................................................................................................................................................4043Teachers, Red Marking Pens .............................................................................................................................................4044

Tabled paper: Queensland Health document titled ‘Classroom Ideas for the Teacher—strategies for addressing mental health wellbeing in any classroom’. ..........................................................................................4044

Surf-Lifesavers ....................................................................................................................................................................4045Directors-General, Salaries .................................................................................................................................................4045

Tabled paper: Extract from Department of Education, Training and the Arts notes to and forming part of the financial statements for the year ending 30 June 2008 relating to executive remuneration. ........................4045

Infrastructure Projects .........................................................................................................................................................4046Queensland Rail, Graffiti .....................................................................................................................................................4046

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 13 November 2008, from Paul Scurrah, Executive General Manager, QR Passenger Pty Ltd, to the Lord Mayor of Brisbane relating to graffiti on trains.................................................4047

Queensland Police Service, Expenditure ............................................................................................................................4047Hendra Virus .......................................................................................................................................................................4048Australian Bureau of Statistics, National Accounts .............................................................................................................4048Bundaberg, Health Services ...............................................................................................................................................4049Public Transport, Projects ...................................................................................................................................................4049Gladstone Airport ................................................................................................................................................................4050Queensland Health, Infrastructure Projects ........................................................................................................................4051Cairns, BreastScreen Clinic ................................................................................................................................................4051Education Queensland, Infrastructure Projects ..................................................................................................................4052Queensland Economy ........................................................................................................................................................4052

Tabled paper: Extract from the Australian Bureau of Statistics web site titled ‘Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product, September 2008’. .............................................................4053

ICT Projects ........................................................................................................................................................................4053SPEAKER’S STATEMENT .............................................................................................................................................................4054

Criminal Code (Truth in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2008 ................................................................................................4054PROPERTY LAW (MORTGAGOR PROTECTION) AMENDMENT BILL ......................................................................................4055

Declared Urgent; Allocation of Time Limit Order ................................................................................................................4055PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...........................................................................................................................................4055

Queensland Economy ........................................................................................................................................................4055Pacific Motorway Upgrade ..................................................................................................................................................4056Bundaberg, Health Services ...............................................................................................................................................4056Pacific Motorway, Nerang South Interchange .....................................................................................................................4057Dreamtime Tracks; Wide Bay Australia International Airshow ............................................................................................4057Q150 Funding, First European Settlement .........................................................................................................................4057Queensland Police Service, Dive Team .............................................................................................................................4058Baby Capsule Hire Service .................................................................................................................................................4058Gold Coast Rail Service; Eastern Busway, Resumptions ...................................................................................................4059

Tabled paper: Non-conforming petition relating to Yeerongpilly Railway Station. ..................................................4059Mount Isa Electorate ...........................................................................................................................................................4059

Tabled paper: Brochure titled ‘Wet Wipe, Wash and Eat Well’. ..............................................................................4059Prep Year, Capital Works Program .....................................................................................................................................4060Auslan in Sport ...................................................................................................................................................................4060Nambour, Government Offices ...........................................................................................................................................4061Yeerongpilly Electorate, Heavy Vehicles ............................................................................................................................4061Country Racing ...................................................................................................................................................................4061

PROPERTY LAW (MORTGAGOR PROTECTION) AMENDMENT BILL ......................................................................................4062First Reading ......................................................................................................................................................................4062

Tabled paper: Property Law (Mortgagor Protection) Amendment Bill.....................................................................4062Tabled paper: Property Law (Mortgagor Protection) Amendment Bill, explanatory notes. .....................................4062

Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................................4062GREENHOUSE GAS STORAGE BILL ..........................................................................................................................................4062

First Reading ......................................................................................................................................................................4062Tabled paper: Greenhouse Gas Storage Bill. .........................................................................................................4063Tabled paper: Greenhouse Gas Storage Bill, explanatory notes............................................................................4063

Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................................4063ANIMAL MANAGEMENT (CATS AND DOGS) BILL .....................................................................................................................4064

Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................................4064PROPERTY LAW (MORTGAGOR PROTECTION) AMENDMENT BILL ......................................................................................4071

Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................................4071Consideration in Detail ........................................................................................................................................................4079

Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. ........................................................................................................................4079Clauses 4 to 6, as read, agreed to. ........................................................................................................................4080

Third Reading .....................................................................................................................................................................4080Long Title ............................................................................................................................................................................4080

Table of Contents — Wednesday, 3 December 2008

ANIMAL MANAGEMENT (CATS AND DOGS) BILL .................................................................................................................... 4080Second Reading ................................................................................................................................................................. 4080Consideration in Detail ....................................................................................................................................................... 4097

Clauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to. ....................................................................................................................... 4097Clause 6, as read, agreed to. ................................................................................................................................. 4097Clauses 7 to 12, as read, agreed to. ...................................................................................................................... 4097Clause 13, as read, agreed to. ............................................................................................................................... 4098Clauses 14 to 39, as read, agreed to. .................................................................................................................... 4098Clause 40, as read, agreed to. ............................................................................................................................... 4099Clauses 41 to 230, as read, agreed to. .................................................................................................................. 4099Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to................................................................................................................... 4099

Third Reading ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4099Long Title ............................................................................................................................................................................ 4099

MOTION .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4099Electricity Prices ................................................................................................................................................................. 4099

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS .......................................................................................................................................................... 4107MOTION .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4108

Electricity Prices ................................................................................................................................................................. 4108Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to................................................................................... 4109Resolved in the affirmative. .................................................................................................................................... 4109Division: Question put—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to. ................................................................... 4110Resolved in the affirmative. .................................................................................................................................... 4110

CRIMINAL CODE (TRUTH IN PARLIAMENT) AMENDMENT BILL ............................................................................................. 4110Second Reading ................................................................................................................................................................. 4110

Tabled paper: A five cent piece. ............................................................................................................................. 4124MOTION .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4129

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders .................................................................................................................. 4129CRIMINAL CODE (TRUTH IN PARLIAMENT) AMENDMENT BILL ............................................................................................. 4130

Second Reading ................................................................................................................................................................. 4130Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. ......................................................................... 4136Resolved in the negative. ....................................................................................................................................... 4136

ADJOURNMENT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 4137Gold Coast AFL Team ........................................................................................................................................................ 4137Volunteer Marine Rescue Whitsunday ............................................................................................................................... 4137Gympie Electorate, Christmas ............................................................................................................................................ 4138Point Lookout Surf Life Saving Club ................................................................................................................................... 4138Economy; Whaling ............................................................................................................................................................. 4139Waterford Electorate, Police Citizens Youth Club .............................................................................................................. 4139Wide Bay Australia Bundy Thunder Powerboat Spectacular ............................................................................................. 4140Jac’s For Kids Association Incorporation ........................................................................................................................... 4140Whaling .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4141Mount Ommaney Electorate, Bushcare ............................................................................................................................. 4141

ATTENDANCE ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4142

03 Dec 2008 Legislative Assembly 4031

WEDNESDAY, 3 DECEMBER 2008

Legislative Assembly

The Legislative Assembly met at 9.30 am.Mr Speaker (Hon. MF Reynolds, Townsville) read prayers and took the chair.Mr Speaker acknowledged the traditional owners of the land upon which this parliament is

assembled and the custodians of the sacred lands of our state.

ASSENT TO BILLSMr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that I have received from Her Excellency

the Governor a letter in respect of assent to certain bills, the contents of which will be incorporated in theRecord of Proceedings. I table the letter for the information of members.The Honourable M.F. Reynolds, AM, MPSpeaker of the Legislative AssemblyParliament HouseGeorge StreetBRISBANE QLD 4000I hereby acquaint the Legislative Assembly that the following Bills, having been passed by the Legislative Assembly and havingbeen presented for the Royal Assent, were assented to in the name of Her Majesty The Queen on the date shown:Date of Assent: 1 December 2008

“A Bill for An Act to amend the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, Anzac Day Act 1995, Assisted Students (Enforcement ofObligations) Act 1951, Building and Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) Act 1991, Criminal Code,Dangerous Goods Safety Management Act 2001, Electrical Safety Act 2002, Electricity Act 1994, Fire and RescueService Act 1990, Freedom of Information Act 1992, Integrated Planning Act 1997, Judicial Review Act 1991, MetropolitanWater Supply and Sewerage Act 1909, Mineral Resources Act 1989, Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000,Security Providers Act 1993, South Bank Corporation Act 1989, Tow Truck Act 1973, Transport Infrastructure Act 1994,Transport Legislation Amendment Act 2007, Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995, Transport Operations(Marine Safety) Act 1994, Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994, Transport Operations (Road UseManagement) Act 1995, Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994, Transport (South Bank Corporation Area Land)Act 1999, Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 and Valuation of Land Act 1944 for particular purposes”“A Bill for An Act to amend the Summary Offences Act 2005, the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 and theEnvironmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2008 for particular purposes”“A Bill for An Act to amend the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities(Justice, Land and Other Matters) Act 1984, the Food Act 2006, the Gene Technology Act 2001, the Hire-purchase Act1959, the Liquor Act 1992, the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act1994, the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 and for particular purposes”

These Bills are hereby transmitted to the Legislative Assembly, to be numbered and forwarded to the proper Officer for enrolment,in the manner required by law.Yours sincerelyGovernor1 December 2008Tabled paper: Letter, dated 1 December 2008, from Her Excellency the Governor to Mr Speaker advising of assent to bills on 1December 2008.

PRIVILEGE

Correction to Record of ProceedingsMrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (9.33 am): Yesterday I made a statement during Matters of Public

Interest and I would like to correct the record. I made the following statement—It is my understanding that Hans Continental Smallgoods ... is owned by Japan Tobacco, which is 60 per cent owned by theJapanese government. The Japanese government has decided to exit the food market in Australia.

This information forwarded to me was not in fact wholly accurate and I would like to correct thatparagraph with updated information gleaned from the administrator’s spokesperson. That informationstates—Japan Tobacco was formerly a State-owned monopoly, but was privatized in 1984. The Government now owns 50% (not 60%) andit is a listed company. It is true the company (not the Government) has decided to exit the food market in Australia and concentrateon its frozen foods and seasoning businesses under Katokichi, JT’s wholly-owned subsidiary. The sale discussions earlier thisyear are described in a news release on the Hans web site. The company has been examining a number of options for the chilledfoods businesses in Australia, which no longer have synergies with JT’s other food operations. The owners have gone intovoluntary administration, not liquidation. The group has traded unprofitably for two of the last three years. The company went intovoluntary administration to achieve the most orderly arrangements that were in the best interests of all stakeholders, including theemployees. The company is prepared to be in voluntary administration for up to a year in order to achieve the best outcomes.

4032 Ministerial Statements 03 Dec 2008

PETITIONSThe Clerk presented the following paper petitions, lodged by the honourable members indicated—

Moggill Road, Speed LimitsDr Flegg, from 214 petitioners, requesting the House to introduce a school speed zone on Moggill Road around Kenmore StateSchool and Our Lady of the Rosary School during morning and afternoon pick-up and drop-off times, similar to other schoolsaround Brisbane, to protect the safety of our school children.

Water FluoridationMr Stevens, from 1,468, petitioners requesting the House to hold a State-wide Referendum to ascertain the views of voters on theaddition of fluoride chemicals and/or recycled sewage to Queensland public water supplies; place a moratorium on theseadditions to public water supplies until the result of the Referendum is known and if voters approve of these additions atReferendum, provide full subsidy for purchase and installation of Reverse Osmosis water filters for people providing medicalcertificates that they are at risk from fluoridated water or toxins from recycled sewage.

Mareeba HospitalMs Lee Long, from 109, petitioners requesting the House to open the additional eight beds in the revamped west wing ofMareeba Hospital and provide appropriate additional staff and resources to better meet the needs of these Far NorthQueenslanders.

Redcliffe Peninsula, Artificial ReefMs van Litsenburg, from 136, petitioners requesting the House to direct the Environmental Protection Agency and QueenslandParks and Wildlife to establish an artificial reef, off the coast of the Redcliffe Peninsula.

The Clerk presented the following e-petition, sponsored by the honourable member indicated—

Light Rail SystemMr Fraser, from 676 petitioners, requesting the House to request the House to introduce a tram style light rail system in Brisbanewith a special focus on moving people around the city and to Brisbane’s major universities.Petitions received.

TABLED PAPERSMINISTERIAL PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERKThe following ministerial papers were tabled by the Clerk—Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (Mr Lucas)—• Response from the Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (Mr Lucas) to a paper petition (1103-08)

presented by Mrs Cunningham from 2154 petitioners regarding Curtis Island industrial developmentTreasurer (Mr Fraser)—• Response from the Treasurer (Mr Fraser) to a paper petition (1149-08) presented by Mr Moorhead from 830 petitioners

requesting a no-fault compulsory third party compensation schemeMinister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport (Ms Spence)—• Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008—Erratum to Explanatory NotesMEMBER’S PAPER TABLED BY THE CLERKThe following member’s paper was tabled by the Clerk—Member for Gympie (Mr Gibson)—• Non-conforming petition relating to a Queensland Water Infrastructure Pty Ltd employee

MINISTERIAL PAPERSThe following ministerial papers were tabled—Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland (Mr Shine)—• Commercial and Consumer Tribunal—Annual Report 2007-08• Misconduct Tribunals—Tenth Annual Report—1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Interest Rates; Mortgagee Fire SalesHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.37 am): There is no doubt that with the

global financial crisis squeezing household budgets to the limit many people are facing a toughchallenge in making ends meet. I know that for some the very real prospect of losing their homes iskeeping them awake at night as they struggle to make their mortgage payments. That is why I waspleased yesterday to see the Reserve Bank bring down mortgage rates once again, but it is also why I

03 Dec 2008 Ministerial Statements 4033

was outraged to learn that two of the big banks—Westpac and ANZ—have indicated they will not bepassing on the full one per cent rate cut announced by the Reserve Bank. Both of these banks are thebeneficiaries of the federal government’s bank guarantee. Every single one of their customers deservesan explanation about their failure to pass on the full one per cent. For many, a one per cent rate cutcould well be the difference between making the mortgage or not and they have every right to be angryif they are a customer of these banks.

Mortgage stress is becoming an increasing reality for Queensland families. As recent researchshows, many Queensland families are getting to financial crisis point. Members may have noticed lastweek that Fitch Ratings data shows an increase in mortgage defaults across Australia. Helensvale onthe Gold Coast is now one of the most mortgage-stressed suburbs in the country. The number ofapplications made to Queensland courts for repossession of real estate has increased dramatically inrecent months. It has jumped from 374 in the June quarter to 606 in the last four months. While it is notpossible to say what the circumstances were in each of these cases, without doubt the figures are verysobering and action is needed, and my government will act.

Today the Attorney-General will introduce new legislation to protect Queensland mortgageholders in the unfortunate event that their home is repossessed. Amendments to the Property Law Actwill protect struggling homeowners from what is known as mortgagee fire sales. This occurs when afinancial institution intentionally sells repossessed properties at below the market value to get onlyenough to cover their own costs with no regard for the homeowner.

Often this leaves the homeowner and their family with little or no equity to start again and to geton with their lives. These Queenslanders deserve better, especially given that they are often the mostvulnerable in these very tough times. Currently, mortgagees in Queensland who exercise a power to sellproperty are required to comply with section 85 of the Property Law Act, which requires they takereasonable care to ensure that the property is sold at market value. These amendments will extend thisprotection and introduce tough new requirements on lenders, and any that fail to meet theserequirements will face fines of up to $20,000. I table the proposed legislation for the information andbenefit of members.Tabled paper: Property Law (Mortgagor Protection) Amendment Bill 2008. Tabled paper: Property Law (Mortgagor Protection) Amendment Bill 2008, explanatory notes.

As the parliament is not scheduled to meet until mid-February, I believe that in theseextraordinary financial times Queenslanders who face the prospect of repossession of their homesdeserve the certainty that this legislation will offer. I will be seeking the support of the opposition andIndependents for the bill to proceed through all stages and be passed this week. It is a very simple andstraightforward bill. The Attorney-General will be conducting full briefings at the earliest convenientopportunity for members, and the Leader of the House will hold discussions with his counterpart tomake suitable arrangements for the early passage of the bill. I would urge all members of the House tosupport this action.

Infrastructure Projects

Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.40 am): My government knows that intough economic times it is essential that we keep Queenslanders in work. Now is not the time to chokeand now is not the time to lose confidence in Queensland’s future. If we are timid and take the foot offthe pedal of our capital works building program, we would be letting down millions of Queenslanders. Atthe heart of our Q2 ambitions for Queensland is an economy that is the strongest in the nation. That iswhy we will keep building tomorrow’s Queensland today. The investments we make in our buildingprogram are investments in the future of this state and the growing strength of our economy.

The infrastructure projects underway across Queensland underpin our economic future. They willalso provide employment for thousands of Queenslanders as we weather this financial storm. I refer toprojects, for example, like the $1.88 billion Gateway Upgrade Project due to be completed in mid-2011.Work is powering ahead on this essential piece of infrastructure which thousands of motorists arewatching take shape every day. Last month hundreds of workers were involved in the largest concretepour of the entire project. This was a 15-hour operation involving 350 truck loads and enough concreteto fill two Olympic sized swimming pools. During the construction period, the project will generatebetween 5,000 and 6,000 jobs and have a flow-on effect into the local economy of about $450 million inwages and salaries.

Another huge project that will be providing jobs until 2012 is the $3.4 billion Airport Link project.Already we have nearly 1,000 workers employed on the Airport Link project. This is an important link inour road network. We need it for the infrastructure but we also need it for the jobs. These projects arejust part of a 2008-09 capital program budgeted to increase by 17 per cent to $17.1 billion. This meansthat my government is building bridges, hospitals, schools, roads and railway lines in every region of thisstate.


We are delivering over $6 billion in health infrastructure projects around Queensland. Majorexpansions are underway at Bundaberg, Rockhampton, Ingham, Miles, the Prince Charles Hospital andthe Princess Alexandra Hospital. We have also committed to major expansions in Mount Isa, Cairns,Robina and Townsville, and we are building five brand-new hospitals for Queenslanders at Yeppoon, theGold Coast, the Sunshine Coast, Mackay and the new Queensland Children’s Hospital, each creatingthousands of jobs.

In Townsville, the major emergency department expansion as well as an additional 40 beds areon track to be delivered by 2011 at the latest. We have fast-tracked a further 30 beds to be deliveredbefore the peak period in 2009, and demolition and construction crews are expected to start work in amatter of weeks.

As outlined yesterday by me and by the Treasurer, building Queensland’s projects will be our No.1 priority. We will press ahead with the infrastructure program even if that means going into deficit,because that is the responsible thing to do. It will support our economy, it will grow our future and,importantly, it will put food on the table for thousands of Queensland workers.

Disability Carers; Companion Card

Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.44 am): Today is the International Day ofPeople with Disability. It is the day when people around the world contemplate the ongoing importanceof ensuring human rights for people with a disability. So today in that context I am very pleased to outlinea new initiative for people who are caring for someone with a disability. In Queensland today we have anestimated 500,000 carers who provide invaluable support and care to family members, to friends and toneighbours. Practically every street in every town and city in our state is home to at least one carer whoworks tirelessly to support a loved one. Our society simply could not function without their silent andselfless work. Today I am pleased that I will be able to hold a special thankyou ceremony at ParliamentHouse to recognise their immense contribution and the work of the organisations which give themimportant support.

Today I can also announce a new Companion Card program which will give people with adisability and their carers access to activities and pastimes on a two-for-one deal. All too often when acarer takes someone with a disability out to a special event as simple as a movie they have to buy twotickets. What this will do is give people with disabilities greater access to community activities andevents. It will enable people with a disability and their carers to access sporting, cultural and otherevents with their carer for the price of a single ticket.

Already some Queensland organisations are leading the way and signing up to be involved in thisvery important initiative. I pay tribute today to these organisations for their leadership on this issue, and Ihope that their commitment inspires others to join the list. They are the Brisbane Lions and the AFL,Birch, Carroll and Coyle Cinemas, the Queensland Performing Arts Centre, Australia Zoo, theQueensland Museum, the Queensland Theatre Company, Opera Queensland and the QueenslandBallet, the Judith Wright Centre, the Workshops Rail Museum in Ipswich and the Museum of TropicalQueensland in Townsville.

This is just the beginning of this initiative, and, just as the Seniors Card has been developed overa period of time and when many businesses now are offering discounts for seniors to encouragebusiness, I would hope that we will see many more names added to that list. But I think it is a very strongstart for this new initiative. I encourage more Queensland businesses to sign up and to recognise thegreat work that is done by so many people who are giving of their own time and their own lives to lookafter someone who needs their care.

Infrastructure Projects

Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning)(9.46 am): I began this year standing on the side of the Gateway Upgrade Project saying that 2008would be the year of infrastructure, and indeed it has been. Across the state in this financial year thisgovernment has committed $17 billion for infrastructure to support population and economic growth.This is an increase of around 19 per cent or $2.72 billion on last financial year. It translates to around$1.9 million an hour or $1.42 billion per month and supports over 119,000 full-time jobs across the state.

Our capital spending per person remains around double that of other Australian states, at $1,541per person. We are 24 per cent above the next highest state, Western Australia. As outlined in theSouth East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program for 2008, this government’s investment insouth-east Queensland alone over the coming two decades is forecast at around $107 billion. I ampleased to report that we have put our money where our mouth is and already invested around$12 billion in this plan. We have completed 33 projects with a total estimated investment of $3.5 million.


The real disgrace is that during 10 years of the Howard government never once did the other sideput the federal government under pressure. Never once when there were record federal budgetsurpluses, when times were good, would those opposite put them under pressure. How would they be ifthey were ever in government? This year alone we have completed the Tugun bypass and the InnerNorthern Busway, both ahead of schedule; the Sippy Downs to Kawana arterial track upgrade and theGold Coast line; Skilled Park at Robina; a new transmission line between Middle Ridge and Greenbank,Coomera Springs and Park Lake state schools; Pine Rivers courthouse; and the Lamington-Springbrookgreat walk. The only person on the other side who ever held the federal government accountable wasthe member for Gregory. No-one else did. The member for Gympie in his maiden speech would noteven put pressure on them when it came to the Gympie bypass.

Mr Gibson interjected.

Mr LUCAS: I can’t believe that noise from an elected member of parliament. At present we havemore than 80 projects under construction with a total estimated investment—

An opposition member interjected.

Mr LUCAS: It says a lot more about him than anybody else. At present we have more than 80projects under construction with a total estimated investment of more than $30 billion. This includes the$1.88 billion—

Mr Gibson interjected.

Mr LUCAS: It is better to have people suspect you for a fool than be convinced of it. This includesthe $1.88 billion Gateway Upgrade Project, the $63 million Kurilpa Bridge project, the $2.56 billionGatton Correctional Precinct project and the $315 million Houghton Highway bridge project, the first inAustralia and among the first in the world to be made climate change proof. It is designed to withstand aone-in-2,000-year storm event.

There has also been significant progress in delivering the $9 billion south-east Queensland watergrid. Thanks to the 4½ thousand workers who have played a role in building the grid and associatedwater assets, we now have a network of 400 kilometres of pipelines to shift water to where it is needed.We now have a desalination plant, purified recycled water and improvements to water storages which,when combined, give a water insurance policy for the region’s population and industry.

This level of long-term investment planning is unique in Australia. People come to us and seewhat Queensland is doing and compare it to other states. We work in partnership with industry to ensurewe have the infrastructure needed to support significant growth in the south-east corner.

Electricity Prices

Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Mines and Energy) (9.50 am): The Blighgovernment does not turn its back on the battlers. They have been dealt a blow by the independenteconomic regulator, the Queensland Competition Authority. Its draft decision to increase the maximumprice for electricity by 13.6 per cent next year will hurt Queenslanders on a tight budget. It is a big whackfor them. I have directed my department to run the ruler over the QCA’s figures to make sure any pricerise only reflects the true cost of supplying electricity to Queenslanders. If it does not stack up, we willtake up the fight for consumers.

A big factor in its decision was the massive amount spent on electricity infrastructure inQueensland—around $9 billion over five years to strengthen the network. To see evidence of this weonly have to look at what happened after the violent storms that hit the south-east the week before last.Some 230,000 homes and businesses lost power and within 72 hours it was back on. That shows thereal strength of the state’s electricity network.

Queensland is not alone when it comes to electricity price rises. Other states have also been hithard. Our electricity prices are still among the cheapest in the country. Even so, we know that this isgoing to hurt struggling households and we will not turn our back on them. We will continue to reach outand help the battlers with our multimillion-dollar subsidies, hardship funds and rebates.

If we had not opened up the electricity market to competition, prices would have been a lot highertoday. We broke the monopoly. People can now shop around. They are not forced to pay top dollar.There is a cap on electricity prices, and companies cannot charge any higher than that cap. People canshop around for lower prices.

Under the old system, prices went up year after year after year. Under the old system, peoplewere forced to pay the price—the set price, the top price. They could not shop around. Now they can.Half a million households and businesses have now taken up an offer from electricity billing companiesin the open market.


I remind members of this House that the opposition supported our bill to open up the electricitymarket to competition. I have a vivid recollection of that support from the opposition. That was back in2006—a long time ago. Those opposite have been strangely silent since that time. We know that all theyoffer is an opinion on everything and a solution for nothing.

Interest RatesHon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (9.53 am): As I said yesterday, when it

comes to interest rates, the size of the cut reflects the size of the problem. The Reserve Bank has nowcut 300 basis points, a full three per cent, from the cash rate. That is a saving of around $600 a monthfor the typical mortgage of $300,000.

In the next hour the national accounts for the September quarter will be released by the ABS, withthe market expectation of growth being just 0.2 per cent for the nation. The interest rate cut follows hoton the heels of key policy actions by both our government and the federal government aimed atstimulating activity in the housing market—a key generator of employment and a key generator ofdemand and activity.

It is vital that we provide support to the housing market. With building approvals and financeapprovals significantly off from last year, we moved in the budget to implement wide-ranging stamp dutycuts aimed squarely at the first home buyer, to support activity and to stimulate demand andconstruction. Those tax cuts—abolishing mortgage duty and abolishing stamp duty in full for first homebuyers all the way to $500,000—are worth up to $9,800 for first home buyers in Queensland.

Applications from first home buyers were running at 1,663 in August. This jumped to 2,098 inSeptember as our reforms kicked in on the first of the month, followed closely by the first cut by theReserve Bank. Inquiries have doubled since the instigation of the duty cuts and the federalgovernment’s announced boost to the first home owner grant. The average number of inquiries in thefirst quarter of the year was 1,650 a month. In the last two months, post the stamp duty cuts and post thefederal government’s boost, the figure has been around 3,700 a month.

There are pockets of housing stress. That is why the bill being introduced today by thegovernment is so important. It is a prudent action to take today.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Treasurer, I am being asked by some members of the opposition whetheryou are intruding into an area where there is a bill before the House.

Mr FRASER: No, the Premier foreshadowed in her ministerial statement that there will be a billintroduced into the House later.

Mr SPEAKER: It is not before the House at the moment.

Mr NICHOLLS: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Revenue and Other LegislationAmendment Bill (No. 2) is before the House. It amends the Duties Act, including the first home ownergrant. That is for your information. I do not raise any other point.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the Treasurer to take into account that that bill is before the House.

Mr FRASER: I was referring to the bill that is going to be introduced this afternoon in relation tomortgagee sales.

The Queensland property market remains fundamentally strong. There is still a strongundersupply which will continue to support the market, reflected in the tight rental market. Renovationactivity has added to the quality of the stock. In fact, Queensland renovation activity has been nearlydouble the effort in the rest of the nation since the start of the decade—rising 73.1 per cent compared to38.4 per cent for the rest of Australia. Population flow will also underpin the value of Queenslandhomes.

These are strong fundamentals and they reflect the underlying strength of our economy. If welook at the year-on-year results we see that Queensland prices have grown by 5.6 per cent over the last12 months. That is twice the national price rise. Queenslanders have every reason to be confident aboutthe medium- and long-term future of our property market. With the necessary but nevertheless welcomeinterest rate cuts and our stamp duty cuts, the policy settings are in place to support the housing market.

A home is usually the most significant asset someone will own in their lifetime. By our actions, weare moving to provide every support to the Queensland housing market—a resilient and strong marketthat is facing up to the future. Unemployment will be public enemy No. 1 in 2009. The housing market isa big employer and a big multiplier in the economy. Our policy approach is aimed squarely at providingfor continued activity and continued employment because jobs will be our No. 1 policy priority.


Skin Cancer PreventionHon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (8.57 am): For too long Queensland

has been known as the world’s skin cancer capital. One in 20 Queenslanders is expected to bediagnosed with melanoma before the age of 75. In 2005 there were 2,658 diagnosed cases ofmelanoma in Queensland and 263 deaths. Australia-wide, there are around 400,000 new cases of non-melanoma skin cancer diagnosed each year, making it the most common form of cancer in the country.

The Bligh government is tackling the alarming rate of skin cancer head-on. As part of our TowardQ2 vision we are committed to cutting unsafe sun exposure among Queenslanders by one-third by2020. That is why today I am announcing that we have earmarked $2.2 million for a new mediacampaign to warn young Queenslanders about the dangers of tanning.

The Dark Side of Tanning campaign being launched today will see confronting newadvertisements hit our TV screens, cinemas and radio waves over the next two months. These ads,along with outdoor displays across Queensland, will challenge the misconception that tanning is healthy.They will highlight the need for greater sun protection and encourage young Queenslanders to adoptsun-safe habits.

The majority of a young person’s lifetime sun exposure occurs before the age of 18, whileresearch confirms that sun protection is poorest and risk behaviour highest amongst our young people.Evidence from successful tobacco campaigns has shown that social marketing campaigns targeted atadults can be just as effective with a youth audience. The Dark Side of Tanning campaign has alreadyproven successful in New South Wales, triggering a change in perceptions about tanning. As a result ofthis campaign, it was found that nearly two-thirds of viewers were less likely to get a suntan and overhalf were thinking about increasing their level of sun protection.

Unsafe sun exposure is the primary cause of skin cancer, a disease which costs Australia$300 million each year in diagnosis and treatment. A disproportionately high share of this cost is borneby Queensland thanks to our climate. The Dark Side of Tanning campaign will help tackle this heavyfinancial burden and, more importantly, the damaging and unacceptable human cost of skin cancer.

Currimundi State School, Surf SafetyHon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training and Minister for the

Arts) (10.00 am): Queensland’s outdoor active lifestyle is part of what makes our state a great place tolive. With summer here and the school holidays fast approaching, there is no doubt that our beachesand swimming holes will soon be crowded with people. It is great to see our kids embracing the greatoutdoors and being active during the summer break, but the importance of water safety educationcannot be understated. That is why I am pleased to support a great scheme being run at CurrimundiState School on the Sunshine Coast in which students from prep to year 7 are learning crucial life-saving skills.

More than 550 students have received an age award for surf-lifesaving as part of the program, thefirst of its kind in Australia. The program was developed by Currimundi teachers in partnership withQueensland Surf Life Saving and the Dicky Beach Surf Life Saving Club at Caloundra and has beenincorporated into the students’ weekly physical education classes. The modified Nipper programincludes swimming, running, board paddling, first aid, CPR and rescue techniques. Each year level isinvolved in an eight-week program for one term during the year. Children who progress through to year7 will have the skills to take their bronze medallion in a subsequent stage of their learning.

Dicky Beach Surf Live Saving Club provides qualified coaches and instructors to conductsessions with Currimundi’s physical education teacher, Michael Chamberlain. Twenty teachers at theschool have been trained in surf awareness to ensure the accredited surf-lifesaving skills andawareness program is delivered effectively. This program will not only help keep students safe but alsoinstil in them the value of an active, healthy lifestyle. As part of our towards 2000 vision for 2020, theBligh government is encouraging people to take advantage of the great outdoors and develop ahealthier lifestyle. One of our 2020 targets is cutting obesity by one-third, and to do this we need to focuson prevention, encouraging our kids to be healthy and active. That is why I declared this year, 2008, theYear of Physical Activity in Queensland schools, embedding physical activity across the curriculum. It isgreat to see programs like the one at Currimundi State School helping to create a healthier Queenslandby giving young Queenslanders the skills they need to stay safe.

Sex Offenders, ManagementHon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport)

(10.02 am): Queensland is leading the way in managing sex offenders in the community. We have thetoughest legislation in the country, a comprehensive electronic monitoring and surveillance system, apublic disclosure program, and a focus on providing the programs so they can address their offending


behaviour. At the moment there are a total of 39 offenders currently being managed in the communityunder the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act. The people of Queensland expect that we willtake all of the necessary steps to protect them from these offenders, but it has become apparent thatone of the major problems is where sex offenders can live.

At the moment, 15 of these offenders are accommodated in the seven houses at the Wacolprecinct. This precinct has been used for offenders who have been unable to source suitableaccommodation or who are unsuitable to be placed in the community. However, Wacol cannot continueto be our only option. We have indicated before that other accommodation options were underconsideration. Prison reserves are by far the best option because of their security levels. Weacknowledge that some offenders come from rural and regional areas and have indicated that they wantto return to areas close to their families and support. These reserves play an important role in that theyenable certain offenders to remain at this accommodation for an extended period of time to receivetreatment and demonstrate compliance before transitioning to the community.

That is why we have allocated $650,000 in the budget this year to develop a range of securehousing in the Townsville prison reserve and the Rockhampton prison reserve similar to Wacol. AtTownsville, we are relocating two existing houses on the reserve. The houses will be fenced and CCTVcameras installed. Priority for this accommodation will be given to offenders who have existing adequatesupports or family support within north Queensland but is not limited to this type of person. Any offenderplaced in this accommodation will be subject to intensive supervision and surveillance and will berequired to undergo treatment. The accommodation will also support the use of electronic monitoringequipment.

At Rockhampton we are relocating a suitable three-bedroom house, but this is not likely to occuruntil towards the end of the first quarter of 2009. It will be fenced with CCTV surveillance back to theDog Squad, which is within a few hundred metres of the house site. Any offender placed in thisaccommodation will be subject to intensive supervision and surveillance and will be required to undergotreatment. The accommodation will also support the use of electronic monitoring equipment. Thecommunity has indicated that it will not tolerate offenders being placed in community housing. But at theend of the day if the Supreme Court decides that an offender is to be released and supervised in thecommunity under a dangerous prisoner sex offender order, then accommodation has to be found.

In many cases the courts have instructed Queensland Corrective Services to locate suitablehousing. In other cases, geographical restrictions of where offenders may live dramatically reduce theavailable housing choice. I have said before that these offenders will be housed on prison reserves inthe absence of alternative accommodation, with consideration being given to transition once they havedemonstrated their ability to comply with their orders. Community safety has always been and continuesto be our paramount consideration when managing these offenders.

Public Transport, Disability AccessHon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial

Relations) (10.06 am): Today marks International Day of People with Disability. I will be at Roma StreetStation later today to welcome the first revamped disability-friendly train. The Queensland government isworking towards the Q2 objective of creating a fairer Queensland for all. Over the next few years we areinvesting $48.5 million to upgrade existing rolling stock on the rail network to ensure that we create anetwork that is easily accessible. The first two upgraded trains are now ready to be introduced intoservice following a significant upgrade. Queensland Rail is currently upgrading one three-car train setevery 30 to 40 working days and it expects that the entire fleet will be upgraded by 2015. All of the newtrains that we are currently adding to the network already meet these standards.

The Queensland government is investigating a significant amount of money in upgrading trainsand stations to improve access for all passengers, including people with disabilities. The upgradedtrains will greatly improve accessibility for passengers with disabilities, particularly people with visionand mobility impairments. On Monday we heard about the Liberal National Party plan. It wants to lockthe doors on some of the trains. It wants to lock passengers in, making life even more difficult for peoplewith a disability to get on and off a train. This flies in the face of everything the disability discriminationact tries to achieve. So while we are making improvements in the accessibility of our trains, includingnew braille signage, improved lighting, colour contrast fittings and audible tones to indicate when thedoors are closing, all of which will go a long way in assisting people with a vision impairment to getaround, what we are finding is that the opposition policy is to undo all of this work and actually put upmore barriers.

We are fitting the trains with electronic door opening buttons which means that passengers are nolonger required to locate and turn a handle to open the doors. People who have a hearing impairmentwill benefit from new screens next to doors which will provide information about whether the door isopened or locked. It is not just about people with disabilities who will benefit from the upgrade. There isthe improved space for prams and wheelchairs and priority seating for people with disabilities, seniors,pregnant women and adults carrying children. The Queensland government is about making it easierand fairer for everyone to use our public transport system no matter what their circumstances.


Storm Damage Repair, Building IndustryHon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and

Information and Communication Technology) (10.09 am): It has been just over two weeks since the firstof a number of destructive storms struck south-east Queensland. In the immediate aftermath of thestorms a community recovery effort, led by the Bligh government, swung into action. These efforts wereaimed at identifying and assessing the physical damage caused as well as providing outreach toaffected individuals and families.

That recovery effort is now moving into a rebuilding phase. This effort is being led by thepresident of the Queensland Master Builders Association and chair of the Queensland Building ServicesAuthority, John Gaskin, with the BSA lending support. It is a fact that Mr Gaskin and the BSA haveproven track records in leading the rebuilding of communities following major weather events.

In February 2006, the BSA was in Innisfail in the aftermath of Cyclone Larry, working with GeneralPeter Cosgrove, the local council, community groups, insurers and contractors to start thereconstruction effort. In particular, the BSA established a building coordination centre—a one-stop shopaimed at assisting consumers, insurers and the building industry through those tough times. Similarly,the BSA was in Mackay following the devastating flood in February. Again, a rebuilding coordinationcentre was opened to link affected residents with insurers and contractors to get repairs done as quicklyas possible. Mr Gaskin, along with former mayor Julie Boyd, led the rebuilding task force in Mackay andset the ambitious target of having all damaged homes repaired by this Christmas.

Mr Mulherin interjected.

Mr SCHWARTEN: I take the interjection from the minister for primary industries. We are on trackto meet that target. Currently, 81 per cent of the homes damaged have been repaired and advice fromthe Insurance Council of Australia is that all repairs should be achieved by the target date.

Those people in south-east Queensland whose homes have been damaged by the recent stormscan rest assured that they are in very safe hands with John Gaskin and the BSA leading the way.

Roads Infrastructure

Hon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads and Local Government) (10.11 am):The Bligh government is investing billions on building and rebuilding Queensland’s vital roadinfrastructure. Building tomorrow’s Queensland today is a critical aspect of our Toward Q2 vision and willhelp ensure that our economy remains strong and our communities remain connected.

The Bligh government is upgrading an important freight route between Charters Towers andMount Garnet to better manage safety for all road users. This 421-kilometre link is made up of sectionsof the Gregory and Kennedy developmental roads and the Kennedy Highway. It is classified as suitablefor type 2 road trains and is the key north-south freight route for the north-east minerals province. Theroad has extensive sections of narrow, single-lane bitumen and currently services a mix of smallvehicles, tourist traffic, freight-efficient vehicles hauling concentrate and ore and road trains transportingcattle and general goods.

The Bligh government has already committed $55 million over the next five years to widen 90kilometres of the remaining 196 kilometres of single-lane road to two sealed lanes with sealedshoulders. By mid-2010 this will reduce the road’s narrow sections from about half its total length toabout a quarter. Various locations are being widened, with the main focus being a 19-kilometre sectionsouth of Herveys Range Road, a 42-kilometre section between the Herveys Range Road turn-off andGreenvale, and 29 kilometres of the narrow sections north of The Lynd junction. I am pleased to advisethat a further $10 million will be diverted in years 2011-12 and 2012-13 of the current RoadsImplementation Program to accelerate the upgrading of this link. This $10 million will be spent to widenanother 12 kilometres of single-lane road between Herveys Range Road and Greenvale.

In addition to this $65 million commitment by the state government, recently I launched a draftroad management plan for the road in Charters Towers. This plan has now been finalised and is readyfor implementation. It adopts an integrated approach to managing the road’s operation and traffic safety.The state government recognises the importance of this road and is committed to improving thissignificant freight link.

Rural Fire ServiceHon. NS ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (10.13 am): This year

marks the 60th anniversary of the Rural Fire Service. Next week I will join the member for Glass Houseto officially celebrate this milestone with one of her local brigades, the Glass House Mountains rural firebrigade—the first rural fire brigade formed in Queensland, in December 1948.


Today, there are some 34,600 volunteers in over 1,500 brigades, with a budget of $28.2 million.The Rural Fire Service has come a long way from the resource starved service that we saw under theNational Party, when all that was on hand were fire beaters, heavy metal knapsacks, tractors and oldArmy blitzes as response vehicles. Since that time the Rural Fire Service has advanced by light years.

A key milestone was the government’s 2006 enhancement package, which saw the largestincrease in staff numbers and resources, culminating in the creation of 20 brigade training and supportofficers. As a result, there are now more people on the ground supporting volunteers to ensure they aregetting the training and resources they need.

Major enhancements have also been seen in the rural fire appliance fleet. In the past five yearsalone, the number of rural fire vehicles has increased dramatically, from 876 to 941. The age of thevehicle fleet has also decreased dramatically over the past five years, when there were 147 appliancesover 20 years of age. As at June 2008, that figure had decreased to 22. The number of slip-onfirefighting units has also increased significantly—from 1,130 in 2003 to 2,093 this year.

In November 2007 the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service launched a rural fire recruitment kitto provide individual rural fire brigades with the resources they require to run their own recruitmentcampaigns. Although it is very early days, brigades are telling us that this has been a very usefulresource. This recruitment kit has had some good results, especially in the electorate of Mount Isa withthe creation of the new Mount Isa rural fire brigade in July. The entire membership was recruited usingthe new recruitment material. The brigade now has around 20 members. I know all members of theHouse will join me in congratulating the Rural Fire Service on 60 years of service to the people ofQueensland.

Moreton Bay Marine Park

Hon. AI McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change andInnovation) (10.15 am): Moreton Bay is vital to our economy, culture and lifestyle. It supportsrecreational, commercial and other activities such as fishing, boating and tourism. This government’sQ2 vision for Queensland is about creating a strong and green state and we have made some toughdecisions to ensure that the unique environment of Moreton Bay is protected for future generations.

The marine park supports a commercial fishing industry that generates approximately $24 millionof gross value of product for commercial fishers each year. The Bligh government has acknowledgedopenly that the commercial fishing industry will be affected by the new zoning arrangements and hasallocated $15.1 million in the structural adjustment package to address these impacts out of a total$21 million investment for the implementation of the rezoning plan.

The value of the structural adjustment package was determined by evaluating the impact of eachnew zone on the individual fisheries that operate in the marine park. This assessment used the bestavailable information about commercial fishing in the marine park, including data provided by theDepartment of Primary Industries and Fisheries logbook program and satellite tracking information forthe East Coast Trawl Fishery, which generates around half of the total value of product within the marinepark.

The EPA has helped commercial fishers complete their applications by providing a dedicated1800 telephone number and a series of information sheets, briefing peak industry groups and holdingtwo public meetings where commercial operators were briefed on the process. There has been a verystrong response from fishers willing to take up the EPA’s structural adjustment program as part of thegovernment’s announcement in relation to the rezoning. The submitted applications are worth in excessof the $15 million on offer. So the commercial fishing industry in Moreton Bay has responded positivelyto the 28 November deadline to submit applications.

The structural adjustment plan is expected to remove about 100 fishing licences that are currentlyworking in Moreton Bay before the marine park zoning plan comes into effect on 1 March next year. Theintroduction of this new level of protection for Moreton Bay now and for future generations is a keyachievement of the Bligh government to protect the environment and economy that underpin thewonderful Queensland lifestyle.

Environmental Protection Agency, Land Transfers

Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Water and MinisterAssisting the Premier in North Queensland) (10.17 am): The Bligh government is taking action to protectour environment for tomorrow’s Queensland. Today, I am pleased to announce that 11 hectares of stateland will be added to the 46-hectare Sandfly Creek Environmental Reserve to protect the Mackayregion’s bird and fish habitats along the Pioneer River. The wetland reserve is home to a significantwader bird and is a fish breeding habitat, with 23 species of marine plants registered on the site.


The Mackay Regional Council has accepted trusteeship of the additional land. I thank the Mackaycommunity for its assistance in helping the state government to protect the unique biodiversity of thisarea. I particularly thank the member for Mackay, who toured the site with me a couple of months ago.By protecting land such as this we are ensuring that our wonderful environment is secure for theenjoyment of future generations.

Right across our wonderful state we are working to identify opportunities for the protection of ourenvironment. Currently, the Department of Natural Resources and Water is assessing more than 19,000parcels of unallocated state land across Queensland, totalling over one million hectares, to identify andprotect areas with high conservation values. Under this program we are already delivering benefits forthe protection of endangered animals and ecosystems.

In southern Queensland, 53 lots of unallocated state land, totalling more than 16,300 hectares,are being transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency. This transfer will ensure the protection ofinternationally significant listed wetland near Cunnamulla and endangered and of-concern ecosystemsnorth of Toowoomba which are home to the vulnerable black-breasted button quail.

In central Queensland, nine lots covering 4,000 hectares have been transferred to the EPA toextend wildlife corridors, to protect scenic integrity and to protect rare plants and the endangeredProserpine rock wallaby in the Mackay area.

In north Queensland, 7,300 hectares, comprising 29 lots, are being transferred to the EPA,including land around the Halifax Bay Wetlands and the Herveys Range scenic rim near Thuringowaand Townsville. This transfer is helping to connect remnant ecosystems and to protect endangeredfauna such as the black-throated finch. This government is protecting our environment today andsecuring a greener Queensland for tomorrow.

Department of Child Safety, Staff

Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Women) (10.20 am): Ihave said many times that as minister my No. 1 priority is ensuring that the staff of my Department ofChild Safety receive the best possible support. Every day they provide abused and neglected childrenwith a chance to lead safe and happy lives, offering them a brighter future. Due to the very nature ofchild protection work, the good results of the staff are rarely acknowledged. This year, in stronglysupporting our hardworking staff, the Bligh government has delivered pay rises for 300 child safetyofficers from PO2 to PO3 level, better training and mentoring, improved career paths, more flexibleworkplaces and the conversion of more than 400 temporary staff to permanent positions.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Ms KEECH: I acknowledge the support of honourable members. These investments are proof ofthe Bligh government’s commitment to and support of my department’s staff. The strength of theDepartment of Child Safety is the front-line workers’ professionalism and commitment, strongly assistedby support and corporate staff.

Last Friday night, the exceptional work of front-line staff was acknowledged by the inauguralQuality Practice Awards. I initiated these awards to recognise the dedication, passion and innovation ofour child safety professionals. The awards showcased the depth of skills and knowledge used incarrying out the demanding and rewarding role of protecting at-risk children. My director-general,Norelle Deeth, and I were proud to announce the 2008 inaugural winners. I was particularly pleased tobe joined by the member for Aspley, Bonnie Barry, who together with many honourable members is avery strong supporter of my departmental staff.

The 2008 winners are: Manager of the Year, Geeta Chhatbar from Logan Central; SeniorPractitioner of the Year, Chris Boyle from Mount Gravatt; Team Leader of the Year, Hayley Nolan fromAitkenvale; Specialist Position, Tricia Rodgers from Maryborough; Child Safety Officer, Michael Watersfrom South Burnett Child Safety Service Centre; Child Safety Support Officer, William Hayward fromRedcliffe; and Administration Staff of the Year, Bev Zabel from Redlands Child Safety Service Centre. Ithank the honourable member for Redlands for his support. The Bligh government congratulates eachof the nominees and winners for their invaluable contribution to providing a world-class child protectionsystem.

Children have the right to grow up in a happy and safe environment and to have their innocenceprotected. The government’s Toward Q2 strategy is about building tomorrow’s child protection systemtoday. I am proud we are delivering the child protection system that Queensland children need anddeserve, and for the very first time recognising excellence in practice by the Department of ChildSafety’s dedicated staff.


Tourism IndustryHon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Regional Development and Industry)

(10.23 am): Are you a social fun seeker, a connector, an unwinder, an active explorer, a stylish travelleror a self-discoverer? Your answer matters to Queensland tourism operators as these are the newcategories Queensland will be using to attract visitors to Queensland. We will no longer be pigeonholingpeople with the naive assumption that people in the same age group or people with the same incomeare all looking for the same kinds of holidays.

This revolutionary approach to tourism marketing focuses on what feelings people are looking forwhen they decide on their holiday. Maybe they are looking for fun and excitement, maybe amazementand wonderment or maybe love and affirmation in a relationship. This revolutionary approach willconcentrate on new categories developed through Tourism Queensland by extensive research. Forexample, indications are that social fun seekers just want to have fun on holiday, they seek out a widerange of activities and they join in with whatever is going on. Connectors want to share their holiday withfriends and family. They want to catch up on their relationships and create memorable family moments.Unwinders, however, are looking for the kind of holiday where they can have relaxation and release,where they can escape from their busy lives and catch up on the things that they miss out on. Activeexplorers want to push the boundaries. They like to challenge themselves via physical activity. They liketo take some risks and go where others might not have been. Stylish travellers seek unique and exoticexperiences and products to make them feel stylish and successful. Many travellers in this group arewomen who like to shop, much to the frustration of their partners. Self-discovers are people looking fordiscovery, nourishment and enrichment of the body, mind and soul.

This approach to tourism marketing will provide a competitive edge in our aim to increase thenumber of Australians visiting Queensland. The Bligh government is dedicated to keeping Queenslandat the forefront of the world tourism industry. We have a long-term plan for the Queensland tourismindustry and, despite the challenges of the past year, we are getting on with the job of securing its future.I encourage all Queenslanders to holiday at home this Christmas and support our local tourism andhospitality businesses, and thus buy Queenslanders a job.

Pet Shop Code of PracticeHon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (10.26 am):

The problem of unwanted pets is a serious one, especially with Christmas fast approaching. This is atime when people often buy pets as presents, only to abandon them when the novelty wears off. TheQueensland government is moving to do something about this. My department, along with thedepartment of local government, has worked with stakeholders to develop a voluntary code of practicefor pet shops. This initiative will help give a voice to helpless animals that cannot defend themselves.

The code covers a range of standards including animal housing, hygiene, record managementand health care. It encourages retailers to ensure that people take home a pet that is healthy, is suitablefor their current and anticipated lifestyle, and will not contribute to overpopulation. The code points outthat the best way for pet retailers to reduce the risk of unwanted cats and dogs is to ensure that all catsand dogs are desexed prior to attaining breeding age, that all cats and dogs are microchipped and thatall purchasers are properly informed about the responsibilities of pet ownership.

Mr LANGBROEK: I rise to a point of order. I believe the minister is referring to a bill before theHouse.

Mr SPEAKER: I believe the minister is. Mr MULHERIN: This refers to the code of practice for pet shops, which is separate to the bill. It is

not part of the bill. Mr SPEAKER: Minister, the bill is before the House. Are you saying that this is not associated

with the bill before the House? Mr MULHERIN: No. It is a code of practice that has been developed in consultation with the

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Mr SPEAKER: Keep going, but take that into account. Mr MULHERIN: Yes, I will take it into account. After releasing the draft code, about 270

comments and suggestions were made that helped us to finalise what we believe is the best pet shopcode of practice in Australia. To prepare this document we worked in consultation with the South EastQueensland Regional Animal Management Group, the Pet Industry Association of Australia, the RoyalSociety for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Animal Welfare League of Queensland, theAustralian Veterinary Association and the Canine Control Council. The Queensland Companion AnimalManagement Group has also endorsed the code. It will now be mailed out to pet shops throughoutQueensland and will also be available on my department’s web site. I thank all those involved for theirhard work. This is Q2 in action. Dumped pets can become feral and do untold environmental damage.Not only will this code help reduce animal suffering; it will also help protect our lifestyle and environment.

03 Dec 2008 Questions without Notice 4043

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have pleasure in welcoming to the House today teachersand students from the Wilston State School in the electorate of Brisbane Central, which is representedin this House by Grace Grace. That concludes ministerial statements.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Electricity PricesMr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.29 am): I give notice

that I shall move—That this House rejects the draft decision to increase electricity prices by 13.63 per cent and calls on the state government toamend so much of legislation as is necessary to provide the Minister for Mines and Energy with veto powers over electricity pricerises.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Risk Analysis Matrix, Adverse PublicityMr SPRINGBORG (10.30 am): My question without notice is to the Premier. I draw the Premier’s

attention to the Education Queensland web site and risk analysis matrix which rates the level of risk andthe consequences, and I table a copy of it. Tabled paper: Document, dated 5 March 2007, titled ‘Risk Analysis Matrix—Rating the Level of Risk’.

Premier, will you tell the House why you rate the death of a child below sustained adversepublicity for the education department?

Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. I have not had an opportunity to look at thedocument. I am happy to do so in detail. It is a very complex lot of writing. I will have to look at it to seewhether in fact it does sustain the allegations that he is making. It has been the usual course of eventsin this parliament that his documents do not. If it does, I would share his concern. I do not think there isanybody on any side of politics who would not rate risk of harm or death to a child as more importantthan just about anything else.

Risk Analysis Matrix, Adverse PublicityMr SPRINGBORG: My second question without notice is also to the Premier. In light of the

Premier’s education department’s own risk matrix, I draw the Premier’s attention to the Daviescommission of inquiry report into Queensland Health in which he stated on page 537, and I table acopy—The view, which seems to be that of Queensland Health, that substantial adverse publicity is as serious a consequence as multipledeaths is shocking. Tabled paper: Extract from the Queensland Public Hospitals Commission of Inquiry Report (pages 189-190 and 537).

Can the Premier explain to this House why three years after the Davies commission report hergovernment now rates adverse publicity higher than the loss of life in our schools?

Ms BLIGH: I can only reply with the same reply I gave last time. Having had a preliminary look atthis document, I am not convinced it sustains the argument that the member is putting. When I have hadan opportunity to review it in some detail, I will be happy to come back to him on the issue.

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, before calling the member for Ashgrove, can I just ask allhonourable members to take into account questions without notice and questions on notice. Questionson notice go to the very detail of matters that may need to be examined by ministers in a comprehensiveand complex way. I ask all members to take that into account. That is why we have questions withoutnotice and questions on notice.

Economic ManagementMs JONES: My question is to the Premier. Given the impact of the global financial crisis, can the

Premier explain the importance of prudent financial management at a state level? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. I think it is important to acknowledge that we

have been absolutely up-front with Queenslanders, as in fact has the federal government, in outliningthe very serious consequences for us as a state, for our economy, for private businesses operatingwithin our state, of the global financial crisis. Without a doubt, the decision yesterday by the ReserveBank of Australia to drop interest rates by another one per cent should convince anybody if they still hadquestions that we are in the grip of the worst global financial meltdown in our lifetime and, as I outlinedyesterday, possibly in the last 75 years.

4044 Questions without Notice 03 Dec 2008

What that means is that governments around the world, including ours, have to make toughdecisions. I can assure the members of this House that making the decision that our government wouldsustain a deficit, a temporary deficit, over the forward estimates was not an easy decision. But I have nodoubts whatsoever this morning that it was the right decision. It was the right decision backed today bysenior business leaders and senior business groups because they understand, like our government, theimportance of keeping the economy moving, keeping the motor running, keeping construction going at atime when unemployment is now a very real possibility for many people.

Over the last two years, increasingly, the number that has been watched around the country is thenumber that comes out of the meeting of the Reserve Bank in relation to interest rates. Over the next 12months the number that people will be watching more and more is the number that tells us theunemployment rate for this country and for this state. Unemployment is now a really serious risk formany people and their families, and this government will do everything in its power to protect them fromthat risk.

What is the approach of those opposite? For those who were unaware, in response to thegovernment’s announcement yesterday, the shadow Treasurer held a press conference in which heannounced that the Liberal National Party will maintain a surplus regardless of the consequences.Regardless of the consequences, the LNP will maintain a surplus. When asked how he would do that,he was unable to reply. He was unable to say what he would do to stay in surplus. But when pushed byjournalists in questions he did say a number of things. The most important thing he said was, ‘Someprojects will be scrapped.’

When it comes to economic strategy the contrast is now absolutely clear. The Bligh governmentwill build this state. The Bligh government will build the projects that Queensland needs. The LiberalNational Party will put a surplus in front of people. It will put a surplus in front of jobs.

Time expired.

Teachers, Red Marking PensMr McARDLE: My question is to the Premier. A directive Queensland teachers are being given

as they prepare for next year is, ‘Don’t mark in red pen which can be seen as aggressive. Use a differentcolour.’ I table a copy of the document. Tabled paper: Queensland Health document titled ‘Classroom Ideas for the Teacher—strategies for addressing mental healthwellbeing in any classroom’.

Given that the Premier’s 10-year old Labor government presides over the lowest numeracy andliteracy standards of any state in Australia, does the Premier not think it is time that we focused onclassroom outcomes rather than these kooky, loony, loopy, lefty policies?

Ms BLIGH: I am at a loss for words. Opposition members interjected.Mr SPEAKER: Excuse me, Premier. Thank you. I call the Premier. Ms BLIGH: As I said, I am at a loss for words. This state, like every other state in the country, like

Australia as a nation, like major economies around the world, is in the grip of one of the most significantfinancial crises—

Mr Springborg: And you’re doing loopy things like this.Mr SPEAKER: I warn the Leader of the Opposition under standing order 253. Ms BLIGH:—that we have ever seen. And what does the Deputy Leader of the Liberal National

Party want to talk about here in question time? He wants to talk about the colour of the pen that ourteachers use in correcting students’ work. This document is not an Education Queensland document;this document is a Queensland Health document.

Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Ms BLIGH: It comes from the mental health area of Queensland Health in relation to the mental

health of adolescents and it proposes some ideas. That is all it is—ideas. Teachers will make their owndecisions about what colour pens they use. But it is little wonder that those opposite want to talk aboutwhat colour pens teachers are using because what they do not want to talk about is the projects thatthey will scrap and which front-line services that they will scrap.

Mr Gibson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Gympie. Mr Messenger interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Burnett. Can I just indicate that there is far too much interjection.

When the Premier has been asked a question, I expect her to have the silence to be able to answer it. Iwill warn members of the opposition, as I indicated yesterday, and then you will be out of the chamber. Icall the Premier.


Ms BLIGH: Thank you. This government gave a commitment yesterday as part of ourannouncement in relation to the economic situation that not only are we prepared to go into deficit butthat we will be doing so to maintain the building program that Queensland needs. It is time for theLeader of the Opposition and his Treasury spokesperson to stand up and tell the people of Queenslandwhat projects they will cut. If they are to have any economic credibility whatsoever, they need to tell thepeople what they will cut.

An opposition member: The Traveston Dam.Ms BLIGH: I think you will find we will be coming to that later on this morning. What we get with

the Liberal National Party is the worst of both worlds—the environmental vandalism of the NationalParty and the economic rationalism of the Liberal Party.

Surf-LifesaversMr LAWLOR: My question without notice is to the Premier. Surf-lifesavers are not only icons here

in Queensland but they also play a vital role in keeping our beaches safe. Can the Premier inform theHouse how the government is supporting this organisation?

Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. I think we all know—and themember for Southport certainly knows, as someone who has the great fortune to live near a beautifulbeach—that the red and yellow flags are synonymous with the beaches of Queensland and beachesaround the country.

A government member: They’re iconic.Ms BLIGH: They are iconic. There are 59 clubs around the state with more than 36,000 members

involved. They keep our beaches safe and they do a terrific job. I am very pleased they were named aQueensland Great in 2007. I want to acknowledge all of those people who gave very generously lastweekend to Channel 9’s annual Surf Safe Appeal. I understand they raised a record $642,000, so welldone.

Our surf-lifesavers not only save lives; they compete, they have fun and they keep fit. In OctoberI was very pleased to announce that the Australian Surf Life Saving Championships would be comingback to where I have always believed they belong, and that is to the Gold Coast. The Aussies, as theyare known, will now be headquartered at Kurrawa Beach and they will compete there at least seventimes between 2010 and 2022. This is another example of our government’s commitment to the GoldCoast—one of the fastest growing parts of Australia and one of the most important parts of Queenslandand the south-east.

This stands in sharp contrast, though, to the views of the Gold Coast held by those opposite. Asrevealed in the last sitting of the parliament or the one before, the Leader of the Opposition has nevereven been to that great Gold Coast iconic event the Indy, and I am prepared to bet he will not be at theA1, either. He is not even in the parliament this morning.

When the Liberal National Party formed, one of the things its members said in their first days wasthat they would put their headquarters at the Gold Coast. Nearly five months later, there is nothing at theGold Coast. The Leader of the Opposition has not even been to the Indy. I understand that the GoldCoast Chamber of Commerce invited him to be a guest speaker and he cancelled on them. So much forthe Liberal National Party caring about the Gold Coast!

Mr Lucas: His loss was their gain.Ms BLIGH: It may be true that his cancellation was the Gold Coast’s gain. Of course, the Liberal

National Party not only has a recycled leader; it is recycling every single one of its candidates downthere on the Gold Coast. A former expelled member of the Liberal Party who failed in the 2008 councilelections is running in Broadwater, a failed Liberal state candidate for Burleigh is running again, theNational who lost his seat in 2006 is running again in Gaven, and the failed Liberal candidate is runningagain in Mudgeeraba. So much for offering a fresh new voice to the Gold Coast. Instead we have nooffice, no attendance, cancelling functions and offering the public nothing more than the same oldrecycled products that they have rejected in the past.

Directors-General, SalariesMr LANGBROEK: My question without notice is to the Premier. Can the Premier explain why in

the year when Queensland literally came bottom of the class in literacy and numeracy the director-general of Education received a pay rise of $100,000 a year to more than $400,000? Is this just a flow-on from the $100,000 pay rise her chief of staff, Mike Kaiser, received or is it another example ofrewarding loyalty over performance? I table a copy of the financial statements.Tabled paper: Extract from Department of Education, Training and the Arts notes to and forming part of the financial statements forthe year ending 30 June 2008 relating to executive remuneration.


Ms BLIGH: I think it is well known that the former Premier made some decisions, which werepublic at the time, to increase the base rates of salary for our directors-general, and that was for a verygood reason. That was because they had slipped significantly below salary rates for similar positions inother states and nationally. If we are to have the best Public Service in Australia, if we are to havepeople of high calibre leading our organisations, if we are to keep and retain people who have what ittakes to run an organisation the size of Queensland Health or the size of Education Queensland, weneed to be offering them salaries that are competitive in the market. I can only note from the commentsof the shadow minister that he will be offering significantly lower salaries to the people who lead and runour organisations, and I suggest that he tells people exactly what they are.

Infrastructure ProjectsMs GRACE: My question is directed to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and

Planning. Can the Deputy Premier inform the House of the importance the state government’sinfrastructure program plays in job creation and economic growth? Is he aware of any otherapproaches?

Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. She is interested in building. Nowmore than ever, with the world facing the sort of economic crisis that it is facing, we need a governmentthat is committed to continuing to build Queensland, not put our entire economy at risk. We have spent$17 billion on infrastructure this year, which is more than three times the amount spent per capita inVictoria and twice the amount spent per capita in New South Wales.

The Leader of the Opposition has now been in parliament for 19 years, yet he wants to take usback to the economic policies that were in place prior to the Great Depression, prior to the 1930s, whenit comes to responding to economic crises. Yesterday the member for Clayfield, who is no dill, unlikemost of the rest of them over there, let the cat out of the bag. He said that they will slash infrastructurespending and recurrent expenditure on services. That is how they will achieve it. Of course, that is likewhat rocket scientists like the member for Kawana said: they are going to save money by cuttingTraveston Dam and replacing it with a more expensive project. That is the way to do it: spend more! Cutout a cheaper project and spend more! That is how they want to do it. The day before they announcedtheir slash and burn, they announced a $400 million-plus unfunded, kooky transport policy. They are yetto say where the money for that will come from.

I will give the opposition a very, very simple lesson. When you build, you create jobs. If you createjobs, people pay taxes. People who have jobs spend money in shops. Shop assistants are employed,and they pay taxes. If you do not build, you then cost jobs, people do not spend money in shops, peopledo not buy houses, people do not pay taxes and people need government services. In that situation,people need government welfare more than when they have a job. The opposition is risking the entirelivelihood of many, many Queenslanders. They remind me of the Vietnam era and the United Statesphilosophy: you have got to destroy Queensland to save it. The Liberal National Party is a risk. We willnot put the economy, jobs and the livelihoods of Queenslanders at risk, unlike those opposite.

Queensland Rail, GraffitiMiss SIMPSON: My question is to the Premier. I refer to a letter from Paul Scurrah, the executive

general manager of QR, to Lord Mayor Campbell Newman reprimanding the Lord Mayor for going publicwith QR’s growing graffiti problem. In it he says—Profiling examples of graffiti along the Citytrain corridors simply acts as a reward for engaging in this criminal behaviour.

I ask—Government members interjected.Miss SIMPSON: Does the Premier support QR’s opinion that if you ignore criminal activity it will

just go away?Government members interjected.Miss SIMPSON: Is this an attitude—Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask members of the governing party to please give the member a go in

asking her question.Miss SIMPSON: I will ask the question again. Premier, I refer to a letter from Paul Scurrah, the

executive general manager of QR, to Lord Mayor Campbell Newman reprimanding the Lord Mayor forgoing public with QR’s growing graffiti problem. In it he says—Profiling examples of graffiti along the Citytrain corridors simply acts as a reward for engaging in this criminal behaviour.


Does the Premier support QR’s opinion that if you ignore criminal activity it will just go away? Isthis an attitude the government plans to adopt in relation to all other crimes in Queensland? I table theletter.Tabled paper: Letter, dated 13 November 2008, from Paul Scurrah, Executive General Manager, QR Passenger Pty Ltd, to theLord Mayor of Brisbane relating to graffiti on trains.

Ms BLIGH: I will have a look at the letter. I would be very surprised if it is a reprimand, asdescribed by the member for Maroochydore. We know her penchant for exaggeration. This is themember who just two days ago—one day—yesterday?

Mr Mickel: Yesterday. Ms BLIGH: Less than 24 hours ago this member voted against increased powers for transit

officers. These are the people who thought they would get tough on public transport vandalism andimprove public transport safety by doing nothing. These are the people who decided—

Mr Messenger: Where’s the police officers? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Burnett under standing order 253. Ms BLIGH: We have transit officers on our trains to protect the safety and security of our trains

and our people. Miss Simpson: Where are the police?Ms BLIGH: Those opposite voted against more powers to keep those officers safe and for those

officers to keep our trains safe. Then they came in here wanting to talk about our efforts with the LordMayor of Brisbane on graffiti. I am very pleased to advise that the minister for police has been workingvery closely with the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. Five police officers have been dedicated—

Ms Spence: Full time. Ms BLIGH:—full time to a graffiti task force. The member for Maroochydore is absolutely

fraudulent on the issue of security and safety on our trains. Opposition members call out, ‘What aboutpolice? What about police?’ They issued a transport policy the other day that had not one police officerin it—not one. So I think their record stands for itself.

Let me talk about the document that the Leader of the Opposition tabled earlier today. I do notthink members will be surprised to find that it does not say anything of the sort. It is a misrepresentationof the worst kind. This document outlines risk categories. The first risk category is a risk category titled‘Critical’. In that it goes through what would be a critical incident in managing people and it lists ‘multipledeaths’. I think he left that out, Mr Speaker. For the purposes of understanding critical risk in relation topeople, multiple deaths is listed. When it comes to defining what would be a critical risk in finances, animpact of 25 per cent or more on the budget is listed as an example. When it comes to defining ‘Major’under ‘managing people’ the document lists ‘loss of life or permanent injury’. For example, in ‘Major’under ‘financial’ it lists an impact of 10 per cent on the budget. Under ‘Critical’, what would be anexample of a critical matter that had to be managed by the senior executive of the department in relationto managing the external environment? Yes, it lists ‘sustained adverse publicity’. Of course thedepartment would have to deal with that. That is just one example of what would be a critical risk in thecategory of managing the external environment.

Mr Lucas interjected. Ms BLIGH: In that category. It does not compare loss of life. What it says is that, in that category,

that would constitute something that would require risk management, and of course it would. Make nomistake: multiple deaths are listed as a critical incident and would be dealt with as such.

Queensland Police Service, ExpenditureMr PEARCE: My question is to the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport. I note that

the opposition Treasury spokesman has said that the LNP would look at budget cuts to the policecomputer system, for example. Can the minister inform the House as to what would be theconsequences of the opposition’s policy to make these cuts to the police computer system and if,indeed, it is even possible?

Ms SPENCE: I thank the member for Fitzroy for the question. I also noticed this morning that theshadow Treasurer said he would have to stop capital works and cut front-line services to keep thebudget in surplus and that he would have a look at cutting the police computer system to save moneyand to keep the books in the black. We have spent $144 million on giving the police a new computersystem for a very good reason. In 2004 the police came to the government and said they required thisnew computer system to replace the 234 separate databases which they then had. They wanted tomake it into a single unified system. In fact, we needed a single unified system so that we could linkdirectly into national databases such as CrimTrac, which is the criminal history database, LiveScan,which keeps track of the national fingerprint databases, and the DNA national databases. That is whywe spent $144 million on a new computer system—not because it was fun but because the policeneeded this new computer system.


We have just completed the final rollout of QPRIME. The 2.2 system is finally being rolled out.The money has been spent except for the final training of police officers. I noticed that on the front pageof Saturday’s Courier-Mail we had some complaints. Some officers are obviously not happy. Changing acomputer system and a whole way of operating is very difficult for some people. Saturday’s Courier-Mailcited a particular occasion where it took detectives more than six hours to enter the details of aninvestigation and resulting arrest into QPRIME. I am told in this example that detectives were paidovertime to complete the details of arrest on QPRIME due to their unfamiliarity with the new QPRIMEversion. This is perfectly understandable. Phase 2.2 of QPRIME had only been introduced two daysprior to the arrest referred to in the Courier-Mail article and the detectives were not familiar with the newsystem. As we continue our rollout of 2.2—the latest phase of QPRIME—throughout the state and asdetectives get more familiar with it, I expect we will not see those kinds of delays in the future.

At the end of the day we invested this money because it will save police time. The policeconvinced us that they would have more time on the beat when this new system was rolled out, and thatis simply what we have given the police. If it were up to the opposition, it would not have given the policethis new technology. They would still be back in the old ink days of taking fingerprints. They would stillbe giving police magnifying glasses to help them solve crime. They would still be giving them notebooksand they would take away their computers. That is their solution to solving crime. We will not go there.

Hendra VirusMr HOPPER: My question is to the minister for primary industries. The minister has committed to

tabling a report into the latest cases of Hendra virus. The terms of reference state that the report will bepresented to the director-general and the managing director of Biosecurity Queensland by no later than17 November 2008. Has the minister or the director-general received this report? If so, when will theminister be tabling this report in the parliament.

Mr MULHERIN: I thank the honourable member for the question. I previously announced anindependent review into the Hendra virus, recently undertaken by Dr Nigel Perkins of AusVet health. Asthe member knows, he was appointed to conduct this review. On 2 December Dr Perkins provided thedepartment with his final review on the outcomes. Any recommendations made out of that review will beconsidered as part of the continuous improvement approach to biosecurity within my department, and Iwill table the report in a timely manner.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, National AccountsMr WENDT: My question without notice is to the Treasurer. With the release of the national

accounts by the ABS in the last hour, can the Treasurer please advise the House of the policy prioritiesof the government which will support growth and protect jobs?

Mr FRASER: At half past 10 this morning the ABS released the national accounts which showthat the nation’s economy in the September quarter grew by 0.1 per cent. There was a clear expectationin the market that that figure would be 0.2 per cent. What that figure tells us is this: against the mostsignificant downturn in the global economy the Australian economy—the national economy—is holdingits head just above water. What it requires right now is concerted actions from governments aroundAustralia to undertake efforts in order to sustain growth as we enter 2009.

The ABS also recently released the final results for 2007-08 in terms of state GSP. What itshowed is that as we enter the downturn Queensland enters it from a position of strength. We havemoved beyond Western Australia to record the strongest growth in the nation for 2007-08, outpacing theWestern Australian economy. If you are going to sail into headwinds, then you want to be sailing intothose headwinds with momentum behind you and with wind in your sails. Through our strong financialmanagement and our investment in infrastructure, the Queensland economy has maintained thatmomentum as we head into these times.

In extraordinary times extraordinary action is required. That is why this government is prepared totake the bold decision, against our own political interests, to put the budget into deficit in order to supportthe economy, to support growth, to support jobs and to support activity.

We saw yesterday the Leader of the Opposition, the Liberal National Party members and theshadow Treasurer all decry our decision to put the budget into deficit. Who do those opposite argueagainst? As the Premier said, none other than the governor of the Reserve Bank who said in a speechon 19 November that it was an appropriate course of action. Chris Richardson from Access Economicssaid on 7 November—We should not fear a deficit; that would be a mistake.

He said last week—The debate about deficits is a silly one; it is a politicians’ debate. They’re the ones who have drawn the line in the sand aboutdeficits being evil. We don’t want deficits to be a habit, but we want them to help and we do need them now.


What has Stephen Koukoulas from DT Securities said? He said—It would be dumb to try to keep the budget in surplus at a time of weak growth and rising unemployment. If indeed the economy isas bad as it looks, embrace a budget deficit, spend up to the limit to limit the inevitable human misery that a recession inevitablybrings and manage fiscal policy in a countercyclical way.

Bill Evans from Westpac Bank has said the same thing. Saul Eslake from the ANZ has said thesame thing. Rob Henderson from the National Australia Bank has said the same thing. Rory Robertsonfrom Macquarie and Shane Oliver from AMP have said the same thing. The Liberal Premier of WesternAustralia said yesterday that it is a very difficult time and it is not due to financial mismanagement thatgovernments around the country, including state governments, face these circumstances. Apart from allof that we have, standing alone and standing apart, the Liberal National Party members and the Leaderof the Opposition who alone believe that this is not the right course of action.

Bundaberg, Health ServicesMr DEMPSEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. I refer to the minister’s

departmental figures showing that Bundaberg patients have spent more than 24,000 nights away fromhome so far this year getting treatment in Brisbane and have taken more than 54,000 train trips in thelast five years to Brisbane for treatment. As there are now approximately 100 people from Bundabergalone on any given night in Brisbane awaiting treatment, can the minister tell this House why he hasgutted regional hospitals so badly that patients now have no other option but to go to Brisbane for oftenroutine treatment?

Mr ROBERTSON: From the tenor of the question asked by the member for Bundaberg, who isusually a fairly sensible fellow, unlike his neighbour, I suspect the more time one spends with one’sneighbour the more unbalanced one becomes in terms of how one presents—

Mr DEMPSEY: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at the ‘unbalanced’ comment.The questions are as a result of answers supplied by the minister. I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr ROBERTSON: I withdraw whatever. Mr SPEAKER: Minister, I ask you to withdraw it in an unqualified way. Mr ROBERTSON: I withdraw. The tenor of the member’s question suggests that he does not

want to see the $41 million expansion of the Bundaberg Hospital go ahead. Opposition members interjected. Mr ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker, is there a chance I will get a go here? Mr SPEAKER: Minister, please continue. Mr ROBERTSON: Thank you. There is a $41 million expansion of the Bundaberg Hospital

underway right now—an expansion that the Liberal National Party objected to. The big question arisingout of the opposition Treasury spokesperson’s comments yesterday in terms of projects that they aregoing to scrap—and given the tenor of the member’s question—is this: is the Bundaberg Hospitalexpansion now up for the chop under the Liberal National Party? Someone from the Liberal NationalParty stand up and say that they will remain committed to the expansion of the Bundaberg Hospital,because if they do not then the number of patients required to be transported down to Brisbane if thoseopposite get into government will simply increase. That is what we are doing to alleviate exactly thatissue.

Did the member not think for one moment before he stood in this place and asked that questionthat the response might be to actually focus attention on another great initiative by the Bligh Laborgovernment to expand hospital services and beds in this state? Of course I was going to do that.

Mr Dempsey: You promised it at the last election. It was supposed to be finished in the middle ofthis year.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Bundaberg under standing order 253.Mr ROBERTSON: The member should think long and hard about what the shadow Treasurer

committed himself to yesterday. That was bringing into jeopardy every hospital expansion projectunderway in Queensland at this point in time, including Bundaberg.

Public Transport, ProjectsMrs ATTWOOD: My question is directed to the minister for transport. Minister, the Treasurer has

outlined the government’s commitment to jobs through preserving major projects and maintaining front-line services. The shadow Treasurer has outlined the opposition’s commitment to having a surplus atthe expense of jobs which could only be achieved by stopping major projects and cutting front-lineservices. Can the minister outline to the House what this would mean for public transport projects andfront-line services in Queensland?


Mr MICKEL: It so happens that I can outline what it would mean if the shadow Treasurer’spolicies were enacted by the opposition. What I have said to this House in the past—and yesterday Isaid it—is that what we have from the opposition is an uncosted transport policy. What we have is a six-car set. We need head room to run those things safely. Once we improve that to a seven-car set, whichis what those opposite want to do, we have to upgrade significantly the signalling to run them safely.

The early costings of that by the opposition were $250 million. In actual fact, the advice given tome is that that alone would cost $1.5 billion. What we have already is a walking away from theopposition transport policy. What it would have to do is scrap its policy to bring its budget back intosurplus. Forget about the opposition transport policy. But even if we did not do that, what we have linedup for regional Queensland and what we have lined up through qconnect in every provincial city is$30 million worth of expenditure on passenger transport services to run buses there. Remember, therewas not one word about buses in the opposition’s transport policy.

It will not surprise me if those opposite have to shanghai Ben Myers in from the Lord Mayor’soffice—

Miss SIMPSON: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The minister is misleading the House on anumber of fronts, include the costs. In fact there are mentions of buses. Perhaps he should actually readthe policy.

Mr MICKEL: She is embarrassed because what those opposite will have to do is slingshot BenMyers in from the Lord Mayor’s office to tell them about integrated public transport systems.

Mr Lucas: What about the Nippon Clip-on on the Captain Cook Bridge? Mr MICKEL: No doubt about it. Let us have a look at some of the projects we have underway. We

have ordered three-car sets going forward after 2010. We do not intend to scrap that. Those oppositewould have to scrap those services to bring the budget back into surplus.

Let us have a look at some of the other infrastructure projects that they would have to do awaywith. Over the next four years we have $168 million to improve passenger transport services under theTransLink network plan. They would also have to scrub all the park ’n’ rides that we have set down. If aperson is waiting for a park ’n’ ride, under them it will be scrapped because that is the only way they canbring the budget into surplus. They would have to do away with projects like the one down in themember for Cleveland’s electorate, like the one in the member for Bundamba’s electorate. They wouldalso have to do away with some of the rolling stock initiatives for the coal industry. In these difficult timeswe need the coal industry and we need the rolling stock to underwrite it.

Gladstone AirportMrs CUNNINGHAM: My question without notice is to the Premier. At a briefing by the Gladstone

regional airport board and the Gladstone Regional Council last Monday residents were advised that thenecessary $65 million upgrade would need to be funded in part by increasing passenger and landingcharges to amongst the highest in Australia without state and federal government financial investment.As air transport is critical to the industrial, economic and tourism development of the region, will thePremier reconsider her government’s unwillingness to invest in the airport and ensure that commutersto and from Gladstone will not face an unnecessary and untenable price hike?

Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for her question. I understand her concern for what isan important regional transport link. Of course, this airport is owned by the Gladstone council. I have nothad, to my knowledge, any approach from the council in relation to this matter—

Mr Lucas interjected.Ms BLIGH: The Deputy Premier has just advised that it has spoken to him. I would advise the

member that, with regard to the government’s allocation for assisting regional airports, there is aprogram but these dollars go to regional airports for upgrades to some of the smallest and remote partsof Queensland, as it should.

Mr Mickel: It’s $1.75 million for regional airports.Ms BLIGH: There is $1.75 million allocated for regional airports. I have to be honest and say that

I would be very loath to take those funds away from smaller airports in the west of Queensland, inremote parts of the cape, in the north-west gulf area or in the Torres Strait.

The airport does face some difficult decisions. These are decisions that commercial operators ofairports are having to make around the country and they have to balance the costs of operating theairport with the commercial competitiveness they have in relation to things like landing fees and othercharges. The Gladstone council, in my view, needs to have a really long, hard look at the operation of itsairport and it needs to make commercial decisions that it believes are consistent with that operation.

Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the member for Aspley, I welcome a further group of teachers andstudents from the Wilston State School in the electorate of Brisbane Central, which is represented in thisHouse by Ms Grace Grace.


Queensland Health, Infrastructure ProjectsMs BARRY: My question is to the Minister for Health. Can the minister outline to the House what

important capital works projects are currently underway or being planned within the state that will benefitthe health of Queenslanders?

Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the member for the question, because Queensland Health currentlyhas underway an extensive and exhaustive program of capital works to expand hospitals and increasethe number of hospital beds right throughout Queensland—not just in Bundaberg but right throughoutQueensland. In fact, the current value of our committed projects—those projects that are currentlycommitted—is some $6 billion.

Mr Wallace: How much?Mr ROBERTSON: Some $6 billion funding more than 100 major projects right throughout

Queensland to expand our hospitals. I think it is incumbent on someone who aspires to be the nextTreasurer of this state or a party that aspires to be the next government of this state to tell us what wouldhappen to those $6 billion worth of projects if they were in government.

The question really is: where are they? Not only do we not have the Leader of the Oppositionhere at question time; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not here, the Treasury spokesperson isnot here and half the front bench is not here! Half of the alternative government of this state is gone inquestion time! Why? Because very quickly they are having to do their homework as to which of theprojects the opposition Treasury spokesperson mentioned yesterday they will have to cut. Which ones?Are they going to cut the $1.5 billion new Gold Coast University Hospital? Are they going to cut the$1.4 billion Sunshine Coast University Hospital? Are they going to cut the $1.1 billion new QueenslandChildren’s Hospital?

But it goes on. What about the Cairns Hospital expansion, worth $450 million? What about theMackay Hospital redevelopment, worth $405 million? What about the Mount Isa expansion, worth$65 million? What about the Robina Hospital expansion, worth $285 million? Is that going to go? Is thatgone? What about Nambour? In the area the member for Caloundra represents—he aspires to be thenext health minister in this state—the Nambour Hospital expansion project is worth $150 million toprovide immediate relief. Is that project going to go? Which of these projects will go? The red ink hashad a bit of an outing today. Which one? Which one do those opposite want me to actually cross out ofthe 100—

Mr McArdle interjected.Mr SPEAKER: Member for Caloundra!Mr Gibson interjected.Mr SPEAKER: I warn the member for Gympie under standing order 253.Mr ROBERTSON: The member for Gympie interjects after he has had a major emergency

department expansion under this Bligh Labor government. How ungrateful! That is as ungrateful as themember for Bundaberg and the $41 million Bundaberg Hospital expansion! The member for Clayfieldhas put a big red question mark against each of these 100 hospital expansion projects underway inQueensland today. No project is safe.

Cairns, BreastScreen ClinicMs LEE LONG: My question is to the Minister for Health. A constituent who lives many hours

drive from the BreastScreen clinic in Cairns has recently attempted to make her annual appointment fora check-up. However, she spent more than three weeks trying to arrange her appointment by phone andhas in the end had to get someone in Cairns to visit the clinic because that is the only way of makingeffective contact. At no stage was she actually able to speak by telephone with the clinic herself, and Iask: why is the BreastScreen clinic so short-staffed that it cannot answer its phones and will the ministerensure that additional officers are appointed so that constituents in remote areas can at least get intouch with this important service in a timely and efficient manner?

Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the member for the question. The patient who is the member’sconstituent, I am informed, is not a patient at the Cairns BreastScreen service but is a patient, albeit apublic patient, at the private diagnostic breast service which I understand is located adjacent to theBreastScreen service. So the difficulties that the member’s constituent has been having, as regrettableas they are, are not an issue with the Cairns BreastScreen service but a problem with, I am advised, theneighbouring private service which receives funding from Queensland Health to see public patients.I am also informed that the member’s constituent is not the only constituent who has experienced thatlevel of frustration because there have been difficulties with contacting that private clinic by telephone.The problem with the telephone system has now been identified and rectified, so I would like to thinkthat the member’s constituent, whom the member is making representations for, will be looked after nowby this clinic.


Given that we are talking about services in far-north Queensland and given the commentyesterday by the opposition Treasury spokesperson that the LNP would have to stop building projectsand cut front-line services to maintain a surplus, it would appear that the further we get away fromCairns—the Cairns sitting of parliament—and the grand commitment of the brand-new hospital by theLNP, the further we get away from its capacity to actually deliver it. This is a project that the LNP hascommitted $1 billion to. The question is: where is that money going to come from, or is it going to go theway of the opposition Treasury spokesperson’s comment that it will have to cut some front-line servicesand some projects in order to maintain a surplus?

That coalition commitment in Cairns that we so graphically exposed for its hypocrisy after itpublicly praised our $450 million expansion has now got a big red question mark against it! A big redquestion mark! Where is the guarantee today? The member for Caloundra can stand up in this placenow and give the commitment that that project will go ahead, irrespective of what his Treasuryspokesperson just said. If he sits there mute and absurd, then the next press release that goes outtoday is that the coalition will scrap its own commitment to build a hospital in Cairns. I will give him fiveseconds—four, three, two, one! Out it goes!

Education Queensland, Infrastructure ProjectsMr CHOI: My question without notice is to the Minister for Education and Training and Minister for

the Arts. Before I do that, I welcome the Leader of the Opposition back into the chamber. Welcomeback!

Honourable members interjected.Mr CHOI: Can the minister advise what impact the LNP’s proposed capital works freeze on vital

projects will have on the quality of education for Queensland students now and in the future?Mr WELFORD: The Liberal Party drives ahead, dominating this new coalition with amazing new

initiatives on the financial front with the economic wizard all the way from Caloundra, leaving behind hima trail of elderly paupers. He is about to take control of the levers of the state and pull it into reverse.That is the way to do it—a capital works freeze that is going to impact on every aspect of government. Iwonder whether the Leader of the Opposition actually took a keen interest in this Liberal Party lunacy. Ido not see many of the National Party members of the front bench—or back bench—what is left ofthem—

Mr Lucas: What would Bruce Flegg have said?Mr WELFORD: What would Bruce Flegg have said? ‘Charge them more,’ he would have said.Mr SPEAKER: Minister, can you refer to members by their title and electorate. Mr WELFORD: Mr Speaker, it is difficult to remember what his title was. Our government has a

$1 billion investment in capital works in education. Can members imagine the devastating effect on thebuilding of new schools, the upgrading of existing schools and the maintenance of some of our olderschools in the state if that funding was suddenly frozen by the opposition? But that is what it isthreatening. Queenslanders need to understand that this opposition is again plagued by the JoanSheldon theory of economics—that the moment things get tough, you stop doing anything. The momentthe economy goes slack, you freeze capital works and you send government into hibernation. Ineducation, that would mean, in terms of the Inala projects, $69.5 million being withdrawn from thosecommunities that desperately need school upgrades. In the bayside, a dozen schools in that area wouldbe missing out on $150 million in vital school upgrades and, in the Ipswich area, $135 million. InInnisfail, $37 million would be withdrawn from the upgrade of the Innisfail State High School, not tomention laptops for teachers would be withdrawn.

Ms Bligh: Gone.Mr WELFORD: Gone. What about electronic whiteboards? Gone. It is back to chalk and crayons.

That is where we are in education under the opposition. It has no idea and no direction whatsoever.

Queensland EconomyGovernment members interjected.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Mr NICHOLLS: Mr Speaker, they are obviously worried. My question is to the Treasurer. This

morning the Treasurer announced that growth for Australia had fallen to 0.1 per cent for the Septemberquarter. Why did the Treasurer not also inform the House that for the first time in more than a yearQueensland’s state final demand has dropped and is now at minus 0.5 per cent? If the Treasurer will notprovide full information to this House, why should the people of Queensland trust anything else hesays?


Mr FRASER: I thank the shadow Treasurer for the question. I am happy to table the ABS notethat has been released this morning which shows that in trend terms growth in state final demand inQueensland in fact grew by 0.7 per cent in the last quarter on seasonally adjusted terms. There was adecline of 0.5 per cent, but the reality is, of course, that what we have here is the opposition choosing totalk down the Queensland economy. I table that document.Tabled paper: Extract from the Australian Bureau of Statistics web site titled ‘Australian National Accounts: National Income,Expenditure and Product, September 2008’.

That pretty much matches the opposition’s whole approach as to what to do over the next 12months. Not only does the opposition want to talk down the economy; it wants to send it into reverse.

It is a year ago this week that we saw the famous battle for the Liberal leadership. In looking backover the past 12 months, I never thought I would make the case, but I think I want to see the member forMoggill come back. I think it is time to bring back Bruce, because when it came to being able tounderstand the appropriate course of action, the one thing that could be said about the member forMoggill is that he knew how to count. That last week, as the member for Robina would remember whenhe famously referred to the shadow Treasurer as ‘Toss up’ Tim, the shadow Treasurer had a hugeproblem getting past four. He got to four, but the former shadow Treasurer knew he always had four.One wants to know that someone can actually manage to get past four and the shadow Treasurer couldnot.

The shadow Treasurer does not have what it takes to be a Treasurer in these tough times. He isnot even a shadow of a Treasurer. Then he comes in here and says that his title is the shadow ministerfor future growth. He should cross that bit out and replace it with the shadow minister for guaranteedrecession, the shadow minister for guaranteed rising unemployment, the shadow minister for knockingoff capital works, the shadow minister for pulling demand, support and activity out of the Queenslandeconomy.

The opposition does not have a plan to keep Queenslanders in jobs. It has a plan to putQueensland into reverse and Queenslanders would pay the consequences. It is about time we saw areturn to economic theory. Everyone else—every respected economist in the country—is endorsingmoving the budget into deficit to support the economy. What do these people do? Once again, theystand alone, marooned without an idea.

ICT ProjectsMr FENLON: My question is to the Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and

Communication Technology. I refer to comments made by the shadow Treasurer that the oppositionwould target information technology as the way to save money, and I ask: can the minister advise whatICT projects are likely to be cut under a National-Liberal Party government?

Mr LANGBROEK: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, the member is asking what is likely to betargeted. Surely that is a matter of opinion and I ask you to so rule.

Mr SPEAKER: I will ask the member to rephrase the question.

Mr FENLON: I am happy to rephrase the question and ask the minister: what would be theeffects of such cuts?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I can see why they are defensive and want to hide from this—

Mr LANGBROEK: I rise to a point of order. Surely this is still asking for an expression of opinion.

Mr Schwarten: You want to hide from this, don’t you?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Greenslopes to ask the question in its entirety.

Mr FENLON: I refer to comments made by the shadow Treasurer that the opposition would targetinformation technology as the way to save money, and I ask: can the minister advise what would be theeffect of such savings of money by cutting ICT projects?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the honourable member for his question. His interest in this matter iswell known. I can understand the sensitivity of those opposite, who are trying to hide from this issue.They have to ask themselves one question: what were they thinking in all of this? Do they really thinkthat we should go back to the days of the visor and the white, long-sleeved shirt public servant goingthrough the payrolls? In effect, that is what they are proposing. How much do they think it will cost to getan army of public servants in the education department, where we are rolling out new technology interms of the payroll? How many people do they think they are going to employ in Queensland Health togo back to the 1960s when people peered through endless documents and ticked them off with a pencilor perhaps even a quill?

4054 Speaker’s Statement 03 Dec 2008

The reality is that ICT is not something that you can muck around with or cut a bit off. Are theygoing to get rid of the Polaris Date Centre and embroil the state government in an endless chain oflitigation as a result, because that is a major project? What of the patient record system that we aredeveloping in Queensland Health? Is that going to get on the chopping block, too? Is it going to get thespear?

What about all the HR systems right across government that approve teachers’ leave, forexample? Does the opposition want to cut them?

Ms Bligh: Pay them in cash.

Mr SCHWARTEN: Pay them in cash—back to the old days. When I worked for the railways 30-odd years ago they used to bring the pay around in a big tin trunk. Is that what they are going to do? Isthat the opposition’s solution? To go to every hospital and pay people in cash?

Mr Lucas: A kalamazoo slip.

Mr SCHWARTEN: This is absolutely bizarre, like the kalamazoo, the abacus or whatever otherarchaic thought bubble they have in their heads. As I said, I can see why they are trying to run and hidefrom this stupidity, because they believe that IT is a bolt-on option for government. They think it issomething that governments can afford to cut off; that somehow or other IT systems are a luxury itemthat governments have. The reality is very clear: we are in the business of obtaining cutting-edgetechnology not only to catch criminals as the police minister has outlined this morning and not only tokeep an eye on child protection but also to ensure that we save money across government. We are inthe business of virtualisation and consolidation, as is every major organisation in the world. That iscosting millions upon millions of dollars, but guess what? It saves millions upon millions of dollars! Thisshows exactly how the people opposite act upon any thought bubble that pops into their heads, like the‘IT, cut that off’ thought bubble.

Mr Lucas: The Charles Dickens theory.

Mr SCHWARTEN: It is the Mr Micawber ‘she’ll-be-right’ approach. ‘Something will turn up’ isobviously the philosophy that is abounding over there. The reality is that these people are not fit to run afowl house let alone a government.

Time expired.

Mr SPEAKER: I welcome to the public gallery today a further group of teachers and children fromWilston State School in the electorate of Brisbane Central, which is represented in this House byMs Grace Grace. The time for questions has expired.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Criminal Code (Truth in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2008Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I refer to the Criminal Code (Truth in Parliament)

Amendment Bill 2008 introduced on 27 August 2008 and due to be debated in the House. As theSpeaker of the Legislative Assembly, I am the traditional guardian of the privileges of the LegislativeAssembly, its committees and members. I have been giving a great deal of consideration to this bill andthe earlier act, the Criminal Code Amendment Act 2006, which effected the changes to the CriminalCode that the bill seeks to effectively reverse.

I am aware of the partisan sentiments that surrounded the debate on the earlier Criminal CodeAmendment Bill 2006 that resulted in the 2006 act and the likelihood of similar partisan approaches inrespect of the debate of the current bill. As Speaker, my objective is to genuinely ensure that theprivileges of the Legislative Assembly be raised above partisanship.

I advise the House that today I have written to both the Premier and the Leader of the Oppositionin identical terms to urge both the government and the opposition to refer the current bill to theMembers’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee so that the current bill and all issuespertaining to the bill, and in consequence the earlier bill and act, can be thoroughly examined by theprivileges committee.

The privileges committee has demonstrated over many years, with governments of differentpolitical persuasions, that it can operate in a bipartisan manner, even when very difficult and potentiallypartisan issues have arisen. The privileges committee could take evidence from a range of experts onthe matter and a sensible outcome that is in the long-term interest of the privileges of the LegislativeAssembly could be achieved.

03 Dec 2008 Private Members’ Statements 4055

For example, examination could conclude that an offence provision be inserted into the CriminalCode but that it be limited to situations where the witness has been under oath, or that an offenceprovision be inserted into the Criminal Code that applies to certain classes of witnesses or classes ofcommittee hearings. I stress that I am not attempting to predict an outcome but simply urge that aconsidered, non-partisan approach be taken given that the long-term interests of the Assembly are atstake.

An instruction to the committee could be issued under standing order 199 so that the privilegescommittee is provided a reasonable time limit to report back to the Assembly.

Mr LANGBROEK: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, I seek clarification of your ruling. The billwas brought into the House on 27 August 2008 and it is now 3 December 2008—three or four monthslater. You have made this ruling on a day when it would appear that the reason you are making the rulingis other matters that may be occurring outside this place.

Mr SPEAKER: In reply to the point of order, there is no point of order. Today I have not made aruling in any way, shape or form. I have made a statement to the House. I have written to both thePremier and the Leader of the Opposition without any consultation with either the government or theopposition. This is not a ruling by me; it is a statement by me as Speaker. I have made that quite clear, ifyou had correctly listened to the statement.

Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (11.35 am): I indicate that,as this is not a bill of the government, the decision taken has no bearing on us.

PROPERTY LAW (MORTGAGOR PROTECTION) AMENDMENT BILL

Declared Urgent; Allocation of Time Limit OrderHon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (11.35 am), by leave,

without notice: I move—(1) That under the provisions of Standing Order 159, the Property Law (Mortgagor Protection) Amendment Bill that will be

introduced later today be declared an urgent Bill and the following time limits apply to enable the Bill to be passed throughits remaining stages at this day’s sitting with debate commencing at 2.30 pm—

(2) (a) Second reading by 3.25 pm;

(b) Consideration in detail to be completed by 3.27 pm;

(c) Third reading by 3.29 pm; and

(d) Long Title agreed by 3.30 pm.

(3) If the stages have not been completed by the times specified, Mr Speaker shall put all remaining questions necessary topass the Bill, including clauses and schedules en bloc and any amendments to be moved by the Minister in charge of theBill, without further amendment or debate.

Question put—That the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Queensland EconomyMr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.36 am): True to form,

in the parliament today we saw the government presenting the information that it wanted the people ofQueensland to hear. When the Treasurer stood here just before 11 o’clock today, he sought to indicatethat the Queensland economy was booming in comparison to the rest of Australia. One thing he did notdo was provide the figures with regard to state final demand, which has slipped into the negative. It is atnegative 0.5 per cent.

There is no doubt that this Treasurer has taken Queensland from first gear into reverse gear. ThisTreasurer was not prepared to stand in parliament today and give the people of this state and theparliament a true enunciation of the financial and economic position of the state. We still do not knowwhere we stand in comparison with the rest of Australia. Whilst the rest of Australia now has a GDPgrowth of 0.1 per cent for the September quarter, and it is very difficult to distil what the impact of thatwill be on Queensland, we know that state final demand—that is, the amount that is spent byhouseholders, governments and also across industrial sectors—has actually dropped by 0.5 per cent.There is no doubt that will have a significant bearing.

4056 Private Members’ Statements 03 Dec 2008

Mr Fraser: What do you want? What do you propose to do about it? Mr SPRINGBORG: The Treasurer sits opposite, giggling, chortling and carrying on as though this

is some sort of a game. He now says that we have plunged Queensland into this situation and that ourchallenge is to outline how we are going to get out of it. Today the challenge for the Treasurer ofQueensland is to tell the people of Queensland what services, what programs and what jobs are goingto be cut as a consequence of him calling the directors-general to his department last week and saying,‘Cut $1 billion.’ What does this mean for education, health care and capital works projects that we needin this state at this crucial time?

Time expired.

Pacific Motorway UpgradeMs STONE (Springwood—ALP) (11.38 am): The upgrade of the M1 from Eight Mile Plains to

Loganholme is a major infrastructure project that runs the length of the Springwood electorate. I knowthat communication will be important for residents, business owners and M1 commuters as this projectprogresses. That is why I have been asking for a Department of Main Roads office in the Springwoodelectorate, and I am happy to report that the minister has listened and that this request for an office isprogressing. Having a Main Roads office locally will give those affected by the major roadworks aconvenient place to go when they have questions and require information. It will also provide all theother services of a main roads office in a convenient location for locals and M1 commuters.

In October I informed members of the progress of the upgrade of the Pacific Motorway betweenSpringwood South and Daisy Hill and how the community is looking forward to an announcement beforethe end of the year on the successful tender and final design. With everything going to plan, motoristscan look forward to a 2009 start to construction on section B between Springwood South and Daisy Hill.

Today I bring the attention of the House to the fact that the money committed from both state andfederal governments, a total of $910 million, will see this important congestion-busting project begin. Ihave no doubt that there will be some inconvenience and delays to motorists as there is no way aproject of this size could not have some effect on traffic flow while in the construction phase.

I think it is sensible that we are starting with one section, and that is section B. That will definitelyhelp to minimise the impact on the traffic. Sections A and C are still to be finalised. However, the bulk ofthe planning work has been done. Today I want to ask the federal government and the minister for mainroads to sit down and start working on a commitment and time frame for the next section of construction.The residents of the Springwood electorate need to know that a commitment has been made and a timeframe planned for another section to begin after the completion of section B. This is required becausethe upgrade of the Pacific Motorway is a long-term transport solution for the people of south-eastQueensland. It is a vital piece of infrastructure that will meet the transport needs of south-eastQueensland for the next 30 years.

Bundaberg, Health ServicesMr DEMPSEY (Bundaberg—LNP) (11.40 am): I would like to inform the House of the plight of

Bundaberg residents in relation to their health needs and mass transportation of patients who arerequired to travel on what locals now aptly name the ‘Medical Express’. I would also like this House tobe informed of the personal hardships that many Bundaberg residents endure due to this stategovernment’s handling of our current health crisis, its lack of action in relation to infrastructure andconstant delays in planning that have affected the lives of many Bundaberg families.

In the past five years 54,232 journeys have been made on this service by Bundaberg patientsseeking medical treatment from specialists. On any given night this year, approximately 100 Bundabergresidents have been sleeping in motels waiting for medical appointments or the next ‘Medical Express’back to Bundaberg. Some patients must travel to tertiary hospitals in Brisbane for complex procedures,but many are travelling to Brisbane for routine procedures or check-ups because specialists orequipment are not available in Bundaberg.

In the past five years this state government has spent more than $7 million on sendingBundaberg patients to Brisbane—almost $1.6 million has been spent this year alone. Considering thisgovernment only subsidises patients’ overnight stays by $30 a night, Bundaberg’s patients havecollectively paid approximately $1.9 million this year and $9.5 million in the past five years of their ownmoney on overnight stays while waiting for medical treatment.

This financial burden, coupled with the fact they are being taken away from their support base offamily and friends, also adds to the need to have the Bundaberg Base Hospital urgently completed andspecialists employed. I again call upon this state government to reconsider its priorities and startspending money on the Bundaberg Base Hospital, staff, specialists and equipment. Bundabergdeserves a caring health system that is properly funded and looks to the future needs of its residents.


This is a vision that was promised at the last state election and one that this government will beconstantly reminded of until this deserving community’s needs are met. As Peter Beattie told Bundabergbefore the last election, no community is more deserving of improved health services than Bundaberg,and it is incumbent on this government to deliver this promise, albeit overdue.

Pacific Motorway, Nerang South Interchange

Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (11.42 am): Last Friday I was on site with the member forGaven, Phil Gray, at the Nerang South or Neilsens Road interchange upgrade on the Pacific Motorwayto officially open the new exit 73 southbound off-ramp to traffic. This project is the first to be startedunder the $910 million joint state-federal funding package that was finalised last year. Finally, we arestarting to see some light at the end of the tunnel for congestion on the Pacific Motorway, with thisinterchange one of several that need to be upgraded before the highway is widened.

The $45 million Nerang South interchange upgrade has been keenly awaited, and I want to thanklocal residents and businesses who have been extremely patient during the construction period. Theseworks are expected to be completed by the middle of next year, meeting the first of the electioncommitments relating to the upgrade of the M1 from Nerang to Tugun. Work on the Mudgeerabainterchange and the Robina Parkway-Somerset Drive interchange is due to start early next year, whilstwork on the major upgrade of the Reedy Creek interchange is due to start by the middle of next year.

Earlier this year I called for the six-laning of the highway, particularly between Nerang andWorongary, as a first step to be fast-tracked to give some relief to motorists who are continuallyfrustrated by traffic snarls on this section. I have written to the main roads minister, the Treasurer, thePremier and the federal transport minister in an effort to get this project off the ground. I am determinedto get this work bought forward as quickly as possible and I will not take no for an answer. I will continueto lobby the relevant ministers to ensure motorists in my electorate do not have to put up with the dailygridlock that occurs on this stretch. I will continue to push for further funding commitments for the fullupgrade and widening to eight lanes of the M1 from Nerang to Tugun and a time line for that to beannounced.

Dreamtime Tracks; Wide Bay Australia International Airshow

Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—LNP) (11.43 am): I would like to thank the minister for tourism forreceiving and listening to a couple of important delegations I have brought to parliament in recent times.Last week the manager of the Townsville Indigenous Cultural Centre, Scott Anderson, spoke to theminister and her staff and presented the ideas and history of an important initiative in Indigenous tourismcalled Dreamtime Tracks.

Dreamtime Tracks is a grouping of 11 north Queensland Indigenous tourism businesses who aremarketing themselves under one very powerful brand. These businesses include Zaro Cultural Gallery;White Mountains Charters Towers; Mungalla Station; Northern Australia Sports Fishing; Bandjin SeaCountry Expeditions; Girringun Aboriginal Corporation, Cardwell; Jumbun Aboriginal Tours; Echo CreekAdventure and Cultural Camp; M&J Aboriginality, Babinda; and Magarra Gallery, Atherton.

Dreamtime Tracks is a booklet and web site. It is an easy one-stop destination for tourists andvisitors who want to experience and learn more about our rich and diverse Indigenous culture. ScottAnderson and his team have used financial support of AusIndustry through the Australian TourismDevelopment Program to create a web site and booklet which showcases not only Indigenousbusinesses but also visual and performing artists and their products. Dreamtime Tracks, I believe, is agreat example and also a template for a path to a more successful Indigenous tourism industry. Onceagain, I thank the minister for her attentive consideration of Scott’s proposal.

I also thank the minister for yesterday meeting with Peter Tuffield and Richard King-Siem, whobriefed and petitioned the minister and her government for extra financial support regarding the WideBay Australia International Airshow. The 2009 event will take place over three days at the BundabergAirport from Friday, 3 July to Sunday, 5 July and will be similar in format to the 2007 event. It will be amajor tourism event attracting up to tens of thousands of people, boosting the economy and industry ofBundaberg, Burnett and the Fraser Coast.

Q150 Funding, First European Settlement

Ms van LITSENBURG (Redcliffe—ALP) (11.45 am): The Bligh government has supportedRedcliffe City’s quest for artefacts from first settlement times through Q150 grants to the Moreton BayRegional Council. While there have been a small number of artefacts found early last century, much ofour local first European settlement sites have been passed down by an oral tradition.


The Moreton Bay Regional Council received $10,000 in Q150 funding in April. This includedground-penetrating radar and magnetic gradiometry to locate the possible sites of the structural remainsof the first commandant’s house and the site of the brick kiln. Now we are about to go one step furtherthanks to the Bligh government’s far-sighted and generous Q150 grant, with an archaeological digwhere prior research has indicated the possibility of the presence of sought-after artefacts. This is alandmark excavation and an important part not only of Redcliffe’s heritage but the heritage of the wholeof Queensland. This excavation will prove the history of first European settlement in Queensland.

Next year, as we celebrate 150 years of being Queenslanders, it is my hope we will also celebratethe finding of vital first European settlement artefacts that give us important clues to the past but alsorealise our vision for the future through the Bligh government’s smart and fair community that can usethese past links to build our identity as Queenslanders and galvanise that past into a strong economicfuture in tourism. This is what the Bligh government is about—securing a strong future for allQueenslanders.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! I call the honourable and generous member forMaryborough.

Queensland Police Service, Dive Team

Mr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (11.47 am): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. One of the unsungheroes of the Queensland police force is the dive team. It has the thankless task of going out at all hoursof the day and night and weekends. Chances are that what that team is retrieving from a river or a creekis just a horrific exercise and something that really goes unnoticed. Unfortunately, with the tragic eventsin my electorate on the weekend, I spent quite a deal of time with the police dive group. I was just soimpressed with their professionalism, their sensitivity towards the family and their cooperation with allthe other services. However, it goes without saying that I believe that only two of those gentlemen wereregular members of the dive squad, because the majority of the squad, or quite a number of them, havebeen poached by the Australian Federal Police and moved down south, which has left the dive teamdecimated.

I urge the minister to look at reviewing wages and conditions so that we do not lose these highlytrained people. Effectively, what we are doing is having the Queensland Police Service spend time andmoney training these guys up to a wonderful standard only to have the Australian Federal Police havethe benefit of their skills without putting any money into their training. I understand in the real world thatthat happens, but we really need to look at it. The parents who were involved in the tragedy on theweekend had to wait from nine o’clock in the morning until six o’clock at night before the dive team couldeven get there because it had to be assembled from other people who had dive experience, and that isjust not good enough. I could not urge the ministers too strongly to make sure that appropriateresources are put in that direction.

Baby Capsule Hire Service

Ms GRACE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (11.50 am): Road safety is something we all need toconsider at this time of year in the run-up to the festive season, and the correct restraint of babies andsmall children in cars is of course paramount. The Bligh government, as part of the healthy goal ofTomorrow’s Queensland program, is committed to proactive measures to ensure that Queenslandersremain healthy and safe. That is why I welcomed the recent statements by the Minister for EmergencyServices, Neil Roberts, concerning the Queensland Ambulance Service’s baby capsule hire service. Inview of reports of research which indicate that up to 70 per cent of child restraints are incorrectlyinstalled, this is timely and reassuring information.

For a modest charge, parents across Queensland can have the peace of mind of a professionallyinstalled baby capsule, ensuring the risk of serious injury to their child is greatly reduced. For less than$70, Queensland Ambulance Service workers and other providers such as Kidsafe Queensland willprofessionally fit a potentially life-saving capsule. This covers the hire of the capsule for six months, thespecialised fitting and all capsule accessories.

Last week I was with BCC Labor leader Councillor Shayne Sutton when she utilised the service tofit a capsule for her baby which was due in the next couple of weeks—at least she thought it was due inthe next couple of weeks. However, today both Councillor Shayne Sutton and partner Stephen Beckettwelcomed a beautiful baby girl, Sarah Monica, and I take this opportunity to congratulate them both.I am sure they are totally besotted. Shayne said that having the capsule fitted by the QAS was a hugecomfort and she urges more parents to make use of the service. The QAS has been running the capsulehire service since 1993 as part of the community safety program, and Kidsafe has been aroundproviding services since 1979. I urge all parents of very young children to avail themselves of thisservice. I congratulate the minister and the government for the continued support of this importantservice.


Gold Coast Rail Service; Eastern Busway, Resumptions

Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—LNP) (11.52 am): I have been presented with a petition fromthe LNP candidate for Yeerongpilly, Julianna Kneebone, which I table regarding the call by localresidents for the reintroduction of the Yeerongpilly stop on the Brisbane-Gold Coast rail service. I drawthis to the attention of the government and ask it to listen to the people.

Tabled paper: Non-conforming petition relating to Yeerongpilly Railway Station.

On another issue of great concern, businesses affected by future resumptions for the EasternBusway are crying foul over the treatment they have received from the Bligh Labor government. Thebusinesses which will be resumed as part of the busway’s second stage, from Buranda to CavendishRoad, have endured continual delays in the resumption process and are still awaiting a formal notice ofintent from the state government, despite promises to receive it early in 2008.

The business owners feel betrayed, and this has been a headache for them. There are issuesabout receiving fair compensation but they are mainly crying out for a time line that does not keepshifting. These people have been through hell. Two people have suffered heart attacks related to thestress caused by this situation, but the government has shown little compassion and it is continuing toleave these people living under a cloud.

Business owners in the Coorparoo Mall were notified in January 2007 that their properties wouldbe affected by the resumptions, with a promise to receive more information the following month. Sixmonths later they finally received another letter containing no new information. In August 2007, theywere told they could expect a notice of intention to resume in early 2008. Ten months later, in June2008, still without the promised notice, they were informed that the resumption process had beendelayed and would now start in July 2008. Last month Queensland Transport informed them of anotherdelay and told them to wait another few months—until some time in early 2009—to receive their officialnotices, with the resumption process to then take another six months to complete.

The Beattie-Bligh government has delivered these small businesses two years of excuses,delays, heartache and ruined businesses. The shopping centre is falling into disrepair because no-onewants to spend money on something that is soon to be demolished, and customer numbers havedwindled which is affecting their bottom lines. It is time for a fair go and some honesty.

Mount Isa Electorate

Mrs KIERNAN (Mount Isa—ALP) (11.54 am): The Mount Isa electorate and Mount Isaparticularly have made headlines around the world over the past few months for all the wrong reasons.Mount Isa and the north-west is a fantastic place to live, work and raise families. As members of thisHouse know, we are in very uncertain times. The global financial crisis is impacting far and wide, and noless than in the electorate of Mount Isa. Our community has seen downturns. However, I would have tosay that we have had nothing like the uncertain time we are entering. Our community has bounced backbefore and I have every faith it will do so again. It is vitally important that we do not take our eye off thelong-term sustainability of our region, least of all our iconic Mount Isa Mines and our city. I will continueto work with our government to address key issues such as health, energy, water and transport toensure that we maintain our position as the premier mining province in Queensland and indeedAustralia.

This year our city has taken many hits. The Mount Isa City mayor and the federal member havebeen more intent on discrediting our community than promoting it to be the wonderful, caring andresilient community that it is. This year, the Premier and our government made a commitment to theresidents in Mount Isa in respect of the health and wellbeing of our children and citizens. Through theformation of the Living With Lead Alliance, we have seen our community grow stronger.

We have kept our commitment in delivering the five-point plan. In October, Libby Hall wasengaged as our project officer. The Mount Isa City Council has provided the alliance with a shopfrontoffice. The local car business, Tom Malouf motors, has provided the alliance with a vehicle for two years.This week a mail-out of a letter, car sticker and fridge magnet has been sent to every household inMount Isa. I table this information for the benefit of honourable members.

Tabled paper: Brochure titled ‘Wet Wipe, Wash and Eat Well’.

We will continue to work with our community and not take a backward step in the interests of ourchildren, workers and their families, and indeed the less fortunate in our community.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge in the public gallerystaff and students from the Wilston State School in the electorate of Brisbane Central, which isrepresented in the chamber by the honourable Grace Grace.


Prep Year, Capital Works Program

Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (11.56 am): I want to bring to the attention of theHouse and the people of Queensland report No. 100 from the Public Works Committee of thisparliament, which has members from the Labor Party government and the LNP opposition. This reportwas introduced into the House this week and was titled Prep school year capital works program. Wealready know that the people of Queensland have been short-changed on full-time teacher aides. Thisreport shows that this committee is concerned about the people of Queensland being short-changed onindoor learning areas and outdoor learning areas in the prep school year capital works program.

The committee report said that the targeted area of 3.4 square metres which the Department ofEducation, Training and the Arts was providing per child per classroom of 25 should exclude non-teaching areas, which are the kitchen and the teachers room. The report said that, even though EarlyChildhood Australia and the Queensland Association of State School Principals expressed concernbeforehand in the design stage that they should be providing this area which does not include thekitchen and the teachers room, unfortunately the Department of Education, Training and the Arts didmake the allocation of only 3.4 square metres per child. This has meant that the classrooms are not asbig as they should be and that classes do not have space standards which are as good as they couldbe, even though they have said they ignored that consultation.

In relation to the outdoor learning areas, we had the minister for education talking in this place thismorning about the fact that this is the Year of Physical Activity, but the Public Works Committee foundthat the location of some prep constructions ‘has reduced the amount of outdoor learning areasignificantly, enough to severely limit the mandated play based curriculum’. The Public WorksCommittee saw the inconsistency in the size of useable outdoor learning areas, and it is of greatconcern to the committee and therefore to the people of Queensland. There is an inconsistency in theallocated outdoor learning areas in schools, and there is obviously an impact on the available outdoorlearning areas from the unforeseen growth in the number of prep students, particularly in south-eastQueensland. These are things that the people of Queensland are concerned about in the prep year thatthe government has delivered.

Auslan in Sport

Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (11.58 am): Last Friday I attended an event with representativesfrom Deaf Sports and Recreation Queensland to officially launch the Australian Sign Language Auslanin Sport DVD, which was funded by the Queensland government. The Auslan in Sport DVD has beenspecifically produced as a communication tool for Queensland’s athletes, coaches, teachers andadministrators who have not previously worked with athletes who have a hearing impairment. Users willbe able to view and learn basic Auslan which can then be applied during training and on the sportingfield. Having these important basic skills will provide significant benefits to our deaf and hearingimpaired athletes, can lead to overall increased participation in sport and recreation, and can lead toother flow-on benefits for our local clubs—not to mention for the sport and recreation industry as awhole.

We had the opportunity during the launch to watch our young deaf athletes who are the stars ofthe DVD showing us the Auslan signs for specific sports such as basketball and football. I congratulatethem for being the fine role models that they are. As someone who is still learning sign language, Iunderstand the hesitancy that some people have in communicating with deaf and hearing impairedpeople, but I would say to them that the more they practise the better they will become at Auslan and theeasier it will be to communicate. So just keep trying.

The Bligh Labor government is a proud supporter of this excellent communication strategy,providing $33,000 to assist Deaf Sports and Recreation Queensland to complete the project. In fact, thisLabor government is strongly committed to ensuring all Queenslanders have access to quality sport andrecreation opportunities no matter where they live, their age or ability. That is why we cultivatepartnerships across the sport and recreation industry with organisations such as Deaf Sports andRecreation Queensland.

In January this year, Minister Spence announced funding of $285,000 over the next three years toassist Deaf Sports and Recreation Queensland to improve organisational development across the stateand to deliver participation opportunities and initiatives for deaf and hearing impaired students. TowardQ2: Tomorrow’s Queensland commits this government to making Queenslanders Australia’s healthiestpeople, and we will do this by ensuring Queenslanders have places and opportunities to lead healthy,active lifestyles.

I commend Deaf Sports and Recreation Queensland for continuing to develop and delivervaluable resources and initiatives, such as this DVD, that provide sport and recreation pathways for ourdeaf and hearing impaired athletes in Queensland.


Nambour, Government OfficesMr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (12.01 pm): I use this opportunity to call on the state

government to consider the possibility of relocating new state government offices to the town ofNambour, which is a key regional centre on the Sunshine Coast. A range of very strategic sites in thetown of Nambour are available for redevelopment and for consideration by the state government andthe various departments. Some sites are on Howard Street, but right in the heart of the town, in thecentral business district, is the former sugar mill site, which is still basically undeveloped. I believe thesugar mill site is a perfect place for the relocation of significant new state government offices toNambour. It is right beside the train line, right beside the railway station, right beside our Sunshine CoastRegional Council’s head office and right in the heart of the central business district. It is not far from ourregional hospital, not far from our TAFE facility and very close and accessible to many other services.

I use this opportunity because I understand that recently the minister for public works and housingspoke in this House about the relocation of state government officers to the region. Nambour is part ofthe south-east Queensland region. It is right on the train line and I believe it is a site that is worthy ofconsideration. At the moment in Nambour our Public Trust Office has very cramped facilities, and Ibelieve this site or perhaps another site in Howard Street would be worthy of consideration by the stategovernment for relocation and rebuilding. I commend this suggestion to the minister and thedepartments for further consideration.

Yeerongpilly Electorate, Heavy VehiclesMr FINN (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (12.02 pm): Use of local roads by trucks moving freight continues

to be an issue in my electorate of Yeerongpilly. The location of the Brisbane markets and the Rockleaindustrial zone results in heavy vehicles needing to access these areas. As the population in south-eastQueensland continues to grow, the need to move freight around the region will similarly grow.Addressing local traffic issues, however, requires honesty about the capacity for freight routes andindustrial infrastructure to be moved or rebuilt as well as resisting the urge to score cheap political pointsby manipulating genuine residents’ concerns.

It is this manipulation and point-scoring that the Brisbane Lord Mayor and Councillor NicoleJohnston have succumbed to. In the lead-up to the council elections this year, the Lord Mayor andCouncillor Johnston knew they had to have some answers to residents’ concerns about heavy vehicleuse on council controlled roads. So they announced a study. This study, costing $100,000, was toinvestigate truck movements and to determine the best ways to manage the movement of heavyvehicles in local streets.

In good faith, I welcomed the announcement of this study. However, it seems it has turned out tobe little more than a stunt. Whilst the findings of the study were supposed to be released in June, wehave still seen nothing from the Lord Mayor. In last week’s City South News it was reported that thestudy had been delayed, but there is no indication of what that delay is. The Lord Mayor needs to assureresidents that his study is not a sham. In the context of the council election campaign, instead ofannouncing that he would do something to address traffic movements he announced a study. Now withthe study complete, instead of announcing what he can do he sits on it and waits to score political pointsand blame-shift.

I say to the Lord Mayor: get on with it. Release your study. Work constructively acrossgovernment to address infrastructure needs. Implement traffic management strategies to regulateusage of Venner Road and encourage alternative access to Rocklea industrial areas. But, most of all,take responsibility for council controlled roads and resist the urge for point-scoring and blame-shifting.

Country RacingMr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (12.04 pm): Country racing in Queensland has been

hammered under this Bligh government. I want to talk today about the destruction that has beenwreaked upon 35 per cent of country clubs which have lost their $3,000 per meeting administration fee.It is totally and completely unfair. I also want to speak about the net loss of nine race meetings from thecountry circuits of Queensland and particularly from the south-east Queensland circuit. We have seentwo of the best clubs in south-east Queensland—Kilcoy and Esk—lose three race meetings each, andwe see Bell lose a meeting as well.

Kilcoy and Esk are the most popular patronised venues in the south-east country circuit. Theyhave the biggest on-track bookmakers’ turnover. They have the highest on-course TAB turnover in thatcircuit. They have a high average number of starters per race meeting. They promote and marketcountry racing, and they also have full electronic facilities, fully fenced, grassed and maintained tracks.

Speak to anybody in south-east Queensland and you will know the popularity of these racemeetings, particularly to owners and trainers on the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast, Toowoomba andBrisbane, because of the class of horses that they promote and the wonderful activities they provide forthe hundreds of patrons that they get there.

4062 Greenhouse Gas Storage Bill 03 Dec 2008

Under an LNP government, clubs like Kilcoy, Esk and Bell will have their race meetingsreturned—under an LNP government only, because we will stand up for country racing. It will be of nodetriment to the other country clubs because we will ensure that this will be extra. So whateveradvantages all the other country clubs have they will keep, but we will look after these clubs who havebeen hammered under the Bligh government. It is about time that someone stood up for country clubsand country people, and the LNP will do that. That is the assurance for the good people of Kilcoy, Eskand Bell, that those clubs and their race meetings will be maintained.

Time expired.


First ReadingHon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and

Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (12.06 pm): I present a bill for an act to amendthe Property Law Act 1974 for a particular purpose. I present the explanatory notes, and I move—That the bill be now read a first time.

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

Tabled paper: Property Law (Mortgagor Protection) Amendment Bill. Tabled paper: Property Law (Mortgagor Protection) Amendment Bill, explanatory notes.

Second ReadingHon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and

Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (12.07 pm): I move—That the bill be now read a second time.

In the current global economic and financial circumstances, there are growing concerns about thesafeguards for mortgagors when mortgagees exercise their powers of sale. The purpose of this bill is tostrengthen the protections for mortgagors when mortgagees exercise such powers. The first measurerelates to the obligation under section 85(1) of the Property Law Act for the mortgagee exercising powerof sale to take reasonable care to ensure the property is sold at market value. This obligation is intendedto protect the mortgagor by minimising the mortgagor’s residual debt or maximising the mortgagor’sresidual equity.

Consideration has been given to whether the section makes sufficient provision for a mortgageeselling the mortgaged property in other ways; namely, pursuant to a power of attorney given under themortgage and to receivers appointed by mortgagees. To ensure there are no gaps under Queenslandlegislation, the current duty to take reasonable care to ensure the property is sold at market value will beexpanded to those situations.

For ‘prescribed mortgages’—intended to be those over land securing credit of a consumercharacter—there will be additional protections. For these mortgages, the bill provides clear guidance tomortgagees about the steps that mortgagees must take to satisfy their duty to take reasonable care toensure the property is sold at market value. They include adequately advertising the sale; obtainingreliable evidence of the property’s value; maintaining the property including by undertaking anyreasonable repairs; and selling the property by auction unless it is appropriate to sell it in another way.

Additional steps will be able to be prescribed under a regulation. Failure to comply with the stepsprescribed under the act without reasonable excuse will be an offence punishable by a fine of 200penalty units. Breach of any duty prescribed by regulation is also an offence and will attract a fine of 20penalty units. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Horan, adjourned.

GREENHOUSE GAS STORAGE BILL

First ReadingHon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Mines and Energy) (12.09 pm): I present a

bill for an act to facilitate greenhouse gas geological storage and to amend the Aboriginal Land Act1991, Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995, Dangerous Goods Safety Management Act 2001,

03 Dec 2008 Greenhouse Gas Storage Bill 4063

Duties Act 2001, Electrical Safety Act 2002, Electricity Act 1994, Environmental Protection Act 1994,Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990, Foreign Ownership of Land Register Act 1988, Forestry Act 1959,Geothermal Exploration Act 2004, Integrated Planning Act 1997, Land Act 1994, Land Protection (Pestand Stock Route Management) Act 2002, Land Title Act 1994, Local Government Act 1993, MineralResources Act 1989, Nature Conservation Act 1992, Petroleum Act 1923, Petroleum and Gas(Production and Safety) Act 2004, Queensland Competition Authority Act 1997, Queensland HeritageAct 1992, State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971, Survey and MappingInfrastructure Act 2003, Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991, Valuation of Land Act 1944, Water Supply(Safety and Reliability) Act 2008, Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994 and the Workplace Health andSafety Act 1995. I present the explanatory notes, and I move—That the bill be now read a first time.

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

Tabled paper: Greenhouse Gas Storage Bill.Tabled paper: Greenhouse Gas Storage Bill, explanatory notes.

Second ReadingHon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Mines and Energy) (12.11 pm): I move—

That the bill be now read a second time.

The process of greenhouse gas storage involves the capture, generally from fossil fuel-firedpower stations, and transport of a greenhouse gas stream and injection of this stream into anunderground geological formation or structure suitable for permanent storage. Greenhouse gas storagetechnology is of significant interest to Queensland as coal-fired generation is a major component of thestate’s electricity mix and coalmining is a key component of Queensland’s economy. Greenhouse gasstorage has the potential to be the single most important measure to achieve deep cuts in greenhousegas emissions from the energy sector.

There is already a significant amount of activity towards the testing and demonstration of thefeasibility of greenhouse gas storage in Queensland. The government owned corporation CS Energy isleading a project to demonstrate oxy-firing in a coal-fired boiler, with carbon capture and storage, at itsCallide A power station. ZeroGen Pty Ltd is investigating the feasibility of an end-to-end process of coalgasification and power generation in an integrated gasification combined cycle plant, with carboncapture and geological storage.

In September 2008, I announced that Tarong Energy had joined forces with CSIRO in a pilotproject to capture greenhouse gases at Tarong Power Station. This project has the potential to capture1,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in a postcombustion capture process. Both the coal and thepetroleum and gas industries are keenly interested in the progress and potential of the greenhouse gasstorage industry.

The Greenhouse Gas Storage Bill 2008 will provide the process for the granting of the authoritiesto explore for and use underground geological formations or structures to store a greenhouse gasstream. The composition of a greenhouse gas stream allowed to be stored will be overwhelminglycarbon dioxide. The definition of ‘greenhouse gas stream’ in the bill recognises that, in the process ofseparation of the carbon dioxide from its source, there may be minor impurities such as methane ornitrogen oxides or detection agents remaining in the greenhouse gas stream. Undesirable elementssuch as mercury will not be acceptable inclusions in the stream.

The storage reservoirs that are the underground geological formations or structures in which agreenhouse gas stream could be stored will be classed as a state resource, in the same way asminerals, for example, are classed as a state resource, and will be the property of the state. Thisrecognises that, unlike the tangible resources of coal or petroleum, with greenhouse gas storage thestorage medium is the resource for the purposes of administering the industry. The legislationestablishes separate authorities, one which will allow the carrying out of exploration for greenhouse gasstream storage sites and a second for storage activities.

The government will manage the development of this industry and release areas for explorationthrough a competitive tender process. Environmental authorities under the Environmental Protection Act1994 will be required prior to the commencement of exploration or storage activities. Consequentialamendments are included in this bill to ensure that this occurs.

Certain risks from greenhouse gas injection and storage have been identified in all internationaland Australian jurisdictions proposing or conducting greenhouse gas storage activities. These aresafety, the possible leakage of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and the migration of the carbondioxide into surrounding geological formations or aquifers.

4064 Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Bill 03 Dec 2008

It is recognised that there is no such thing as a perfect site for geological storage and thepossibility of some minor carbon dioxide leakage must be acknowledged. This must be set against thebenefits to the environment of being able to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions to theatmosphere. The proposed regulatory framework will minimise the risks as far as practicable.

This will be achieved through the initial application and approvals process. For example, anapplicant for a greenhouse gas injection and storage lease must submit, among other things, a site plandetailing the targeted geological formations or structures for proposed greenhouse gas storageactivities. The plan will also include a predictive greenhouse gas stream migration model and ongoingmonitoring and assessment processes. I seek leave to have the remainder of my second readingspeech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted. All of this information will be assessed by independent experts as to its veracity. As greenhouse gas injection and storage hasbeen undertaken internationally for a number of years, there is a pool of independent expertise available to undertake thisassessment. The ability to require further independent assessment, at the proponent’s cost, will also be available to the ministershould further assessment be necessary.

Refusal of the application on public interest grounds by the minister remains the ultimate sanction for the project. This could arisewhere the risk from the proposal is assessed as being unacceptable.

Ongoing long-term monitoring of the geological storage site, even after injection has ceased, will continue for environmentalimpacts. Environmental monitoring will be financed by financial assurances from the leaseholder and administered under theEnvironmental Protection Act 1994.

Unlike mining and petroleum leases that have a finite term, a greenhouse gas injection and storage lease will not have a set termnor surrender time. This recognises that the leaseholder using the storage site will carry the liability during the operational phaseof greenhouse gas stream injection as well as the post closure period of the geological storage site.

Mr Speaker, only when injection of the greenhouse gas stream has ceased; wells have been decommissioned; the previouslyestablished monitoring system is operating properly; and the highest possible risk minimisation for the greenhouse gas streamstorage has been demonstrated by the stability of the injected greenhouse gas stream will the greenhouse gas injection andstorage leaseholder be permitted to apply for surrender of the lease.

The approval of surrender will be determined on a case-by-case basis, so some greenhouse gas injection and storage leases maybe held for many years posclosure. On acceptance of the surrender, the ownership of the injected and stored greenhouse gasstream will vest in the state. The vesting of ownership is recognition of the longevity limitations of corporate existence and theongoing role of government in the long-term monitoring of stored greenhouse gases.

Any common law liability for tortuous claims will remain with the holder of the lease that undertook the greenhouse gas streaminjection and storage. This same position has been adopted in the recently passed Victorian Greenhouse Gas GeologicalSequestration Act 2008.

Mr Speaker, this bill is the cornerstone for all greenhouse gas storage projects planned for Queensland and is intended to providesecurity for investment in this new industry.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Seeney, adjourned.

ANIMAL MANAGEMENT (CATS AND DOGS) BILL

Second ReadingResumed from 11 November (see p. 3372), on motion of Mr Pitt—


Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—LNP) (12.16 pm): In rising to speak in the debate on the AnimalManagement (Cats and Dogs) Bill, I point out that the shadow minister, Howard Hobbs, has a minorhealth problem and will be sitting out this bill. I know that DPIF has provided a lot of assistance in theformulation of this bill, so that is why I will be taking his place.

As we all know, cats and dogs have been loyal companions to humanity for centuries. Mostpeople have stories about the heroic efforts of their pets, especially dogs. I will touch on my experience.I have a 14-year-old cattle dog and she would be the most loved dog anywhere. I get into serious troublebecause I put her in the front seat beside me whenever I go out on the block and when my wife sits inthe car she brings a towel out to put on the seat. This old dog tries to talk to me. The beauty we have inQueensland is the right to own pets. No doubt most people in this House would have had similarexperiences to mine.

There are also many horror stories about dog attacks. This bill implements provisions that seek toprevent these things happening. Without doubt, the opposition will be supporting this bill. In our modernsociety of increasing population, closer urban settlement and rural lifestyle living, there is a need to putin place modern systems to manage the increasing numbers of cats and dogs in our communities. Thisis about responsible pet ownership.

03 Dec 2008 Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Bill 4065

Some owners may consider the legislation unnecessary and costly as they look after their pets. Itis exactly the same as introducing speeding regulations and things like that. There is always someoneout there who does not do the right thing. This bill is certainly not aimed at pet owners who do the rightthing. They should not have to pay a penalty for those who are irresponsible.

Unfortunately, the number of dogs and cats that are euthanased each year is increasing. Eachyear more than 13,000 cats and 10,000 dogs are euthanased in Queensland. Under this legislationconsiderable changes will be made. It will introduce mandatory registration and microchipping of catsand dogs and ear tattooing of desexed cats and dogs.

The bill identifies and controls regulated dogs, dangerous and menacing and restricted dogs tominimise the risk to community health and safety balanced with the rights of the individual. It alsoenhances local government monitoring and enforcement powers, but we do not want to see too muchimpost put on local government by the bringing in of these regulations. The bill also relocates chapter17A relating to restricted dogs provisions from the Local Government Act 1993 to the bill to provide adiscrete and easily accessible legislative framework for companion animal management in Queensland.There are also minor consequential amendments to the City of Brisbane Act 1924 and the LGA.

The bill provides for compulsory microchipping by regulated implanters of cats and dogs before12 weeks of age or before the transfer of ownership. It is important that we recognise that there is aneed for some exemptions, and the government has provided those in this bill. Some of thoseexemptions include government authority dogs such as security dogs and working dogs. Quite clearly, itwould be unreasonable to microchip thousands of working dogs on rural farms and stations throughoutQueensland and I am very pleased that this has been considered. Many of those stations and farmssimply cannot operate without their dogs, and of course a lot of them are a great distance from town. Sowe are very happy to see this measure in the bill. Further classes of animals can be exempt and thesewill be prescribed by regulation, and I look forward to seeing those regulations.

For a microchipping system to work effectively, it is necessary to hold an Australia-wide database.We have seen what has happened with the NLIS for cattle. People bucked and screamed against it andhave said that it is no good, but we now have an identification scheme in place for the livestock industryAustralia-wide. If ever foot-and-mouth got into our nation, that protection mechanism can implement alockup straightaway and the disease can be identified. It is a wonderful system. I note that the shadowminister has done quite a bit of research here. Some of that research he has got from the Department ofPrimary Industries and Fisheries, and Professor Jacquie Rand and Corinne Hanlon have put together apaper and the shadow minister has underlined a few points.

Traditionally, dogs and cats are desexed at six to nine months of age. This is based on the age atwhich the most rapid phase of physical maturation is complete. The paper goes on to say thatapproximately 50 per cent of cats entering shelters are kittens whereas only 10 per cent of dogs arepuppies. Euthanasia rates in kittens are very high, exacerbated by the marked seasonal influx duringspring and summer. Conversely, euthanasia rates in shelters for puppies are low and most of thesepuppies are rehomed. Most dogs entering shelters are aged from six months to two years of age,indicating that they initially have a home and that this is lost because they escape or are surrendered.Therefore, overpopulation of dogs does not appear to be the primary reason for the unwanted dogpopulation. In cats there are insufficient homes available for the number of kittens born annually, leadingto high euthanasia rates. RSPCA shelters in Queensland receive 30 per cent of the national RSPCAintake of cats and kittens. In Queensland, 60 per cent of cats and kittens were euthanased in 2006-07.

In response to public concerns, the Queensland government began a process of publicconsultation to determine the way to reduce the number of unwanted dogs and cats in the state. Afterpublic submissions were received, the government commissioned an independent review. Some of theissues involved in managing dogs and cats are quite different and so require different strategies toaddress them. In the urban environment, there are few unowned dogs but many unowned cats. Veryfew puppies are admitted to shelters in the first place and the vast majority of these are rehomed,resulting in very few sociable, healthy puppies being euthanased by shelters. Generally, dogs areeuthanased because of health and temperament issues that render them unsuitable to rehome.

By contrast, up to 40 per cent of euthanased kittens are potentially able to be rehomed givenadequate resources but there are simply too many cats admitted to pounds and shelters for theavailable homes. This is a common finding in the data from elsewhere in Australia and other placesaround the world. A fundamental question that must be resolved in order to reduce the sheltereuthanasia of cats is identifying where the animals that are being euthanased actually come from.Without this critical piece of information, it is impossible to waste much time, effort and resources inmisdirected attempts to remedy the issues.

Generally, at least in urban Australia, dogs tend to be either owned or not owned. With cats thesituation is not so clear. It is not uncommon for cats to be cared for by multiple households, none ofwhich feels that they own the cat. This is a phenomenon known as semiownership. A fully owned urban


cat may be permitted to wander and hunt and so on and is not fully dependent on human support.Simply put, there is not just one population to deal with but several different populations that interact inunknown ways. For example, a pet cat can become a stray if abandoned and a stray can become a petif it has been socialised to humans at some point.

In Victoria almost a quarter of the state’s population—22 per cent—are feeding cats that they donot own. They are amazing figures—that is, 22 per cent of people in Victoria are feeding cats that theydo not own. With the event of microchips, it is possible to permanently identify the animal in a way thatcannot be lost or transferred to another animal. Permanent identification links an animal and the owner,allowing the effective enforcement of animal management legislation, removing any question aboutownership and the allocation of responsibility in cases of nuisances. My neighbour recently lost a sheep,a calf and a mob of chooks when some dogs came up from town and got stuck into them. If we canencourage people who have pets to look after them properly, it is simply good legislation.

When microchips were in the early stages of development, there were many problemsexperienced when microchips could not be read by standard scanners. The introduction of theAustralian standards to microchip technology has addressed the majority of these issues. We saw theEI outbreak in the horse industry only 12 months ago. With the identification that is in place, it was agreat learning curve for everyone involved in that. However, the maintenance of the owner’s contactdetails has become a key issue. Many companion animal owners forget to update their contact detailson the microchip registry when they move, leaving their pet linked to an owner who cannot be contacted.Although the situation in Queensland is currently unknown, data from elsewhere in Australia indicatesthat relatively few puppies are relinquished to shelters. This indicates that breeding by owned dogs isnot a significant contributing factor in shelter admission and euthanasia statistics. Some members of thecommunity have valid reasons for wanting to own sexually intact animals, such as registered andresponsible breeders. Other individuals may have a personal or moral preference to own an entirecompanion animal. As long as these animals are owned responsibly and not allowed to produceunwanted progeny, then provisions should be made to meet the needs of their owners.

We have to ensure that we retain companion dogs that are well suited to urban life and reduce thelikelihood of community nuisance arising from stress and boredom. Desexing strategies shouldstrategically target these dogs that are not equipped to be human companions. Quite often if a bluecattle dog or a sheep dog is locked up in a yard in town with the energy they have, half of the time theyjust go mad and end up in trouble. Confinement can be an effective means of restricting thereproductive activities of a sexually entire animal.

Confinement of dogs for the purpose of reproduction control is effective and relatively easy toachieve. Containment of owned cats for the purposes of reproduction control is more challenging toachieve and more controversial. Because of a cat’s physical abilities, containment can be relativelyexpensive for owners to achieve, requiring the construction of fences or special cat enclosures. Animalmanagement issues that arise from owned animals are generally accepted to be people problems ratherthan animal problems. Therefore, to effectively change, it is necessary to modify the behaviour of theowners. An education program is the best method of achieving this. Education about responsible petownership should always be available at the point of sale.

There are four main reasons to support compulsory identification: it will enable more lost animalsto be reunited with their owners; it will force more semi-owners and casual owners to either accept fullownership of their animals or to surrender them to the appropriate authorities; it will permit theapplication of incentives and penalties to regulate owner behaviours; and, perhaps most importantly, itwill permit authorities to distinguish owned animals from those which are ownerless. Compulsoryidentification, including microchips, collars and tags, is thought to be a required component of anyprogram that is aimed at reducing shelter euthanasia rates.

Revenue from animal registration appears to provide a significant boost to animal management.However, recent evidence has identified that generally council registration fees are insufficient to fundanimal management services. In 2004 alone, animal management services were estimated to operateat a loss of $35 million nationally. That suggests that alternative funding models for companion animalservices may be required. When all of those factors are taken into account, compulsory registrationmay, therefore, have few benefits in areas where compulsory identification is in place.

Legislation to encourage or require the desexing of companion animals is becoming increasinglycommon. However, the effectiveness of compulsory desexing has never been formally evaluated withrespect to its long-term effect on animal numbers, animal quality, cost and resource requirements,sustainability and community acceptance.

Other areas of America have also revoked desexing legislation when it was found thatcompliance with other requirements, such as rabies vaccinations, had dropped and public safety wasthreatened. Two Victorian shires have been progressively implementing desexing legislation. To date,they have conducted major public awareness campaigns but no enforcement. This has resulted in a50 per cent decrease in the number of cats impounded in one shire.


To protect native wildlife, Kangaroo Island implemented a radical strategy of culling anyunidentified cat. The strategy reduced predation by owned cats, but has not been effective in controllingthe unowned cat population. Owing to a lack of independent, high-quality data, there is no conclusiveevidence to support or refute claims that mandatory desexing decreases animal numbers and reducesshelter or pound admissions and euthanasia rates, but there is also no conclusive evidencedemonstrating the strategy to be ineffective.

Compulsory desexing may result in a loss of genetic diversity, particularly in dogs. That is onepoint we have to consider seriously. This may affect the health and wellbeing of animals and may alsomean that potential owners are unable to acquire suitable companion animals at an affordable price.

The animal industry and veterinary groups have also expressed negative attitudes towardscompulsory desexing and have mounted public campaigns against its introduction in some areas.Discounted registration fee incentive schemes are unlikely to be successful in areas where cost is not adetermining factor, but may be effective when targeted strategically and are focused upon areas withhigh impoundment levels and lower socioeconomic status.

The city of Calgary uses a zero tolerance strategy to gain high levels of compliance withcompulsory registration. Animal management officers in that city conduct high-visibility registrationcampaigns with diligent follow-up to check compliance. Frequent ongoing educational campaigns stressthe benefits of licensing. A ‘drive home’ policy for identified dogs has been very effective and has greatlyincreased the reclaim rate for dogs, reduced shelter costs and the number of aggressive dogcomplaints. Cat registration has resulted in a reduction in the number of impounded cats, reducedeuthanasia and increased the return rate of cats by 50 per cent.

Studies have shown that removing free-living cats from an environment to reduce animalnumbers is effective only if the area is geographically isolated to prevent recolonisation and if allsexually active animals are removed. Otherwise, the population is soon replenished by breeding ormigration.

Currently, most councils in Queensland do not manage cats at all. Therefore, considerableresources will need to be allocated to this task. Many councils do not have the facilities to handle catsand will need to expand their pounds to do so at significant capital cost. Council registration is perceivedby many companion animal owners as a revenue-raising initiative, providing few benefits for those whoregister their animals. This is particularly the case for cat owners. This perception is likely to becomemore prevalent now that centralised identification schemes are well supported, or compulsory in somestates, enabling pets and owners to be reunited, thus removing one of the major reasons for registeringa companion animal with the council.

The reduction of shelter euthanasia rates for dogs in urban Queensland requires that ownersadopt more responsible practices. The implementation of mandatory microchipping in New South Waleswas severely hampered by a lack of appropriate microchip hardware and inadequate software. A lack ofdetailed data from pounds and shelters has hindered the New South Wales government’s ability torespond to animal management issues. I would like the minister to comment on that issue later in hissumming-up, because I think that is a very serious issue that we have to consider.

In Victoria, the use of licensed microchip registries that comply with Australian standards hasbeen very successful. Animal management issues in remote and regional communities differ from thosein urban Australia. Approaches to dealing with these issues must be dealt with on a collaborative basiswith the individual communities rather than being mandated across-the-board.

Breeder organisations were concerned that, should mandatory desexing legislation be forced,there be some provision made to exempt members of approved organisations or registered breeders.They also expressed a concern that any move to mandatory identification should utilise Australianstandard approved microchips and equipment. I believe this is what is proposed in this legislation.

The number of submissions received indicated intense public interest in this topic. There isgeneral dissatisfaction with Queensland’s current animal management system. Statewide registrationservices for both dogs and cats were supported by the majority of respondents, representing a validoption for animal management. That is another reason this legislation has to be passed by this House.Many submissions identified that local governments need to be adequately funded, resourced andbacked by clear, strong legislation in order to carry out any responsibilities required under the legislativereforms.

So we can see from the research that our shadow minister has done and put forward in theHouse today that we in the opposition will definitely be agreeing with this legislation. We think it is goodlegislation. Anything that can provide a safe environment for animals and encourage responsible petownership is good legislation. We are happy to support this bill today.

Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (12.37 pm): I rise to seek in support of the Animal Management(Cats and Dogs) Bill 2008. The Animal Welfare League, located in Shelter Road, Coombabah, wasfounded in 1959 by Neil Anderson. Since that time, the Animal Welfare League has provided care andshelter for companion animals. Every year, the Animal Welfare League takes care of 12,000 stray,abandoned and surrendered animals from the Gold Coast and surrounding areas.


With that many cats and dogs coming through the door of the Animal Welfare League, the staff ofthe Animal Welfare League are dedicated to ensuring that every animal has a chance of finding its homeor a new home. The Animal Welfare League is active in its commitment to educating the public onresponsible pet ownership. It also offers very reasonable rates for desexing and microchipping throughits accredited veterinary clinic. The Animal Welfare League also conducts education programs forschoolchildren and other groups. Every adoptee is interviewed prior to an adoption being approved toreinforce the responsibilities of pet ownership.

Working closely with the Gold Coast City Council pound operation, the Animal Welfare Leagueprovides the best of care for stray animals during their impound period. Years ago unclaimed animalswere put down straightaway, but the Animal Welfare League now takes on impounded companionanimals to offer them the opportunity to be adopted by new families or perhaps found by their originalowner given a longer period. Each day the wonderful staff and volunteers of the Animal Welfare Leaguealso receive companion animals that are surrendered by people. Over the years the availability of theservice that the Animal Welfare League provides to the public has contributed greatly to the reduction ofcompanion animals being dumped or disposed of by inhumane methods. People now know that theycan surrender a companion animal in the hope that a home may be found for a pet cat or dog they nolonger want to care for. In many ways it is a relief that the Animal Welfare League is there to do thiswork.

However, in the time that I have spent talking with staff and volunteers I have becomeincreasingly concerned about the attitudes some people in our community have towards pet ownership.I have been told of the many excuses people use when they come to the counter to surrender a pet.Excuses include moving house and having a baby. Someone said that they wanted the cat but did notwant the 10 kittens. People complain that the dog digs, the dog barks, the cat cries at night or the dog istoo energetic. The staff at the Animal Welfare League have heard it all. In my view, being a pet owner isa job and a responsibility to be fulfilled for the life of that pet—no ifs or buts. Being a responsible petowner means ensuring your pet is exercised, trained if needed, cared for, microchipped, registered anddesexed.

However, the sad reality is that there are far more animals in supply than there is a demand for.People can buy puppies or kittens from the weekend paper, from friends and relatives, from pet shopsand markets. The Animal Welfare League and other shelters simply cannot rehome all the animals thatcome into its care. At the Animal Welfare League, some 60 per cent to 80 per cent of dogs and 40 percent to 60 per cent of cats are reclaimed and rehomed, but each year some 20 per cent to 40 per cent ofdogs and 40 per cent to 60 per cent of cats are euthanased. In fact, more than 13,000 cats and morethan 10,000 dogs are euthanased at animal shelters and pounds in Queensland each year.

For the staff and the volunteers at the Animal Welfare League and the RSPCA who face thisreality every day, it is heartbreaking and distressing to see healthy animals put down because there aretoo many animals being bred and sold for the market. Whilst euthanasing an animal has beenconsidered a preferred option to dispose of an animal as compared to other practices, public and animalshelter staff recognise that euthanasing animals, as a method of controlling the overpopulation of petcats and dogs not only is a cruel and frightening experience for the animals to face but also has notsolved the problem of too many animals and not enough homes, unregulated breeding andirresponsible pet ownership.

In my view, local governments right around Queensland could have done far more to address thisissue, so there would have been less need for this legislation to be introduced. For years some localcouncils have done little to stop the cycle of stray animals and the consequent costs to the environmentand the community. The Animal Welfare League has been determined to change this sad situation.Together with the RSPCA, the Animal Welfare League leads by example. All animals that are adoptedfrom either the Animal Welfare League or the RSPCA are microchipped and desexed. It is pleasing toknow that many people choose to find their new pet cat or dog at the Animal Welfare League or theRSPCA for this reason. Indeed, it was the Animal Welfare League’s advocacy for change that led to thebill that is being debated in the House today. The Animal Welfare League persisted in using everyopportunity available to talk with me about the issue of the overpopulation of pets and the need formeasures to be introduced by the government to address this problem.

I thank Animal Welfare League strategic development officer Mrs Joy Verrinder. Joy is anamazing lady who I am now proud to call friend. Her unwavering commitment to animal welfare hasinspired many who have met her. Joy’s enthusiasm is indeed infectious. Every time I went to theminister’s door, I felt that Joy was right behind me, pushing me in. Joy presented to me a petition of9,000 petitioners, which I tabled in 2006, requesting that this House introduce legislation for desexingand microchipping prior to sale or transfer, with relevant exemptions.

In 2007 the government released a discussion paper entitled ‘Managing unwanted cats and dogs’and public feedback was sought. There were over 5,000 responses. Results showed strong support forcompulsory registration, microchipping and desexing. Ninety-one per cent of respondents supported thestatewide registration of cats and dogs, 95 per cent supported the statewide microchipping of cats and


dogs, and 82 per cent supported compulsory desexing. The ministers for primary industries and localgovernment then established the Queensland government companion animal working group, whichincluded representatives of all stakeholder groups, including the Animal Welfare League, the RSPCA,the Canine Control Council, the Feline Association and the Australian Veterinary Association.

The Queensland government commissioned an independent report, which was released inFebruary 2008, on the need for and effectiveness of education, registration, identification and desexing,including the validity and the usefulness of early-age desexing. The report recommended a three-stageapproach. Stage 1 included a code of practice for breeders, pet shops, pounds and shelters, arequirement on pounds to have a domestic animal management plan with a focus on reducing thenumber of unwanted animals, compulsory identification on transfer from the breeder, and also voluntarydesexing with the provision to fund low-cost, no-cost desexing for disadvantaged members of thecommunity and a plan to ensure this legislation was supported and can be effectively funded.

Stage 2 included statewide education, promotion of desexing and a collection of standardisedstatistics. Stage 3 included compulsory registration and microchipping, and compulsory desexing at allpounds and shelters. These strategies are all important to prevent unwanted and neglected animals,and many have already been in place in other states, particularly in Victoria.

All the stakeholders in the Queensland government Companion Animal Management Group, ofwhich the AWL is a member, are supportive of these proposals. The stakeholders in the group alsosupport the state government’s breeding permits with inspections based on its code of practice for bothpurebred and mixed-breed breeders to support responsible breeding. The Minister for PrimaryIndustries announced this in the House this morning.

On 8 June 2007, Premier Anna Bligh strongly stated that as a society we have to do better in ourmanagement of cats and dogs to prevent senseless killing. She announced a $500,000 package toinclude $380,000 to be provided to three local councils that volunteer innovative pilot programs to trial avariety of methods to increase the number of animals that are being desexed and responsible petownership and to reduce the euthanasia rates. This could include registration software, working withlocal vets to provide discounted or free desexing and a whole range of other possibilities. It is great tosee that the Gold Coast City Council was one of the first councils to express its keen interest in the two-year trial. I thank Mayor Ron Clarke, who I know is a keen and genuine advocate for animal welfare. Iknow Geoff Irwin, the coordinator of animal management at the Gold Coast City Council, is workingclosely with the Animal Welfare League to develop the Gold Coast City Council’s trial program. I alsothank Councillors Pforr, Grummitt and Young for supporting the council’s submission.

Of the funding announced by the Premier, $75,000 will be used for a statewide communityeducation campaign called Cat Smart, which will be run between July and December 2008. It will bedelivered in close consultation with the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League to promote the ‘Tag,Desex and Keep Your Cat Safe’ campaign. A sum of $45,000 has been allocated for the code ofpractice in pet shops, setting standards for the care and management of animals at the point of sale.

This bill improves the system of pet ownership. Following the recent severe and destructivestorms that hit Brisbane, many animals became lost and disorientated. When these animals are found,there are two ways used to identify them. The first is to look for a registration tag. If the animal does nothave a registration tag, it can be scanned for a microchip to help it be reunited with its owner.

The use of both microchipping and registration gives these animals the best chance to bereunited with their owners as quickly as possible. Dogs and cats have been known to travel greatdistances when lost, including over local government jurisdiction boundaries, and if located withoutidentification may be sold or euthanased as the animal could be considered an unowned animal.Compulsory permanent identification through microchipping has been recognised as an effective tool inreuniting lost cats and dogs with their owners.

This bill also provides for a permanent identification device registry licence, which is referred to asPID registry licensing. This will be introduced to ensure that microchipping information is held securelyand is accessible 24 hours a day and shared between all PID registry licensees. The bill also providesthat an owner must register their animal no later than 12 weeks of age and ensures that localgovernment must provide incentives for the voluntary desexing of animals through registration fees.These strategies of compulsory microchipping and registration will go a long way to ensuring that apet—a cat or dog—when it becomes lost can be reunited as quickly as possible with its owner.

I thank the minister for local government and planning, the Hon. Warren Pitt, for his response tomy representations and for ensuring that this government took action to improve current procedures andmeasures used by local governments in managing stray animals. Once again, I thank Joy Verrinderfrom the Animal Welfare League and also Mark Townsend from the RSPCA for their support, advocacyand input into this legislation. I thank the staff in the Premier’s office and in the offices of ministers Pittand Mulherin for the work they have done.


In closing, whilst the provisions contained in this bill will go some way to reducing the number ofcats and dogs being euthanased by ensuring that mandatory microchipping information is used toreunite pet and owner, I strongly support the government reviewing the outcomes achieved by itsintroduction and the two-year trial programs that are being undertaken by local councils. I would like thegovernment to consider the introduction of compulsory desexing laws if necessary. I will continue towork with the Animal Welfare League in making representations to the Premier and minister indeveloping responsible breeding legislation that I feel will significantly address the problem of theunnecessary euthanasing of thousands of cats and dogs each year.

The great Mahatma Gandhi said, ‘The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judgedby the way its animals are treated.’ This legislation, supported by the increased education beingpromoted by this government and the two-year trials being developed by some proactive councils, is astep in the right direction to changing people’s attitudes towards pet ownership, raising awarenessabout the problem of pet overpopulation. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GRAY (Gaven—ALP) (12.52 pm): At the outset I acknowledge the contribution of the memberfor Broadwater to this debate and the passion, the research, enthusiasm and leadership she has shownon this very good matter. I, like you, Mr Deputy Speaker Hoolihan—and I am sure many in this House—regard our pets as part of our families. As long as I can remember my family has had pets. Currently theGray family has two beautiful rough collies, eight chickens, one mad parrot, one huge male possum whooccupies the front of the yard and consumes my mangoes and whatever else I grow at an excessiverate, and a family of magpies which have been with us for at least eight years and refuse to leave. Wehave a large yard with many trees and a bevy of native birds. We regard ourselves as responsible petowners. We do not allow our dogs out of the yard unless one of us is attached to them with a lead and aplastic bag. Our dogs are of course registered and will be shortly microchipped. Our yard is secured andour dogs can be contained. It is a pity neighbouring cats are not. I often find bird feathers scatteredabout the yard and dead lizards. I therefore have a real problem with irresponsible cat owners.

The legislation before the House will not solve all problems with pets—namely, cats and dogs—but it will certainly provide the legislative environment to do so. As the member for Broadwater indicated,this is probably stage 2 in a three-stage process, but it is certainly a large step in the right direction. Ifpeople will not be responsible pet owners then this legislation provides much guidance. This billrepresents, as I said, phase 2 of this current two-phase strategy for responsible companion animalmanagement in Queensland. The first phase of this policy involved a public education program aboutresponsible pet ownership, a voluntary code of practice for pet shops setting standards for the care andmanagement of animals at point of sale and a two-year pilot study by four local governments includingthe Gold Coast City Council, as we have heard. In terms of methods to increase the desexing rate ofcats and dogs, they are the steps one would logically take. I would like to compliment the member forBroadwater, as I said, for her strong interest and local leadership on this matter on the Gold Coast.

I have been to a number of countries around the world in my travels. The last statement made bythe member for Broadwater is just so true. The one thing that really affects you—other than at timesseeing the deprivation of people in a tragic country—is seeing the scabied animals that are poorly fed,searching for something to eat, and of course not owned and not cared for.

Given this preparatory phase, the objectives of the bill provide a uniform legislative platform foreffective animal management of both cats and dogs. The objectives of the bill are to introducemandatory registration and microchipping of cats and dogs and ear tattooing of desexed cats and dogs;to identify and control regulated dogs to minimise the risk to public health and safety balanced againstthe rights of the individual owner; to enhance local government’s monitoring and enforcement powers;as well as to relocate some chapters between acts and minor amendments to another act.

The clauses of the bill giving effect to the objectives to reasonable and responsible dog and catowners are not only fair but sensible. The uncontrolled breeding of cats is a problem for urban areas anda major problem for rural areas where feral cat numbers not only devastate native wildlife but will bringdown young livestock, or so I am told with the size that some of these cats are now reaching. Feral dogsare also a major concern in rural areas and do far more damage to livestock.

The mandatory registration and microchipping with PIDs of all cats and dogs over the age of 12weeks is a big step forward in effectively managing the problems about which I have spoken. It willenable the conduct, from council records, of a census of animal numbers. The tracing of lost or stolenanimals will be much easier, as will be the prosecution of irresponsible owners. The stealing ofpedigreed animals is an increasing concern and microchipping is useful in proving ownership. Theadditional powers given to local governments allow them to exercise the additional managementstrategies and regulation.

As a former member of the Canine Control Council and breeder of Shetland sheepdogs, I wasvery keen to see our pups go to responsible owners and to provide advice to those responsible ownersnot only about feeding the animals but also about ensuring that they are well cared for and contained

03 Dec 2008 Property Law (Mortgagor Protection) Amendment Bill 4071

within their yards and only taken out on a lead, with not a young child in charge but with someone overthe age of 16 in charge. I believe this legislation will engender more responsible owners. As I have said,the registration of cats is a major step forward. While cats do not bark, their behaviour at nightparticularly during the breeding season is noisy to say the least. I support this legislation and commendit to the House.

Sitting suspended from 12.58 pm to 2.30 pm.

Debate, on motion of Mr Horan, adjourned.


Second Reading

Resumed from p. 4062, on motion of Mr Shine—


Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (2.31 pm): The Property Law (Mortgagor Protection)Amendment Bill is an extremely important piece of legislation that was rushed into parliament thismorning. Under the orders that were presented to the parliament this morning, there is only one hour todebate this bill, which means we have approximately 55 minutes to debate the second reading stage ofthe bill so as to allow some time for the minister to reply. That means that each side will have about 25minutes to speak on this important bill, with a share going to the Independents as well.

I make that point because this is important legislation and it should have been more thought outand then carefully brought into the parliamentary procedure. It is about a very important contemporaryissue of the day—that is, the protection of mortgagors. This bill needs to be carefully scrutinised by bothsides of the House but, as I said, it was introduced into the parliament less than four hours ago. It isimportant that we make sure we do not do anything to restrict the availability of secure and safe credit tothose people who need it to buy a house, buy a business, buy machinery, buy a farm—all the normalthings people need credit for. We want to make sure that whatever is in this particular bill is of goodvalue to both the mortgagor and the mortgagee.

This bill basically strengthens the code and directions that apply to mortgagees. There havealways been common law arrangements. When speaking to people who act as receivers and so forth,we have found that there is great surprise in the industry that this bill has been brought in, but it mayhave been brought in because of some of the facts and figures that are starting to emerge as we are inthis very serious global financial crisis. For the four months to the end of June, there were 376mortgagee actions brought forward, and from July to October there were 606 mortgagee actionsbrought forward. One of the questions I have for the minister is: what facts and numbers does he havethat indicate there is a problem in the process of the mortgagee action? What we are doing here ismaking sure that the best interests of both parties are abided by and, in particular, making sure that themortgagor is well protected so as to get the maximum amount of money out of any forced sale.

I will give an example to show what this legislation is basically about. If a house is worth $400,000and the mortgagee takes action because payments have not been made and the amount owing is, say,$200,000, this legislation will ensure that everything possible is done in the notification and the saleprocess to get the maximum amount of money. This will ensure that not only is that $200,000 that isowed to the mortgagee recovered but also the maximum amount of money possible is recovered for thepeople who have had their house sold so that they have enough to assist them to get a restart. For thatreason, we support this bill; we want to see that happen.

We want to make sure that anybody who comes into unfortunate circumstances—and it may notnecessarily be of their own doing—gets every opportunity to be assisted. People who are involved inexporting can get caught out by the rising dollar, others can get caught by changes in companies, andsome can get caught by a whole range of other things—just as people who have a home which is soimportant to them can get caught out by the recession. It might be that they have loans at fixed interestrates, it might be that they have lost their job, it might be that they have a business and their business issliding backwards and they are having trouble meeting their repayments.

There are basically three classes of mortgagee. There is a normal, straightforward mortgageearrangement which is undertaken by the mortgagee themselves, there is the power of attorney, andthere is the appointment of receivers. In the short time we have had to look at this bill, it would appearthat this bill mainly applies to the power of attorney and to the receivers to ensure that all the things thatwe have taken for granted, which have always been there under common law, are there and are codifiedand, in some areas, extended.

4072 Property Law (Mortgagor Protection) Amendment Bill 03 Dec 2008

In the relatively short time we have to speak today, I would like to mention a couple of things Iwould like the minister to talk about in his summing-up. I have some concern about two points. The firstis that we do not know what the definition of a ‘prescribed mortgage’ is. ‘Prescribed mortgage’ is the newterm that is being entered into section 85 of the act. It only says that it is ‘a mortgage of a kindprescribed under a regulation’. We do not really know what it is; it is just vague terminology.

The second point is that the clause relating to the duty of a mortgagee sets out a number of thingsthey have to do, but it also says that they have to do ‘anything else that is prescribed under a regulation’.That is the Henry VIII clause which gives them a power to do almost anything, but it is not set out in thehead of power in this part of the bill. The only power that parliament will have over that is that, if there isdisagreement in this parliament when that regulation is tabled, it can move a disallowance.

Also, the bill does not really say what sorts of loans are covered by this legislation. It is quitevague. It simply says ‘a mortgage of a kind prescribed under a regulation’. Is it just for houses? Is it forbusinesses? Is it for trucks? Is it for machinery and equipment? Is it for vehicles? Is it for farms? Is itanything that will be covered by a mortgage? Is it any goods or chattels or piece of property that iscovered by a mortgage, either direct or indirect? What is going to be covered by this?

There is another thing we have to be very sure of in this parliament. One of the real issues of thefinancial crisis engulfing the world is the lack of credit. That is the real issue: no-one is lending and it iscausing problems for banks, building societies and so forth and that is causing the contraction. We haveto be sure that the legislation we pass today does not in any way undermine that so that investors wouldput their money into some other form of investment—for example, maybe buy property and rent it out.Whilst the philosophy we are working under in this debate is the proper and adequate protection of amortgagor, we know that there are two sides to the equation. The people who lend the money could wellbe self-funded retirees. Money is owned by somebody. It might be under the name of the bank, but it isowned by the depositors and the shareholders and they do not want to lose their money, see their self-funded retirement decrease or have their investments in an institution or a bank receive a lesser amountof return because of collapses in repayments and not having adequate security.

We will be supporting this bill. I want to strongly make the point that for people who run intodifficult times and face foreclosure we want every duty of care which currently exists under common lawcodified more strongly so that they get as much assistance as possible to get out of the difficultcircumstances they are in. I again refer to the example I gave to the House. It is not just a matter ofputting in the effort to recover the amount owing to the mortgagee. The effort has to be to get themaximum amount over and above that so people have an opportunity to restart their life. We will besupporting the bill.

Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (2.41 pm): I, too, rise to support the Property Law (MortgagorProtection) Amendment Bill 2008. I would like to thank the minister and the Premier—and, in fact, allhonourable members—for ensuring that this bill that has been brought to the House will pass through allof its stages today. This bill will provide some relief and a sense of security to those people for whom thesurrender of their homes to a mortgagee exercising power of sale is either inevitable or potential. Thatsaid, there is no joy to be found when a homeowner finds themselves in the position of having theirhome repossessed.

For the last three months we have seen a time of unprecedented global financial stress. Thiscomes after having enjoyed a period of growth over the past 10 years—a time for many Queenslanders,with perhaps the exception of younger people, where the dream of owning their own home has beenfurther cemented in our psyche as a measure of personal success. The dream of owning your ownhome and having the tenacity to work hard to achieve that is something to admire. People who go intohomeownership usually do so after considerable thought and planning. Yes, there is always some roomfor criticism of those who perhaps plan too big and those who cannot sustain movement in anycircumstances, but this country is built on big dreams and homeownership is one of the biggest. Peopleshould not be punished for trying to achieve this goal.

The current global financial events are unprecedented, and we in this country are at the mercy ofthe problems in the United States of America. There is no doubt that this is leading to—and in the futurewill lead to further—unemployment, despite the very best efforts of state and federal governments.Already we see layoffs of people across the banking and financial sectors, and the property and retailsectors. Periods of unemployment are crushing to homebuyers and to anyone who has loans. Iremember when I bought my first item through a loan. It was a green VW. I had three of them, I have tosay. I had an obsession with green Volkswagens.

A government member: All at once?

A government member interjected.


Ms BARRY: No, one after the other. Thank you, honourable members, for your concern. My dearold dad said at the time, ‘When you borrow money you should plan for the worst and you should wish forthe best, for at the end of the day if you lose your job if you cannot pay back $1,000 you cannot pay back$100,000.’ We all borrow for our homes. Our best financial minds tell us that good debt requires that, ifwe are able to, we should also borrow for investments like rental properties. People should not bepunished by fire sales by mortgagees just because misfortune befalls them. It is reasonable in asurrender of a home or an investment house or property to a mortgagee to expect that the mortgagorshould not suffer further unreasonable loss.

This bill ensures the protection of mortgagors from unreasonable loss by doing a number ofthings. The legislation requires that mortgagees must satisfy their duty to take reasonable care toensure that the property is sold at market value. These things include adequately advertising the sale,obtaining reliable evidence of the property’s value, maintaining that property including undertaking anyreasonable repairs, and selling the property by auction unless it is appropriate to sell it in another way.Ensuring that a penalty can be applied to those who do not comply is contained within the bill.

My electorate of Aspley has a large number of homeowners. As an urban seat on a goodtransport corridor and close to the city and facilities, it is more expensive than some of the outer areas ofgreater Brisbane. So people will pay in Aspley between $400,000 and a million dollars for a property inthe electorate. This is a decision that is not taken lightly. These are hardworking people and they need toknow that our government will provide for them a safety net if they are in the unfortunate situation ofrepossession, or indeed if they determine that the surrendering of their home is a responsible way out oftheir financial stress.

People should be able to go through a tough time and then recover to take advantage of futuregood times. The practice of fire sales burdens those people with a debt that is unreasonable and longterm in many cases. I do understand that there will be an onus on lenders who have, I hope, lent in goodfaith but they do hold the mortgage and the requirements of this bill are, in my view, reasonable.

The Bligh government is determined to ensure that homeownership is achievable forQueenslanders who wish to achieve that goal. We support them through a raft of fee relief such asstamp duty exemptions and first home buyer initiatives, and through the Office of Urban Managementunder the Department of Infrastructure and Planning. We help Queenslanders get into their own home.We will ensure that those who find themselves in the position of home repossession by a mortgagee areprotected from unnecessary and opportunistic loss. I support the bill.

Mr STEVENS (Robina—LNP) (2.46 pm): I rise to support the shadow Attorney-General’scomments. We will be supporting this bill. However, I would like to bring to the attention of the House thegreat disappointment I have at the way in which it has been brought forward. I believe the governmenthas resorted to the misuse of Parliament House for this politically motivated quick-fire legislative stunt.The government is trying to endear itself to the thousands of homeowners who are coming underpressure because of the global financial crisis. As the crisis hits here in Queensland, the government istrying to protect its backside.

As we know, interest rates have fallen greatly in the last couple of months. On the average homeloan of $300,000, they are now saving $925 per calendar month. That is as per the figures off thetelevision analysis this morning. In other words, it has become a time when people can afford more ontheir home repayments. However, this legislation has been rushed through the House very quickly.There has been no time for proper debate on the matter. If it is such an important bill, we should betaking a lot of time to deliberate the pros and cons, where it will help and where it will not help theaverage battler, because we in the LNP are very supportive of people under stress. In fact, near myelectorate, Helensvale on the Gold Coast has one of the highest percentages of mortgage stressthroughout the country. The Westpac mortgages in that area are the second highest for Westpac acrossAustralia at 6.9 per cent under mortgage stress. Quite clearly, we will do anything we can to supportthose people, but this bill should be debated properly and not simply be pushed through to make thegovernment sound as if it is doing something for these poor people who are under stress.

I note that this bill brings into play the Henry VIII clause. As we all know—the Scrutiny ofLegislation Committee members will know, including the member for Ashgrove—there are only fouroccasions on which that should be used in the parliament. I am sure that the Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee will make comment in relation to the use of this Henry VIII clause as it is debated, although itwill not be able to do anything considering it will be rushed through so quickly.

What we cannot do in these situations is scare away those who are lending money for people tobuy homes. We have to make sure that the home investment market keeps going. We have to haveconsultation with those who are providing credit to the homeowner industry. I do not see anyconsultation on this. We certainly have not been advised of any. This legislation has been rushedthrough as a good idea; a political stunt to save the government from embarrassment about theincrease in home mortgage defaults. As the shadow spokesperson pointed out, default sales have risenfrom 376 to 606. They may be rising even more as we speak.


I believe that there are appropriate legal processes in place that need to be gone through whenselling up properties. The minister will tell us shortly that he is adding to those processes. Quite clearly,what we do not need to do is scare away those who are providing finance to people and make it tooonerous for them to collect money should a person default. Unfortunately, at all times, even in goodtimes, defaults occur in this particular industry.

We do not know how many people have had their houses short sold as a result of rapidmortgagee sales. Everyone thinks their home is worth more than it is at any particular time andeveryone wants to buy a house at less than what it is on the market for. That is the nature of the housingindustry.

What we are doing here with this rapidly introduced legislation is interfering with those normalprocesses. Unless we hear in the minister’s reply about the great advantages to the battler from theseproposed changes then I still say that this is an absolute knee-jerk reaction. It is more about a political fixthan assistance to people. We support it all the way but we want to see proper and due processfollowed. Unfortunately, the government has not followed that proper and due process.

Why it has to be rushed through in a couple of hours on the second-last sitting day of parliament Ido not know. We look forward to hearing the reason for that. It sounds to me as though it is somethingthe minister thinks will satisfy the people out there who are under some illusion that this government isnot assisting their cause.

Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (2.51 pm): I have to congratulate the Attorney-General on theintroduction of the Property Law (Mortgagor Protection) Amendment Bill. I practised law for 25 years.There are very few people sitting in this House who really understand what happens when a personsigns a mortgage. Perhaps the member for Clayfield will bear this out.

Nobody will be able to stand up and explain to the members of this House what happens when aperson signs a mortgage. When they sign a mortgage over their property they give the lender a power ofattorney to either appoint a receiver if they default or to sell the property themselves. They cannot stopthe person as the mortgagor selling it, but in the other two situations it puts the value of the property inother people’s hands.

What do people in this House think caused the subprime mortgage problems in the UnitedStates? Greedy lending institutions lent money to people who did not have the capacity to repay it butthey hoped that they would get their money back when the people defaulted. As it turns out that did notwork. In 25 years of practising law I can give members a litany of people who, through no fault of theirown in some cases, did default and their property was sold at an amount which got back only what thebank or the lending institution wanted back.

The lending institutions put it with a popular real estate agent of their choice or they ask a tamevaluer to give a value and sell it only to get back their money. Very few of them care about themortgagor. In a lot of cases lending institutions were protected by mortgage protection insurance. Thatwas not insurance for the mortgagor; that was insurance so that the mortgagee got every cent back.Then the insurance company chases the unfortunate person who had their house sold at a discountedprice or sold only to get the money back.

This is the most necessary amendment to the Property Law Act. It has probably been necessaryfor the last 25 to 30 years. Those lending institutions were never going to lose. Those lending institutionsdo not care whether anybody else loses as long as they are able to put the money out there and get themoney back in. Once they do not get the money back, all they want back is what they have given out.They do not care about the mortgagor.

If banks want to scream about what I am saying they can. Talk to the big banks about this andthey will deny doing it. I can get members reams of paper that show every one of those banks has actedunconscionably in relation to mortgagors because they just want their money.

We hear about looking after shareholders. Let us look at prudential lending that banks andfinancial institutions should be making. They are not worried about prudential lending. They are worriedabout getting the money out there and getting the money back in. When things go wrong, that is tough.Most mortgagees in possession, whether it is a receiver or a person selling under a power of attorney,do not even look after the property.

In the debate on the residential tenancies legislation yesterday we looked at the mortgagee of aproperty that was rented and we extended the time so they cannot sell the house from underneath atenant. The actions of banks and financial institutions gave rise to that provision.

This is an amendment to the Property Law Act that has been required for many, many years. Letthe banks and financial institutions realise that if they want to loan money to people they should loan itprudentially. They need to do their sums and their work before they loan the money. They need toadequately explain to people what they are letting themselves in for when they sign a mortgage.


Most people go into a bank and the bank will hand them 470 pieces of paper and say ‘sign here,sign here, sign here, sign here’, without any explanation at all. They will give people a product disclosurestatement that runs to 27 pages. Very few lawyers would be able to sit down and go through every oneof those pages and know what the person is signing. To properly explain the paperwork that banks andfinancial institutions use one would need a good half day. Very few people borrowing money to buy ahouse have got the money to meet the cost of proper legal advice. The banks do not encourage itanyway unless the person is borrowing for third-party payment.

The second part of the amendment relates to prescribed mortgages, which is a person using ahouse or a property for consumer finance. I heard the member for Aspley set out that she borrowed tobuy a car. If a person owns their own home and they borrow $30,000 to buy a car and for some reasonthey cannot repay it, whether or not their house is worth $30,000 or $300,000, unless that person isprepared to take the fight up to the bank or the financial institution, the property can be sold for onlywhat is still owed on the consumer mortgage. A $300,000 house for a $30,000 car; that is what they canget away with unless the mortgagor is prepared to take them on about their failure in their duty of care.How many people have the money to take on the imprudential lenders? None.

This is a very necessary piece of legislation. I am very pleased to see it come in now. If we haveto debate it in an hour then so be it. It is necessary to protect those people who are going to get caughtby banks who have been prepared to lend 100 per cent of the value of a property with the price goingdown.

Ms Grace interjected. Mr HOOLIHAN: I will take that interjection—110 per cent in some cases. It is necessary

legislation. If the member for Robina thinks that Helensvale currently has a high default rate, give it threemonths or six months because I do not believe that the financial difficulties that were caused by thatimprudential lending have yet hit the full market.

Wait until he comes back here in February and ask him then. He will have greyer hair than he hasnow. This legislation is necessary. I do not fully agree with Henry VIII clauses, but in this instance anyregulation that is necessary may well need to be done very quickly. I support the bill and commend it tothe House.

Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (2.59 pm): As the shadow Attorney-General has indicated, theLNP will not be opposing this measure. However, rather than just rubber-stamping it and letting it gothrough, it is worth looking at the provisions that have been presented in the legislation and it is worthcommenting on the manner in which this bill has been drafted and brought forward for consideration bythe House. The Premier indicated that she considered this as an important issue given the globalfinancial crisis and that she also hoped to have bipartisan support not only for the passage of the bill butalso for its urgent passage, and the LNP has agreed to support both the bill and its passage here thisafternoon in an hour. But its urgent passage still raises concerns and does not obviate the duty to askquestions of the minister and the government about the legislation.

The legislation amends one of the fundamental acts dealing with property rights in Queensland—the Property Law Act 1974. This was groundbreaking legislation when it was introduced in 1974 andreally brought the law of Queensland in terms of property rights into the 20th century and it is still one ofthe most far-reaching acts operative in Queensland affecting people in their day-to-day lives, in waysthat they little realise. It should not be amended lightly. We should not pass this piece of legislationwithout considering its impact and the effect it will have not only on consumers but also on those otherpeople who are governed by the operation of the legislation.

Normally, at the very least, the Queensland Law Society, financial institutions and consumerorganisations would be given an opportunity to comment on a piece of legislation affecting the PropertyLaw Act. This has not occurred and it is a great shame. Those bodies add a great deal of weight andauthority to the debate in relation to changes to the Property Law Act, in particular the Law Societybecause of the day-to-day operation of solicitors in the market dealing with people’s property lawrights—from conveyancers to giving advice on mortgages to providing advice to mortgagors when theydo exercise the powers that are available to them when they sign a mortgage document. So it is ashame that this has been rushed through in that fashion. If, as the member for Keppel has said, this isone of the most important amendments made to the Property Law Act in 25 years, one has to wonderwhy it was dropped in here during the Premier’s morning ministerial address and why it was not actuallyproperly advocated and sent out and disclosed and comment received on it over a lengthier period oftime.

What does the bill do? Clause 4 is the operative clause primarily in the bill and subclauses (1) and(2) extend the definition of those people to whom section 85 of the Property Law Act applies. Section 85is basically the part of the Property Law Act that imposes an obligation on mortgagees when theyexercise their power of sale to act reasonably—that is, effectively not to defraud the mortgagor whenthey exercise the powers that they have in their mortgage.


As the member for Keppel has indicated, signing a mortgage is no matter to be undertaken lightly.Contrary to the views expressed by the member for Keppel, I do not believe that as a matter of coursebanks and financial institutions coerce people into signing documents that they do not understand. Infact, my experience is that responsible and proper financial and lending institutions take a great deal ofcare to ensure their customers do understand the nature of the documents that they are signing—that is,they understand the nature of the personal covenant, they understand the nature of the security thatthey are giving and they understand also the power that they are giving to a mortgagee should there bean event of default should the mortgagor be unable to pay the bill.

In proposed subsection (1) we are inserting the words ‘or receiver’ in terms of the people who arecovered by the provisions of section 85 of the Property Law Act and in proposed subsection (2) we areincluding the attorney for the mortgagor. With regard to the attorney for the mortgagor, in everymortgage a power of attorney has been granted to the mortgagee to act on behalf of the mortgagorunder an attorney clause in the mortgage itself that allows them to take steps and actions other than inthe exercise of their power as a mortgagee in possession. So we are extending it to moving on from justthe mortgagee simpliciter and including these other people who may exercise power.

Proposed subsection (1A) refers to a prescribed mortgage and, in effect, really codifies what isthe existing practice and the existing common law requirements, and I notice the Attorney nodding. AsI am sure the member for Keppel would know as well, many decisions have been made in relation to theduty of a mortgagee to obtain a proper price and exercise diligence and reasonable care whenexercising the mortgagee’s powers. So proposed subsection (1A) refers to a prescribed mortgage butno definition is provided other than to refer it to a mortgage prescribed by regulation. I think that really isvery much an indication of the haste with which this bill has been produced. I was not able to make thebriefing, but I understand that examples were unable to be provided to the shadow Attorney-General ofwhat constitutes a prescribed mortgage. At the moment it is a very broad definition and it leaves in thehands of the executive in effect the legislative power of this parliament and for that reason has beenproperly identified as a Henry VIII clause. I think it is something of concern that it is prescribed byregulation and that the government is yet unable to tell us what a prescribed mortgage means and whichclasses of mortgage it will be applying to.

It has been my experience that when a mortgagee exercises a power of sale they already followthe provisions that have been set out in proposed subsection (1A). This is an obligation that they areadvised of most frequently by their solicitors, particularly if they are a bank or a building society oranother financial institution. They do in fact have quite strict codes of behaviour themselves for themanner in which they deal with mortgagors who have been unable to pay. In fact, it is not in the banks’best interests in Australia for them to sell up properties. That is not their first choice. Banks and financialinstitutions make every effort these days to help mortgagors get out of the trouble that they are in. Theyoffer them holidays in terms of repayments. They offer them financial assistance. They offer themcounselling. They do what they can to avoid it. Banks do not make great money out of selling otherpeople’s property. That is not the way that they go about their business. They make their money out ofregular, secure interest payments that are made by direct deposit into their accounts each and everymonth over the duration of the mortgage. That is the business they are in. They are not in the businessof selling people up. It is an option of last resort and it usually takes place after many other efforts havebeen made to assist a mortgagor in meeting their obligations.

Mr Shine: Not all mortgagees are banks, though. That’s the problem.

Mr NICHOLLS: The Attorney says that not all mortgagees are banks, and I accept his point there.My point was that banks and financial and proper lending institutions often follow that. There are oftenmezzanine lenders in business circumstances, which I think is a different category from, say, consumermortgages, and there are often family members who exercise powers in terms of mortgages overhomes or over businesses where businesses have been sold that way. But, in any event, whensomeone does exercise that power, if they are exercising that power through a solicitor, which mostpeople do because of the already difficult nature of exercising that power, the solicitor will advise them—if they are half competent—of their rights, duties and obligations in relation to it, and those include theitems already set out at proposed subsection (1A), and that is—

(a) adequately advertise the sale; and

(b) obtain reliable evidence of the property’s value; and

(c) maintain the property, including by undertaking any reasonable repairs; and

(d) sell the property by auction, unless it is appropriate to sell it in other way ...

Those are all of the steps that are already taken by mortgagees properly advised, actingreasonably. So we are really codifying what is, in effect, the practice that has been established overmany long years.


Then we come to proposed subsection (e), which says, ‘We will do anything else prescribedunder a regulation.’ Again, that is a wide and open-ended invitation to make up new reasons. There hasbeen no indication what the other ‘thing else’ might be. I join with the shadow Attorney-General in askingthe Attorney-General to identify things that he might consider might need to be prescribed under aregulation in order to answer that question. I think it is stated in the explanatory notes that this proposedsubsection is to enable maximum flexibility to deal with changes in lending practices. I would beinterested to know the changes that the Attorney-General and the government consider maynecessitate the granting of such an extraordinary power to executive government under this legislationand its removal from this House under a Henry VIII clause.

The penalty has been increased to 200 penalty units. That is good in the sense that it will be goodfor the government if it detects a breach. But it should be pointed out that none of this does anything forthe mortgagor if there is a rogue lender, a rogue mortgagee, who does the wrong thing. So the roguemortgagee acts irresponsibly. It sells at a fire sale price. It sells at below what the mortgagor or othersmight consider to be a reasonable price. The mortgagor is still not assisted in any way by this legislation.The mortgagor still has to find the wherewithal to be able to challenge the actions of the mortgagee inexercising the powers that they have under their mortgage and to take them to court and seekrecompense at the end of the day for the sale under value.

This bill codifies what is already being done. It provides a penalty for people who breach the lawbut, in that sense, it does not give the mortgagor any new or additional right that they do not havealready under a combination of section 85 of the Property Law Act and under common law. At themoment, under common law if the mortgagor believes that the duty has been breached, the mortgagor’sremedy is to seek the Supreme Court’s intervention on their behalf to make a determination that themortgagee has acted improperly, has failed to exercise due care and has sold at under value.

This legislation, by providing a higher penalty regime and by codifying some aspects of what ithas done already, may well lead to some improved behaviour. These days, most banks, when they areexercising their power of sale—and we are mainly talking about banks—already know their rights andobligations. There may always be an argument about the rights and wrongs of it. I assume whethersomething has been adequately advised, whether reliable evidence about the property has beenobtained, whether the property has been adequately maintained and whether sale by auction or othermeans has been appropriate will still have to be determined by the court. I have highlighted the issuesand I will leave it to the House.

Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (3.12 pm): I acknowledge the shadow Attorney-General for histolerance in ensuring that, although the time for the debate on this bill is limited, there was time for otherspeakers to have a chance to speak. I thank the shadow Attorney-General for his tolerance and notspeaking for longer than was necessary.

I will be supporting this bill. I am disappointed, because I do not believe that it goes far enough. Iknow it codifies what has been the standard law, but I speak from a background of taking up a matter onbehalf of one of my constituents with the Attorney-General and former Attorneys-General. Myconstituent simply questioned whether the court bailiff sold the property at a fair and reasonable price.She did not have the resources to fight the sale. I do not believe there is any provision in this legislationto provide for those Queenslanders who may be caught and to give them some real avenue of takingaction against the court bailiffs or the people who are selling their property because they believe a debtis owed.

My challenge to the Attorney-General is to move some amendments to simplify the processwhere a property owner has their property sold and they believe the court bailiff or the mortgagee—whoever is selling it—has not sold it at a fair market price and has not properly advertised it to ensurethat it gets the best price possible. I do not believe this legislation or the current law provides anysupport or assistance for those people, and I speak with the background of a matter about which thisAttorney-General and previous Attorneys-General are aware. It involves property in Eudlo.

The other question and concern is that clause 4 states that the mortgagee ‘must’—yes, that isvery powerful word—but then it goes on to say ‘unless the mortgagee or receiver has a reasonableexcuse’. My experience is that a reasonable excuse is a get out of jail card.

Again, I make those comments in light of that matter that I took up with the Attorney-General andprevious Attorneys-General on behalf of one of my constituents. In that case, the court bailiff was able toshow that, yes, he had adequately advertised the property for sale and that, yes, he had reliableevidence of the property’s value. Quite frankly, I believe that was a sham. But unfortunately, myconstituent did not have the capacity to take the matter to court or to ask the Office of Fair Trading oranyone else in the government to pursue the matter on her behalf.

Before I resume my seat so that other members can speak in this debate, I want to say that sooften when people have a matter similar to the one I have outlined, they go to the Office of Fair Tradingand the office says, ‘Sorry, we can’t pursue it. Get legal advice.’ Quite frankly, the people who will becovered by this legislation do not have the means to get that sort of legal advice. Although manysolicitors provide pro bono work, I think we need to go further.


I ask the Attorney-General: if he really wants to help people, why can we not have a systemwhereby they can go to the Office of Fair Trading or someone else in the government who can take thematter to the appropriate court? The reality is that I do not believe the legal profession has the capacityto pursue a matter on behalf of people where I believe there are genuine cases that need to be pursued.

Yes, we are codifying the common law, but I do not believe we will truly see any significantchange to what has been happening. I do not mean to be disrespectful. That is my view. I do not believethe Attorney-General is providing a mechanism by which the mums and dads, or the landowners whoare in this predicament, could have easy access to a mechanism by which they can take action againstthose entities that have the best legal advice and all the knowledge because that is their business. I donot believe there is the capacity for those underprivileged and other people in need to be able to pursuethe matter through the courts.

Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (3.16 pm): Over the past 10 years throughout the world I think wehave seen an increase in faith in market forces—an increase in faith that the market will do the rightthing, that the balancing act between supply and demand will deliver good outcomes. The current globalfinancial crisis has proven that faith to be misplaced. The impact of the obscene lending policies in theUS are having a ripple effect across the globe. There is certainly an argument for increased regulation ofthe finance and insurance sectors. I know there is a lot of discussion around the world about that. I seethis legislation as a very small, but important, step towards increased regulation of the finance sector.

Certainly, the banks in Australia are a lot more responsible than those in the US. But as themember for Keppel pointed out, they are hardly without some level of sin, shall we say. They were notas reckless and irresponsible as the banks in the US, but as the member for Keppel also pointed out,the banks’ concern is getting their money back come hell or high water. Their interests lie with theirshareholders, not necessarily the poor mortgagor.

We have seen in Australia an increase in the incidence of bank mortgagee sales. The figure hasgone from 361 in the four months from March to June to 606 from July to October. That is a significantincrease in the number of people who are vulnerable to the whims of banks and lending institutions.Those poor, vulnerable mortgagors face an increased risk of potential financial loss based on the whimof the banks.

When selling a property there is a difference between selling in a softening market and taking anabsolute fire sale attitude, which mortgagees can take. This bill attempts to minimise the effects of amortgagee saying, ‘Just get rid of the property and we’ll get some money back,’ because whatever isoutstanding is still the responsibility of the poor old mortgagor. This bill is about protecting themortgagors—the mums and dads, the families—who find themselves in difficult financial positions. Thisis not about protecting banks or lenders—and I do not think we should be embarrassed about sayingthat; this is about protecting the mums and dads in my electorate and the electorates of all honourablemembers.

I do not believe we should put our faith in the banks. All of the banks are crying about the hardtimes that they are facing. Some banks have not even passed on the most recent interest rate decreaseand are trying to justify that obscenity. On the weekend I read that the Macquarie Bank held a staffChristmas party that cost between $600,000 and $1 million. Is that a bank that is doing it tough? That isbrutally obscene! If I am asked whose side I am on—the banks, the lenders or the poor mums anddads—every time I will answer that I am on the side of the poor mums and dads. This bill will put inplace provisions to protect the mum-and-dad mortgagors from lenders that have a poor attitude.

The member for Robina said that we were embarrassed about the increasing numbers ofmortgagee sales. This bill will not change the numbers. This bill is about changing the processesthrough which mortgagee sales occur. It will have no impact on the numbers. With those few words, Icommend the bill to the House.

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.21 pm): I rise to support the legislation, although I dohave some concerns. At the outset I thank the minister, Donna and the departmental officer for thebriefing that they provided. I appreciate the timeliness of it, given that the bill has been declared urgent.Like all other speakers, I believe that if for some unforeseen reason a borrower is unable to finalise adebt to the lender, the lender is obligated to take every step possible to get an appropriate market valuereturn when selling a property—not only to settle the debt that is outstanding but also to return to theborrower additional proceeds from the fair and reasonable return on the property that families haveowned.

It is important that obligations be placed on the mortgagee or the receiver to take reasonablesteps to advertise the sale appropriately, to obtain reliable evidence of the property’s value—that is nothard to do; it is not a complicated process—and, importantly, to maintain the property and then sell theproperty by an appropriate means to achieve the best sale price.


I am concerned about the Henry VIII clauses. Clause 4 amends section 85. Proposed subsection1A(e) states ‘do anything else prescribed under a regulation’, and proposed subsection 10 states‘prescribed mortgage means a mortgage of a kind prescribed under a regulation’. When we asked aboutthat we were told that this was precisely because it was easier to change a regulation than legislation.Practically speaking that is very true, but the whole point of trying to do away with Henry VIII clauses isthe belief that if a matter is important enough to be in legislation it should be changed by legislation sothat appropriate and due scrutiny can occur. I understand that the rationale given for these changes is tobe able to respond to market forces as they occur and, more particularly, if loopholes are identified bylenders that allow them to circumvent the intent of this legislation, to be able to address those loopholesin a timely manner. I have no problem with that, but there is an objectionable standard about Henry VIIIclauses and that should be noted.

I understand that there is a time limit on this debate. I believe it is an important piece of legislation.Previous speakers, including the member for Nicklin, have talked about common law rights and theability of borrowers to have appropriate redress when they are forced into a situation where they have todefault on a mortgage. For somebody in that situation, going to court would be probably a pressure anda cost that they could neither face nor accommodate. Anything that we can do to alleviate that stressand give them a return on a property that they have usually taken care of and invested time, money andthemselves in is not only a reasonable thing that we should do but also a necessary thing. I support thebill, with those reservations.

Hon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice andMinister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (3.24 pm), in reply: This bill proposesamendments to the Property Law Act to introduce further protections for mortgagors whose mortgagedproperties are sold by mortgagees. There are three new measures. The first measure involves adoptinga proposal foreshadowed by the New South Wales government. It is of a technical nature. Currently amortgagee exercising power of sale must take reasonable care to sell at market value. This protects themortgagor by minimising the mortgagor’s residual debt or maximising a mortgagor’s residual equity.New South Wales has signalled that it will also apply this statutory duty to a mortgagor selling pursuantto a power of attorney given under the mortgage and to receivers appointed by the mortgagees. Toensure there are no gaps under Queensland legislation, the current duties will be extended to thosesituations.

The second measure, which will also apply only to prescribed mortgages, states the steps thatmust be followed by mortgagees to ensure they take care to sell at market value—for example,adequately advertising the sale, obtaining reliable evidence as to value and selling by auction unless itis reasonable not to do so. Additional steps will be able to be prescribed by regulation.

The third measure—and this is something that is quite novel—creates an offence for a breach ofthe prescribed steps in relation to consumer credit type mortgages. This is quite different. It is over andabove any suggestion of codifying the common law, because it creates offences with appropriatepenalty points. For those contained in the act the penalty will be 200 penalty units. There is alsoprovision for further steps to be imposed by regulation provided they relate to the duty to takereasonable care to sell at market value. The penalty for a breach of a duty imposed by regulation will be20 penalty points, which is the maximum that is recommended in relation to penalty points imposed byregulation, as I understand it. The member for Toowoomba South raised a number—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wettenhall): Order! Under the provisions of the resolution agreed toby the House and the time limits for the second reading of the bill having expired, the question is that thebill be now read a second time.

Question put—That the bill be now read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Consideration in DetailClauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to.

Clause 4—

Mr HORAN (3.27 pm): In the two or three minutes that are left, I want to ask the Attorney-Generalabout proposed subsection 1A, which refers to the prescribed mortgage. I believe that that prescribedmortgage is probably linked to proposed subsection 1A(e), which states ‘do anything else prescribedunder a regulation’. Those are the Henry VIII clauses. ‘Prescribed mortgage’ is not defined in any shapeor form. They are the two unknowns that we are dealing with in this bill.


The member for Keppel made a reference to consumer credit and the linkage of consumer creditto property mortgages. Is that what this is really about? Is this about prescribing a mortgage? Saysomeone buys a truck for $200,000. Once they have carried a few loads of gravel from the quarry, itsvalue drops a fair bit so it would be necessary for the security that is put on that truck to be more thanthe cost of the truck itself, otherwise they might not be able to get the borrowing back. Is that what this isactually about? Is this something to do with the linkage of consumer credit to property, because theseare two very big unknowns in the bill.

Mr SHINE: The honourable member is correct. What we are endeavouring to do is protect peoplewho have mortgages of a consumer credit nature, that is, the average householder with a homemortgage. The proposed amendments also define ‘prescribed mortgage’ as ‘a mortgage of a kindprescribed under a regulation’. The definition is intended to capture mortgages over land of a consumercredit nature such as for owner-occupier home loans, as I said. However, it needs to be flexible torespond to emerging concepts as to the scope of consumer credit. These matters are the subject ofconsideration. They are being currently considered by the Commonwealth government as part of itsagreement through the Council of Australian Governments to assume responsibility for regulating allareas of consumer—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wettenhall): Order! Under the provisions of the resolution agreed toby the House and the time limit for the consideration in detail of the bill having expired, the question isthat clauses 4 to 6, as read, stand part of the bill.

Clauses 4 to 6, as read, agreed to.

Third ReadingHon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and

Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (3.30 pm): I move—That the bill be now read a third time.

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

Long TitleHon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and

Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (3.30 pm): I move—That the long title of the bill be agreed to.

Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

ANIMAL MANAGEMENT (CATS AND DOGS) BILL

Second ReadingResumed from p. 4071, on motion of Mr Pitt—


Mrs SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (3.30 pm): I rise to support the Animal Management (Catsand Dogs) Bill 2008. As Christmas is fast approaching, people will be considering how to celebrate thisevent and what gifts to buy their family members and loved ones. Each year at this time many choosean animal, predominantly a cat or dog. The sad reality is that after a while the animal becomes anuisance and is unwanted. This often leads to abandonment and this action often leads to death.Recent figures suggest more than 13,000 cats and 10,000 dogs are euthanased in pounds and animalshelters each year in this state and this figure is growing. Around 200,000 animals are euthanased inAustralia. We need to do better and we are.

In 2007 the state government released a discussion paper entitled ‘Managing unwanted cats anddogs’, which a few people in my electorate were glad to see—John Edmundson of Woorim Beach beingone who continued lobbying me for something to be done. He knew the importance of initiatingdiscussion of the issue and I thank him for his valuable time and efforts. There were 5,000 responsesincluding John’s and the results showed strong support for compulsory registration, microchipping anddesexing.


Ministers Pitt and Mulherin then set up the Queensland Government Companion Animal WorkingGroup, which included representatives of all the key interest groups—the RSPCA and Animal WelfareLeague, the Canine Control Council, the Feline Association and the Australian Veterinary Association.An independent report commissioned by the government was released in February 2008 andrecommended a three-stage approach to help with education, registration, identification and desexing.

Stage 1 included a code of practice for breeders, pet shops, pounds and animal shelters. Thecode covered a requirement for pounds to have a domestic animal management plan concentrating onreducing the number of unwanted animals, compulsory identification on transfer from a breeder, but—and some will say it did not go far enough—only voluntary desexing with a provision to fund low-cost orno-cost desexing for those in the community who may be disadvantaged and ensuring that legislationwas properly funded. Stage 2 provides for statewide education on how to be a responsible pet ownerand stage 3 includes compulsory registration and microchipping, compulsory desexing in all pounds andanimal shelters.

One of the objects of this bill is to encourage responsible cat and dog ownership. A pet no matterhow it is acquired is simply not a short-term proposition. A responsible pet owner knows that their animalhas to be loved and fed on a daily basis, exercised regularly and if needed given some form of trainingto ensure that it acts in a manner that does not compromise public safety. A responsible pet owner alsoknows the importance of desexing and microchipping.

Significant incentives are contained in this bill to encourage people to become a responsible petowner and comply with these new legislative obligations. Cat and dog owners do get something out ofthis. If people microchip their animal not only will they be able to have their dog or cat returned to themsooner but, more importantly, it will minimise the chance of it being euthanased should it be impoundedwhen not wearing its collar and registration.

I recently visited the Moreton Bay Regional Council’s Caboolture Pound. Staff there are verycompassionate and their aim is to return lost animals to their owners or find good homes if they cannot.I was told that every single animal, if microchipped, had been able to be returned to their owner—that is,they had a 100 per cent success rate. The state government is aware that through this bill it is creatingan obligation on councils and shelter operators to actually scan animals for microchips when the animalis received into their care. This is currently not the case. While some councils have led the way in thisrespect, some have not. They have not been scanning correctly or have been scanning impoundedanimals sporadically.

Currently in Queensland, regulation around a valuable tool such as a microchip is extremelyloose. Microchips that are not compatible with some readers can be purchased locally or imported intothe country. People can set themselves up as a ‘registry’ and become bankrupt overnight resulting in allinformation on that ‘registry’ being lost for use by councils or shelters forever.

Implanting is not regulated in any way, which means that, while a person may implant a microchipin an animal, there is no requirement to update any registry at all. The number of times when amicrochip is not linked to any details at all is apparently quite large. Currently access to information bypounds or shelters is for the purposes of recovery only and the information available to them isextremely limited. This bill will give councils full access to these databases—a very effective tool for catand dog management.

The structure the state government is setting up places a strong legislative framework around thissystem, on who may access the system and under what conditions. Breaching this framework carieshefty penalties. The maintenance of people’s privacy and the way in which their personal details aredealt with is critical. I feel comfortable placing my personal contact details on this system with thelegislative protection the bill affords.

Under the Rural Lands Protection Act, it has always been the responsibility of councils to lookafter cats and dogs. In the past they have been found wanting. However, when I approached thenewly amalgamated Moreton Bay Regional Council’s mayor, Allan Sutherland, about the proposedlegislation he was very keen to see what his council could do to assist. I encouraged him to submit anapplication to the Hon. Warren Pitt to become one of the councils to receive funding to carry out a trial tolook at means of reducing stray and abandoned animals throughout the region. His council’s applicationwas successful, and I want to thank those many constituents who wrote to me in support of thislegislation. It was that community support and letters from the SPCA, which is a local Bribieorganisation, that led to the council’s success.

I also want to thank two individual councillors for their support. Councillor Greg Chippendale waspleased with the outcome and said it was an opportunity that they needed to accept on behalf of thecommunity and that all aspects of the review would be reported back to council at a later date. He isvery appreciative of the state government’s financial package. Councillor Gary Parsons was quick toadd his support. Like me, he lives on Bribie Island and knows only too well that Bribie’s unique flora andfauna needs to be protected, and one way of doing this is through sensible and responsible petownership.


Furthermore, I am extremely supportive of the development of a state funded and administeredregulated dog database. It has always been a concern that dogs declared dangerous suddenlydisappear, never to be seen in their neighbourhood again. I shudder to think where these dogs end upand whether they are involved in further incidents. Dogs being declared as regulated dogs for the wholestate and placed on the regulated dog database will encourage responsible ownership of these types ofdogs.

I wish to place on record my thanks to the member for Broadwater, Peta-Kaye Croft, for withouther tenacity this bill would have taken even longer in coming before this parliament. I also thank MinisterWarren Pitt and his staff in developing and introducing this responsible breeding legislation that I believewill go a long way towards reducing the unnecessary euthanasing of many thousands of cats and dogsevery year. I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.38 pm): I rise to support the Animal Management (Catsand Dogs) Bill 2008 but also to put on the record some issues on which I seek the minister’sclarification. I believe that the majority of pet owners are responsible. I also happen to believe that a cator a dog, particularly a dog—although I have a cat as well—is a great companion. It has been shownover time that they are of immense assistance to elderly people and to people with disabilities in termsof offering friendship, affection and companionship. I think it is really important that both children whoare growing up and adults have a pet of some description. I certainly do not support the irresponsibleownership of dogs or cats, and I do think it is a sad indictment on our community that so many animalsare euthanased.

I found it rather anomalous, as did people in my local government electorate, that councilswere amalgamated to make them bigger and more responsible but then almost on the heels of that wehave an area of legislation that has predominantly been the responsibility of local councils forced uponthem by government in the form of this piece of legislation. I hope that any costs that local councils havenot foreshadowed in their budgets to set up the necessary infrastructure to fulfil the obligations placedon them by this legislation will be accommodated by the state government. Many councils have had dogregistration for a long time; a lot fewer have cat registration. It is effort-intensive to set up the registries etcetera that are required.

The microchipping of animals is a good thing provided it is done cost-effectively. Many familieshave a pet because they want their children to be able to enjoy the benefits of having a companionanimal, but they also have to be mindful of the costs of food, vet visits and registration et cetera so theseimposed regulations need to also be costed in a way that the average family can afford them.

I commend the minister for the fact that the mandatory desexing of animals is not contained in thislegislation. Since the time when I was in local government, there has been a push by some certifiedbreeders, including some members of the kennel clubs, to only have pure breeds available on themarket and to, over time, more or less create a monopoly in terms of access to animals for pets. I do notthink that is an action that I would be happy to support. I support the responsible home-based breeder. Icertainly do not support the puppy breeding mills we have seen that are not only inhumane but alsounacceptable in the extreme. However, many home-based breeders are responsible and do the rightthing.

The obligation has been placed on shelters and pounds to scan animals that they receive withinthree days. We had an incident up home with the Gladstone City Council, before the amalgamation,where an animal was seized—I think it was a dalmation actually—and it was taken to the pound. Theowner of the animal went to the council and paid the fine, but when he went to retrieve the dog from thepound, the pound was closed so he could not access the pound until Monday. By the time he finishedwork and went to the pound, the dog had been euthanased even though it was microchipped. So nosystem is foolproof, but if the number of dogs and animals that are microchipped increasesexponentially—and I acknowledge, with thanks, that this is not retrospective—it will certainly becomesecond nature to anybody working in the field of impoundment or shelters to scan the microchip and findthe owner. I think there needs to be an education program to ensure that owners understand they needto keep their registration and the details on the registration up to date.

There are a couple of extra declarations in the bill. There is a ‘restricted dog’ declaration, there isa ‘dangerous dog’ declaration—which has been in existence in the management of animals in the localgovernment sphere for a long time—but there is a new category of animals called a ‘menacing dog’. Ibelieve the test for a menacing dog in the legislation is extremely subjective. The bill states—A menacing dog declaration may be made for a dog only if a ground mentioned in subsection (2) exists for the dog, except that theattack was not serious.

Subsection (2) states—A dangerous dog declaration may be made for a dog only if the dog—(a) has seriously attacked, or acted in a way that caused fear to, a person or another animal; or(b) may, in the opinion of an authorised person having regard to the way the dog has behaved towards a person or another

animal, seriously attack, or act in a way that causes fear to, the person or animal.


The test for a menacing dog, however, is a wee bit less than that. It was explained to me that it isif the person who makes the complaint about the dog being a menacing dog felt afraid because of theconduct of the dog. I have to declare a pecuniary interest in this because I have got a big dog; it is calleda giant breed. We also have a Jack Russell so when we walk them on the beach it is like the sublimeand the ridiculous. However, our giant dog is a dane crossed with a bloodhound and she stands quitehigh. She has not got a malicious bone in her body and like many big dogs she is as dopey as theycome; ‘thick as two bricks’ is the phrase for it.

However, many people, if they were not dog lovers, would be able to claim that they felt menacedby her simply because of her sheer size. She could walk up and give you a lick and not even have tostrain—well, she could give me a lick and not have to stain. I do not find that menacing. We go to aleash-free beach where, providing your dog is under voice control, you are free to have the dog off theleash. A lot of people have their dogs off the leash on these beaches and they have varying successwhen they call the dog back; it just depends on how much of a game the dog wants. But I have asignificant fear that, based on a very subjective test, a dog like ours could be deemed a menacing dogby this legislation, even in circumstances where the risk to the person making the complaint wasminimal or nonexistent—it is just that they perceived there to be a risk. In that circumstance, families likemine who have taken on a giant breed are restricted in their ability to adequately walk and exercise theanimal.

I would be interested in the minister’s response to that. How defined does the incident have to bebefore a complaint about a dog is successful in having the dog declared menacing? If it is only asubjective test then, frankly, I will stop taking her for a walk on the beach and that would be a detrimentto her and to us. It will certainly be a detriment to Rusty because Patch chases Rusty all the time on thebeach and they both have a tonne of fun.

Animals are really important to families. Responsible animal ownership is essential. The localgovernment response to community concerns about excessive barking or excessive aggression needsto be appropriate. I believe dogs become aggressive in most cases because either the owners teachthem to be aggressive or they live in circumstances that drive them to be aggressive. I do not think thereare too many dogs that are aggressive by nature, so perhaps we should be doing something to theowners—but that is not possible.

I believe the intent of this legislation is sound, but I would be interested in the minister’s responsein relation to the subjective test that will be placed on declaring dogs as menacing. The dangerous dogdeclaration is much more defined in that there has to be an incident, although that is not foolproof. Iknow of one family in my electorate who had their dog declared menacing. It was a german shepherd,but it had no teeth. The neighbours constantly complained about the dog and said that the dog wasaggressive towards them. Their kids used to irritate the dog through the fence with sticks. The dog didgrowl and sort of make a noise at the neighbour’s children on a couple of occasions but it could not bitethem—it had nothing to bite with—and it was declared a dangerous dog. There will always beexceptions to the rule. Decisions will be made that could be shown, with the wisdom of hindsight, to beperhaps unwise, but the subjectivity of that menacing dog declaration is of concern. I have declared myinterest in that, but I do not believe I am the only person who will have those concerns once this movesinto law.

I know that one of the major areas of complaint to local government is cat and dog management.There are noise complaints about dogs and about the fact that cats get out and mess on people’s lawnset cetera. I am not sure how successful the minister will be in stopping that altogether. I think in someways we as a community need to get a bit real and become a bit tolerant of one another’s pets,particularly where in all other circumstances they are well maintained, well fed, well cared for and do notbark excessively. We could do to love our animals just that little bit more.

Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—LNP) (3.50 pm): I rise to make a short contribution in the debateon the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Bill 2008. As the explanatory notes state, this bill is theresult of an increasing level of community concern about the number of unwanted cats and dogseuthanased each year in Queensland. It is something that has disturbed a lot of people, my family andme included.

The ownership of a pet is a wonderful thing. Whether it is a family with children growing up andlearning the responsibility of looking after a living thing, whether it is an older person with a pet as acompanion, or whether it is a working person who regardless of the day they have had get home to theirdog who is wagging its tail. Regardless of how good a day it has been or how well or badly the personhas been treated, they know they will always get a friendly response from their pet when they get home.

There is no doubt that there are some people in the community who are not responsible petowners. Most people who have pets love them, look after them and care for them properly, but there aresome people who do not and we need to do what we can to ensure that pet owners are responsible.


In my family we have two pet dogs—two beagles—and they are a wonderful part of our family.They are wonderful dogs. I remember reading some research a couple of years ago where analysis wasdone on the potential for a person to become a criminal based on the pet dog that they owned. Thepeople least likely to become criminals are those people who own beagles. I can honestly state that Ican contribute to the positive ownership of beagles. They are wonderful dogs, but they do have theirdrawbacks.

Mr Reeves: The beagles would have voted for you. Mr COPELAND: The beagles vote for me every day. Beagles can be difficult dogs to care for. As

anyone who knows and who has seen them at work in our airports on customs duty, they are ruled bytheir nose. Their nose, their ears, their eyes and their brain are completely unrelated, and the nosedictates everything. If they get on the scent of something they will follow it and they will not stop, nomatter how much you scream at them, yell at them or try to cajole them into coming back. We havealways had our two dogs microchipped because we knew that there would be times when,notwithstanding our very best efforts in fencing, they may well escape. Those concerns have beenproven correct on a number of occasions.

A government member: He looks nothing like a beagle. Mr COPELAND: I do look a little like a beagle. When our dogs went missing, it was not the microchip that brought them home. We also have

tags on them with a contact phone number. On the two or three occasions that they have gonemissing—

A government member: What are their names? Mr COPELAND: Buddy and Sunny are our two beagles. When they have gone missing they

have been returned by very caring people in the community who have picked them up and seen BuddyCopeland’s name tag with the relevant phone number. They have rung us and looked after them until wewere able to collect them. Knowing that they are microchipped gives a sense of certainty that hopefullythey will be returned after they have been captured or have become hungry after whatever exploit theywere on, chasing whatever animal or scent that they could find.

I think it is important to note the work that local governments do and that the RSPCA does intimes when happy and loved family pets go missing, which they do from time to time. I remember overChristmas last year our two went on an adventure, and it was the same day or the same week that therehad been a story in the Toowoomba Chronicle about the number of unwanted pets that had beendumped after Christmas and how the RSPCA had to deal with them and, unfortunately, euthanase anumber of them. My wife wrote a letter to the editor of the Toowoomba Chronicle praising the RSPCAnot only for the work it was doing in looking after unwanted pets but also for the work it does in trackingdown and bringing home loved pets that go missing from time to time. It is work that the RSPCA, thenetwork of vets in a city and the local council do. They all keep their eyes out once alerted to the factthat a family pet has gone missing. While a lot of the coverage of what the RSPCA and the local poundsdo is about unwanted animals, they certainly go out of their way to look after animals that are loved andwanted family pets. Luckily, on that occasion our two wayward beagles were returned by a communitymember who found them and had read the letter to the editor.

It is a big job being a pet owner. No-one should enter into a contract of looking after a pet lightly. Itis something that requires responsibility. I was talking to another member of parliament last night whosaid that they would love to own a dog but cannot because they are not home, their family is not homeand it would be cruel to leave the dog at home by themselves during the day. It was the member forBrisbane Central and I who were talking about it last night. That is an absolutely responsible attitude totake to pet ownership. You should only take on the ownership of an animal—regardless of whether it is adog, a cat, a budgie or a fish—if you can responsibly look after it and make sure that that pet has thequality of life that it deserves.

There are a number of objectives in this bill. Microchipping is one that I have spoken about. Whenwe had a cat we had her microchipped as well. There is mandatory registration, microchipping of catsand dogs, and ear tattooing of desexed cats and dogs. Like the member for Gladstone before me, I ampleased to see that this bill does not enforce mandatory desexing of pets. I would take a lot ofconvincing that that would be the most appropriate thing to do. I know there is a lot of concern in thecommunity particularly regarding cats because of the potential for cats to go feral and breed in a waythat is not good for our native wildlife. When it comes to cats and dogs, particularly dogs, I think it isimportant to not restrict the gene pool of the potential breeders. Over the years I think the robustnesshas been bred out of some breeds because of the way that some breeders have approached it. Also,some dog shows and the standards against which some dog breeds have been judged have notassisted the robustness of some of those breeds. I think we should be very careful about restricting thegene pool of any of the breeding stock while still recognising that there is potential for dogs and cats, butparticularly cats, to go feral and to do harm to our native wildlife. It is a balancing act but, as I said, Iwould need a lot of convincing to believe it would be the right thing to do. We certainly need to ensurethat people who breed are responsible. In my experience, the vast majority are.


The registration provides for exemption for animals including government authority dogs, workingdogs and further classes of animals prescribed under a regulation. I think that is a sensible thing to do.Having grown up on a cattle property with a number of working dogs, I think it would have beenimpractical to have those animals registered. I think it is a common-sense way to approach that. I wouldask the minister if he could advise the House in his summing-up what further classes of animals wouldbe expected to be prescribed under the regulation. Could he perhaps provide some examples to theHouse of those further animals and why it is under regulation rather than in the legislation as those otherexemptions are?

There is also the identification and control of regulated dogs, dangerous, menacing and restricteddogs. Again, I take the point made by the member for Gladstone. Some dogs, simply by their sheer size,could be a menace. I know that our dogs are a menace but in a different way. We need to make surethere is a balance and a common-sense approach to that. There is no doubt that there are dangerousdogs out there. I think all MPs who have done doorknocking from time to time will attest to the fact thatthere are dogs who are a menace, but we need to ensure that it is not taken to unrealistic levels and thatsafe, family-friendly dogs are not caught up in that.

The bill also enhances the monitoring and enforcement powers of local governments. It is a bigjob for local government to provide the management of cats and dogs and other animals as well. Thismay well see an extra level of responsibility placed on local governments. I would not like to see themout of pocket. In my experience, particularly with the larger councils, most of them would already have inplace, I suspect, the monitoring and scanning equipment for microchipping. I would like to ensure thatthose local councils are not out of pocket.

I spoke in this House a couple of weeks ago about the difficulties facing the Toowoomba RegionalCouncil when it comes to the registration of dogs in particular. Having brought together the seven shiresand the one city council into the one large Toowoomba Regional Council there has been an equalisationof dog fees. The dog registration fees for residents of the once smaller councils have increased quitesubstantially as the equalisation process has gone on.

We have to realise that with the mandating of microchipping for cats and dogs there is going to bea cost impost on owners. I would not like to think that that is something that owners cannot do. Any of uswho have owned a pet and have experienced the cost of taking them to the vet and looking after themwell know that the $30-odd that it will cost for a microchip is small in terms of what is outlayed over thelifetime of a pet.

I think there will be a benefit that flows from this bill. The changes that are proposed have beenapproached quite sensibly. Having the exemptions for working dogs and government dogs is acommon-sense outcome. It does not include mandatory desexing. I think that is a good outcome. Therewill always be problems with the implementation of this. They should be faced with a measuredresponse from the local councils that will be tasked with enforcing the provisions.

Whatever we can do to ensure responsible pet ownership, including the education of peopleabout their responsibilities when it comes to pet ownership, is a good thing. Pets are a wonderfuladdition to a family. They bring great joy. They are a great learning experience for children. I certainlyhope that we have pets for many years to come. I think they do add something to a family. All we needto do is make sure that people who own pets look after them well and responsibly so that they do not dodamage to our environment, that they are not unwanted pets that do end up euthanased and that theycan be a happy and worthwhile part of any family that owns them.

Mrs KIERNAN (Mount Isa—ALP) (4.02 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Animal Management(Cats and Dogs) Bill 2008 and particularly with regard to cat registration which is central to thislegislation. Up until now there has been no consistent approach in Queensland to cat identification. Thisleads to a number of problems. We all know that unowned cats breed prolifically and that their offspringcause untold harm to our natural fauna and the environment. We also know that it is an unfortunate butunavoidable fact that cats go missing, particularly male cats which have a greater tendency to roam.This can be a heart-wrenching and traumatic experience for pet owners and their families.

In terms of managing the population of unowned cats, this bill will ensure that all owned cats willbe identifiable. If we can identify owned cats then we can also identify unowned cats. This will generallyimprove the chances for animal management officers to address the issue of feral cats and help controland reduce their numbers. Over time it is expected that this legislation will effectively help reduce thepopulation of stray, feral and unowned cats and reduce pressures on endangered native species.

In relation to reunification, compulsory registration and identification will make it easier for lostcats to be returned to their owners. Responsible owners who ensure their cats are microchipped andidentifiable will have a greater chance that their pets will be returned home. So if a family pet does gomissing people will have a greater chance that the story has a happy ending.


One of the key premises behind this bill is promoting responsible pet ownership. These provisionscut straight to the heart of this message. Responsible cat owners and owners who love their cats willnever want them to go missing and will want to ensure that their cats are registered and microchipped.Very simply, it is the kindest and most responsible thing to do for one’s animal, whether it be a cat ordog.

Another benefit associated with cat ownership relates to equity. Many dog owners often point outthe double standard that applies to the registration of cats and dogs. Most places in this state requiredogs to be registered, and for people to pay a registration fee, but the majority of local governments inQueensland do not require the same for cats. Local governments generally use dog registration fees tofund their animal management programs. Many of these programs extend to cat management. So, ineffect, the dog owners have been subsidising the running of cat management programs for many years.This bill will help restore some equality to this situation by ensuring that cat owners also contributetowards the costs of managing cats and other animals.

While we are on the topic of registration fees, it should also be noted that the bill mandatesdifferential registration fees for desexed animals. A desexed cat will attract a lower registration fee andby doing so the government expects that this measure will lead to fewer unwanted kittens, fewerdumpings and fewer unowned and feral cats. I commend this bill to the House.

Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (4.06 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the AnimalManagement (Cats and Dogs) Bill 2008. The bill aims at bringing in the mandatory registration andmicrochipping of cats and dogs and ear tattooing for desexed cats and dogs. It also is intended to allowfor the identification and control of the registration of regulated dogs which can be dangerous, menacingand restricted dogs and also to enhance local government monitoring and enforcement powers.

There are also a number of other consequential objectives such as relocating chapter 7A from theLocal Government Act to this act and amendments to the City of Brisbane Act and the LocalGovernment Act. All of this is intended to reduce the number of unwanted cats and dogs beingeuthanased each year in Queensland. In practice, once this bill is enacted, all cats and dogs will have tohave microchips installed before they reach 12 weeks of age or if they undergo a transfer of ownership.There are exemptions for government authority dogs, working dogs and other classes of animals asprescribed under a regulation.

In practice, I believe this means that it is companion animals and family pets which are the targetsof this bill. In combination with the microchipping, it will be compulsory for cats and dogs 12 weeks andolder and for regulated dogs to be registered. The registers are to be put together and maintained bylocal governments. There is also provision for the state to maintain a separate register of regulateddogs. This will be made up of the regulated dog registers established by the councils of Queensland.Once the state register is in place, the local government register of regulated dogs will no longer berequired, although councils will be required to ensure that it is updated as new information becomesavailable.

There are real and ongoing problems with unwanted animals. I believe the majority of those beingeuthanased are being abandoned by owners or families who simply do not want them anymore. Thereare instances where a loved pet goes missing and when it winds up in a pound it cannot be identified. Inthose cases these new microchips and registers will work together to ensure that animals are reunitedwith their owners, if at all possible. The real problem is the minority of owners who do not properly carefor or control their animals.

I do not own a dog or a cat at the moment so I do not have to declare an interest. I have in thepast had large dogs—pig dogs—classed unofficially as staghounds which are mainly Great Dane andgreyhound crosses. They had wonderful characters and were great pets. I have also had boxers,German short-haired pointers and our gorgeous house dog at one stage many careers ago was aPomeranian. They were all great mates. My last cat died at the age of about 20 at about this time lastyear and I have not replaced any of the cats since then. But they, too, have been great mates to havearound, especially when my kids were growing up. We had all of our cats desexed about 20 years agowhen we picked them up as strays. There was a mother cat and four kittens—that is, the mother cat,one female and four male kittens. We had them all desexed, so they were never a problem after that. Itis a good idea to have as many as possible desexed. Mind you, we do not want them all desexedbecause we do not want them to become extinct.

These changes will impose a very significant additional burden on our local governments.Councils will be required to monitor and manage the process and they will be required to establish andmaintain registers. They will have to gather the information for the regulated dog register that the statewill maintain and they will have to ensure it is updated. To rub salt into the wound, they will also beexpected to pay the state for the maintenance and operation of the regulated dog register despite itconsisting of information they gathered and despite the fact that they are responsible for it being kept upto date. The explanatory notes indicate that the state intends to take approximately $3 out of every


council dog registration fee to fund a register it did not build and it will not update, and we can expectthat to increase over the years. This is an indirect way for the state government to again put its handdeep into our pockets for the very last cent. If there is a menacing or dangerous animal in this debate, Isuggest that in financial terms it might be this state government.

Councils will have to establish and maintain registers. There are expected to be training and otherstaffing costs and additional administrative burdens which will cost in that area as well. The explanatorynotes dismiss all of this with the statement that—The costs involved will be met by the relevant local government.

As I said earlier, they will have no option but to pass those costs on to ordinary ratepayers anddog and cat owners. As a guide to the kind of expense that may be involved, the regulated dog registeris expected to cost $20,000 in the year it is set up and $2,000 annually to maintain. One would expectthat similar, if not more, costs will be attached to the cat register that each council will now be required toestablish. The dog register should already be largely in place. Clearly there is going to be a verysubstantial extra burden on ratepayers, especially in the first year as a result of this government yetagain legislating on an issue but refusing to fund it. This time, however, it has gone one step further byalso expecting councils to pay for the state’s own register. Unwanted and missing animals are a realissue, but it is shameful that the Bligh government has chosen not to provide any real resourcingtowards addressing this issue.

Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (4.12 pm): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak insupport of the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Bill. Some of the important features of the bill—namely, the compulsory microchipping of animals after 12 weeks of age—are going to make asignificant difference to the way in which cats and dogs are managed in this state. Importantly, thelegislation provides a consistent statewide framework for their management, overcoming the hotchpotchof arrangements that exist between various different local government areas at the present time.

The compulsory registration and the microchipping of cats and dogs are aimed, among otherthings, principally to overcome the distressing number of cats and dogs that have to be euthanased inthis state because their owners cannot be found or because they have been abandoned. The statisticsthat are kept by the RSPCA on this are quite horrifying. In 2007-08 in Queensland the number ofunwanted dogs received by the RSPCA was 17,257 and of those 6,962 had to be euthanased. Thefigures for cats are also quite startling. In 2007-08 some 18,090 cats were received by the RSPCA inQueensland and of those 11,243 had to be euthanased. Of course, that is distressing for the ownerswho cannot be tracked who ultimately do not recover their animals who are euthanased, but it is alsodistressing for the workers who have to collect, care for and then euthanase those animals if theirowners cannot be found or if they have been abandoned. This legislation is going to be very wellreceived by not only the workers in local government who will have responsibility for implementing manyof the features of the bill but also those who work in our animal shelters. Of course, many of thoseworkers in our animal shelters are volunteers and are dedicated to the welfare of animals.

I want to touch briefly on a very important new part of the bill which introduces a category ofmenacing dog. The bill provides for the declaration and management of dangerous and menacing dogsregardless of breed, and menacing dogs will be those which have exhibited behaviour which has not yetreached a level that could be defined as dangerous. The bill recognises that, in addition to the reputationof the restricted breeds, all dogs can potentially cause injury or death. An example I will give to theHouse was in San Francisco in 2001. There was a tragic case of a woman who was fatally attacked bya dog in the hallway of her apartment complex. The dog was both a restricted breed and also had anextensive history of menacing behaviour. This new legislation has the potential to prevent a similartragic event occurring in Queensland because the community can now be protected from a dog of anybreed that behaves in a menacing manner through the application of these new laws.

In the case I mentioned in San Francisco, there was a known history about the aggressive anddangerous behaviours that that dog had exhibited. There were cases where the dog had lunged atothers, including children, in an aggressive manner and the victim had previously expressed to a friendthat she was in fear of the dog as, in an earlier incident, the dog had shown menacing behaviourtowards her. Under this legislation, dogs that behave in a menacing manner will be required to beeffectively controlled in public and kept in an enclosure that is child proof, prevents the dog from leavingthe enclosure and meets other requirements that we set out in the regulations. That is going to be a verysignificant added protection to our community, as there are many other cases where a dog that hasseriously or fatally attacked a person has a history of menacing behaviour. People responsible for thosedogs should be required to ensure that they are not a threat to the community and this legislationenables authorised officers to act pre-emptively where there is such a history that can be verified, andthat is an important protection for the community.

But in acknowledging that there are differing levels of severity in aggressive dog behaviour, thebill also scales penalties for owners or persons in immediate control of a dog according to the severity ofthe attack or menacing behaviour towards a person or animal. Those include a maximum of 300 penaltyunits for an attack which causes death or grievous bodily harm to a person, 100 penalty units for the


death of an animal, 50 penalty units for bodily harm and 20 penalty units for an attack in general. Othermembers in the debate have spoken about clause 89 of the bill that sets out the circumstances in whicha dog can be declared to be a menacing dog. In response to the concerns that have been mentionedabout that, in any such provisions in any enactment common sense will need to prevail and the terms ofthe legislation do give sufficient guidance but could never be expected to cover every particular case. Inthose circumstances, discretion needs to be provided to authorised officers to act on the basis of theinformation that they have received and the evidence that is before them, and that is as it should be.

I commend the minister for bringing this bill before the House. It follows an extensive process ofresearch and consultation. It strikes a good balance between protecting the community and taking intoaccount the interests of owners of dogs. It encourages responsible pet ownership, which is certainly theway to go.

In conclusion, I acknowledge the work of staff and volunteers in our animal shelters around thestate who do such a marvellous job and, in particular, in my electorate at the RSPCA shelter at Stratford,Kate Barnard and her seven staff and Carol Clifton at the Young Animal Protection Society in myelectorate and her eight staff and their army of volunteers who do such a magnificent job.

Mr STEVENS (Robina—LNP) (4.19 pm): I rise to speak to the Animal Management (Cats andDogs) Bill 2008. At the outset, I would like to state that, along with my LNP colleagues, I agree with thefundamental direction of this bill, but I have some reservations that I would like to express about certainaspects of it. One of the reservations I have, through my experience in local government, is the ongoingcost to local governments across Queensland. I will address that issue later in my speech.

The Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Bill 2008 seeks to introduce a statewide legislativeframework to manage cats and dogs within our community. This bill is based on a legislative frameworkthat is in place in Victoria. One of the objectives of the bill is to make it compulsory to register andmicrochip cats and dogs. At the outset, I want to say that I was the mayor of the Gold Coast whenmicrochipping was introduced on the Gold Coast. I was one of the first people to have their dogmicrochipped—and that was Lottie the rottie. It was very effective. In regard to that issue, the GoldCoast City Council has gone ahead in leaps and bounds as it will be one of the councils that will trialcompulsory microchipping.

Other objectives of the bill are to make it compulsory for the ear tattooing of desexed cats anddogs and to control and identify regulated dogs, which are dangerous, menacing and restricted dogs, soas to reduce the risk that these dogs pose in the community. In regard to that objective, I might say thatcouncils never have a problem with dogs; they have a problem with dog owners. That is what, hopefully,this legislation will address. The dogs themselves do not create the issue; it is how they are looked after,how they are handled—or how they are not handled—or how they have been left to their own deviceson many occasions that cause the problem within our communities. Other objectives of the bill are toenhance local governments’ monitoring and enforcement powers, to relocate chapter 17A from theLocal Government Act to this bill, and to make minor amendments to the City of Brisbane Act 1924 andto amend the Local Government Act 1993.

Recently in Queensland there has been a review of strategies for effectively managing unwanteddogs and cats. Out of that review, the state government has implemented a two-stage strategy todecrease the number of unwanted cats and dogs. Strategy 1 consists of three substrategies, one ofwhich is the introduction of a voluntary code of practice for pet shops. I am very proud to say that back in1985 I was the founding owner of the largest retailer of pets and pet accessories in Queensland—ThePet Barn on the Gold Coast, which is still in existence today. So I am very familiar with the pet shopindustry. It is a very good industry. It keeps a lot of kids around the place happy. We have to support thatindustry at every opportunity. The people involved in that industry do a good job. They try to comply withas many of these proactive measures as they can. They cannot control all of the people who buy petsfrom their stores, but over the nine years that I owned that store we sold somewhere in the vicinity of6,000 cute and lovely puppies and made some residents very, very happy, particularly residents in mylocal council area. Obviously, that was the start of a budding political career. I also sold lots of cats—

Mr Wendt: You’re an old softie at heart.

Mr STEVENS: Absolutely: little soft, fluffy Ray—just a pussy in everyone’s arms. The kittens thatwe sold—unfortunately, no-one wants to buy older cats; they all like the cute, young cats—were alwaysof concern to me in terms of how they were looked after. I am glad to see that strong measures—

Mr Hoolihan: Use your words carefully.

Mr STEVENS: I have not used any words incorrectly. The member for Keppel probably has toreadjust his dictionary on these matters.


Getting back to the subject, the second substrategy is the implementation of a joint communityeducation program which is aimed at promoting responsible pet ownership. That is one concern that Ihave. Being very familiar with my good council officers and how they think about these matters, I wouldlike to see that the fees they charge for this registration and microchipping of cats and dogs is not usedto fund other programs. The registration and microchipping should be conducted on a cash-recoverybasis in terms of their animal maintenance strategies rather than the fees being utilised to fund biggerand better programs to expand the bureaucracy in councils. That is a very important issue. It gets backto the cost issue that I mentioned earlier in relation to local councils. Taxes are going up. We see stategovernments raising taxes at every opportunity and councils follow suit. It is our responsibility to makesure that, in these difficult financial times owing to the global financial crisis, we reduce the capacity toimpose more taxes on the people out there whom we serve.

Mr Moorhead interjected. Mr STEVENS: I hear a lot of chirping from the member for Waterford. There are a lot of cat and

dog owners in the Waterford area, which used to be part of the Gold Coast area. They will bedisappointed if the member keeps belting them for more money to promote various initiatives in hisarea.

Mr Moorhead interjected. Mr STEVENS: I thank the member for Waterford for his interjection. I would say that the worst

thing the Gold Coast City Council could do is build new headquarters for itself. So I agree with themember for Waterford and thank him for his interjection.

The third substrategy is a two-year pilot involving four councils that have agreed to implement avariety of innovative strategies that are aimed at promoting responsible animal ownership and desexing.Those councils are, as I mentioned, the Gold Coast City Council, the Logan City Council—which is inthe area of the member for Waterford—the Moreton Bay Regional Council and the Townsville CityCouncil.

The second part of the strategy consists of implementing a legislative framework for theintroduction of a statewide regime mandating the identification and registration of cats and dogs andimplementing a compulsory incentive scheme for desexing, which I endorse wholeheartedly. It iswonderful to see families having pets, but there should be control on the breeding side of things. Mostpeople do not want their animals out there breeding, anyway. That usually happens by accident and kittycomes home with about 12 little kittens that families did not know about. Unfortunately, those kittens aregiven away to friends and enemies and eventually end up at the pound, which is the problem that we aretrying to alleviate. These matters have led to the introduction of this bill.

The registration and microchipping of cats and dogs in our communities would be an effectiveway of managing a growing problem that results in lost and unwanted animals ending up in RSPCAcare. The RSPCA, of course, under management agreements, has taken over control or has offeredassistance to a lot of the pounds that the councils run. Each year, hundreds of cats and dogs areeuthanased by the RSPCA. The registration and microchipping of cats and dogs would reduce thenumbers of animals that would have to go through this process, which the RSPCA and certainlycouncils find most objectionable. In 2007-08 in Australia, 23,772 dogs and 42,731 cats wereeuthanased by the RSPCA. In the same period in Queensland, 6,962 dogs and 11,243 cats wereeuthanased.

The permanent identification device, or microchipping, would have all the contact details of theowner and address information. I think that is particularly important. As I recall, we went through all ofthese things when I was a member of the council. Whilst dogs run around with collars on and with theirannual registration tags, which are pretty easy to recognise, they can be returned to their owners. Butputting a collar on a cat is a very different scenario. It may end up with the cat hanging itself from abackyard fence. It is just not possible to legislate for that. So to microchip cats is a wonderful move inthe right direction, particularly as a lot of owners, unfortunately, think that night-time is a good time to putkitty out. Cats wander at night and a lot of cats end up in the pound, and with no possible way ofidentifying them they just rely on their owner to come looking for them. This move will alleviate a lot ofthose problems and, again, will reduce the number of those poor little cats being put down.

Clause 24 states that the permanent identification device cannot be implanted in a dog or cat thatis less than eight weeks old. I do not think that many pet shops sell kittens that are much under eightweeks as they are just too difficult to maintain in a store situation. Clause 14 places an obligation onowners to ensure that their cat or dog is implanted with a prescribed permanent identification devicebefore 12 weeks of age.

Chapter 3, parts 1 to 4, refers to the process of registration and requires a permanentidentification register to be established. Clause 51 of chapter 3 places a requirement on the localgovernment to record the relevant cat and dog information into a register within seven days of beingregistered. Councils face difficulties in enforcing the registration of dogs and, from here on in, cats aswell. I know that the Gold Coast City Council went to great expense to undertake a door knocking


campaign where inspectors tapped on doors and asked, ‘Is your dog registered?’ That approach upsetsa lot of people as it looks like a heavy-handed approach by the council concerned and gets a lot ofpeople offside. Obviously, it is a politically unpopular approach. It creates a lot of angst between theresidents and the inspectors. It costs a lot of money to undertake. Again we want to be careful about thefinancial impositions of implementing these programs, which are good in intent and do improvecommunity attitudes towards animals, particularly dogs and cats, which are the most common form ofpets in the suburbs. However, we have to be careful about the costs imposed on the owners of dogs andcats and we have to be reasonable about how that is done. It will be incumbent upon councils to be alittle delicate in the implementation of these programs.

Chapter 7, clauses 172 to 176, refers to a regulated dog register. As I have previously stated, aregulated dog register is divided into three categories: menacing, dangerous and restricted. I havealready commented in relation to dogs. I can remember the great hullabaloo on the Gold Coast inrelation to Sarge, the pit bull terrier. I think he came from Logan as a matter of fact. Literally thousandsand thousands of dollars were spent on court cases over the matter. It became an embarrassment toboth the owners, who love their pet dearly, and the enforcing body which, in this case, was the council.The courts get bogged down with ridiculous cases brought on to determine what breed a dog really is.The courts ask vets to identify the animals. With due respect, during my nine years of owning a pet shopI dealt with most vets on the Gold Coast and I can assure the House that I have far more experience indetermining what sort of cross breed a dog may be. I have had far more practical and hands-onexperience in determining what breed a dog is than a vet. It is very difficult to determine that a dog is, forexample, a Staffordshire bull terrier crossed with a Rhodesian ridgeback, and whether it may be quarter-part pit bull terrier, which obviously are regulated dogs.

Chapter 7 also refers to a licence holder register, which requires the establishment of a statewideregister for holders of licensed PID registries. As I said, I used to own The Pet Barn at Nerang, which isstill in existence. It is a wonderful shop. It has great owners, who are the people I sold the shop to in1994.

Mr Dempsey: You don’t have to give them a plug.

Mr STEVENS: I have to give them a plug because they do a great job down there. They run agreat business, continuing on from the fine basis that I set up for them all those years ago. If anyonewants a good healthy pet, a dog or cat in particular, I am sure they would be most compliant with allaspects of the law and the new legislation coming through.

Personally, I believe the introduction of the compulsory microchipping and registration of cats anddogs is a good management strategy for pet care, although I do believe it does not go far enough in thebroad sense of the bill. The bill will allow for the responsibility to be given not only to the owner of the cator dog but also to pet shops that sell the animals. In the bill, the voluntary code of practice is probably agood thing for the good store owners. However, smaller stores do pop up frequently, even in my area,then quickly close down and go out of business. The legislation does provide a window of opportunity forthose people not to engage in the best practice that this legislation recommends.

As local government is to maintain and pay for the register, I would like to know what amount thestate government will contribute to further help local councils to enforce the legislation. I remembervividly the pool fencing regulations that the Hon. Tom Burns introduced at great expense to councils.That legislation was a good idea from the state, but unfortunately the state did not come up with anyfunding. Whilst it is great to come up with good ideas for future regulations, if the state governmentbrings these things in and is reasonably responsible, it should add to the implementation funding tomake the legislation stick.

Clause 197 of the bill refers to decommissioned greyhounds being in a public place without beingmuzzled. For the first time ever in my life, with my son I have become a greyhound owner. I am told thedog is a budding champion.

Mr Hinchliffe: You bought a dish licker.

Mr STEVENS: I’ve bought a dish licker, as the member for Stafford has kindly said. I am hopingto get great amusement and entertainment from our new super-duper, as yet unnamed greyhound,particularly as it is not far away from its first start. For many years the greyhound industry has followedthe practice of letting most greyhounds have a go at running. They are bred to run fast. To do that theyare taught to chase a little white bouncy thing that flops up and down in front of them. As Mayor of theGold Coast, I was inundated with complaints about a number of English pig dogs or English bull terriersthat would see little white fluffy dogs and go up and crunch them. There would be all sorts ofdisappointment and tears flowing from the owners of the little dogs, which were normally Maltese, LhasoApso or Shih tzu dogs. They were often the target of bull terriers that knew only that they had to grabanother dog. A long time ago they were bred for pit fights, so when they see something white and fluffythey grab it.


Unfortunately, greyhounds are trained to chase fluffy white lures. As we know, some dogs such asMaltese look like little white fluffy lures. Greyhounds are very fast and a little Maltese would not havemuch chance of outrunning a greyhound. Therefore, I am concerned about the unmuzzling ofdecommissioned greyhounds, which are a lovely dog. The greyhound is a lovely friendly dog to havearound the house.

Mr Langbroek: Have you declared the conflict on interest?Mr STEVENS: The member for Surfers Paradise is also a part-owner of a budding greyhound

champion. We should look very closely at clause 197, which will remove the requirement to muzzle agreyhound in a public place.

In conclusion, we are a society of constant change. The value of pets has been increasing inimportance within the community. Our communities are far denser with less areas to enjoy pets in.Obviously we are all aware of the different dog areas that people are limited to. Beaches on the GoldCoast have very limited areas for dogs to roam in. This bill will help to manage the problem of unwantedcats and dogs being neglected. After all, we are a compassionate and humane society that requires thebest treatment possible for animals. I commend this bill to the House as it will implement better practicesin relation to cats and dogs.

Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (4.39 pm): A key component of the animal management billbefore the House today is the introduction of an enhanced suite of investigation, monitoring andenforcement powers for local governments. With the aid of this bill, I feel safe in the knowledge thatpublic safety will be better protected and enhanced in my electorate. This will be achieved by ensuringthat local government officers have access to more effective and timely enforcement mechanisms whichwill allow them to seize dogs exhibiting dangerous behaviours and thus prevent them from potentiallyattacking members of the public at some stage in the future.

In addition, warrantless entry and seizure will be provided for in those circumstances where thereis imminent risk to community health and safety. It is considered that this will ensure that localgovernment officers can react more quickly in circumstances where a dog is threatening the community.Entry without a warrant is also provided for in circumstances where it is suspected that a regulated dogis being hidden with a view to it being moved to another location. We are all familiar with situations likethat.

Unfortunately, experience with the previous system has shown that some irresponsible peoplemay attempt to break the law by hiding their dangerous dogs and moving them to a new location wherethe dog could be free to attack and cause fear in a new community. As such, I believe that theseenhanced powers will provide authorised officers with the additional tools which will allow them toprevent this type of illegal behaviour.

Another aspect of this legislation that enhances enforcement powers is the creation of provisionsthat will allow authorised persons to seek the assistance of police in carrying out these activities. Whatthis means is that in potentially dangerous or difficult situations police officers will have the same powersas authorised persons to enter a property and seize a dog. However, I should also advise the Housethat appeal processes have also been streamlined to provide for an internal review process for anydecisions or declarations made by local governments. These appeals must be heard by a more seniorofficer and there are specific time frames for the appeal process. As we would expect, stays on ordersand declarations issued by local governments may be sought from the courts.

Finally, I also draw the attention of the House to the sections of the bill providing for compulsoryregistration and identification. What this means is that consistent statewide requirements will now berequired which will have the effect of improving the ability of councils to reunite pet owners with their lostanimals. It is anticipated that this will help not only reduce the number of animals being euthanasedeach year but also hopefully result in reducing the length of time impounded animals are usually held. Itshould also be noted that these requirements will also make it easier for councils to identify unowned,feral and stray cats and allow them to deal with them more effectively, thereby helping to protect ournatural environment.

In terms of resourcing, I am advised that the provision of cat registration fees will help councilsmeet the additional requirements of their animal management programs. As you would know, Mr DeputySpeaker, presently the majority of councils only collect dog registration fees and thus can only rely onthis stream of funding for their animal management program. Therefore, it is considered that theadditional income stream should assist in the overall management of the program. I commend the bill tothe House.

Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (4.43 pm): In rising to support the Animal Management (Catsand Dogs) Bill, I declare that I am not a pet owner due to the lifestyle that both my husband and Imaintain. Any animal that I owned would by now be in a not-too-happy state with nobody at home tofeed it. I did at one stage have a fish I was babysitting for my son, but unfortunately it passed away. SoI am not sure what qualifications that gives me to speak on the bill. But I have in the past been a petowner.


This is a serious bill. Several years ago, in my role as parliamentary secretary to the Minister forPrimary Industries and Fisheries, I was with a delegation of people from the Animal Welfare League andthe RSPCA whose distress was entirely evident about the fact that volunteers who work in animalrefuges suffer enormous levels of stress, anxiety and despair at the numbers of animals they arerequired to euthanase on a regular basis. The minister’s second reading speech states that around13,000 cats and 10,000 dogs every year in this state are put down, are euthanased. While I do not runaway from the fact that that is the responsible thing to do under the circumstances, we do need to sparea thought for those people whose job it is to undertake that work. The evident distress caused to thesepeople I think was good grounds to give consideration to what we in this state can do to better managethe situation of unwanted animals, particularly cats and dogs.

The other side of this, of course, is that those cats and dogs that are not caught within the systemand euthanased or returned to their owners stand a very strong chance of becoming feral animals.Having been raised on a farm, I am very aware of the destruction that feral cats cause in the rural andfarming areas of this state. The number of especially native marsupial animals that are killed every yearby feral cats is just appalling. They are one of the biggest threats, along with cane toads, foxes andrabbits, to the future of our agricultural industries in many ways.

Another issue I am aware of with feral cats pertains particularly and specifically to the electorateof Whitsunday. I remember making a speech in this place not long after I was first elected about theharm feral cats cause to the Proserpine rock wallaby and other small wallabies in the wild. There is acertain bacteria or disease that is passed on through the urine and faeces of cats that can causeblindness in and ultimately death to wallabies in the wild. This is very distressing, particularly to what isa very vulnerable group of animals like the Proserpine rock wallaby. While I am not naturally a catperson, I do not deny anyone the right to have a cat as a pet, but with that right comes a great deal ofresponsibility. Sadly, this responsibility is not always lived up to.

With Christmas just around the corner, this is the time of year when our animal refuges, ourRSPCAs, are inundated in the new year with what were pets given lovingly to friends and family but petsthat soon became unwanted, unloved and indeed dumped on the doorsteps of the animal refuges.Unless another home can be found for these animals, they unfortunately join that long list on the ‘greenmile’ and face certain death.

So I am a great supporter of this bill. I thank the minister for bringing it to us this year in time forChristmas. Although the impacts are not going to be as immediate as that, it is good time to start raisingpeople’s awareness of their responsibilities as pet owners. The measures in the bill have been widelycanvassed today, but I want to go over a few of them that I think are particularly pertinent.

While I understand that the debate around mandatory desexing of cats has been widelydebated—and there are people who are absolutely unconvinced that not taking this approach iswrong—I think the minister is convinced that the evidence at this stage at least does not support theneed for mandatory desexing, although I am pleased to say that there are some measures put in placethat will assist the management of the breeding of unwanted cats in particular. First of all, there is therequirement for mandatory registration of both dogs and cats. I think this is a good thing. It already existsfor dogs in most local government authority areas. To add to that requirement, they will now need tohave an electronic identification device, or PID, inserted I assume under the skin. This device allowsauthorities to identify the animal’s owners and to return the animal to the owner in a very quick and easyprocess.

Animals will also still be required to wear some form of visible registration identification. I guessthat means they will not have to be scanned all the time. If a dog or a cat is registered, there will be aneasily visible sign that that is the case. The other measure that is being brought in is the voluntarydesexing of animals, with an incentive scheme to, hopefully, encourage pet owners to undertake thesemeasures.

These measures are not retrospective unless an animal changes hands, but after thesemeasures are ratified when an animal reaches 12 weeks of age it will need to be registered and beconsidered for voluntary desexing. If the owner decides to desex the animal, then a simple tattoo will beplaced in the ear of the animal, which I understand is done while the animal is under a generalanaesthetic. This serves as a permanent mark to say that the animal has been desexed. That alreadyoccurs in cattle breeding, where ear tattoos are used for various markings and identifications so it is atried and tested method for identification.

Some issues have been raised by some local councils—including my own council, theWhitsunday shire—about measures contained in the bill which may have costs for them, includingundertaking the registration and managing the new system. These councils are also concerned thatthey may have to build additional refuges for cats. I do not think this is as big an issue as they think. Fora start, it is my understanding that there is a time frame involved. Councils outside the south-east cornerof Queensland will have some time to bring in these measures and set up the regulations within their


own local government authorities. During that time, they will be able to think very carefully about whatwould be a really good incentive scheme to encourage people to have their animals desexed andcertainly to have them registered. Indeed, if all cats and dogs in the local government area wereregistered, there would be no need for the refuge at all—they would be easily returned to their owners. Ido not think this involves any onerous responsibilities for local governments. This is their job. They workwith the community, and the benefits arising from these measures will clearly outweigh any short-termdifficulties the local councils might face.

I thank the minister for bringing the legislation to the House. It is a really good response to what isa pretty emotive issue out there in the community and for those wonderful volunteers who work and giveup their time freely to look after the welfare of our unwanted pets. I thank the minister, his staff and allthose people who have worked so hard behind the scenes to bring the legislation to this stage. Icommend the bill to the House.

Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (4.53 pm): It is my pleasure to rise and speak to theAnimal Management (Cats and Dogs) Bill 2008 or, as some members have called it, the ‘pussies andpuppies bill’. It is one that comes out of a recommendation in December 2007 for an independent expertto be engaged to provide recommendations to address high euthanasia rates. Many members haveexpressed their concerns at the number of animals that are being put down. I know that the member forBroadwater certainly has a great interest in this matter. I have a constituent, John Kruger, who came tome in my office a few months ago to ask about the progress of something that was announced sometime ago in this parliament. I think it was a petition that had been tabled asking for something to bedone, so I acknowledge that this bill is the result of that. I note that the bill is very comprehensive.

In February 2008, the expert who was appointed presented the Review of strategies foreffectively managing dogs and cats in Queensland report to the Minister for Primary Industries andFisheries. This bill represents the second phase of a two-phase strategy for responsible companionanimal management in Queensland. I think it is important at this moment that I give a quote from MarkTwain. He said—If animals could speak, the dog would be a blundering outspoken fellow; but the cat would have the rare grace of never saying aword too much.

I had a look at some of the people who are cat or dog supporters, and I am quite happy to putmyself in the cat-supporting section. Other people who are in the cat-supporting section are Sir WinstonChurchill; Abraham Lincoln; Nostradamus, who had a cat named Grimalkin; Edward Lear, who wroteThe Owl and the Pussycat and had a tabby cat called Foss; Sir Walter Scott; and Sir Isaac Newton. Onthe other side, we have Henry III, the King of France, of whom it was said that if a cat happened towander into his presence the King would faint dead away. Other famous cat haters were Genghis Kahn,Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. The phobia for cat hatred is called ailurophobia, and it affectedthe personalities of Napoleon Bonaparte, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler.

I can say quite clearly that I am a cat person—except for greyhounds, as the honourable memberfor Robina has already said. We in our family have had two cats over the last 20 years, both from theanimal protection league, called George and Jackie Love. My wife purchased one for about $20, andthen within six weeks I had run it over and the $20 moggy became a $600 moggy which then had apronounced limp for about the next 15 years. I should stress that it was an accidental running over.

There are many valuable aspects to this bill that I know many other members have canvassed,including compulsory microchipping, the compulsory registration of cats and dogs, the tattooing ofdesexed animals, regulated dogs and aggressive behaviours in dogs. These are certainly things thatare very important to the Gold Coast and many stories have been written about them in the Gold CoastBulletin. I note this bill does not necessarily deal with all the matters about aggressive behaviour indogs, but we had situations where dogs had to be identified as a particular type or not and then theowners had very emotional fights in court about whether their dog actually fitted a particular category.The important thing is we are having more clarification about regulated dogs and the keeping conditionsfor dogs.

I note that there are a lot of requirements in the bill for owners of all regulated dogs—restricted,dangerous and menacing—to abide by. Also, monitoring and enforcement will be done by the councils.There are also provisions in the bill for appeals and reviews against decisions of local governmentsregarding regulated dogs.

Chapter 5 details the tools that will be available for local government to monitor and enforce thebill and the appeals processes available to owners. It allows police to utilise the same powers of entry asdesignated local government officers should the situation arise. I also note, as I think the honourablemember for Robina mentioned when he was talking about decommissioned greyhounds, that if thegreyhounds have gone through the adoption program they will not be required to be muzzled when in apublic place. Another point of interest is that a percentage of the dog registration fees will be passed onso there can be a regulated dog register. I note that the LNP is supporting the bill. As I said, I lookforward to the minister’s response and to hearing whether he is a cat person or a dog person.


Hon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads and Local Government) (4.58 pm), inreply: I am a dog person. I have a beautiful German shepherd who is the fourth in a line of Germanshepherds I have had since I have been married. So we love our animals.

I would, firstly, like to thank all honourable members for their contributions to this very importantdebate. Twenty-five years ago, the government started taking animal management seriously inQueensland when local governments first began to introduce dog registration. The move wasconsidered controversial. Many said it would never work, that registration and identification would fail toachieve their intended purposes. We now know better.

In the case of dogs, registration and identification have had extremely positive results throughoutQueensland. Where a dog is registered, it is clear who its owner is and who is responsible for theanimal. When a dog is identifiable, it can be returned to its owner. We fundamentally understand theseconcepts and see the benefits so it is hard to imagine a time when dog registration was so contentious.

But when it comes to our feline friends, they were left behind. Over a quarter of a century haspassed, and it is time for cats and cat owners to catch up. Compulsory registration of cats will ensurethat the vast majority of sociable cats will have an owner who accepts responsibility for their animal.Accepting responsibility through registration is one of the key steps toward the responsible petownership. Through microchipping, we will help ensure that every cat and dog in Queensland isidentifiable and can be returned to their owners should they ever go missing.

These are important steps on the road to responsible pet ownership and steps that thisgovernment is proud to lead the way with. In relation to what this bill refers to as regulated dogs—that is,dogs whose behaviours are considered dangerous or dogs that the Commonwealth has banned fromimportation—we have taken important steps in a new direction. Under the old breed based regime, thenumber of dog bites did not fall. Dog attacks and deaths from dog attacks did not drop. When wecirculated a discussion paper in relation to these dogs, over 5,000 Queenslanders wanted to have theirsay. And what they said was near universal. They thought that our legislation did not work; thatmanaging dogs purely on the basis of what they looked like instead of what they did was wrong. Thegovernment listened. So today we have a bill before the House that has gone in a new direction—adirection that is based on evidence and science, not emotion and rhetoric.

The literature shows that dogs who attack and kill often have a history of escalating dangerousbehaviour. Our legislation recognises this, and provides a continuum of response to dangerous dogbehaviour. That is why this bill contains a new category of ‘menacing’ dog. This will allow animal controlofficers to impose important restrictions on the keeping of a dog who has shown dangerous behavioursbut does not warrant a full-blown dangerous dog declaration.

I am aware that in some local government circles there are concerns that this legislation willimpose unfair additional costs on local governments. These concerns are unwarranted. The frameworkthat has been developed is self-resourcing. Additional collection of cat registration charges are intendedto provide local governments with the necessary resources to enforce the new requirements. This modelhas worked well for dogs in the past, so there is no reason why it should not work for cats as well.

In terms of implementation, the government has made it clear that outside of the regulated dogprovisions, which need to commence immediately to ensure there is no break in application, the newlaws will be progressively rolled out throughout the state in consultation with local governments. This willensure that local governments are ready and that they have time to train staff and modify theirregistration databases to incorporate cats. South-east Queensland councils have indicated that they areprepared already and have asked the government to commence application of the new laws on 1 July2009.

I would like to say a few words in relation to the Alert Digest issued by the Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee in relation to the bill. The committee has noted that generally the bill imposes significantobligations on the owners of regulated dogs. This is, of course, quite deliberate. While the governmenthas given significant consideration to the rights of dangerous dog owners, we must come down on theside of public safety. It is the right of all Queenslanders to walk down our local street without fear ofbeing attacked by a declared dangerous dog. As such, the government believes that the obligationsimposed on dangerous dog owners are justifiable.

The committee also raised questions about regulated dog registries. I can inform the House thatthe bill provides significant safeguards on the use of data in those registries. Personal information aboutowners will not be publicly available and there are strong protections in place to ensure information isavailable only to the people who need it to enforce this act.

Warrantless entry and seizure are also provided for but only under very limited instances wherethere is an imminent threat to public safety or where failure to enter could result in a regulated dog beingillegally moved to a new location. Again, the government believes that this approach is entirelywarranted.


The other issues raised by the committee relate predominantly to issues of process, review andappeal. The government has carefully considered the design of these processes and in eachcircumstance believes that the provisions in question are justifiable. The appeals and reviewmechanisms have been streamlined and should lead to quicker resolution of appeals, and should notimpose significant costs on appellants. This is an improvement on the current framework, and I believethat these changes will be welcomed. I will of course respond formally in writing to the committee’sreport and address each of these points in detail.

I now want to turn to some of the particular concerns and questions that honourable membershave raised during the debate. The honourable member for Darling Downs raised a number of issues inhis contribution to this debate. He raised the introduction by the New South Wales government of similarlaws and highlighted some of the identifications that were encountered when introducing compulsoryidentification and registration. I can inform members that we have looked very carefully at these issuesand this is one of the reasons implementation of those parts of the bill dealing with identification andregistration will be staggered throughout the state. This will ensure that there are not large spikes indemand and subsequent shortages of microchips.

I am informed by one particular supplier that microchips of the type and standard we intend toadopt are constantly in production in Germany and Australia. I also understand that thesemanufacturers are in a position to handle large orders of microchips in the lead-up to the bill coming intoforce. I would also like to reiterate the comments of the member for Darling Downs that many of theearly problems that were encountered with animal-implanted microchips have been substantiallyresolved through the development of Australian Standard 50182001, which creates universal standardsfor the operation of these devices. The key requirement of this standard is that complying chips must beable to be read by a standard scanner. This ensures that the types of problems that were encountered inNew South Wales and mentioned at various times during this debate will not occur in Queensland.

The member also raised some concerns in relation to the funding of animal managementprograms. The government expects that the introduction of cat registration fees will go some way tomeeting any additional costs incurred by councils. The government also understands that a number ofcouncils will need to build cat pounds and other infrastructure to support this strategy. I can advise theHouse that subsidies will be available to local governments through the Rural Living InfrastructureProgram and the environmental health program. The department is currently assessing the guidelinesfor these funding programs to ensure that pounds and associated infrastructure are included within thescope of these programs.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the opposition for its considerate and well-informed approach to this bill. I believe that this is good legislation and I am very grateful for its support.In particular, I was very happy to hear the member for Darling Downs talk about the importance ofresponsible pet ownership, and I am extremely happy that both sides of the House agree that we can domore to promote responsible ownership and that this legislation is a step in the right direction.

With regard to working dogs, I also acknowledge the member’s contribution. The government hastaken the view that dogs that are used almost exclusively on rural properties for things like drovingshould not need to comply with this legislation. This is largely because we acknowledge that these dogsrarely, if ever, leave their properties and that it would be unfair and unnecessary as an impost on ruralQueenslanders to compel compliance with these new requirements.

While I am thanking particular members, I could not go any further without extending a verysincere and personal thanks to the member for Broadwater. Without her dedication and her efforts, thislegislation would not be before the House today. Her passion for animal welfare is obvious to everyonein this place, and I applaud her efforts in raising awareness about these issues throughout government,to members of this place and within the broader community.

Let us turn now to some of the individual contributions. I will not mention each and every one ofthem, but those who drew out interesting facets of the bill I will pay attention to. First of all, the memberfor Pumicestone inundated my office with letters of support for her council to take part in the pilot trials.She clearly demonstrates in her experience with her local animal shelter the great benefit that comesfrom microchipping. A 100 per cent success rate in returning microchipped pets to owners is indeedcommendable. I want to thank the member for Pumicestone for her commitment to the welfare of catsand dogs.

The member for Gladstone wanted to know how council officers could decide whether a dog ismenacing or dangerous. The bill clearly stipulates behaviour that would precipitate a dangerous ormenacing dog declaration. A dangerous dog is one that has seriously attacked a person or animal orhas behaved in a manner that has caused fear or that causes fear to a person or animal. A seriousattack is defined as one that causes bodily harm—grievous or otherwise—or death. A dog that hasattacked a person or animal without causing bodily harm or death or who has otherwise behaved in amanner causing fear to a person or animal may be declared a menacing dog.


Council officers authorised under the proposed act may also make a declaration if they believethat, based on the dog’s behaviour towards a person or animal, the dog may attack or act in a mannercausing fear to that person or animal. While the menacing dog declarations are at the discretion ofcouncil officers, a robust set of review and appeals provisions exist to ensure dogs are notinappropriately declared.

The member for Cunningham talked about the exemptions and asked what further exemptionsare being proposed in the regulations. The government does not intend at this time to exempt any othertypes of cats or dogs from registration and identification. The clause providing for additional exemptionsis purely designed to ensure that the government can react quickly through regulation to exempt anyanimals that were not identified during the drafting process.

Both the member for Tablelands and the member for Robina made a number of points aboutmicrochipping. The cost of microchipping a cat or dog will be incorporated into the cost of the animal atthe point of sale. Therefore, the new cat or dog owner will pay for the cost of microchipping. This is aone-off cost. It is considered an important part of being a responsible pet owner. If a person chooses togive away an animal, the person is required to have the animal microchipped and bear the cost of themicrochipping unless he or she requests payment from the new owner for the cost of having the cat ordog microchipped.

The public are encouraged to contact their local council and ask about any initiatives beingplanned to assist with microchipping. Some councils are planning initiatives to assist with theintroduction of the new legislation. As one example, Moreton Bay Regional Council is planning toprovide heavily discounted microchipping on certain pet fair days and has asked local vets to providediscounted microchipping for a period to promote responsible pet ownership.

Both members also spoke about the permanent identification device registries. These permanentidentification device registries are self-funded through a fee incorporated into the cost of the microchip.The implantor who purchases the microchips forwards a set amount from the cost of the microchip tothe licensed permanent identification device registry. This amount is used to cover the administrativecosts of providing the service.

Further discussion took place regarding the registry. The general registry is held by the localgovernment. It will be funded through the collection of registration fees for cats and dogs. The statewideregulated dog registry is provided for under the bill. It will be developed. Consultation with a microchipregistry licensed by the Victorian government has indicated that the regulated dog register will costbetween $10,000 and $20,000 in the first year of set-up and $2,000 annually to maintain. The costsinvolved in the first year of operation of this proposal will be met within the current departmental budget.

The member for Robina also talked about greyhounds and what training greyhounds had toundergo to be allowed into public areas without a muzzle. The point he was raising was that this couldperhaps increase the risk to the community. The only greyhounds exempt from being muzzled in publicunder this bill will be those that have successfully completed a rehabilitation program prescribed underregulation. These exempt greyhounds will be required to wear a distinctive identification collar. Themember for Robina was also worried that councils might use registration fees for inappropriatepurposes. Section 53 of the bill precludes this. It requires that the local governments must use theirregistration fees for the purposes of this act or for their animal management programs.

The member for Gaven had a discussion with me outside the chamber and I think he reiteratedthis during his contribution. He was concerned about show animals and what requirements would beplaced on show animals. I can inform the House that show animals will be required to be microchippedbut will not have to be tattooed. Desexing is not a requirement of the act.

I would like to conclude by saying that this is an important bill for Queensland. It is one thatprotects the community and provides a sensible, evidence based regime for the management ofdangerous dogs. But, more importantly, this bill sends an important message to all pet owners. It is amessage of responsible pet ownership. All of us who own animals have a responsibility to look afterthem. As a society, we have a collective responsibility to try to keep euthanasia rates down for unownedanimals. If people own a cat or dog, then they should take responsibility for it. That means they shouldregister their loved family pet and get it microchipped.

Finally, I would again like to thank all of the people in groups who have worked on developing thisvery important legislation. I would like to again extend to them my very sincere thanks for a job welldone. In particular, I thank the Queensland Companion Animal Management Group and the councils fortheir contributions. Their assistance in developing the bill and supporting policy has been invaluable.

I would also like to thank my personal staff and members of the department who worked tirelesslyto bring this legislation to the House. As has been indicated by some, this is a very emotive issue and itwas never going to be possible to get something here that would satisfy everyone’s demands. I mustthank my staff and the department for the work they have done to bring in what I believe is a workablebill that sets a good platform for the future.


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

Consideration in DetailClauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6—Mr LANGBROEK (5.16 pm): I would like some clarification from the minister about clause 6,

‘Relationship with local laws’. The explanatory notes state—... a local government may make a local law prohibiting anyone in their local government area from possessing particular breeds,or crossbreeds.

I mentioned in my second reading contribution that this has been an issue on the Gold Coast. Thelocal media gets very worked up about whether a dog is of a certain breed or crossbreed. I note that theexplanatory notes state—For the purposes of clarity it should be noted that if, in the making of such a local law, a local government provides an exceptionfrom a breed prohibition ... and the exempt animal is also captured by the definition of a restricted or dangerous or menacing dog,then the relevant provisions in this bill will still apply to the animal in spite of the local law.

Obviously I understand the principle that the state law will override the local law. If there is debateabout whether it is of a particular breed, is that covered at all by this legislation? It may not be restrictedor covered by the restricted section clause 63. Could I have some clarification as to whether there isanything in this provision that enables clarification of the debate about whether a dog is of a particulartype or not?

Mr PITT: I thank the member for the contribution. The explanatory notes in relation to clause 6(1)state—... this Bill does not prevent a local government making a local law (including a subordinate local law) imposing requirements inrelation to cats and dogs generally. However, if this Bill and a local law are inconsistent, the local law will be invalid to the extent ofthe inconsistency.

Subclause (2) provides that a local government may make a local law prohibiting anyone in their local government area frompossessing particular breeds, or crossbreeds. For the purpose of clarity it should be noted that if, in the making of such a local law,a local government provides an exception from a breed prohibition (for example to exempt compliance for older animals) and theexempt animal is also captured by the definition of a restricted or dangerous or menacing dog, then the relevant provisions in thisbill will still apply to the animal in spite of the local law.

Mr LANGBROEK: I read that in my query. I am just asking the minister for some clarification ofthis. This is the debate we have had at the coast. It may not be a restricted dog as per clause 63 wherecertain dogs of a breed are prohibited from importation into Australia under the Customs Act 1901. If it isnot a restricted dog, it may not be a dangerous or menacing dog. My question is whether this law isgoing to override something that the council may have determined about a particular dog and thereforethe owner will have some right of appeal.

Mr PITT: I thank the member. The bill as it stands allows councils to set a higher benchmark thancontained in the act. If they want to go above and beyond and restrict a particular animal, that is quitewithin their capacity.

Clause 6, as read, agreed to.Clauses 7 to 12, as read, agreed to.Clause 13—Mr SEENEY (5.19 pm): I think most people in the House would know that the shadow minister

responsible for this bill, the member for Warrego, is ill and that is why this particular part of theconsideration of this bill is being shared between other members. I want to raise a couple of issuesrelating to clause 13 that I believe deserve some clarification.

In raising these issues, I want to reinforce the fact that the principles of the bill generally and theprinciple encompassed in clauses 13 and 14 have received almost universal support from everymember of this House. In raising these concerns, I am in no way suggesting that the provisions of theclause are not supported. But there is an obligation on us in this parliament and on the ministerparticularly to put on record some detail to provide clarification for people who will interpret thislegislation in a varying range of circumstances.

There are two elements that I want to raise. I will raise them together and then we mightsubsequently deal with each of them separately. The first element I want to raise relates to proposedsubsection 13(1) which states—A person must not, unless the person has a reasonable excuse, supply a cat or dog to anyone else if it is not implanted with a PID.


Of course, a PID is a permanent identification device. The issue here is the situation whereanimals are given away or passed from one person to another. The legislation is designed aroundsituations where animals are sold—where cats and dogs are sold by breeders, pet shops or whatever—and it is very clear from reading the legislation that it regulates that circumstance. But in thecircumstance where animals are given away—I know that cats especially are given away probably morefrequently than they are sold and, to a lesser degree, the same thing happens to dogs—to my mind thelegislation does not particularly clarify whether there is any difference between those two circumstancesand what the intent of the legislation is in terms of responsibility of the giver or the receiver.

Clause 14, which we can almost consider in conjunction, seeks to ensure that an owner has aresponsibility to ensure that the permanent identification device is implanted within a certain amount oftime. I wanted to give the minister an opportunity to make some comments to clarify that situation interms of the liability that is involved in that situation where the ownership or the control of animalspasses from one person to another without it being a commercial transaction.

The second issue that I want to raise relates to proposed subsection 13(2)(b) which deals withdogs that have an exemption. The minister quite rightly in his summation of the second reading debatereferred to the importance of ensuring that working dogs were given the exemption that I thinkuniversally we all agree that they should get. The issue that I wanted to raise for the minister to clarify isthe definition that is involved. There is no definitive definition that I can see as to a working dog and Iforesee some situations in the reality of local government where there could well be some dissension asto whether or not a particular dog is classified as a working dog.

Again, I wanted to give the minister an opportunity to clarify that issue, because from myexperience in local government there are few things that arouse passions like the regulation of dogs,especially in small close-knit communities where everybody knows each other and everyone knowseach other’s dogs and the reputations of people are closely entwined with that of their animals,specifically their dogs. It is a good opportunity in the consideration of the clauses of this legislation forthe minister to give an indication to those people who will administer this legislation in those varyingcircumstances of the elements that he believes should be part of the determination of whether or not aparticular animal qualifies for that classification as a working dog.

Mr PITT: First of all, with regard to the matter of supplying cats or dogs, the member is quite right.The bill is very clear in respect of people who sell animals, whether it be through a pet shop or any othersale. The bill also covers changing ownership—just generally changing ownership. Therefore, peoplewho give an animal away will also be captured by the bill, but the responsibility—the onus—lies with theperson who is actually doing the supplying. The person who is giving the animal away should give thatanimal away microchipped. That is where the onus lies.

So far as working dogs are concerned, this does not of course include a class of dog prescribedunder a regulation. That is still separate, but the bill sets out that a working dog means a dog usuallykept or proposed to be kept on rural land; by an owner who is a primary producer or a person engagedor employed by a primary producer; and the animal must be kept primarily for the purpose of droving,protecting, tending or working stock or, alternatively, being trained in droving, protecting, tending orworking stock. I think that is a very important exemption from the bill—that is, that these animals notnecessarily be required to be registered and microchipped—because, first of all, it would be unworkableand, secondly, it is not what the bill is designed to do. We know these animals are looked after, anyhow.We know that they are kept in a healthy state and they work for a living basically, whereas other animalsmore often are companion animals and sometimes for show. They are the animals that in urban areasdo create problems.

Clause 13, as read, agreed to.

Clauses 14 to 39, as read, agreed to.

Clause 40—

Mr SEENEY (5.27 pm): Once again I want to give the minister a chance to put on record his viewwith regard to the issue that is enlivened by clause 40. Clause 40 requires that an operator of a pound orshelter must ensure that a dog or cat is scanned. The particular circumstance that I want to bring to theminister’s attention for his comment relates to the operation of such pounds by local councils. There issome concern that local councils are going to end up saddled with a financial burden because of thislegislation and I want to give the minister an opportunity to inform the House about any consultation thathe has had with local councils and any assurances that he has given to local councils regarding the costimpact of this legislation, particularly that requirement for them to ensure that all animals entering andleaving their custody basically will need to be scanned and the operation of all of the provisions of thelegislation. I ask the minister directly for advice as to whether or not there has been that sort ofconsultation with local governments, whether assurances have been given to local governments that thecost impact on them will be minimised and the extent to which the minister has given those assurances.

03 Dec 2008 Motion 4099

Mr PITT: Clause 40, titled ‘Operator must ensure cat or dog is scanned’, provides that it is anoffence for a person operating a pound or shelter not to ensure a cat or dog entering the pound orshelter is scanned within three days of it entering the pound or shelter to determine whether that cat ordog has a PID implanted. The maximum penalty for that offence is 30 penalty units.

Obviously, the financial burden is far less if pounds can move animals back to their owners. Thatis the whole idea of identification of animals. For the member’s information, in respect of theconsultation that has gone on, I point out that the LGAQ was consulted quite heavily. I think Mr Hallam,an officer of the LGAQ, dealt directly with my department.

Clause 40, as read, agreed to.Clauses 41 to 230, as read, agreed to.Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to.

Third ReadingHon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads and Local Government) (5.29 pm): I

move—That the bill be now read a third time.

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

Long TitleHon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads and Local Government) (5.30 pm): I

move—That the long title of the bill be agreed to.

Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to.Motion agreed to.

MOTION

Electricity PricesMr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.31 pm): I move—

That this House rejects the draft decision to increase electricity prices by 13.63 per cent and calls on the state governmentto amend so much of the legislation as is necessary to provide the Minister for Mines and Energy with veto powers over electricityprice rises.

Yesterday the government came into this place and predicted that we would now have two budgetdeficits in a row. Right at the end of that day’s question time, we brought to the attention of thisparliament that the electricity consumers of Queensland would be facing some time next year an almost14 per cent increase in their electricity prices if the draft decision was going to be upheld by theQueensland Competition Authority. That should be of significant concern to electricity consumersthroughout Queensland. Indeed, it should be of even greater concern to members of this parliamentwho are charged with the responsibility of properly representing their constituents and properly ensuringthat people have the basic services in life which they need.

It is not good enough to turn around and say that the parliament and the minister do not have thesovereign responsibility, that such a fundamental and basic requirement of electricity is in the hands ofsomebody else and that the minister has nothing but a cursory consideration or deliberation over theprice of electricity. He can fret about it, he can be concerned about it, but that is about all.

Yesterday in this place we asked the minister the question and he was forced to admit that,indeed, the draft decision had been brought down that morning. The minister stood up and said that hewas going to be concerned about the battlers—that, yes, it was going to be a problem for certain peoplein the community. That is the bleeding obvious. We know that there will be people in the community whowill really struggle to pay their electricity accounts as a consequence of this particular decision if it goesforward. Again on radio this morning we heard the minister defend this decision and wax lyrical aboutwhat they were doing to look after regional electricity consumers throughout Queensland. There is ahistorical and very significant reason for that and it dates back to the 1970s when the electricity tariffequalisation process was put in place.

4100 Motion 03 Dec 2008

The real issue is what the government is going to do to take back control of the fundamentalthings that greatly concern the people of this state. In recent months—indeed, in the past year or so—we have seen the honourable member for Callide so ably pursue this government’s incompetence whenit comes to the issue of gas pricing in Queensland, particularly the impact of gas pricing on consumers,and particularly pensioners, who were struggling so much to pay the increases in gas prices and theway in which the government systematically bungled the assistance scheme for pensioners inQueensland.

Let us look at why electricity consumers, particularly the battlers in Queensland, should be mostconcerned. Those battlers—and electricity consumers in general—took this Labor government on itsword when it brought in deregulation, or full retail contestability, some three years ago. Indeed, that wasthe catalyst that led us to believe, ‘Okay, we will see if the government is good on its word.’ Let us goback and have a look at what the then Premier, Peter Beattie, said on 28 September 2005. He said, ‘Wecan guarantee no-one will pay any more.’ That is what he said.

Mr Dickson interjected.Mr SPRINGBORG: As the member for Kawana said, no-one can believe those opposite. Let us

look at what the then Deputy Premier, Anna Bligh, said in Hansard on 28 September 2005. She stated—Most importantly, it does not matter where you live, nobody—not one Queenslander—will be worse off under the government’sproposal.

Today Queenslanders will be wondering why they put any faith and trust in this government andits commitment with regard to the so-called benefit that was going to come from deregulation of this partof the market in Queensland. Indeed, there were other insinuations from the government of the day—that electricity prices may indeed fall. They have not fallen because by the middle of next year we willsee a 30 per cent increase. That is not taking into consideration compounding factors based on the first11 per cent rise, then the six per cent rise and now the almost 14 per cent rise on top of that. So thepeople who can least afford it are going to be most affected.

Let us look also at what the Minister for Mines and Energy said in an article in the Sunday Mail inFebruary of this year. When we challenged the minister earlier this year to give himself a veto power sothat the minister could take some control, what did he say? He said that this is something thegovernment was considering. Like the gas subsidy for pensioners in Queensland, the government did alot of consideration and not very much action. February was some 10 months ago and the governmentmust still be considering this issue.

We must ask the question: what does this government have against ministerial responsibility andtaking control of that which the elected parliament—the sovereign party and the minister—should beinvolved in? We have already seen the Premier in recent weeks hiding behind the Water Commissionwhen it comes to the issue of putting recycled sewage and hospital waste in our water supply inQueensland. It was nothing to do with the government; it was all to do with a bunch of unelected people.We have seen similar things when it comes to the recent contortions within Queensland Rail—it wassomeone else’s fault and not the minister’s responsibility. Now we are seeing it with regard toQueensland electricity consumers who are starting to question this government’s commitment and thisgovernment’s capability to deliver on its promises. They are simply shaking their heads at how muchthey have been hoodwinked and how much they have been led up the garden path. They are certainlyquestioning the benefits that were supposedly going to come from this element of deregulation of theelectricity industry.

Let us look at what happened in the parliament earlier today. This morning the governmentmembers came into the parliament and said that it was highly necessary to put legislation through theparliament posthaste to protect the interests of mortgagors as against mortgagees. They said that it wasvery important to do so and that we needed to do it. Even though those protections are in the commonlaw and there are a number of precedents to protect consumers, they wanted to codify it. We said, ‘Fairenough. Let’s protect consumers in the situation of a mortgagee sale. That is very important. Although itmay not add all that much more protection, the principle is fine.’ With bipartisan support that legislationpassed through the parliament in one hour.

The question that I put to the Premier and the minister opposite is this: if it is good enough toprotect mortgagors in a mortgagee situation, why is it not good enough to now move to protect electricityconsumers in this time of great uncertainty? Why is it not good enough to protect electricity consumerswith the same sort of bipartisan approach in this parliament? Why does the minister not trust himself tomake the right decision when it comes to protecting electricity consumers? Why are this minister andthis government scared of ministerial responsibility?

All we are asking is that the minister be given and assumes an element of veto responsibility,which he then has the discretion to choose whether or not he wishes to exercise. There is no point orcredibility in government members coming into this parliament, mouthing words, crying crocodile tearsand pretending that they are concerned whilst saying to Queenslanders that they cannot do anything

03 Dec 2008 Motion 4101

more than empathise with them. We are the parliament. We pass the legislation. We are responsible fordirections that can provide critical benefit to the people of this state through the services and utilities thatthey enjoy day after day. The LNP simply asks why, if earlier today such action was good enough toprotect people whose homes have been repossessed in a fire sale situation, is it not good enough toprotect electricity consumers?

Time expired.Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (5.41 pm): I rise to second the motion moved by the Leader of the

Opposition. In moving the motion the Leader of the Opposition has certainly outlined the case for whythis should be done. The motion promises bipartisan support for any legislative change that isnecessary. In the time that is available to me I will outline to the House why I do not believe there is anyneed for legislative change. I believe it is false and dishonest for the minister to come into this House orto stand in front of the TV cameras and say that all he can do is lodge a protest and run the ruler overthe QCA figures. His own legislation proves him to be false in the concern that he expresses.

The Electricity Act 1994 regulates electricity prices for non-market customers in Queensland.Section 90 of the Electricity Act 1994 states—The Minister must, for each tariff year, decide the prices—

I repeat—The Minister must, for each tariff year, decide the prices ... for ... customer retail services...

The legislation very clearly gives not just the responsibility but the power to the minister to decide thoseprices. Section 902A(3) states—The Minister may delegate to QCA all or any of the Minister’s functions under subsection (1).

It says that the minister ‘may’; not the minister ‘must’ or the minister ‘shall’, but the minister ‘may’.The minister has chosen to delegate those powers and here is the letter of delegation, hot off the

QCA web site. This letter provides the QCA with the delegation to decide those prices. This is acertificate of delegation provided by the minister. A significant part of the certificate of delegationoutlines a number of conditions that the QCA must follow. While some of them are worth quoting, thebroad thrust of the conditional delegation is the point that I want to drive at. The certificate of delegationstates—The QCA must consider the following policy objective of the Queensland Government when exercising the delegated powers ...

The QCA has to exercise its delegated power in line with the policy objective outlined by theQueensland government. If the minister was at all serious and fair dinkum about the concern heexpresses, there are two very obvious courses of action open to him. First, he can take back thedelegation from the QCA and make the decision himself as he is empowered to do under the legislation.It is simply a matter of writing a letter, similar to the one that he wrote when he gave the delegation. Hecan write that letter this afternoon. He could have written it this morning, taken back the power ofdelegation and made the decision himself.

Alternatively, he can make sure that the QCA is aware of the Queensland government’s policyobjective in relation to power prices. The Queensland government as a whole can make a policydecision about the electricity prices that are causing so much concern to Queenslanders and that willhave the impacts outlined by the Leader of the Opposition. All it has to do is take a policy decision tolimit the price rises to the CPI, for example, or whatever other policy decision it thinks properly reflectsthe concern that it expresses, and inform the QCA of that decision as another one of the conditions thatare attached to the delegated power that has been given by the minister to the QCA as the price-fixingentity.

The minister has chosen to do none of that. The Premier has chosen to do none of that. Thegovernment has chosen to do none of that. All they have chosen to do is to express mock horror andfalse sympathy for Queenslanders who will be impacted by this third price rise in three years. Thisrepresents probably the greatest broken promise of the Labor government in Queensland. When theformer Premier stood in this House and made a promise that has been repeated over and over that thederegulation of the Queensland electricity industry would not impact on ordinary Queenslanders, I thinkhe was making the falsest promise ever made by this government in its term in office. That promise hasbeen broken three years in a row, resulting in a 30 per cent increase in Queensland electricity prices.That will impact on every Queenslander, especially the battlers of Queensland who are feeling theeffects of the financial turmoil.

The minister can do something about that today. He could have done it by now. He could havewritten the letter to take back the delegated authority that he gave to the QCA. The government couldhave made a policy decision to bind the QCA. The members opposite have chosen to do nothing and inso choosing they have proven themselves to be false.

Time expired.

4102 Motion 03 Dec 2008

Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (5.47 pm): I move the following amendment—That:

1 ‘rejects’ be omitted and ‘notes’ inserted;

2 all words after ‘13.63 per cent’ be omitted and the following words inserted: ‘is currently under a legislated process ofreview and is open to public consultation.

3 Further, that this House:

• notes that the current regime for setting electricity prices was implemented with the support of the currentopposition;

• supports the principle that the regulated price cap for electricity should reflect the cost of supplying electricity toQueenslanders;

• notes that the Liberal National Party policy would require further subsidy from general revenue; and

• calls on the Liberal National Party to produce documents to the House within 28 days that outline all costings andbudget implications of its new policy.

The amendment puts some reality back into this debate. There is nothing that I would like more than toreduce power bills for consumers. I believe there is nothing that any member of this House, regardlessof their side of politics, would like more than consumers paying less, particularly at this point in time.

We hear the members opposite rant and rave. They use the words ‘protect consumers’ and saythat no increase should go ahead. The word ‘protect’ hides the fact that such a decision comes with aprice tag. The effect of the motion that the Leader of the Opposition has moved here tonight—that is,that a minister for energy should veto a price rise in electricity—has a price tag. The price tag of vetoingit next financial year is $620 million. That is the price tag of the motion that has been moved tonight bythe Leader of the Opposition. A sum of $620 million will come off the bottom line of the budget each andevery year. We would have to subsidise the cost of generating and distributing—

Mr Seeney: That is rubbish. Ms BLIGH: I am sorry; the member is right. Mr Seeney: Don’t the generating authorities have any—Mr SPEAKER: I warn the member for Callide under standing order 253. Ms BLIGH: I think the member for Callide was trying to say that the generators could forgo their

profits, but that is a cost to the budget because that dividend comes back into the budget. That issubsidising the price of generating and distributing electricity. That might be something that isworthwhile doing but you have to have the money to do it—$620 million off the bottom line, not just thisyear but every single year from now on. The minute you do that it is on the bottom line forever—so$620 million forever.

I am very surprised to find that the shadow Treasurer is not here for this debate tonight. Where isthe shadow Treasurer? How is he going to explain that on the one hand he is going to have a surplusbut on the other hand he is going to increase spending by $620 million? He told us yesterday that hewould achieve his surplus by cutting back projects. That is how he is going to achieve his surplus. Onthe other hand, he is going to achieve it by increasing spending by $620 million. This would have adisastrous effect on the budget bottom line. This would mean a decade of deficits. This would not just bea temporary deficit that we will come out of. This would be a bigger cost to the government every singleyear than the fuel subsidy. That is the effect of this one-off decision to do it this year. If that was done, ifthere was a decade of deficits, the AAA credit rating of this state would be put at risk. Once thathappens, no wonder projects would have to be cut. Projects would have to be cut because it could notbe afforded to build them.

As I said, nobody wants to see prices for household budgets increase. But I think it is important toput Queensland’s electricity prices into some national context. Despite the fact that we are part of thenational electricity market, the price per kilowatt hour and the average household bill remain among thecheapest in the country. Even with this price rise, we will be among the cheapest in the country. Victoriawill for a short period of time be slightly lower, but it has a determination to increase its prices in January.So when it gets that it will be back above us again.

Probably one of the worst pieces of dishonesty we have heard from the Leader of the Oppositionis his continual repeating and quoting of comments that I made and the former Premier made. He knowsfull well that those comments were made in the context of a reference to the right that we put in ourregime for consumers to return to the regulated tariff. With the scheme that Jeff Kennett put in, there isno right to a regulated tariff. If you went into the private market, that was it—you could never go back.We put in place an arrangement that said that, if you went into the private retail market and you tookyour chances and you did not like it, you can come back to the regulated tariff. That is the respect inwhich no-one is worse off. That is what I referred to and that is what the former Premier referred to. TheLeader of the Opposition knows it and he perpetuates a profound dishonesty.

03 Dec 2008 Motion 4103

These are tough times and I do not want to see any householder pay once cent more than theyneed to. That is why the minister for energy will be going over this line by line and making sure thatanything that can be taken off will—

Mr Dickson: Time!Ms BLIGH: But we will not be putting this budget into a spiralling decade of deficits.Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the Minister for Mines and Energy, I do not know who says ‘time’

every now and again but you are not the Speaker and I do not need to be reminded will regard to timefrom either side. I call the Minister for Mines and Energy.

Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Mines and Energy) (5.52 pm): I second theamendment moved by the Premier. The Leader of the Opposition knows all about the power to veto. Hevetoed our ban on tree clearing. He vetoed the water grid. He vetoed recycled water. He vetoed ourrebates for water tanks. He vetoed our ban on nuclear power stations, nuclear waste and nuclearenrichment plants. In his case it is veni, vidi, veto: he came, he saw, he vetoed.

No amount of grandstanding by members opposite can change this fact: the opposition supportedour bill to open up the electricity market to competition to benefit households and small businesses. Atthe time, the now shadow Treasurer, the member for Clayfield, said—I congratulate the ... government.

...This bill is a positive step for Queenslanders ... privatisation is good for consumers.

The shadow minister for mines and energy, the member for Charters Towers, speaking on behalf of theLeader of the Opposition, said—This legislation ... is necessary to move the energy industry further along the competitive process.

...This legislation is necessary because governments ... have recognised the benefits of a competitive retail electricity market.

That was two years ago and they have been strangely silent since. All they ever offer is anopinion on everything and a solution for nothing. If the electricity market had not been opened up tocompetition, prices for households and small businesses would be a lot higher today. We broke themonopoly—people can now shop around. They are not forced to pay top dollar. There is a cap onelectricity prices and they cannot charge any more than that cap. But people can shop around for lowerprices.

Under the old system, prices went up year after year after year. Under the old system, peoplewere forced to pay the price, the set price, the top price. Under the old system, there was a monopoly—there was only one player in the market. People could not shop around then, but now they can. And halfa million households and businesses are voting with their feet and have now taken up an offer fromelectricity billing companies in the open market. Current deals from electricity retailers include onemonth’s free electricity, a four per cent discount off your bill with another, green energy options andanother retailer is offering an up-front discount on the first bill.

I have directed my department to look at ways to challenge the draft decision by the independenteconomic regulator to make sure any price rise only reflects the true cost of supplying electricity toQueenslanders. If it does not stack up, we will take up the fight for consumers. That is what happenedlast time. The QCA announced a draft increase of seven per cent. We told it to go back and do its sumsagain because we did not think its draft decision reflected the true cost of supplying electricity toQueenslanders. It went away, did its sums and came back with 5.36 per cent. If it does not stack up thistime, we will lodge another strong submission with the QCA, because that is what good governments—responsible governments—do.

A big factor in its decision was the massive amount spent on electricity infrastructure inQueensland—around $9 billion over five years—to make the electricity network stronger. We only haveto look at what happened after those violent storms hit the south-east the week before last—230,000homes and businesses lost power and within 72 hours it was back on. It showed the real strength of thestate’s electricity network.

Let us not forget when the coalition last had control of the electricity network. It plunged the stateinto darkness for four whole days. Here is what the Courier-Mail at the time said on the front page,‘Power cuts chaos worsens’. It went on—The power crisis which caused chaos across Queensland yesterday is set to continue until at least Thursday amid claims thatGovernment bungling has shut down the state.

4104 Motion 03 Dec 2008

And there is more—The blackouts triggered unprecedented chaos, closing down sewage plants and causing untreated sewage to overflow into creeksand drains across the city.

The coalition’s veto proposal smells of the same stuff. That went on for four whole days and nowit wants to bring in veto powers to return Queensland to the dark ages. The LNP plan will costQueenslanders $620 million next financial year. What vital services will it cut to do this? It is reckless,ridiculous grandstanding. Our solid record of spending on electricity infrastructure means that on theopposition’s side of the chamber the lights are on but unfortunately no-one is home.

Do the Libs support the Nats on this? We have to ask the question because they are always atloggerheads. They are at loggerheads over whether to privatise electricity generators. The LiberalNational Party deputy leader ruled it in, ruled it out and ruled it in again. But the shadow Treasurer wantsto sell the power generators, and where is he tonight? While they agree to disagree, the Blighgovernment has its sleeves rolled up and is getting on with the job of improving services for allQueenslanders. Queensland is not alone when it comes to electricity price rises. Other states havebeen hit hard. Our electricity prices are still among the cheapest in the country.

Time expired. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (5.57 pm): I am pleased to support the motion moved by the

Leader of the Opposition and seconded by the shadow minister for mines and energy. The Beattie-BlighLabor government’s promise that no-one would be worse off after the deregulation of Queensland’selectricity industry today lies in tatters after yesterday’s announcement by the Queensland CompetitionAuthority that tariffs will increase by 13.6 per cent from July 2009. This 13.6 per cent increase comes onthe back of a 5.4 per cent increase announced in late June this year, representing an almost 19 per centincrease in less than six months. Such a dramatic increase will create serious difficulties for families andsmall businesses already struggling with higher rents, food prices and the effects of the global financialcrisis.

Every Queenslander has the right to feel angry with the Bligh Labor government. The state Laborgovernment said that Queenslanders would not be worse off following the deregulation of the electricityindustry. The last time there was a substantial increase in the electricity tariff—a 5.4 per cent increase inlate June this year—the mines and energy minister tried to spin the announcement to make it look asthough a 5.4 per cent tariff increase should be welcomed simply because it could have been as high asseven per cent. The Minister for Mines and Energy, after the 13.6 per cent increase yesterday, threw uphis hands and claimed that he could do nothing about it. As the member for Callide has pointed outalready, the Minister for Mines and Energy is misrepresenting his capacity in this regard. What a lameduck!

The affordable supply of electricity stands next to the secure supply of electricity as one of themost important services the state government is responsible for. In this regard, the Bligh Laborgovernment is failing dismally. Honourable members know that I am a proud north Queenslander, wherehot tropical summers make air conditioning a must for hospitals, aged-care facilities and schoolclassrooms while demand for air conditioning is increasing in family homes, office buildings and otherbusiness premises.

The impact on north Queenslanders of this significant increase in the tariff is compounded in thatarea by the desperate need for a baseload power station. North Queenslanders already pay higherprices for electricity in comparison to customers in central and southern Queensland due to the additionof transmission charges. North Queensland electricity consumers do not need this 13.6 per centincrease in the electricity tariff—just like we did not need the previous 5.4 per cent increase in the tariff—to exacerbate this disadvantage. North Queenslanders will again pay more for electricity because thestate Labor government has failed to deliver additional baseload power capacity and it is hurting northQueensland families and businesses. North Queensland industry and stakeholder groups have beengoing blue in the face crying out for a much-needed baseload power station in north Queensland foryears.

During an estimates committee hearing earlier this year, the opposition asked the Deputy Premierif he would commit to provide funds for, or announce a rock-solid date for the commencement andcompletion of, a north Queensland baseload power station. The Deputy Premier refused to make such acommitment, suggesting instead that the state government would leave market forces to determinewhen energy generators construct a baseload power station in Queensland. I heard a lot of bluster andbravado from the Deputy Premier this morning about the need for the state government to leadQueensland through these tough and difficult economic times by building infrastructure that wouldgenerate jobs, but what a cop-out.

The Deputy Premier and the government confirmed in that estimates committee hearing that itwill not provide any leadership to secure the delivery of a much-needed baseload power station in northQueensland to meet increasing commercial, industrial and residential demand. The Deputy Premierthinks he can come into the parliament and talk the talk but he cannot or he will not walk the walk in theinterests of north Queensland.

03 Dec 2008 Motion 4105

The Bligh government is saying that business can build it when the demand is there, but businesshas been consistently saying, in no uncertain terms, that they want the government to provideleadership and facilitate the much-need infrastructure to give them the confidence to invest in the regionand provide jobs. The Deputy Premier should listen to his own advice in this regard.

Given that the significant increases in the electricity tariff that are being implemented under thecurrent Minister for Mines and Energy are compounded for north Queensland electricity customers byhigh transmission costs, north Queensland electricity customers need the protection of the ministerialveto on electricity tariff increases that this motion calls for because the government is sitting on its handsin relation to a north Queensland baseload power generator. I have heard all the hollow rhetoric from theMinister for Mines and Energy about standing up for the battlers. There are plenty of battlers in northQueensland who are suffering from these huge tariff increases and from high additional transmissioncharges, and the Bligh Labor government and the Minister for Mines and Energy are not lifting a fingerto do anything about it.

Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and IndustrialRelations) (6.03 pm): There is no doubt about it: privatisation is good for consumers. Privatisation isgood for consumers.

Opposition members interjected.Mr MICKEL: We hear the interruptions opposite. Why would they be interrupting after the

statement that privatisation is good for consumers? Because those are the words of the shadowTreasurer on 30 November 2006. Hasn’t this been a day when the opposition has walked away from theshadow Treasurer? They sat there ashen faced this morning at question time because he had let the catout of the bag, and the cat out of the bag was this: that in the face of a massive economic problemworldwide, they were going to deliver what the private sector does not want to hear—that is, they weregoing to bring the budget into surplus.

What we have not heard from opposition members tonight, in their attempt to erase the memory,is that the opposition supported the privatisation of the electricity market. They supported it, but what wehave not heard is what they would do about it. We have heard a lot of bluster, but what would they doabout it?

Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I outlined in detail what I thought the ministershould do about it.

Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order.Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker, I find the minister’s dishonesty offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr MICKEL: I withdraw. I have heard everything now that I have hurt the member for Callide. He

will have to go back and read the Hansard. I quote—With Queensland growing at almost twice the national average, net public outlay should be almost twice the Australian average tomaintain a similar standard and quality of infrastructure.

Who said those words? They are from the member for Callide. Who do you reckon was going topay for that, old son?

Are we going back to Borbidge economics? The Leader of the Opposition was a member of theBorbidge team. What was Borbidge economics? The taxpayer should not pay for this; the governmentshould. Do members remember that? That is what we are hearing tonight. The invisible man is going tosomehow intervene in the marketplace and pay for this. It will be paid for by reduced services, becauseyou have this fascination, this desperation, to become backwards regulators. That is why the LiberalParty is not participating in this debate tonight. That is why we need binoculars to find the shadowTreasurer. He is not here because he is too scared to face the boardrooms with the economic lunacythat the National Party is putting up tonight. Of course we are going to go through the report handeddown by the QCA line by line, but—and this is the ‘but’ that it has not committed to and should committo—once you get into the market interference that you guys want to get into, having supportedprivatisation, the money has to come from somewhere.

If members want to hear the grand lulu of them all—because they have been so reckless in theway they promise things around the state—we heard it again tonight from the member for Hinchinbrook.He is no longer a backbencher; he is now a serious frontbencher. He wants interference in themarketplace for a baseload power station. Interference! Hitherto, the private sector has been providingthat as a result of the policy settings that we established. A 13 per cent gas uptake has resulted in theprivate sector delivering just that.

But where is the recklessness? The opposition said it would have underground powerlinesthroughout Queensland. What is the cost? It is $35 billion. Talk about economic recklessness. It hasalready punched a hole of $1.5 billion with its transport policy this week. If we then add $600 million withwhat it is proposing tonight to the $414 million transport policy that it reckons it has, that is $2.2 billionplus $35 billion that it has to find from health and education just to balance the budget. That is what is atstake here. If you want to talk about battlers, talk about people who are going to have health services,education and policing ripped away from them because of the recklessness of this policy.

4106 Motion 03 Dec 2008

Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—LNP) (6.08 pm): Labor promised power would be cheaperunder it. It lied.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member for Maroochydore to withdraw that. It is unparliamentary.

Miss SIMPSON: Labor deliberately misled the people of Queensland.

Government members: She didn’t withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw that term.

Miss SIMPSON: I withdraw. Queenslanders now face up to a 14 per cent price hike in powerprices. In July this year they had already copped a five per cent hike. Last year residents faced an11 per cent hike, but businesses—many of them small businesses—faced up to a 400 per cent powerprice rise. Where does it end? Labor promised safeguards with the privatisation of retail electricity, butdid it have safeguards? No. It has a minister in here who will take responsibility for nothing. The Laborgovernment deliberately misled the people of Queensland. Not only did it say power would be cheaper;it also said it would ensure that there would be security of supply, yet a few years ago we saw it blamingpossums.

A few years later with regard to the electricity price hikes the government blamed the drought.When water is flowing back to the power stations, do the prices come down in power supply? No. Thisgovernment always has another excuse for why it wants to put its hands into the pockets of battlers, intothe pockets of Queenslanders and into the pockets of small businesses who do not have the taxingpowers of government to ensure that their bottom line balances. This government does not worry aboutthe bottom line of ordinary Queenslanders who are facing extraordinary price hikes due to thisgovernment’s mismanagement.

I will quote from the member for Ferny Grove’s contribution to this parliament in October 2006.When giving glowing assurances about how the government would ensure there were safeguardsbefore he walked away from those commitments, he stated—Mr Speaker, the Code ensures mums and dads won’t be talked into agreeing to terms that are not fair and reasonable.

I think a lot of people would say that a 14 per cent hike was not fair and reasonable. In the same debatehe went on to state—These identified benefits include potential reductions to the energy costs for urban residential and business customers and somecoastal regional business customers,

I would like to see where they are. The businesses and the residents who have contacted mecertainly are not talking about reductions in energy prices. The minister in bringing the legislationforward has misled the parliament.

Let me address some of the other issues that have been deliberate misleading by the minister fortransport, who just spoke. He comes into this place and he says, ‘You are going to promise tounderground all the powerlines in Queensland.’ Give this guy an inch and he will take a thousand milesas far as the truth goes. What we promised is that we would look at some of the suburban distributors,particularly where there were issues with trees falling down. Is that not an issue that needs to beconsidered? I think that should be an issue for public debate. We need to look at issues of safety andaddress genuine issues where there is a case for undergrounding. But Labor turns around and claimsthat every powerline in Queensland is going to be underground under our proposition. There is nobalance and there is no truth from this government. This is from a bunch of ministers who are happy tosit on ministerial leather and yet not take responsibility for their actions.

The motion that the opposition has put forward tonight is about governments being responsiblefor their actions. It is about governments not hiding behind other regulators and saying that it hasnothing to do with it. It is about it keeping its promises when it introduces legislation. Our motion is aboutkeeping government accountable and making sure that the people have their power prices carefullyconsidered and not pushed through by a government that does not care anymore about the battlers.

Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (6.12 pm): I support the amendmentmoved by the Premier and seconded by the Minister for Mines and Energy. This debate has revealed anumber of things. Firstly, this debate has revealed that it is still possible to bring the Leader of theOpposition and the member for Callide together to work on one thing. It was a revelation to members onthis side of the House that there was a capacity to do that. Secondly, it has revealed that the schism thatruns so deep within the Liberal National Party is once again in full display. There is not one member ofthe Liberal Party on the speaking list. Why is that? Because they know that after the folly, after theexperiment of allowing the Liberal Party to go out there and talk about economic management over thelast 48 hours, they have all had to retreat. They have had to send the shadow Treasurer—the shadowminister for guaranteed recession—off to shadow Treasurer re-education school with the federal

03 Dec 2008 Distinguished Visitors 4107

shadow Treasurer. I am sure that right now Julie Bishop and Tim Nicholls are breaking bread and talkingabout the week that they have had—the guaranteed success that they offer in putting forward oldparadigms of economic management that do not suit the new paradigm that we find ourselves in at themoment.

Let there be no mistake that what this motion proposes is a $620 million cost to the budget bottomline next year—$620 million for a zero price increase. In that context we notice that the Liberal NationalParty has proposed a $411 million policy on Monday. On Wednesday it is proposing a $600 millionpolicy, but on Tuesday in between it is proposing to cut things to return the budget back to surplus. For aside of politics talking about being committed to a budget surplus, it has racked up $1 billion in a week.The fact is that it does not know whether it is Arthur or Martha. It is riven internally and riven asunder atthe moment because it does not have a coherent economic management strategy to put forward to thisparliament.

The fact is that this price rise must reflect the cost of the increase to electricity generation anddistribution and nothing more. That is what the government will do. That is our commitment. What canbe seen in that context is that in other states—South Australia, Tasmania and New South Wales—evenif the current draft decision stands as it is the cost of our electricity on like for like terms will be moreexpensive in those states.

Rising costs of electricity are a function of where the electricity industry is at this point in time.That is the reality. Nevertheless, we see from the Liberal National Party in this debate a proposalcompletely uncosted, completely unthought through, without a shadow of evidence that it has thoughtwhat the cost will be—on Monday, $400 million in extra cost; on Tuesday, cutting projects and services;and on Wednesday, add another $600 million. Is this the sort of approach to managing the budget thatthe people of Queensland want to see? I put the strong case that the same sort of dangerousrecklessness, incoherence and lack of strategy in terms of economic management that was thehallmark of the old Liberal Party and the old National Party is again the hallmark of the so-called newLiberal National Party.

Let there be no mistake about what is required at this point in time. What is required is an effort tomake sure that the infrastructure program and the 119,000 jobs that are supported by the infrastructureprogram are put forward as the best strategy in order to sustain growth, activity and employment into thefuture. Queenslanders cannot afford an alternative government that is proposing to spend $1 billion thisweek without one single word about how one cent of it will be funded. That is the bottom line on what itis proposing. On Monday and Wednesday it proposes $1 billion worth of spending, and on Tuesday—inthe middle—it proposes to cut projects and services. Does it propose to cut projects and services tofund this $1 billion? What we ultimately know is that there has never been a greater importance forstrong economic management. What this week has demonstrated is that the Liberal National Party inthis state does not have the capacity to deliver that. I put the view that the small target strategy is not apolitical strategy; it is a cause of necessity. Those opposite do not have a clue.

Interruption.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Mr SPEAKER: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I welcome a very distinguished delegationin our public gallery. Today we have seen a historic signing ceremony between the HeilongjiangPeople’s Congress and the Queensland Parliament. I welcome tonight the Vice-Chairman of theStanding Committee of Heilongjiang People’s Congress, the Hon. Donghiu Liu, and his delegation: theChairman of the Financial and Economic Affairs Committee of Heilongjiang People’s Congress,Mr Hongde Zheng; the Vice-Chairman of the Ethnic Overseas Chinese and Foreign Affairs Committeeof the Heilongjian People’s Congress, Mr Shusen Yang; the President of the Heilongjian DailyNewspaper Group, Mr Dianjun Yang; and the Deputy Division Director of the Heilongjian Foreign AffairsOffice, Ms Hongmei Liu.

I am very pleased to have in the gallery tonight this very distinguished delegation. I say to ourparliamentary attendants—and I know that my executive officer will pass this on—that I am allowingphotographs to be taken from the gallery tonight on this very auspicious occasion.

I also welcome to the public gallery tonight the Consul-General for the People’s Republic ofChina, Mr Ren Gongping, and Mrs Sim Hayward, the Chairman of the Queensland China Council. Wewelcome our distinguished guests to the gallery tonight and we look forward to seeing you a little bitlater in the evening.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

4108 Motion 03 Dec 2008

MOTION

Electricity PricesResumed from p. 4107.Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (6.19 pm): Here we go again. Another failure by the

Labor government and once again we have to expose it. As the member for Callide so eloquently said,we have to give it away to get out of this particular problem.

Let me set the scene. Some $65 billion of debt is out there like a black shadow covering thewindows of the houses of everybody in Queensland. How are those opposite going to pay for it? Theyare going to pay for it through increased stamp duty, increased gas prices, increased electricity pricesand increases in the fines for 34,000 offences—speeding fines and so on. That is how they will pay for it.

This government in the 10 best years this state has ever seen has squandered the most goldenopportunity this state ever had—record stamp duty, record GST, record mining royalties; all that moneyhas been coming in. What have we got at the end of it? The cupboard is bare. We have $65 billion indebt, $10 million in interest a day seven days a week, a budget that is going to be in deficit next yearand the year after, and a Treasurer who has already announced to his directors-general $1 billion incuts. Where are those cuts going to come from? The state is in an absolutely abysmal mess when itshould have been absolutely poised to take the people of this state through this economic crisis that weare facing.

What we are debating tonight are electricity price rises that are too much for the averageQueenslander. In July 2007 electricity went up by 11.4 per cent. This July it went up by 5.4 per cent.Now we hear that it will go up by another almost 14 per cent. The electricity price from July 2007 to July2009—the space of 24 months—will go up by 30 per cent. That is not fair on the average battler. Weknow why it is happening. It is due to the financial mismanagement and incompetence of thisgovernment.

In one of the most damning reports we have ever seen, the federal Senate hearing report, we findthat in 2006-07 the government took more out of Energex and Ergon than it actually earned. Why wouldthose opposite not be chasing a bit more money? What have we got? We have a minister who hidesbehind any authority he can hide behind. He is just like all the other ministers. They hide behindcommissions and they hide behind boards. They say, ‘It is not me; it is not my responsibility.’

This minister had the hide to stand up here tonight and talk about vetos. This is the minister whosuggested a veto earlier this year when the prices went up. He suggested to the Courier-Mail that wecould look at a veto. But he is the old ruler king. He said, ‘We are not ruling anything in; we are not rulinganything out.’ Today he said that he is going to run the ruler over the price. I can tell members that thebattlers of Queensland would like to get a ruler and take a bit of a stick to him. What he has done tothem is force a $200 price increase on them over the next 12 months.

Mr Cripps: Six of the best. Mr HORAN: That is right—six of the best. Every time the government does it it does not take

responsibility. The member for Callide has shown that if you had a minister with a bit of courage, a bit of

commitment and a bit of understanding of the act and a minister who will take some Westminsterresponsibility you could fix this problem. You could stand up and have a bit of ticker and say that this istoo much for the average person living in the suburbs. This comes on top of the increased gas pricesyou forced on them by selling assets off. You have sold off the airports which earn us money becauseyou cannot afford to build hospitals anymore. What a shocking situation to have this state in. There isyour answer. You use your power of veto. Take some notice of this motion tonight.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Toowoomba South, I would ask you to mention the member byelectorate.

Mr HORAN: The minister should take some notice of the member for Callide because he hasbeen able to set him on the right path. Turn around this never-ending, year by year increase in theelectricity prices of Queensland householders which is the direct result of the financial incompetencethis government has wreaked on this state for 10 years. When we get to a difficult spot this governmenthas no other place to turn, no money in the bank, nothing in the cupboard and $65 billion of debt staringit in the face. So it is straight away into the pockets of average Queenslanders who do not deserve it.

Mr HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (6.24 pm): I rise to support the Premier’s amendment. Onceagain this is a policy of convenience from the opposition, though describing it as a policy is probablyreally an insult to those members in this place who have a passing acquaintance with the Englishlanguage.

03 Dec 2008 Motion 4109

Just as he tried to do in the purified recycled water debate, the Leader of the Opposition is tryingto get away with criticising the state government on the one hand but on the other squibbing out ofnominating what level of increase he would support if elected. We have to assume he would pay for thelot. The real question is: what is the increase in the price of electricity that the Liberal National Partysupport for 2009-10? How much do they think the prices should go up?

Mr Seeney: Try CPI for a start. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I hear a bid. The price of CPI. I will take CPI. Any advance on CPI? I will take

CPI. This government is committed to ensuring that consumers get a fair go when it comes to power.We have stepped in to help consumers before and we will do it again, if needed. We have increased theelectricity rebate for pensioners and seniors from $145 to $165 to ease the financial burden.

Mr Cripps interjected.Mr SPEAKER: I warn the member for Hinchinbrook under standing order 253. Mr HINCHLIFFE: We established the $3 million hardship scheme for those who have difficulty

meeting the cost of their electricity and gas bills. We gave householders and small businesses inregional Queensland more than $600 million last year to help keep electricity bills down. That is around$1,000 per household.

For more than two years, the Leader of the Opposition has been side by side with the governmentsupporting the Queensland Competition Authority process for setting electricity prices, just as hesupported our historic decision to break the electricity retail monopoly through full retail competition.This is the real test for the Liberal National Party. What does the Leader of the Opposition’s oxymoronicprogressive conservatism mean? What do those opposite stand for? Are they pro market or are theytiptoeing down the path of some sort of plan to renationalise industry? Are they for a surplus or are theyabout recklessly blowing out the budget? What has been most interesting in this debate tonight is thatonly—

Ms Grace interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Brisbane Central! Mr HINCHLIFFE: Only former Nationals have spoken on the motion. We have heard the

members for Callide, Toowoomba South, Hinchinbrook, Maroochydore and Southern Downs. They areall former Nationals. Not one former Liberal has spoken. Until they started coming in like Brown’s cows,only the B team of former Liberals were here to watch. Where is the member for Clayfield, I ask? He hasbeen missing since question time. I know where he should be.

Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Lockyer! Mr HINCHLIFFE: I know where the member for Clayfield should be. He should be off figuring out

where the $620 million this will cost will come from. The tally of promises has gone up by a billion dollarsthis week alone. At this rate, the unfunded promises of those opposite will top $100 billion by Christmaswhen we include the $65 billion we have tallied up earlier that they wanted to FOI to figure out how it gotfunded. There is $35 billion that the minister for transport has identified in the debate tonight. Perhapsthe missing member for Clayfield is going to suggest slashing the subsidy to regional electricitycustomers to pay for this profligacy. Can members imagine the barneys in a Liberal-National cabinet ifthat happened?

This is a draft decision from the QCA and the energy minister is encouraging people to have theirsay. It is important for industry stakeholders, especially consumer groups, to lodge submissions to theQCA during the public consultation period. We want people to have their say. The opposition has thechance to get on with consultation here and now. Here is the opposition’s chance to say what it thinksthe level should be. Go on! Tell us what you think! I heard the interjection that it should be CPI. Even if itis CPI, those opposite need to tell Queenslanders which part of the budget they will cut to find the$300 million it will cost. Will it be teachers? Will it be doctors? Will it be police? Where will it come from?Where will the money come from? I commend the amendment to the House and condemn this ‘policyfree zone’ opposition.

Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to.AYES, 43—Attwood, Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Fenlon, Fraser, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe,Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, McNamara, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Roberts,Robertson, Scott, Shine, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall,Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan

NOES, 29—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Dickson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson,Langbroek, Lee, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens,Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Elmes

Resolved in the affirmative.

4110 Criminal Code (Truth in Parliament) Amendment Bill 03 Dec 2008

Mr SPEAKER: Any further divisions on this matter will be for a duration of two minutes.Division: Question put—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

AYES, 43—Attwood, Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Fenlon, Fraser, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe,Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, McNamara, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Roberts,Robertson, Scott, Shine, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall,Wilson. Tellers: Male, NolanNOES, 29—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Dickson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson,Langbroek, Lee, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens,Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Elmes

Resolved in the affirmative.Motion, as agreed—

That this House notes the draft decision to increase electricity prices by 13.63 per cent is currently under a legislated process ofreview and is open to public consultation. Further, that this House:• notes that the current regime for setting electricity prices was implemented with the support of the current opposition;• supports the principle that the regulated price cap for electricity should reflect the cost of supplying electricity to

Queenslanders;• notes that the Liberal National Party policy would require further subsidy from general revenue; and• calls on the Liberal National Party to produce documents to the House within 28 days that outline all costings and budget

implications of its new policy.

Sitting suspended from 6.39 pm to 7.40 pm.

CRIMINAL CODE (TRUTH IN PARLIAMENT) AMENDMENT BILL

Second ReadingResumed from 27 August (see p. 2343), on motion of Mr Springborg—


Hon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice andMinister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (7.41 pm): In August this year the member forSouthern Downs and Leader of the Opposition introduced into parliament as a private member’s bill theCriminal Code (Truth in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2008. The explanatory notes to the bill state thatthe purpose of the bill is to amend the Criminal Code to introduce the offence of giving false evidence toparliament. The Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 is also to be amended to ensure that acts ofcontempt of parliament that amount to providing false evidence are prosecuted under the code offence.Proposed new section 57 of the Criminal Code is in almost identical terms to the section repealed by theCriminal Code Amendment Act 2006. The reason this parliament repealed section 57 of the CriminalCode was because it was inconsistent with the fundamental tenet of the Westminster system firstcontained in article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 (UK) and which is now embodied in section 8 of theParliament of Queensland Act 2001.

The prosecution of a person for an offence against a provision such as the one proposed wouldconflict directly with the parliamentary privilege guaranteed by the Bill of Rights 1688 and the Parliamentof Queensland Act 2001. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights provides that—... the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or placeout of parliament.

Section 8(1) of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 replicates this concept. The examinationof the truth or falsity of statements made by a member in a court instead of in the House is contrary toaccepted notions of parliamentary freedom of speech. Parliamentarians answer for their conduct in theHouse to the House itself and ultimately to the electorate.

In Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd (1991) Appeal Cases 321, it was held to be aninfringement of parliamentary privilege for any party to a legal proceedings to question words spoken inparliament by suggesting that they were untrue or misleading. The MEPPC supported this view in itsfindings in report No 17, where the committee said this when referring to the actions of the IndustrialRelations Commission—It is not permissible to question or impeach the motives or intentions of the member in making the statement in parliament, nor toquestion the truth of what was said.

In O’Chee v Rowley, the Queensland Court of Appeal found that a senator was not obliged toproduce documents during discovery in a legal proceedings if the documents had been used by him inthe course of parliamentary business.

03 Dec 2008 Criminal Code (Truth in Parliament) Amendment Bill 4111

Members opposite would have us believe that by repealing section 57, Queensland is out of stepwith everyone else. That is definitely not the situation. Repealing section 57 meant that, for members,Queensland was brought into line with the position of the House of Commons and both federal housesof parliament and other states and territories. For nonmembers, the position is the same as for thefederal houses of parliament. Members and nonmembers are still liable to be dealt with for contempt ofparliament under the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001.

The powers, rights and immunities which are collectively referred to as parliamentary privilegetook centuries to evolve. They were won incrementally by the English parliament, particularly by theHouse of Commons. They underpin the Westminster system of government. The primacy of parliamentover the Crown is reflected in the United Kingdom’s Bill of Rights 1688.

In the federal parliament, article 9 of the Bill of Rights is also expressly preserved by section 16 ofthe Commonwealth Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. There is no equivalent to section 57 inCommonwealth legislation. In the article titled The Origins of Section 57 of the Criminal Code ofQueensland Included in Justice According to Law: a Festschrift for the Honourable Mr Justice BHMcPherson CBE, published by the Supreme Court Library, the former Crown Solicitor, Mr Conrad Lohe,traced the history of section 57 back to Tasmania and South Australia before 1859 and its subsequentappearance in Queensland in 1861 and eventual incorporation in the Criminal Code. Having examinedthat history, including parliamentary debates, the former Crown Solicitor concluded that it had neverbeen the intention of the law-makers in Queensland that the precursors to section 57 were to apply tomembers of parliament at all.

At page 600, the Crown Solicitor said—As I have already indicated in relation to s 13 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1861 I have great difficulty in reaching any otherconclusion than that s 13 of the 1861 Act and s 53 of the 1867 Act were never intended to apply to members, and that they werenever thought to apply to members. I can see no indication that, in incorporating s 53 into the Code, Griffith had any intention ofaltering the intended application of s 57 of the Code from what seems to me to have been the accepted scope of the provision.

The former Crown Solicitor went on to say that the removal of section 57 from its original contextmeant that a court might not be willing to draw the same conclusion if called upon to interpret the scopeof section 57, and particularly whether it applied to members.

Mr Speaker, I am a parliamentary democrat—no doubt like you. I believe wholeheartedly in thesupremacy of parliament. That supremacy should not be undermined by a provision that seeks toimpose the judgement of the courts on proceedings of parliament. This was never the intention and theconcept of parliamentary privilege is contrary to this notion. Parliament must have immunity against anyjudgement other than political judgement by the people. It is anathema to envisage the possibility thatthe executive, the Crown—be it by the DPP or by the Attorney-General—could bring a prosecutionagainst a member of parliament for things said by that member in the course of proceedings inparliament.

Re-enacting section 57 of the Criminal Code would also make possible the institution of privateprosecutions under chapter 70 of the Criminal Code. This would have the effect of further erodingparliamentary privilege and stifling debate in parliament.

In his second reading speech, the member for Southern Downs and Leader of the Oppositionstated that the removal of the original section 57 was—... an open invitation to legalised deceit and mistruths.

Removing section 57 does not mean that members of parliament who knowingly mislead the parliamentare not subject to any punishment. It does not mean that members and nonmembers of parliamentcannot be held accountable for their actions in parliament and for the answers which they provide inresponse to lawful questions put to them either in the Assembly or in committee proceedings.

I acknowledge that there must be an ultimate sanction against persons who engage incontemptuous conduct not only to punish the conduct but also to deter others from engaging in similarconduct. The Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 clearly gives power to the Assembly to deal with suchconduct through sections 39 and 40. Further, the Assembly’s standing orders clearly address theconduct sought to be covered by section 57. In fact, the powers of the parliament to scrutinise conductare even wider. It has been found by the MEPPC that the term ‘misleading’ is wider than ‘false’ or‘incorrect’.

In report No. 35, the committee found—... that a technically factually correct statement could also be misleading. For example, the deliberate omission of relevantinformation could make an otherwise factually correct statement misleading.

Punishments that may be imposed by the parliament for contempt include suspension from parliament,a fine or a term of imprisonment. There are also political sanctions. For example, the Westminsterconvention is that ministers who knowingly mislead parliament will resign.


This bill brings the parliament into disrepute. It breaches the longstanding principles ofparliamentary privilege and the supremacy of the parliament—the supremacy of the LegislativeAssembly; that is, the people’s assembly. As the MEPPC stated in its report No. 17—Parliamentary privilege exists for the protection of the parliament as a whole, rather than for the benefit of individual members.Freedom of speech is a vital part of our system of parliamentary democracy and must be vigorously defended againstencroachment.

The government opposes this bill.

Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—LNP) (7.50 pm): I rise to support the Criminal Code (Truth inParliament) Amendment Bill 2008 that was introduced into this parliament by the Leader of theOpposition, the member for Southern Downs. It is somewhat ironic and I guess fitting that we aredebating this bill in the last sitting week of 2008, on 3 December, because it was after the last sittingweek of 2005, on Friday, 9 December—almost three years to the day—when this parliament wasrecalled to discuss the issues that emerged from the Estimates Committee D hearing into the healthportfolio held on Friday, 8 July 2005. The events surrounding Estimates Committee D in 2005 and whatensued were extraordinary events. Those events were completely unanticipated by me or I suspect byany other member within this parliament. It is quite instructive to look at some of the history of thedebate before the House tonight.

Mrs Sullivan interjected.

Mr COPELAND: I can already hear interjections from people like the member for Pumicestone—members who stood in this place on Friday, 9 December 2005 and, to a person, defended the honestyand integrity of the former member for Sandgate. I challenge every member of this parliament to readthe Hansard from Friday, 9 December, because it is very instructive as to the motives of the governmentat that time and the motives of the government tonight. From the interjections I hear by those opposite, Iknow that in three years they have learnt nothing. The people of Queensland will remember that. Thepeople of Queensland will remember the comments that are being made and will watch as furtherevents unfold in the coming months and years.

Friday, 9 December 2005 was an instructive day. I suspect that not many government membershave re-read the Hansard of that day. I suspect that none of them have fully read the Hansard fromEstimates Committee D of 2005. If they did they would be left in absolutely no doubt as to the reasonthat, following its inquiry, the CMC said the allegations should have been tested in a tribunal of fact. Itdid not judge the innocence or guilt of the member involved—the former member for Sandgate. TheCMC said that there was a prime facie case and it should be tested in a tribunal of fact.

The Attorney-General has trotted out the same arguments we have heard time and time again inthis place against the Criminal Code (Truth in Parliament) Amendment Bill. This issue has only comeinto question once. To the best of my knowledge, section 57 had never been used before. It was used inthis case. Potentially it could have been used for criminal proceedings against the former member forSandgate had this government not recalled parliament and exonerated him. This governmentexonerated the former member for Sandgate. While the Attorney-General might say that there areprovisions for contempt of the parliament, he was not only exonerated from criminal charges by hisfriends in the Labor Party but also given no punishment for contempt of the parliament. It was not judgedby the MEPPC. The MEPPC did not examine the matter, as it does with all other allegations of contemptof the parliament. It was the members of the Labor Party and the numbers in the government thatexonerated the former member for Sandgate. All he had to do was issue an apology for what was, at thetime, potentially a criminal act under section 57. The case was neither pursued nor tested in a tribunal offact as the CMC recommended it should be. It was not overseen by the MEPPC and there was nopunishment for the potential act of contempt as was found by this parliament.

Time and again I am sure we will hear—not only from the Attorney-General whom we have justheard but also from other members of the Labor Party—that under the primacy of the parliament theminister’s parliamentary privileges would have been compromised. The MEPPC had actuallyconsidered that fact. As was stated in the debate on Friday, 9 December, in its 29th report the MEPPCsaid that, where there was a potential for proceedings under a criminal act or a contempt of parliament,the criminal proceedings should take precedence. That is what the MEPPC said. It envisaged this sortof thing happening and at that time it recommended that the criminal proceedings take precedence overthe act of contempt.

It is very instructive to read the Hansard of Estimates Committee D of 2005, inquiring into thehealth portfolio. Much as the member for Aspley tried to assist the former member for Sandgate, hecould not see that what he was doing was wrong. It was clear that he had misled the parliamentbecause in my second question of that estimates committee I asked him whether he stood by thestatements that some time earlier the Courier-Mail reported him as saying. He had advised the Courier-Mail which then reported that he had never, ever been briefed about the problems surrounding theregistrational competencies of overseas trained doctors, not by Dr Buckland, the then director-general;


Dr Scott, the then deputy director-general; or any of their underlings. It is also instructive to rememberthat this happened after the Dr Patel case erupted at Bundaberg. When I read that report I could notbelieve it. I could not fathom how anyone involved in health or politics as a local member could not havebeen aware that there were problems surrounding overseas trained doctors.

However, the former member for Sandgate stood by that statement. After clarifying what I hadasked several times, he stood by that statement. I then asked Drs Buckland and Scott whether theyagreed with that statement. Dr Scott was allowed to answer. Without quoting directly, he said that to thebest of his knowledge both he and Dr Buckland, and organisations like the Rural Doctors Association,had briefed the minister on that issue. He said that quite clearly, and it was quite contradictory to whatthe minister had said in his statement.

I asked the same question approximately 16 times. Indeed, I prefaced one question by sayingthat potentially he could be in conflict with section 57 of the Criminal Code if he misled the parliamentarycommittee that he was appearing in front of. He knew what the consequences were. Dr Scott knew whatthe consequences were and Dr Scott answered honestly. I repeat: Dr Scott answered honestly. DrBuckland was not allowed to answer the question. Sixteen times or thereabouts the former member forSandgate said that he knew nothing about overseas trained doctors and the competencies,proficiencies and testing of those doctors.

To me—and this refers only to me—that was a clear misleading of the parliamentary committee infront of which he was appearing. There was a very good reason why he did not want to admit to hisknowledge. It was because of the events that had emerged in Bundaberg and he did not want to beblamed for what was going on. He tried to deflect the blame. We will never know whether he would havebeen found guilty by a tribunal of fact or the courts because, after the CMC had delivered its report,parliament was recalled and, on the numbers of the government, the parliament exonerated him andrepealed section 57 of the Criminal Code. That was a sad day for this parliament, it was a sad day fordemocracy and it was a sad day for the process in which we were involved. This was a serious issuethat affected everyday Queenslanders. It affected the health system and we have seen theconsequences of that. I think it was very disappointing.

The one thing I found even more disappointing during the debate was the statement that theformer member for Sandgate made—and a number of people in that debate reiterated—that thequestions I asked him were not relevant for an estimates committee. Under section 57 of the CriminalCode the questions had to be lawful and relevant. The CMC had two lots of legal advice that said thatthey were. The former member for Sandgate did not dispute that he had misled the committee. What hedisputed was the relevance of the question. I think that says a lot. I think that says an enormous amount.

This is a very simple bill. It had never been used before. I hope it will never need to be used againin the future. But it is an important point that, whether one is a member of parliament or not, when aperson appears in front of a parliamentary committee the evidence that they are required to give shouldbe truthful and should be accurate. That is what we as members of parliament should expect.

Time expired.

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (8.00 pm): We have just heard, from someone who wasso intimately involved in that process, just exactly what happened in the parliament in 2006 and the veryclear and concise reasons why this private member’s bill is in the parliament today. When this bill wasbrought into the parliament by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Southern Downs, it wasquite a historic time because it was the first private member’s bill brought into the parliament by the LNP,which had been formed just prior to that, and our leader gave a pledge that when we win governmentthis will be the first bill he will bring into the House.

This bill is about restoring honesty and openness into government in Queensland. People aroundQueensland are absolutely appalled by what happened in 2006 when legislation was brought into theHouse basically to allow lying. Lying had always been regarded as a serious offence. It was in thestatutes. It had never actually been used but it was always there. Then of course we had an occasionwhen it could have been used only for the fact that the Labor Party rubbed it out to save its Labor mate.The way it was done at that time, as the member for Cunningham has so clearly told the parliamenttonight, was so deliberate and so knowing. That is the reason we need this type of legislation in theparliament.

This legislation is not just about members of parliament; it is about people who are called beforethis parliament as witnesses. It might sound serious that it is a criminal act not to give the correctevidence, but look at some of the important things that have been examined by committees here in thisparliament. There have been important issues to do with petrol pricing and other important social issues.It is important that evidence that witnesses give before a committee is accurate, is honest and is true. Ithink the parliament should be held in the very, very highest regard. What this particular bill does isendeavour to bring back that standard into the parliament.


Clause 3 of this bill inserts a new section 57. It is identical to the section 57 which was repealedby the Criminal Code Amendment Act in 2006. That was when we saw that disgraceful performance inthis parliament of the government taking that section out of the Criminal Code. The terms of section 57are as follows—A person who, during an examination before the Legislative Assembly or a committee of the Legislative Assembly, knowinglygives a false answer to a lawful question and relevant question put to the person during the examination commits a crime.

It is important that the word ‘knowingly’ is there. We have seen plenty of examples in thisparliament when people have had to stand up and correct the record. It is very easy to make a mistakein preparing and making a speech. But there are opportunities in this parliament to stand up and say, ‘Igot it wrong. I stand up to correct the record.’ No-one is thought any the worse because it happens quiteregularly in this parliament. But doing it knowingly is when someone deliberately does it. This parliamentand its committees simply cannot work if that sort of deliberate action occurs. I think it is very importantthat we have that as a foundation of this place. It should be a place that is respected by the public andthey should know that there are very, very serious penalties for those who knowingly give a false answerto what is a lawful and a relevant question.

Clause 5 of the bill provides a maximum penalty of up to seven years imprisonment. The offendercannot be arrested without a warrant and a person cannot be convicted of the offence defined in thissection on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness. Clause 5 of the bill then withdraws from thecontempt jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly the ability to ‘proceed against’ a person who hascommitted an offence under the proposed section 57 of the Criminal Code. Clause 5 achieves this byinserting section 47(3) into the Parliament of Queensland Act to provide that ‘if a person’s conduct isboth a contempt of the Assembly and an offence against the Criminal Code, section 57, the person mayonly be proceeded against for the offence’.

The net effect of clauses 3 and 5 of the bill is to transfer from the Legislative Assembly to thecourts the exclusive jurisdiction to punish a member and a non-member for contempt where eitherperson lies in answering a question posed by the Assembly or one of its committees. The bill thereforeis intended to reverse the current position, established by the Criminal Code Amendment Act, wherebythe Assembly has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with those who lie to it or one of its committees. One ofthe very important comments made by the previous speaker, the member for Cunningham, was the factthat the former member for Sandgate did not have the opportunity to have his name cleared orotherwise before a proper jurisdiction. In fact, as a result of what the Labor Party did, it may forever hangas somewhat of a cloud.

This drives home the importance of the estimates system. A lot of work and a lot of expense goesinto the estimates system. Up to 30 or 40 people in a department can spend weeks preparing answersto every possible question for estimates, briefing the minister, briefing the government members whomight be on the committee and so forth. The minister is briefed and a lot of time and expense goes intothat. What is the purpose then of all of that taxpayers’ money that is spent flying members down fromnorth Queensland and other parts of the state to form the estimates committee and to ask questions ifthere is the potential on the most important and crucial matters for the truth not to be told and to knowthat, behind all of that, it might simply be a matter that is only dealt with by this parliament and not at thecorrect level of the Criminal Code and the criminal system?

What happened in 2006 when this parliament was recalled is one of the great stains on theBeattie-Bligh government. The public of Queensland will not forget it. It is part of the litany of problemsand issues that have occurred over that period of time. But, most importantly, this was an issue of realintegrity and an issue of real standards for the parliament and the people whom we represent.

This bill before the House gives the government members of the House an opportunity toreconsider what happened then and to examine their conscience and their hearts and to think seriouslyand deeply about the importance of this parliament as an institution that ultimately brings a wonderfulpeace and democracy to our state. Despite the robust debate that occurs in here, laws are passed andit provides a matrix for the state. Questions are asked and the system is meant to be open andaccountable. But what we saw in that disgraceful episode in 2006 was the dragging down of this placeto an unbelievable level. Basically the people of Queensland heard this parliament, after almost 150years of having a very, very high standard, suddenly say, ‘It is okay to lie in the parliament and we willhave a lessor penalty for that offence than we have ever had before.’

The parliament said, ‘We will lower the standards of the parliament. We will take away that lowbar. We will put the bar up higher so people can get under it.’ I think people in the state have been very,very antagonistic towards this government as a result ever since, because they see it as a basic failure,as simply the government members looking after their Labor mates.

I congratulate the opposition leader, the member for Southern Downs, for bringing this bill into theparliament as the very first private member’s bill for the LNP. It gives this parliament a chance to restorepublic faith and public pride in the parliament. It gives the message that it is not a parliament that isscared of setting high standards, that it is not a parliament that is scared to give proper punishment inthe event that someone knowingly misleads the parliament.

Time expired.


Mr DICKSON (Kawana—LNP) (8.10 pm): I am pleased to rise to the speak to the Criminal Code(Truth in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2008. Firstly, I would like to congratulate Lawrence Springborg forbringing this very important matter into the House. I find it extraordinary that we are here to debate thismatter at all. I find it even more extraordinary that any government, even one as arrogant as the Beattie-Bligh government, would legislate to allow members of parliament to mislead this House.

I am sure that all of us who are parents have taught our children the importance of telling thetruth. As politicians, no matter what our political belief, we should at the very least be honest andtruthful. This is a question that often comes up when I speak to year 7 classes in my electorate: ‘Do youalways have to tell the truth in parliament?’ I would like to be able to say that in Queensland theimportance of the truth and honesty is enshrined in legislation: that, no matter what happens, when westand in this House or before estimates committees or other committees of the parliament, we aretruthful. Unfortunately, thanks to the legislation pushed through by this government in 2006, there is nopenalty if a member chooses not to be honest or to deliberately mislead this House.

It is no wonder that politicians rank so poorly when people are asked what occupations are mosttrusted. They talk about doctors, nurses and ambulance people, but politicians are right down at thebottom of the list. That is a very sad indictment upon all of us and I think we should all want to push thislaw forward today so we can all be a bit more honourable in the lives we lead. We are all elected to thisHouse to be accountable. This is particularly the case for those who sit on the government benches andare directly responsible for managing the affairs of the state.

I am not suggesting that the majority of members are not open and honest. We are all capable ofmaking honest mistakes and we admit to them and apologise in this House, but we all know that therehave been occasions when the truth has deliberately not been told. When this occurs and this House orits committees are knowingly misled, we owe it to Queenslanders to take strong action. This means thatgiving false evidence should be an offence punishable under the Criminal Code.

It is a terrible reflection on the Beattie-Bligh government. It has such a poor regard for the truththat it does not believe giving false evidence to parliament should be an offence. What is worse is that itintroduced the amendment to the Criminal Code to protect one of its own. It is such a sad indictment onall of us here in this House that a law was put in place that lets people break the law in Queensland,particularly in this place where we all work.

This demonstrates not just an arrogant disregard for truthfulness and honesty but yet anotherexample of contempt for the people of Queensland. If any of us choose not to tell the truth, todeliberately mislead or to give false evidence, we deserve to be dealt with under the law. We should beleading by example, not hiding behind parliamentary privilege. I commend this bill to the House. I hopewe will do the right thing by the people of Queensland.

Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—LNP) (8.14 pm): The integrity and standing of this parliament wasundermined almost three years ago on 9 December 2005 when those opposite—including the Premier,who seconded a disgraceful motion—used their numbers to allow one of their own, the former memberfor Sandgate, Mr Gordon Nuttall, to escape facing a tribunal of fact, even though a CMC report foundthat the former Labor cabinet minister should be considered for prosecution for lying to a parliamentarycommittee that was trying to get to the bottom of problems with overseas trained doctors. It gives megreat pleasure today to support the Criminal Code (Truth in Parliament) Amendment Bill because itgives every member of this chamber a second chance to restore the integrity and the standing of thisplace.

In fact, I fail to see how any member of this place who thinks they have respect for, and gives dueregard to, the conventions and rules of this place—the heart of Westminster parliamentary democracy—can actually oppose this legislation. If this legislation does not pass in this attempt, it will not be the lasttime this place will have the opportunity to ensure that the people of Queensland can raiseparliamentary standards and have one law for all. A Lawrence Springborg government will present thisbill as its very first legislative act.

This legislation is historic and was born as a response to an extraordinary set of circumstances. Iremind members of the facts, and I am paraphrasing the then Minister for Justice and Attorney-General,the Hon. Linda Lavarch, the member for Kurwongbah. On 8 July 2005 the Hon. Gordon Nuttall MPappeared before an estimates committee of the Legislative Assembly and provided answers toquestions asked of him concerning the administration of his portfolio as the then Minister for Health. Themember for Cunningham so eloquently stated in the parliament tonight what happened but it isworthwhile remembering it. The member for Cunningham said at the time—

The proceedings of Estimates Committee D on Friday, 8 July 2005 did not proceed as I had earlier anticipated. I had a clearquestion I wanted to pose to the then minister for health about what he knew regarding the problems surrounding overseas traineddoctors and when he knew it.


The minister had made a statement published in the Courier Mail that he had not been briefed on the problems with overseastrained doctors by either his director-general, Dr Buckland, his deputy director-general, Dr Scott, nor any of their underlings. Icould not believe that that statement could possibly be true. But the then minister stood by his statement quoted in the Courier-Mail when I asked him about it. When given the opportunity, Dr Scott directly contradicted the minister’s comments, stating that hebelieved the minister had been briefed. In evidence to the CMC in its investigations, Leisa Elder, the then executive director ofpublic affairs for Queensland Health, said—During this meeting (that is the meeting held with the Minister and a number of advisers during the morning tea break of thecommittee) I had a conversation with the Minister. I told Minister Nuttall words to the effect that I believed he had been briefedabout overseas trained doctors in general and it would be wrong to say he wasn’t.

On 15 July 2005, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Queensland Police Service requestingthat an investigation be conducted to ascertain whether, by his answers to certain questions, the thenmember for Sandgate had committed an offence against section 57 of the Criminal Code ofQueensland. On 28 July 2005, the Queensland Police Service referred the complaint to the Crime andMisconduct Commission. The Crime and Misconduct Commission formed the view that it had the powerto conduct an investigation, and it then did so.

On 7 December 2005, the Crime and Misconduct Commission delivered its report to the Attorney-General expressly so that the member for Kurwongbah could bring the commission’s report to theattention of this Assembly. The facts of the matter are found in the CMC report. Page 44 states—There is an abundance of evidence ... that the minister, prior to the Dr Patel scandal becoming public on 22 March 2005, knew ofsuch concerns from a number of sources, including departmental briefings.

Page 45 states—In light of the above evidence, the Commission has decided that prosecution proceedings within the meaning of section 49(1) ofthe Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 should be considered.

Page 15 states—As part of its investigation, and with a view to ascertaining what briefings the minister had received on issues pertaining tooverseas trained doctors, investigators sought access to the minister’s diaries and notebooks. Inquiries ascertained that therelevant documents are in the minister’s personal possession ... These documents were requested but have not been madeavailable to the Commission.

And page 14 indicates—As the minister declined an offer to be interviewed about the matter, it is not possible to ascertain with certainty precisely whatdocumentation was provided to him in support of briefings.

On Friday, 9 December, at a special meeting of this place, the Premier of today seconded amotion by the then Premier, Peter Beattie, to let her mate off the hook. The Leader of the Oppositionsuccinctly replied to the Premier’s motion by saying—The opposition believes in free speech; it does not believe in free lies. This is a very simple matter for this parliament to considertoday. It is a matter of trial by jury not trial by mates. That is the fundamental issue that this parliament needs to consider. Whethercriminal matters should be dealt with by criminal courts or a chamber dominated by their political friends is the fundamentaldifference between the Nationals and the Labor Party here today.

The Premier chose to support a disgraceful abuse of this parliament. The Premier gave the nodand the wink to a failed and shamed minister and said, ‘It is okay. You can lie to parliament and notsuffer any meaningful consequences.’ This is the person who is leading our state right now. This personwas found wanting three years ago. It is in black and white. It is in Hansard for those people who care toread it. Perhaps the Premier might like to supply a character reference for the former member forSandgate in his future employment opportunities.

In her speech to parliament seconding the motion which let the former member for Sandgate offthe hook, the now Premier and then Deputy Premier said of Mr Nuttall—For those of us who are colleagues of the member for Sandgate, for those of us who have worked with him, for those of us whohave sat with him around a cabinet table and know him to be a decent man—a man of integrity—this will not be easy. Puttingaside our friendships as we consider this matter may well be among some of the hardest political tasks that we will face.

I put to members tonight that the Premier did not put aside any friendship whatsoever, that thefriendship was there for all to behold three years ago. But the Premier was not alone. Many membersopposite who took a stand and put hand on heart and pledged their loyalty and allegiance to the formermember for Sandgate. The honourable TA Barton, member for Waterford, said—Before I take my seat I also want to say that I have absolutely no reservations about standing here today and asserting that themember for Sandgate is a man of honesty and integrity. He is a man who made a mistake and has already paid a very, very highprice for that mistake. The motion moved by the Premier today reflects that. If honourable members knew the member as well as Ido, they would understand why this penalty he has suffered is adequate such is the huge amount of hurt that it has caused him.

Might I put to members that a huge amount of hurt has been caused to this parliament and to thisstate. I could go on and on about the many members who stood up hand on heart expressing loyalty tothe former member for Sandgate but I will not. I will close by saying, as I always say when I am in myelectorate and am asked about politics, I have learnt that politics is about life and death. If we makegood decisions in this chamber, people live. If we make bad decisions, people die. It is as black andwhite as that. We have to take everything that is said in this chamber and in committees reporting to thischamber in a very, very serious manner.


Those opposite have proven that they have not taken it in a serious manner and are willing to letpeople come into this place and mislead committees and subvert and undermine the integrity of thisplace. By passing this legislation we will take a massive step forward in rebuilding the faith that theQueensland people can have in this place, in this institution and in us as politicians.

Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—LNP) (8.24 pm): I am very happy to speak to this bill tonight andcertainly to commend the leader of the LNP, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Springborg, for bringingthis to the parliament because this is a very, very serious bill. This goes to the heart of the integrity ofevery member of this House. It is a very, very serious bill. The purpose of the Criminal Code (Truth inParliament) Amendment Bill 2008 is to amend the Criminal Code to introduce the offence of giving falseevidence to parliament and to committees of the parliament. As we know, this provision did exist inprevious legislation but of course was repealed by the Beattie government in 2006 despite vigorousopposition and argument by members of the coalition at that time. There was also huge support from thecommunity at that time against the government bill.

I remind members that it is a privilege and a responsibility to be an elected member of thisparliament. Those of us who are here must realise that the community has certain expectations of theirelected member. The community, rightly so, expects above all else from their elected member honestyand decency. They expect to have total trust in that member. That is something we must never forget. Amember’s behaviour must be above reproach. It is totally unacceptable that the maintenance of thatexpectation be compromised in any way. It is very disappointing that public perception of electedpolitical figures does not always reflect that expectation. It is very disappointing that public perceptionwas also further eroded when this particular clause was repealed from the Criminal Code on 25 May2006.

Government is ultimately about accountability. That is why we are all here. That is also why weare here tonight debating this bill. The government should be accountable to the people of this statewhom it represents. The government should also be accountable to the members of this Assembly.There is absolutely no doubt that freedom of speech and parliamentary privilege must be protected andpreserved at all costs. It forms the basis of our democracy. In essence, parliamentary privilege is thefreedom of the House to conduct its proceedings without interference from outside bodies and withoutinterference from the courts. To a certain extent—only to a certain extent—the immunities and rights thatattach to parliament actually flow from article 9 of the Bill of Rights in 1688. Article 9 allows members ofthe House to speak freely in the House without fear of subsequent legal actions on the grounds of libel.

Mr Shine: That’s what you want to change. Mrs MENKENS: I take that interjection. It is not what we want to change. We want to ensure that

there is public accountability; that the perception of the community is public accountability. Thatperception at the moment does not exist. We in this House operate in a very robust and sometimes arather entertaining environment. Often no quarter is asked for or is given. But implicit in the dealings ofthis House is an expectation on all members in this House of honesty, integrity and ethical behaviour. Asmembers of this parliament, we are responsible and accountable to ourselves. It is something that wehave to think about very, very seriously. We have to be responsible and accountable to ourselves, to ourfellow members and accountable to the public of Queensland.

Just as we support freedom of speech, so should we decry the abuse of freedom of speech. Itwould be very disappointing if we were to see that. Freedom of speech is a right of the members of thisHouse. It is a right that no other Queenslanders have. The expectation that, at all times, we are honestshould be balanced with the responsibility that goes with it. It is a huge responsibility. We cannot haveone without the other otherwise the proceedings and the deliberations of this House become open tosuspicion and open to derision. All that occurs in the House can become tainted and open to question.

All members of the Legislative Assembly have taken an oath of office or made an affirmation ofallegiance in which they sincerely promise or swear to perform the duties and responsibilities of amember to the best of their abilities and according to the law, be it the law of the land or the law of theparliament. The most important thing is the law of the land.

Repealing this clause from the Criminal Code sent the wrong message to the community, andthey have not forgotten that. That is something that is going to come back to bite those on the other sideof parliament. It sent a message that Queensland politicians and public servants are above the law ofthe land. This is totally incorrect and totally unacceptable. It is totally unacceptable to the LNP and it istotally unacceptable to the community at large.

Members of this House have privileges that must never be abused. The ethics committeemonitors and reports on suspected breaches. No doubt inadvertent breaches are an occupationalhazard in the high pressure environ of the floor of the House. We all know that. There are manyoccasions when a member has had no time in which to properly undertake research in order toconstruct an answer. But that is not the concern of this bill. As we know, if a mistake is made it can becorrected at a later date.


This bill is concerned with a member knowingly or willingly giving a false answer to a lawful andrelevant question to the House or to a parliamentary committee. The major concern is when this conductoccurs. Inadvertent slips or mistakes are inevitable and they are forgivable. We know they often happen.But deliberately misleading and false behaviour is avoidable and it is inexcusable. There can be noacceptable reason for such behaviour and such breaches of privilege should be punished to the fullestextent.

It has been argued previously that the current Criminal Code reflects Commonwealth law and thelaw in other states. Perhaps that is so, but the Queensland state government works under a unicameralparliament. In Queensland there is no house of review as there is in the Commonwealth and in otherstates. We all know that. That is why the LNP believes so strongly in this bill. There is no house ofreview. This House is the house of review.

This bill will create the offence of providing false evidence to the Legislative Assembly or acommittee of that assembly. This bill will also amend the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 to ensurecontempts of parliament that amount to providing false evidence are prosecuted under the codeoffence. Parliamentarians cannot be perceived as being above the law. They cannot now or ever beperceived as being above the law.

I am appalled tonight, as I was appalled before, by this government’s refusal to accept this bill. Itis an indictment on the integrity of this current government. I have to express my disappointment in thegovernment for voting against this bill tonight. It goes totally against the community’s perception and thecommunity’s expectation of their elected members of parliament. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (8.34 pm): Prior to the Estimates Committee D hearing on 8 July 2005I did a stint as shadow health minister. During that time the issues surrounding health in this staterevolved very heavily around a particular area. That area was the failure of the government at a numberof levels—at not just the Medical Board level but as an employer within Queensland public hospitals—toensure that overseas trained doctors coming to work in Queensland had been properly screened, wereproperly skilled and were properly assessed.

The calls to do something about what was an obvious problem across the board were deafening.Nobody in Queensland, let alone the then Minister for Health, could possibly have missed the fact thatthere was a very serious problem. Subsequent events, confirmed by the government, show that therewas a problem and very substantial measures had to be taken.

I stood up in press conferences, in this parliament, in the media and even on one occasion did apress conference with the AMA urging the government to take seriously its responsibility to ensureoverseas trained doctors were properly qualified, properly assessed and safe to practice onQueenslanders. It was no secret.

Everybody knows that when there is an issue that runs like that in the media the staff within theoffice of the minister responsible for that area prepare briefing notes for the minister. That is standardpractice. We see ministers bring in a stack of briefing notes every day. It was absolutely unbelievablethat the then Minister for Health would not have been briefed on one of the major health issues thatconfronted the state at that time—not just on the day of the Estimates Committee D hearing but formonths prior to that.

When I came to the Estimates Committee D hearing on 8 July 2005 I was a relatively newmember of parliament and I sat next to the member for Cunningham. We both represented healthbecause of the set-up that we had at the time. The member for Cunningham shared the same concernas I had, which was concern for the welfare of the people of this state. We knew and everybody in thehealth industry accepted that there was a serious problem and that quality control and safety were notbeing enforced.

The government subsequently had to accept this and had to make enormous changes includingto the health commission, the Medical Board and others. Eventually we got it through to the governmentthat the lives of Queenslanders were at risk. It took royal commissions and this whole debacle buteventually we got it through to the government to honour its obligation to keep the people of Queenslandsafe.

I sat at that estimates committee hearing next to the member for Cunningham. We knew that thiswas the hottest issue in health. We knew the then minister would have had briefings and the member forCunningham, in the interests of what we are here to do—that is, to keep the government accountableand insist the government meet its obligation to keep the citizens of Queensland safe when they visit ourhealth facilities—had to ask this failed minister time and time and time again, something like 16 times,what he knew, what briefings he had, who had briefed him. There was never any doubt that he wouldhave had those briefings; it was the hottest issue of the day in health. Yet we saw the minister doeverything he could to mislead that estimates committee and in so doing mislead the people ofQueensland.


Above all and worse, in the process of trying to obfuscate within that committee he yet again, ashappened in question times in the parliament and in the media, robbed Queenslanders of the chance ofconfronting, tackling and fixing the issue and making sure that people were safe.

It was a black chapter. Subsequent events and subsequent action that has been forced on thisgovernment has shown that this was a black chapter in the history of health services and their deliveryby this government, and I sat there absolutely astonished. Then ultimately one of the senior publicservants, Dr John Scott, was permitted by the minister to answer the question. As members know, in thestate estimates committee we cannot directly question the public sector as they can at the federal level.The minister permitted it on this occasion and the doctor gave an honest answer, and he gave theanswer that we all knew was the case.

For anyone who was here at the time, we knew that the minister would have been briefed on thisissue. So the cat was out of the bag and the minister went into damage control. He refused repeatedrequests to allow the director-general to answer the same question—that is, had he briefed the ministerabout the crisis within his department? Subsequent events, which others will speak to tonight and whichare well and truly on the record, showed that that minister misled that estimates committee. But theconsequences of that go way beyond their political ramifications, because this was an issue where itwas necessary to protect the lives and health of Queenslanders, and that is now an indisputable fact. Itis a matter of record, and the government has had to go back and redress the very issues that this failedminister would not address on that day—8 July—or on any other occasion.

The law at the time said that if a person gave evidence to a parliamentary committee they had totell the truth. That is what the law said at the time. I am not a lawyer and I am glad the lawyers had theiropportunity to have a chop at this before me, but I do have a bit of understanding about the communityin Queensland. One thing the community would never accept in this state is that there is one law forevery other witness that appears before such a parliamentary committee and a different and apparentlymore lenient law for the politicians who appear before it. It is simply something we cannot do.Queenslanders will not accept it.

What ensued in the government’s furious efforts to get itself off the hook in relation to thisparticular failed minister—the recalling of parliament and the changing of the law in response to thisfalse evidence before a parliamentary committee—was, in addition, another black chapter in this state.Having got to this point and having been exposed—I do not think any of these matters are matters ofopinion; they are all on the record—one would have hoped that the government of the day and thePremier of the day would have done the right thing. But, no, in some respects they continued on with thesame sort of obfuscation that we saw on 8 July before Estimates Committee B.

There was a long history that followed, including the recalling of parliament which I remember wellbecause I was about to meet the Rural Doctors Association and tour the small hospitals in outbackQueensland, something that I thought would be a very important thing to do. I actually had one foot onthe plane when we got recalled and I came back for that infamous sitting of this House. The matters thathappened in relation to the abrupt opinion obtained from the police commissioner and a whole raft ofother events within this are all matters of public record. But here tonight the government has theopportunity to close the cover on a very dark chapter in its history and a chapter that showed that it didnot care about what happened to the people here in this state, and I would urge it to support this bill.

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (8.44 pm): I rise to support this legislation, the CriminalCode (Truth in Parliament) Amendment Bill. There has been enough of the history of this piece oflegislation dealt with in this chamber tonight and will continue to be dealt with. When the former memberfor Sandgate was health minister, I found him quite a good minister to deal with in terms of bringingissues to his notice in relation to the hospital in my electorate and I certainly valued that relationship andhis response to those problems. That made it even more unpalatable when these matters came to light.I was not part of the estimates committee where these issues started, but it was certainly moreunpalatable for me to find that a situation had developed where the parliament, the parliamentaryprotocols and perhaps the rules of engagement in this place had been breached and that we wererecalled, as the previous speaker in this debate mentioned, to pass legislation to defend the thenmember for Sandgate’s stand.

At the time I got a lot of feedback from my community in relation to these matters. My community,without exception, felt that members of parliament should be treated the same as they in the communitywould be treated. It was particularly on that basis but also on my own values that I spoke against themotion that was moved by the government in that instance. I remain of the view that members in thecommunity expect us to the best of our abilities to represent truth and honesty. I am not saying that noneof us are without reproach; I think we are all liable and susceptible to make mistakes. There is many anopportunity and many an instance where an individual member has come in here and corrected therecord either voluntarily or as a result of process to make sure that the record reflected the actualsituation when a mistake was made either intentionally or in error. They are the values that members ofmy community—and they are not unique—place on us as members of parliament as theirrepresentatives. They do not want perfection; they want honesty and they want integrity.


The matters that transposed at that time in relation to the then member for Sandgate weresaddening, they were disappointing and, as I said, I found him as a former minister for health avery amicable person to deal with and that made it all the more unpalatable. So I have no hesitation insupporting this piece of legislation simply because it reflects the standards of the community that Irepresent, the standards of this state and I believe that it would return to this jurisdiction some degree ofrespect by members in the community that was lost because of the proceedings that were held at thattime. I have absolutely no misgivings in supporting this piece of legislation tonight because I believe itrepresents our community values.

Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (8.48 pm): I am pleased to contribute to the debate on theCriminal Code (Truth in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2008 brought into this House on 27 August by theLeader of the Opposition and honourable member for Southern Downs. When I spoke in the debate onthe motion in December 2005 and again to the Criminal Code Amendment Bill in May 2006, I expressedmy deep discomfort with provisions contained in both these pieces of Labor government parliamentarybusiness and, I want to add, so did many people in the Currumbin electorate. As I said on 9 December2005—It is a sad day in Queensland politics when parliament plans to abrogate the principle of the separation of powers as between theparliament and the judiciary. Members on this side of the House believe that the parliament should discontinue this action andleave a determination of what should happen with the proper judiciary, the DPP.

And that continues to be our stance today.I also said—

Can the Premier and other members of the government not see what damage this will do to our system of government and to theinstitutions, such as courts, which are so important to a working democracy? Furthermore, it is a grave insult to the people ofQueensland to treat a member of parliament, whose behaviour causes a CMC inquiry to say there is a case to be heard, in asupercilious and protected manner.

It was then, and still is today, improper to change legislation in order to cover up a mistake. It isimportant to note that members of parliament in this state have huge responsibilities to the people ofQueensland in the way in which they conduct themselves in the discharge of their parliamentaryresponsibilities, as well as having unique protections under parliamentary privilege to bring beforeparliament matters that outside parliament would not be exposed to public gaze.

Parliamentary privilege should not be abused, nor should members in this parliament expect thatthey should receive even further supra legal protection against action by this parliament and, indeed, thecourts if they knowingly provide false evidence to parliament. That this government has tacitlyencouraged this behaviour brings the whole parliamentary system into disrepute in the eyes of thegeneral public and, quite frankly, it erodes parliament’s moral standing in supporting parliamentaryprivilege given that there is no restraint on its abuser.

This Criminal Code (Truth in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2008 aims to amend the Criminal Codeand Parliament of Queensland Act to introduce the offence of giving false evidence to parliament andthe committees of the parliament. I commend the LNP for bringing this legislation before the House asthe provisions within this bill provide us with a realistic chance to restore the integrity, truth and honestythat was eroded by the Beattie-Bligh government.

In addition, this bill seeks to restore honesty and truthfulness—noble principles that wereremoved in one fell swoop when the former government legislated to deliberately mislead theLegislative Assembly and its committees. It was argued then that we do not need this legislation ifmembers are prepared to tell the truth. What is the opposite of truth? It is considered unparliamentary tosay the word in here. Yet other cheap, vulgar and personal language sprouts forth from arrogantmembers opposite in a steady stream of vitriol, revealing a lack of respect for this great institution.

Since the passing of that legislation, I have watched the level of debate sink to abominable levels,with government members blindly applauding ministers for legislation that they know they will just pushthrough with their huge majority. The Criminal Code Amendment Bill of May 2006, introduced byMinister Lavarch, forced legislation upon us that was labelled by the media on more than oneoccasion—and I quote from the Courier-Mail—as the ‘Freedom to Lie Bill’. While looking through theHansard record of this often heated debate, I came across the mutterings of Labor members who allused what is considered unparliamentary language. On 25 May 2006, the honourable member forMurrumba said—Honourable members have heard members of the opposition telling them that this is a law to allow politicians to lie to parliament.

In the same debate on the same day, the member for Townsville said—The member for Beaudesert is a liar.

It is very important to cover the history here, because this was indeed an emotional debate. Therewas more that day. The honourable member for Ferny Grove—and now minister said—What about tactical lying?

I am quoting from Hansard. The minister went on to state—I didn’t know you were talking about lying.


But the comments that really take the cake are these grubby comments, and I quote from Hansardagain—Thought I heard the member speaking, but it was obviously two half-wits knocking together.

That was followed by—There is no sanction in this parliament for people to tell lies or mislead committees.

That obviously came from the honourable member for Rockhampton. Sadly, the general public alreadyhad a comparatively low opinion of politicians prior to the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2006 that setsone rule for politicians and another for ordinary citizens, because they had witnessed the debate in2005. Doubtless, this opinion has sunk to even lower depths courtesy of this arrogant Labor Beattie-Bligh government.

Clause 3 establishes the offence of providing false evidence before the Legislative Assembly or acommittee of the assembly. The offence, I might add, is a crime punishable by seven yearsimprisonment. A fundraising dinner held on 23 September 2006 at the Southport Sharks club for the lateFeyne Weaver, a much-respected editor of the Gold Coast Sun newspaper, was attended by almost 200people. The member for Mudgeeraba, Di Reilly, was there and feisty Councillor Dawn Crichlow took tothe stage as MC for the auction of items donated to help Feyne’s family through his illness. Dawn wasribbing Di and me about our healthy salaries in her efforts to increase bids—and, I might add, it worked.Both Di and I dipped into our pockets heavily that night. In her typical fashion, Dawn had a dig about thelegislation that she labelled the ‘Freedom to Lie Bill’ in front of the crowd of 200 and asked us if we votedfor it. I told the truth and I said no, I did not. But to my disbelief, the member for Mudgeeraba toldeveryone present she did not vote for the bill—which, of course, was a big fat untruth and furphy.

For the record, the member for Mudgeeraba did not vote for the motion moved by then PremierBeattie, who intervened in the normal process of justice on 9 December 2005 when he recalledparliament to protect the member for Sandgate from prosecution by using parliamentary privilege. Butthe member for Mudgeeraba, Ms Reilly, did vote for the appalling piece of legislation, the Criminal CodeAmendment Bill, which was passed here in this parliament on 25 May 2006 with Labor’s massivemajority. Like all the other Gold Coast members—the members for Burleigh, Southport, Broadwater,Albert—the member for Mudgeeraba did not have the courage or conviction to speak to this bill and,surprise, surprise, neither do they tonight. In fact, only five Labor members chose to speak in support ofthat bill, compared to the 17 members from the Liberal and National parties who spoke against the bill.To their credit, all five Independents and the One Nation member also spoke against this legislation.

Dawn Crichlow and I were discussing this outright prevarication from the mouth of the member forMudgeeraba at this year’s Gold Coast show luncheon. So the member for Mudgeeraba can try towriggle out of this one as much as she likes, but I have witnesses—several of them—who, like me, weredisgusted to think that a member of parliament would tell a bold-faced untruth at a large publicgathering.

But that is what the whole bill, as brought in by this Beattie-Bligh government, was all about: beingable to tell porky pies and get away with it and not have to face the judiciary like the rest of Queensland.Granted, clause 3 does not apply to the member for Mudgeeraba’s deceptive comments made outsidethe House, but it just goes to show how lacking in intestinal fortitude and honesty those opposite are.

This bill provides us all with an opportunity to restore honesty and truth, which the good people ofQueensland expect and deserve from their elected representatives. I commend the bill.

Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—LNP) (9.57 pm): Any threads of credibility in which the LaborParty dresses itself as the self-anointed party of reform was torn asunder two years ago by its nakedruthlessness to save ALP minister Gordon Nuttall from his own folly of deliberately misleading aparliamentary estimates committee. The Labor Party members trampled any respect for this parliamentinto the dust.

Their further movement to bring about a ‘Freedom to Lie Bill’ before this parliament is one thathas brought the whole parliament into disrepute. A lot of people are very cynical about politicians. Theydo not necessarily have a high opinion of the values that politicians hold. I know that, in reality, mostindividual members of parliament come into this place for the right reason—they want to serve. It is sucha shame to see, when those whose actions were unprincipled get caught out, their leader not onlydefend them but also change the Criminal Code to protect them. That brings this parliament and manygood MPs into disrepute. But worst still, it destabilises people’s belief in the very system of government.

It is a ruthless act of government, in this case a Labor government, to change the Criminal Codein the way that it did and to move a motion before the parliament to absolve Gordon Nuttall.

Mr Gray interjected. Mr Rickuss interjected.Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Darling): Order, member for Lockyer and member for Gaven. I

will warn you both under standing order 253.


Miss SIMPSON: Labor had no scruples about throwing out Sir Samuel Griffith’s sage drafting ofsections of the Criminal Code in relation to lying to or misleading parliament and its committees. Theywere concerned that one of their own had deliberately abused this parliament and they wanted toprotect him. Through this bill, the LNP will ensure that there is an opportunity for the blot upon thehistory books of this parliament to be absolved to remedy what the Labor Party did and to recognise thatthere is an opportunity to re-establish people’s hopes that this parliament really is here to serve themand not just to serve those who have an extraordinary majority and will use it at any cost.

Let us look to history, because the leaders of the Labor Party who brought this House intodisrepute by letting Gordon Nuttall off the hook made some rather glowing comments about the formerhealth minister. It is worth repeating those comments here today, as they give a salutary insight into whythey were so desperate to try to paint somebody who had committed such an action as a fine man ofintegrity when history has shown he too was willing to do whatever it took, within the estimatescommittee process, to protect himself. Let us consider what Anna Bligh, the then deputy Premier andnow the Premier of Queensland, said. She stated—For those of us who are colleagues of the member for Sandgate, for those of us who have worked with him, for those who havesat with him around a cabinet table and know him to be a decent man—a man of integrity—this will not be easy.

Anna Bligh’s insight into Gordon Nuttall was that he was a man of integrity. She has tried to back awayfrom those comments in recent times, but as the Deputy Premier—one of the leaders of the Labor Party,leading the charge—she was willing to change the Criminal Code in order to provide an out for GordonNuttall in regard to alleged offences against the parliament.

Let us look at some of the comments of other ministers who still sit within her cabinet. Warren Pittattested to ‘the good character of the member for Sandgate, a character which those opposite havesought’—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wettenhall): Order! I ask that the member for Maroochydore refer tothe former member for Sandgate in those terms.

Miss SIMPSON: It is a direct quote. I note that it is the former member for Sandgate and not thecurrent member for Sandgate, but I was giving a direct quote. Gordon Nuttall’s slate was effectivelywiped clean in regard to these offences. At the time Paul Lucas said, ‘I know the member for Sandgatewell and I believe that he is a good and honest man.’ Another Labor luminary, Tom Barton, said, ‘...Iwant to express my beliefs on the honesty of a member, the member for Sandgate, whom I have knownfor almost 30 years.’ He went on to tell the House in great detail about the former member for Sandgate.The contribution of Gary Fenlon, the current member for Greenslopes, takes the cake. It is quiteastounding and has been quoted before, but for the benefit of this debate I will quote it again. He said.‘...the member for Sandgate is one of the greatest members who has ever entered this parliament.’ Godhelp us! Because of that member of parliament, the Labor Party was willing to rip up a critical section ofthe Criminal Code.

If that is the standard by which they judge a member of the Queensland parliament, it is nowonder that the people start to hold politicians in disregard. I urge the members of this parliament,including the Labor members who continue to sit opposite with their extraordinary majority, to reconsiderthe importance of upholding the integrity of this parliament. I ask them to reconsider their statedintention to vote against this legislation. I ask them to consider that, by voting against this LNP privatemember’s bill, they are endorsing the actions of Premier Beattie and his then deputy Anna Bligh whenthey rose in this House and defended their actions by saying what a fine fellow Gordon Nuttall was. Thatis why the Labor Party took the extraordinary action of wiping out a nearly 150-year-old statute that, untilthat time, had stood the test of time. Never before had anyone dared to suggest that it should be rippedup and thrown out of the Criminal Code.

Labor’s ‘freedom to lie bill’ should be overturned. The bill that we present before the parliament isabout restoring integrity to this place and ensuring that those who deliberately mislead it have applied tothem an appropriate sanction, and to ensure that those who have stood in this place in defence of aman who has brought this place into disrepute could finally remove the stain from the history of thisparliament. I urge members to support this bill. I urge people never to forget the circumstances in whichLabor moved the amendments to the Criminal Code, because no fine rhetoric could ever disguise thebare ruthlessness behind why they undertook this disgusting action.

Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—LNP) (9.05 pm): Tonight it gives me great pleasure to rise andparticipate in this debate. I commend our leader for trying to reverse the disgusting legislation of theLabor Party. As the member for Burnett said earlier tonight, if this bill is defeated tonight it will be amongthe first pieces of legislation that we will pass when we win government. I am very proud to stand hereas an elected member of this chamber or, should I say, I was very proud before the legislation that weare amending tonight was introduced by the former Premier and this government.

People have great expectations of members of parliament. It is one of the highest offices inQueensland. There is no other club in Queensland that only allows 89 members, but they each have toask 32,000 people whether they can join. That alone should point to the pride that we all should feel inbeing a member of this institution.


This bill is about accountable government. This is about a provision of the Criminal Code that wasrepealed for questionable reasons, subsequently allowing members of parliament to deliberatelymislead the Legislative Assembly and its committees. That is simply disgusting. The Attorney-Generalshould hang his head in shame. I know the people whom he represents. I know some of those peoplebelieve in him, but they probably do not understand that he is part of a government that broughtlegislation into this chamber to decriminalise the offence of misleading the parliament. That is anabsolutely disgusting act and you should hang your head in shame. Tonight you have an opportunity toredeem yourself. You have an opportunity to come over here and vote with us, and thus redeemyourself.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Darling Downs, you will address your remarksthrough the chair and refer to other members by their correct title.

Mr HOPPER: Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was addressing the Attorney-General andmember for Toowoomba North, Kerry Shine. Tonight the member for Toowoomba North can put a bit ofintegrity back into the debate. What happened to the person who originally changed the legislation, theformer Premier? He was given a $300,000 overseas job, a car and a fuel card. What a reward! In thisplace the Labor Party is looking after its mates and its former mates. My question to the government isthis: what work is the former Premier doing for Queensland?

Mr Messenger: He’s probably running the state.

Mr HOPPER: I take that interjection from the member for Burnett. He is probably still running thestate. This is about cover up, cover up, cover up. The same group of people who defended the formerhealth minister and former member for Sandgate, Gordon Nuttall, are still in power today.

I hope all of the members over there enjoy their Christmas drinks tomorrow night because for alarge number of them it will be the last Christmas drinks they will ever have as members of this chamber.Why is that? It is because of legislation that has been brought in while they have been members of thisHouse—legislation just like we are talking about here tonight. The question is: why did this governmentprotect the former member for Sandgate and why didn’t it let him face the courts? The next question is:when will this government bring in legislation to protect paedophiles? That will be the next piece oflegislation that comes in. There is absolutely no integrity in that.

It is almost the three-year anniversary of the Labor government recalling parliament and its votewhich stopped the referral of former health minister, Mr Gordon Nuttall, to the DPP despite the CMCinvestigation and recommendation to take the matter before the Director of Public Prosecutions. In thedebate it became apparent that Mr Nuttall had strong friendships and commanded great influence withmany Labor ministers. Hansard shows this. Let me read a few quotes. Premier Bligh said—... for those of us who have sat with him around a cabinet table and know him to be a decent man ...

The Deputy Premier, Paul Lucas, said—I know the member for Sandgate well and I believe that he is a good and honest man.

Minister Warren Pitt happened to say—I stand here today and attest to the good character of the member for Sandgate ... I have always respected the integrity of themember for Sandgate, Gordon Nuttall. I hold that view now, and I will continue to hold that view into the future.

Former minister Tom Barton, the very man who had to stand on his own for council—and didn’t he get aslap because he was not standing under this sort of legislation? He had to try to win a seat on his ownwithout relying on the spin doctor. He was the man who said in this House—I know this man very well, possibly better than anybody else in this parliament today. I want to vouch for his honesty and integrityand his values.

Mr SHINE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Under standing orders it is not allowed tohave repetition in debate. This point has been made at least half a dozen times by former speakers.Subsequent speakers are not able, under standing orders, to rely on repetition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wettenhall): There is no point of order. I call the member for DarlingDowns.

Mr HOPPER: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Greenslopes, GaryFenlon, said—... the member for Sandgate is one of the greatest members who has ever entered this parliament. He is an honest and decenthuman being.

In the course of his legal battles, there is a possibility that some time in the near future the formermember for Sandgate will be in need of a character reference. It is comforting to know that he and hislegal team will not have to look too hard to find plenty of flattering public comments.


Hon. DM WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (9.13 pm): We are here to consider a proposal from theopposition to put into the Criminal Code a new provision which would have the effect of making allcitizens of Queensland liable to criminal prosecutions for false statements made before a parliamentarycommittee. I emphasise ‘all citizens of Queensland’. It is not just politicians. These provisions, whenthey get into the criminal law, tend to get used against the citizenry rather than against the politicians, orat least that is the history of penal provisions in the criminal laws of the states of Australia.

This is a proposal to create a new law—a new offence; an offence that will be ripe for being used.It will not be recreating the status quo which existed where there was a 100-year-old law that had beenin desuetude for 100 years. It will be the creation of a new law and a signal to the prosecution to get outthere and use it. It will be a change in the political landscape.

I invite honourable members to join me in a common-sense test of the assumptions whichunderlie the proposal that the opposition is putting before us. I raise my right hand and I assure theparliament that in my right fist I have a 5c coin. I ask: does any member think that I am lying to theparliament?

Mr Rickuss: Who cares? Mr WELLS: The honourable member does not care, but nobody dared to say, yes, they thought

that I was. It illustrates a couple of points about the truth. Sometimes it is hard to determine the truth asit is very hard for anyone to determine whether I have a coin in my hand. Sometimes it is only reallyknown by the speaker whether the proposition is true. Sometimes the judgement as to whether astatement is true is influenced by the bias of the observer—as, for example, the greater willingness ofhonourable members on the other side to think that I was lying to the House than members on this side.Now I unclench my fist. Does any member now think that I was lying to the parliament?

Opposition members interjected. Mr WELLS: The honourable members opposite manifestly think that my statement was untrue.

What this illustrates is the fact that another feature of the truth is operating. A person can be speakingthe truth even if there is no evidence for the proposition that he or she is speaking the truth, because thecoin was in my hand all the time. I table the coin as a permanent common-sense rebuttal of theassumption underlying what the honourable members on the other side are saying.Tabled paper: A five cent piece.

The assumption that they are making is the facile assumption that it is always a simple matter todetermine the truth, and manifestly it is not. I enjoin honourable members to go with me on a thoughtexperiment. Imagine that we pass this bill today and tomorrow in committee an opposition member saysthat the government has closed a certain number of hospital beds in a certain number of places orperhaps that there is less electricity available in a particular place than there used to be or that a certainnumber of trains are not running on time. Imagine that it turned out that all of those propositions weredemonstrated to have been incorrect. Should those opposition members say that tomorrow, in thecircumstances that the bill was passed, each and every one of them would be laying themselves open toa prosecution under the section that they were today proposing to bring in.

Of course their claims might very well have been based on a belief that they held. They mighthave believed them to have been true or they might have been simply excited over statements or theymight have just been hypotheses that the opposition was entertaining, using them to probe whether thegovernment was doing its job. I think another phrase that the opposition has used to describe that lastone is ‘tactical lie’—only a tactical lie. It may have been any one of those things. But in all of these casesthe opposition members would be liable for prosecution. Make no mistake about it: they are not going toreinstate a law to desuetude. They would be creating a new law with a signal to the legal system ‘use it’and they would be laying themselves open for prosecution in all of those cases. Is this going to have adampening effect on political debate? One would think so.

Mr Rickuss: No. Mr WELLS: No? So the honourable member opposite seriously thinks that, if we pass this

legislation today, and tomorrow he makes some incorrect and extreme statement about the healthsystem or something like that that he will not be laying himself liable for prosecution. He will.

The Leader of the Opposition said that this is the first bill the LNP has introduced into theparliament and it will be the first bill that he introduces when he is Premier, and I will watch sadly as heis the first person to be prosecuted under this legislation. Make no mistake: you are creating ascattergun that will get the citizenry and get the politicians alike, but you will find that the higher thestatus, the better the target.

I invite anybody in this House to tell me the name of any person who can infallibly distinguishbetween a lie and an excited overstatement or an honest articulation of a false misbelief or a rhetoricalhypothesis. In the case that I hypothesised about opposition members tomorrow, I invite any member totell me the name of any judge, any journalist or any commentator who they believe could infallibly, withabsolute consistency and unfailing accuracy, discern what statements are uttered with lying intent.


The reality is that in a democracy the best people to trust with judging a representative’struthfulness is the people themselves. Those who lie in this place can be sacked by the people. Oursystem contains sanctions already. Ministers must resign if they lie. Members who lie can be censored.Many members have been censored. Those who are disbelieved lose their credibility, they sufferdamage to their reputation, which is their stock in trade, and they lose elections. But in the case of theopposition members that I hypothesised about who might tomorrow utter incorrect statements abouthospitals, trains and electricity, what public benefit is there in silencing them with this kind of legislation?What public benefit is there in stopping their arguments and preventing them from fearlessly advancingthem? Whether they are the truth or mere theories, either way it serves a public interest. It creates theopportunity for refutation. By allowing both sides of an argument to be heard, you are giving the people,the community, more grounds for their voting decisions and it forces the truth to be stated moreaccurately. When the people decide on the basis of better information, we get better governments.

I go back to the question: who is the person that you would trust? Who is the infallible humanbeing who is capable of discerning and entering into the innermost recesses of the souls and minds ofthe people who are speaking in this House? If you could find such an infallible person, I suppose allsorts of consequences would flow. There were days and states and nations that believed in suchpeople. In the Middle Ages, Torquemada was believed to hold infallible truth and that justifiedinquisitions and torture. Hitler believed that he could divine the essential will of the people and thatjustified all sorts of things. I am not saying that this is the quick way to totalitarianism. I am saying thatthat is the track opposition members are looking at once they take away from the people the capacity tobe the arbiters of truth. In a democracy, it is not the judges, not some infallible umpire, not some non-elected official who should be the arbiter of truth; it is the people themselves.

Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (9.23 pm): I waited with patience for some time to hear thecontribution from the member for Murrumba because I knew when this debate was scheduled for tonightthat if any member of the Labor Party was going to stand in this place and mount a defence for thegovernment’s indefensible position on this bill it would be the member for Murrumba. I waited patiently tohear the defence that the member for Murrumba would put together and offer up on behalf of thegovernment. I will come to the detail of his argument in a moment, but I want to first make anobservation of just how different tonight is to that shameful day on 9 December 2005 when thisparliament was recalled. Speaker after speaker after speaker—Labor hack after Labor hack after Laborhack—all the sucker-uppers on the other side wanted to—

Ms Grace interjected. Mr SEENEY: It is an expression that encapsulates the attitude that was displayed that day better

than any other. All the Labor members stood up and spoke one after the other about how they shouldexonerate their colleague who had been indisputably caught out by the legislation that we seek toamend tonight. How different that day was from tonight, because only one member on that side of theHouse—apart from the Attorney-General who made a very half-hearted attempt—is prepared to standup and mount any sort of a case. That in itself speaks volumes for the shame that is felt by the LaborParty for what was a shameful episode in Queensland’s political history. The Labor Party recalled theparliament after it had risen for Christmas. It recalled the parliament to offer an exoneration for amember who had been indisputably caught by a piece of statute that had been in place for over 100years, and it was a day of shame for every member of this parliament. It was a day of shame that weshould all remember. It is something that I think belittled all of us, but it was all the government could doat that particular time. It remains the centre plank of the government’s response to what was a shamefulepisode all round.

I now turn to the argument that was offered by the member for Murrumba. The member forMurrumba failed to recognise, in basic layman’s terms, the difference between making a claim andgiving an answer. When the member for Murrumba stood up with his little party trick and asked thequestion about whether or not there was a 5c piece in his hand, he was not answering a question. Hecould have made a claim. He could have said that there was a 5c piece, he could have said that therewas a $10 note. He could have said anything he liked and, according to his own argument, he wouldhave been judged by the people of Queensland and his reputation would have been enhanced ortarnished by that judgement.

But I say to the member for Murrumba and to every member of this House that it would be acompletely different situation if the member for Murrumba were before this parliament or before acommittee of this parliament and was asked, ‘Do you have a 5c piece in your hand?’ I say to themember for Murrumba that that is a very different situation. I have enough respect for the intellect of themember for Murrumba to know that he fully understands that. That is a very different situation. To beasked by a committee of this parliament or this parliament in general, ‘Do you have a 5c piece in yourhand?’ and to answer ‘No’ is an exact representation of what happened to the former member forSandgate, because the former member for Sandgate answered ‘No.’ He answered ‘No.’

An opposition member: Again and again.


Mr SEENEY: Again and again. On 16 occasions, according to the member for Cunningham, heanswered ‘No’ when he knew. Just as the member for Murrumba knew that he had a 5c piece in hishand, the then member for Sandgate knew that the answer to the question that he was being asked wasnot ‘No.’ That is the difference. That is what scuttles the argument that has been put by the Attorney-General and that has been put in the public debate and again by the member for Murrumba tonight.There has to be a recognition of the difference between an expression of opinion or a claim—which weare all entitled to make under parliamentary privilege, and it is a precious thing—and a fact. We shouldbe able to make claims and express opinions. Of course they are not all right and of course there aredifferences of opinion about particular things.

It is a very different circumstance when we as members of parliament are asked a direct questionand the answer is a statement of fact that is incorrect. Then we should be subject to the provisions of theCriminal Code which were removed from the Criminal Code because of that circumstance. There is avery distinct difference between a matter of opinion and a matter of fact. When we stand in this placeand make speeches we are expressing our opinion and we are making claims. We are expressing thoseopinions and making those claims on behalf of the people that we come here to represent. But when weare asked a direct question and we give an answer that is a matter of fact and we misrepresent thatmatter of fact as being true when it is not, it is, I would say to the member for Murrumba, a very differentcircumstance. A very distinct difference that has to be recognised is the difference between evidenceand opinion.

It is not by chance and it is not for nothing that when a person appears before a committee theexpression that is used is that that person is giving evidence to the committee. They are not expressingan opinion. When a person is asked the sort of direct question that the former member for Sandgatewas asked by the member for Cunningham they are being asked for evidence, for fact, not opinion. Theformer member for Sandgate misrepresented that opinion and that fact very clearly. He was found to doso.

That brings me to the next point in rebuttal of the argument that the member for Murrumba madeabout who it is that is to make these judgements. The member for Murrumba is correct when he saysthat it is impossible to make the judgement if the judgement is being made about expressions of opinionand if the judgement is being made about claims. In the case that was the instigator of this wholedebate, the former member for Sandgate represented his answer as a matter of fact. Nobody had tomake a decision about whether or not that was true because the evidence for the untruthfulness of itwas given by the people who sat beside the former member for Sandgate. There was no judgement tobe made. The answer that was given by the former member for Sandgate was shown, was illustrated,was demonstrated to be untrue by the evidence that was given by the people who sat beside him. It isnot the sort of arbitrary decision making that the member for Murrumba tries to make it out to be.

There is no reason this bill should not be passed tonight. It should be passed to re-establish thereputation of this assembly. The actions that were taken by the former member for Sandgate and theformer Premier when he sought to exonerate him detracted from the reputation of this parliament andthereby the reputations of every one of us. I would have no doubt in saying that every one of us has feltthe brunt of the displeasure of our constituents and heard the comments of our constituents in respect ofthe way the reputation of this place and the reputation of us as members of this House was tarnished bythat whole episode. Tonight we have an opportunity to do something about that and support the bill thathas been put forward by the member for Southern Downs. I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (9.33 pm): I rise to support the Criminal Code (Truth in Parliament)Amendment Bill. Does every member of this House remember where they were when 9-11 happened?Do members remember where they were when man walked on the moon? Do they remember wherethey were when JFK was shot? Every person out in the community would know where they were whenany of those events happened and they would also know where they were when parliament wasrecalled and we were given leave to lie. I was standing in the Blackbutt Hall talking to a group of people.I had to cut short my commitment there. They have talked about nothing else since because it was a bigmoment in the lives of the people there. They could not believe, and nor could I, that 89 members ofparliament were recalled to push that bill through. The truth is that we were forced to come down hereknowing full well that that particular bill would be pushed through by the government. I agree withmembers on this side of the House who have said that it was one of the most shameful acts this Househas ever performed.

There is a saying out there that perception is reality. In this case that perception thatparliamentarians lie and are the lowest of the low is something that has hurt this House extremely badly.I can remember the shame I felt coming into this House on that particular day. I feel it when I go out intomy community and I hear them say that politicians lie all the time. It is a common belief that politiciansare worse than children. Children sit in the gallery and shake their heads at the way politicians carry on.The truth is that children lie to get themselves out of trouble. Most people give up deliberately lying whenthey grow up and leave childhood. Most mature adults, if they mislead the House in any way or if theymislead their friends or families, have the gumption to stand up and say, ‘Sorry, I made a mistake. Help.I shouldn’t have said that. Something was wrong’. I did it this morning. I made a statement yesterday in


this House. I asked a person who was familiar with the statement I was about to make to go over it. Hedid not get back to me until 4.30 pm yesterday. I was wrong. I came straight down and asked theSpeaker and the Clerk when I could possibly get up to make a statement to correct what I had put on therecord earlier in the day. The first opportunity was this morning. I did that. If there is any member of thisHouse who thinks any less of me for doing that then they have a huge problem.

One should never think less of anybody for telling the truth or correcting a statement. People cantell a lie while believing that they are telling the truth but when they discover that what they said was, infact, misleading or a lie they should stand up and correct the record. What hurt me at the time—and itdid hurt me to have to come into this place and listen to what went on—is that after the investigation thatwas conducted by the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission, it stated that prosecution shouldbe considered in the Nuttall case either by way of a criminal charge which carries a maximum seven-year jail term or by way of proceedings for contempt of the parliament. The CMC, which I believe lets usdown at times, handed the decision back to the parliament and Premier Peter Beattie then recalled all89 members.

To me it was a pretty cut and dried case: parliament is involved and therefore should not be left tomake the decision; it should go to an independent body. The member for Murrumba said that this bill willcatch the general public out as well as the politicians if any person, politician or member of the publiclies to a parliamentary committee. So be it. Nobody should be lying to a parliamentary committee. If theycan come in and front a committee and lie without any repercussions, what is the point? It is justnonsense.

As I have said, people lie all the time—accidentally and on purpose. If a person lies on purpose,knowing that they are lying, then they have not grown up; they are still immature and they are still achild. If a person realises they lied then they should stand up and be a man, as they say, or be a biggerwoman.

I believe that this bill needs to be passed to restore some dignity to the chamber and to thepoliticians of the future. If a member has no concern about their integrity, their welfare and theirreputation in the community, they can vote against this bill. Anyone who opposes this bill is as guilty asthose who voted with the government in December 2005.

Mr ELMES (Noosa—LNP) (9.40 pm): I rise to make a short contribution to the Criminal Code(Truth in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2008 which was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, themember for Southern Downs. If tonight instead of the ‘truth in parliament’ bit in brackets we weredebating something to do with truth in used car sales, truth in house cladding sales or truth in door-to-door brush sales most members in this parliament would be lined up to make a speech that they wouldreproduce back in their electorates to say to their constituents, ‘Look how I stood up for your interests.’The thing is that we are talking about the truth in parliament.

It seems to be that there is a rule in here and there is a rule out there. The way people think aboutus out there grows a little smaller with very passing day. If for some reason there were some poormisguided soul watching the antics of this parliament tonight as we go through this debate one wouldwonder what they would think of us because of the contributions that have come particularly from theother side.

I do not understand why we cannot as parliamentarians and as an institution try to do somethingto raise our image just a little higher than it is. If that is to tell the truth when we stand up in front of aparliamentary committee or in front of this parliament then that would be a pretty good first step.

I do not want—and we have heard it many times tonight—to go into the lead-up to the eventsinvolving the former member for Sandgate because I was not here. It is not right for me to get involved inthat part of the debate. I take note that the Attorney-General is a lawyer and there are other lawyers inthis place and if they were in a courtroom and they were questioning someone on the witness stand theywould demand from that person, whoever he or she was, that they tell the truth. If they did not tell thetruth there would be a cost to that person for perjuring themselves. Why is it that the Attorney-General,as the chief law maker of Queensland—and the other lawyers in this place—does not expect that in theQueensland parliament? I do not understand that.

Mr Shine interjected.Mr ELMES: I will have a talk to you after, Kerry. I would be pleased to. I do not understand why

there is a rule outside and the same rule does not apply in the Queensland parliament. I refer back to the 5.30 debate tonight. There was argument from the other side about LNP

promises in the lead-up to the next election. Someone yelled out—and it got into Hansard—that thereare $100 billion worth of promises that we have made. I would like to see that. That is the argy-bargythat goes on within the parliament and that should continue to go on in the parliament. But if someonewere to get up and state it as a matter of fact and was to try to mislead the parliament because ofcircumstances that they put to that, then they should be condemned by this parliament and condemnedby this legislation.


The objective of the bill is to amend the Criminal Code and the Parliament of Queensland Act tointroduce the offence of giving false evidence to the parliament and the committees of Queensland. It isnot rocket science. It really is not. I do not know why we have spent half the bloody—I withdraw—nightdoing it. We have spent half the night trying to understand some of these simple facts. Honesty andtruthfulness are expected of every politician in Queensland parliament.

If we went back to our electorates and we got up in front of the Rotary club or the ratepayersassociation or the senior citizens group and carried on with them the way we carry on in here we wouldnot be elected. I do not see why we should have these two rules, but we do.

Whether one is a member of the LNP, an Independent member or a member of the Laborgovernment I do not think we want to see any more of the antics—and they are still going on in someplaces—with regard to the former member for Sandgate. It would be great to put those circumstancesbehind us and to put them behind the parliament permanently.

I see this as simple legislation. It is common-sense legislation. It carries an expectation of thecommunity that we should be doing a damn sight better than we are. I honestly cannot fathom why thegovernment would continue to argue so strongly against a piece of legislation that will only enhance thereputation of the parliament and enhance the reputation of the members of the parliament.

Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (9.46 pm): I commend theLeader of the Opposition for bringing this bill into the parliament. Can I say at the outset that withleadership like this we would have a state of which we would all be proud. In due course, the people ofQueensland will certainly have the opportunity to cast their ballot one way or the other. We may well seethat.

It is amazing that in just over three hours we have seen this government make two enormousblunders in failing to support the people of Queensland. First of all, it would not support the motion wemoved that said that the government will protect the consumers in this state from higher electricitycharges. Those opposite would not support a motion that allowed the government—

Ms Struthers interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Member for Algester! Mr Hoolihan interjected.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Keppel, if you wish to interject please return to your

seat. Mr McARDLE: The motion allowed the government to protect the people of Queensland. It would

not support that motion. The second blunder those opposite will make tonight is to vote down this bill that will put back into

this parliament the integrity and honesty that the people of Queensland say no longer exists. They havemade two massive blunders in a matter of three hours. They have failed to support the people ofQueensland for their own political gains and their own political games.

Let us review the history of this matter. There are a couple of quick points that have not beenmade tonight. Let us go back to 8 July 2005 when Estimate Committee D sat.

Mr Rickuss interjected.Mr McARDLE: We have missed something here, member. The then Minister for Health was

asked a series of questions. We know that one of those questions was prefaced by the terms of section57 of the Criminal Code. He was told at that time—and so was every person in the government—of theexistence of that particular section and that there was a potential for committing an offence if a personbroke that section.

On 15 July the Leader of the Opposition referred the whole issue to the Queensland PoliceService for investigation. On 8 July the then Premier of this state knew that there was a potential breachof the Criminal Code because he was a member of the government. As a member of the government hewould have been aware of what had taken place in the estimates committee questioning. He didnothing. It was highlighted to him and every member of the government that there was a potentialbreach of the Criminal Code and the then Premier did nothing.

It was left to the opposition to take the right course of action and refer it to the Police Service forinvestigation. It then did the right thing and on 28 July it put it through to the CMC. On 9 AugustMr Stuart Copeland MP then had it referred to the MEPPC. So on 8 July 2005 section 57 is enlivened inthe minds of every member in this chamber, including the former Premier. He should have been alert tothe fact and he was not. He did nothing. On 9 August again the opposition referred it to the MEPPC. ThePremier did nothing until that date to look at it and to have this matter investigated by any authority—byany body. One has to ask the question why. The answer is very simple: he was there to protect his mate.On 7 December 2005 the CMC put a report to the parliament which said that the report found—... clearly a question appropriate for resolution by a tribunal of fact whether the minister’s answers to critical questions wereknowingly false.

03 Dec 2008 Motion 4129

Suddenly the then Premier realised, ‘I’ve got a political problem here. I’m really in trouble.’ So on9 December he recalled parliament. From 9 July 2005 to 7 December 2005 the former Premier of thisstate knowing of a potential breach of the Criminal Code did absolutely nothing about it—not a thing!Suddenly when he realised that he could be wearing political damage, on 9 December he determined,‘I’d better recall parliament because we’ve got to get out of this one, fellas,’ and that is exactly whathappened and that is the history of the matter until we come to 9 December.

We then see a shameful situation where this parliament is put through a complete charade ofexonerating the former member—a complete charade! The power of the people of this state to ensurethat that minister was dealt with pursuant to the terms of law was overtaken by a government simplylooking after itself and determining that it would do all it could to protect itself from the political fallout thathad occurred and the other issues that were swirling around its head at that point in time. Thisgovernment should hang its head in shame for failing to take into account the importance that the publicof Queensland expects in this jurisdiction and this body to uphold the highest standards on all accounts.

It is amazing that we stand here in this parliament tonight when the Attorney-General is in factpursuing a fundamental right to lie. He is enforcing a fundamental right to lie to this assembly or to acommittee. He thinks that he can enshrine that by knocking this bill out. I can tell the Attorney tonight:this bill at some point in time will be passed by this parliament and will reinforce the integrity and thestanding of this parliament in the eyes of the public of Queensland. It is an appalling situation that wefind ourselves in here tonight. I think the member for Toowoomba South put it very cleary and succinctly:this parliament must be one of openness and honesty and it is a place that needs to be respected. Thisgovernment, through its chicanery, through its trickery, through its hoodwinking of the processes andthrough its processes of looking after its own Labor mates, has taken away the integrity that belongs inthis parliament; that belongs to the people of Queensland. People throughout this state shake their headand wonder why this parliament is held in such low regard. It is held in such low disregard because ofthe actions of members of the government who are unable to face the rigours of putting a man whoshould have been facing action before the courts to be dealt with.

The Attorney made some comment in relation to the history of this matter and whether or not theparticular offence existed earlier. The Attorney of course would know that under the ParliamentaryPrivileges Act 1861 it was in fact a misdemeanour and to be punished in the same manner as wilful andcorrupt perjury to give a wilfully false answer to any lawful and relevant question put in the course ofexamination before either House or a committee of either House. So this particular offence has existedwell and truly in this state for a long time and was simply translated over a period of time into theCriminal Code. It was absolutely the situation back in 1861 and translated into the current Criminal Codeuntil the Attorney and his government took it out and made it legal to lie in this House.

Let us go back to what we have before the House tonight. A lot of talk has been going on as toexactly whether or not the banter across the chamber would constitute a breach of the act before theHouse, and that is absolute rubbish. When one reads the words contained in proposed subsection57(1), it deals with knowingly giving a false answer to a lawful and relevant question put to the personduring the examination. As I said, it is knowingly giving a false answer to a lawful and relevant question.So the banter across the House would certainly not be caught by that sort of provision. The word‘knowingly’ puts in context very clearly that it is not simply being negligent. It is more than that: it isknowingly misleading the House and knowing what you say is wrong and continuing to do it. That iswhat we are saying this House needs to get back to in order to understand that this House has integrity,and we intend to put it back into the House.

The bill before the House reverses the travesty of justice put upon this House a matter of two orthree years ago by a government crawling back from a situation where it found itself in political damagemode and had to take protective action to ensure that it was in fact secure. I support the bill and it shouldbe supported by this House.

Debate, on motion of Mr McArdle, adjourned.

MOTION

Suspension of Standing and Sessional OrdersHon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (9.56 pm), by leave,

without notice: I move—That, notwithstanding anything contained in the standing and sessional orders for this day’s sitting, the House can continue tomeet past 10 pm to consider disallowance motions, private members’ bills or government business until the adjournment is movedto be followed by a 30-minute adjournment debate.

Question put—That the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.


CRIMINAL CODE (TRUTH IN PARLIAMENT) AMENDMENT BILL

Second ReadingResumed from p. 4129, on motion of Mr Springborg—


Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (9.57 pm): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise to speakto the Criminal Code (Truth in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2008. It does concern me that the wholereason this debate is happening and this bill is before the House is the questionable behaviour andcomments of a former member of parliament. There is no doubt there is a valid reason as to why somany members during this debate have spent so much time focusing on the past and the actions of aformer member of this parliament. I will be supporting the bill because I believe it is important that a verysimple and a very clear message is sent from parliament to all Queenslanders that we are not above thelaw.

I realise that time is moving on and there are other matters that the government intends to debatetonight, but I wish to take some time to go to the actual wording of the bill. In doing so, I want to reflecton comments made by a number of members of the opposition. In particular, I want to start with thecomment that—an assurance, a commitment—this bill will be passed by the parliament or by ourparliament at some time. When I look at the wording I note that it says—A person who, during an examination before the Legislative Assembly or a committee of the Legislative Assembly, knowinglygives a false answer to a lawful and relevant question put to the person during the examination commits a crime.

That is very clear and very specific. There are no ifs and buts; it is there. I understand if legislationneeds to be interpreted by a court at some later date. Often courts will look to not just the fine print in thebill which has become an act of parliament but also if there is an uncertainty as to the interpretation ofthe wording in that act of parliament to the mover’s second reading speech and to the mover’sexplanatory notes. By way of context, I turn to the second reading speech, in which it states—This Bill effectively says any member in this house, and anyone else, if you deliberately provide false evidence to parliament orone of its committees it’s a crime.

That is very clear and very specific. The second reading speech states further—The LNP takes honesty and accountability in parliament very seriously and by all our members supporting this Bill they have putthemselves on notice and are willing to continue to be honest and forthright without fear.

When I read the bill I noticed that it focused on answers to questions. In this parliament there aretwo sides: members have to ask questions and they have to answer questions. My question to allmembers is: why are we going to put so much pressure and very clear legal obligations on the memberswho are going to answer the question? Why are we not also making it very clear and very specific thatthe members who are going to ask the questions in this, the people’s house, the forum of parliament,also have a very similar clear onus and responsibility? They also have to meet similar responsibilities.Why is it that we are, in effect, tolerating, allowing, supporting and encouraging—or perhapspermitting—people to ask questions that are clearly false, or maybe wrong, or maybe knowingly wrong,and there is no legal responsibility for that?

I suppose my challenge to the future government is that if there is a genuine commitment tosaying, ‘We want to see honesty in parliament; we want to make sure everyone is honest, truthful andcredible,’ why are we not also saying that if a member is going to ask a question in this parliament of aminister, or if a member is going to ask a question at a parliamentary committee, that member also haslike responsibilities? Why is it that only the people who answer the questions have this responsibility?Why are we not applying that standard to all members of parliament?

So my challenge to the members here tonight, if they are fair dinkum, is to have a similar legalresponsibility placed on every member of the parliament—whether they are in government, in oppositionor they are an Independent or a member of whatever the political party is—that if they come into thisHouse, they have to act honestly and truthfully to the best of their ability and they are not able to comeinto this House and deliberately or intentionally mislead or tell an untruth.

In that context, I believe we need to send a very clear message to all Queenslanders that whenwe speak in this House, whether we are answering a question or asking a question, we need to at alltimes be as truthful as we possibly can. I do not believe we should be seen to be taking sides. I willresume my seat, but I send the message that if I happen to be returned to parliament, and if analternative government happens to move this motion, I will be looking forward to that alternativegovernment commenting, or perhaps the mover of the motion making comment on my commentstonight in his reply, because I believe being truthful in this House and not just being truthful in ouranswers is just as important to Queenslanders.


Mr DEMPSEY (Bundaberg—LNP) (10.03 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Criminal Code(Truth in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2008. This bill was introduced because in 2006 provisions of theCriminal Code were repealed for questionable reasons, consequently allowing members ofparliament—that is all members of parliament—to deliberately mislead the Legislative Assembly and itscommittees. At the time those provisions were repealed, the Queensland opposition strongly opposedthat move on the grounds that it would undermine the integrity and standing of the Queenslandparliament.

The objectives of this bill are to amend the Criminal Code and Parliament of Queensland Act tointroduce the offence of giving false evidence to parliament and the committees of the parliament. Thereason for this bill is that honesty and truthfulness are expected of every politician in the Queenslandparliament. This bill seeks to restore the honesty and truth that the people of Queensland expect anddeserve. The most basic rule of all citizens in all nations throughout the world is for each of our childrento tell the truth.

The bill will create the offence of providing false evidence to the Legislative Assembly or acommittee of the Assembly. It amends the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 to ensure that acts ofcontempt of parliament that amount to providing false evidence are prosecuted under the code.

In part 2 of the bill, titled ‘Amendment of Criminal Code’, proposed new section 57, titled ‘Falseevidence before Parliament’, states—(1) A person who, during an examination before the Legislative Assembly or a committee of the Legislative Assembly,

knowingly gives a false answer to a lawful and relevant question put to the person during the examination commits acrime.

This evening in this debate the member for Cunningham told us what happened in the EstimatesCommittee D hearing on Friday, 8 July 2005 and how the then health minister was asked on 16occasions to answer truthfully and how he refused to do so. What occurred out of those actions? Howdid we reward this behaviour? Not by punishment but by reward. The saying ‘Spare the rod, spoil thechild’ comes to mind. It certainly did not help the previous member for Sandgate in any way, shape orform. Maybe if punishment was dealt out, there might have been different circumstances today.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Moorhead): Order! Member for Bundaberg, you are skating veryclose to consideration of matters that are sub judice. Just be very careful with that line of argument.

Mr DEMPSEY: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. When we go back to the word ‘knowingly’ in theproposed subsection, we also remember that in the Criminal Code there is the word ‘reasonable’. Whatwould a reasonable man and woman do in those circumstances? It is common sense. We say thosewords very easily, but we have to make sure that we follow it through with actions, not just with words.So the key words are ‘reasonable’ and ‘knowingly’.

I also refer to the date 8 December 2005, when parliament was recalled to exonerate aparliamentary colleague—not on moral grounds but to save face. ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave,when first we practise to deceive.’ It seems that many years later the truth somehow comes to the fore.This should be a lesson not just for politicians but for all members of the community.

This bill is the most powerful tool for open and honest government. It is more powerful than anyfreedom of information reform could ever hope to be. This bill defines the values Queenslanders expectfrom all of their elected representatives. It also provides an opportunity for the current Premier to saythat, in regard to what happened on that day in 2005, the government got it wrong. It also removes theshroud covering the current government so that it can do the right thing and have honesty restored tothis parliament.

This bill aims to restore the credibility and standing of the Queensland parliament that was rippedaway by the Beattie-Bligh government in 2006, all in the name of trying to save one of its mates fromcriminal charges. Never before had such a corruption of the justice system occurred when this currentgovernment used its numbers to effectively decriminalise the offence of providing false evidence toparliament and its committees. The removal of this offence was an open invitation to legislate deceit anduntruths. Yet all members from all sides of government are elected to this House on a platform ofhonesty, standing up for the truth and doing what is right.

This bill is a testament to honesty and a great move towards restoring faith in the process ofparliament. It also ensures that the people of Queensland—the people who elected us to this House, thepeople on the street—can have the utmost faith that what is said in this parliament is the truth, not just ahalf-truth but the whole truth.

I know that it has been a night of quotes, but I remind members that Helen Keller once quotedthat some of the most important things in our lives are not what we see and hear, but what we feel in ourhearts. We have seen the effect that the current legislation has had on the credibility of allQueenslanders and now we have an opportunity to look into our hearts and make the right decision. Wemust make a decision that is not part lie but that rights past wrongs and clears the hearts of all


Queenslanders from the burden of trying to justify lying, giving respect back to all community leaders.This evening we have that opportunity and I encourage all members to take that opportunity. Restoringopenness, honesty and the truth to the people is in the hands of everybody present this evening. Wehave a chance to right the wrongs of the past and stand up, as true community leaders, and lead byexample.

Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (10.10 pm): It is my pleasure to rise and speak to theCriminal Code (Truth in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2008. I know that many members have spoken thisevening and we have gone over the circumstances of what happened on Friday, 9 December 2005when we recalled the parliament. A Criminal Code amendment was moved by the then Leader of theOpposition, the honourable member for Callide, in November 2006 after the Criminal Code AmendmentBill had been introduced by the then Attorney-General, the member for Kurwongbah, in May 2006. I donot propose to canvass all of the issues that many other members have this evening relating to whathappened with the former member for Sandgate, who we know lied to an estimates committee. Myconcerns are that we have reformed parliamentary privilege in Queensland and that we have altered thestructures and mechanisms that historically have protected freedom of speech in parliament and haveavoided institutional clashes between the courts and parliament.

While we might have avoided the immediate political crisis for the former premier, the underlyinglegal tensions that might result in a future crisis remain unaddressed, despite proposals for law reform.We note that the Criminal Code Amendment Act of 2006 amended the Queensland Criminal Code andrepealed sections 56, 57 and 58. The statute inserts new section 717 into the Criminal Code, providingthat after the commencement of the amending act ‘a person can not be charged with, prosecuted for orfurther prosecuted for, or convicted of, an offence against s 56, 57 or 58 or punished for doing oromitting to do an act that constituted an offence.’

The amendments were precipitated by an investigation of the Crime and Misconduct Commissioninto a complaint that the minister had committed an offence against section 57. The fact that the CMCwas, under its legislation, able to assume the power to conduct a preliminary investigation demonstratesthat a fundamental constitutional principle had apparently been breached in Queensland, namely article9 of the Bill of Rights, which is repeated in modern syntax in section 8 of the Parliament of QueenslandAct. It states that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in the Assembly cannot beimpeached or questioned in any court or place out of the Assembly. The amendments were apparentlymade with little awareness of the significance of such a change.

We are aware of what happened with the Nuttall crisis. The Leader of the Opposition took theunorthodox approach of writing to the officer in charge of the Brisbane Central Police Station requestingthat the Queensland Police Service launch an investigation into whether the minister contravenedsection 58 of the Criminal Code through the evidence he gave to the committee. The police referred thematter to the CMC, which launched an investigation. Questions that were never judicially determinedthen arose as to whether that directive and the CMC investigation infringed parliamentary privilege andwhether section 57 infringed parliamentary privilege. Counsel for the CMC were asked whether section57 of the Criminal Code breached parliamentary privilege. That was answered uncontroversially but atlength in the negative. They were also asked whether an investigation by the CMC would breachparliamentary privilege and concluded that it would not, with the proviso that privilege would prevent thecoercive questioning by the CMC of Mr Nuttall in respect of the evidence that he gave.

We know that when the CMC presented its report it was recommended that the DPP not placecharges but that the former minister should answer to the parliament. We know what happened on 9December 2005 when the parliament was recalled. I will not refer to members opposite and the thingsthey said. They stand condemned by the things that they said. After that, the Queensland government’sresponse was to introduce the amending legislation already identified and to repeal those provisions inthe Criminal Code.

The point that was missed in all of this was that the CMC proceeded to investigate proceedingsbefore parliament in the Nuttall matter, which in itself was quite clearly a prima facie breach of article 9 ofthe Bill of Rights. The question of the validity of the legislation that permits such an investigation to occuris also a moot point, as the matter was never litigated. The crucial point is that if article 9 has, in fact,been abrogated by that legislation, that abrogation was a radical change to an accepted constitutionalprinciple, apparently done without sufficient regard, or any regard at all, to the underlying constitutionalstructures and balances that might be disturbed.

The New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Western AustralianAnti-Corruption Commission had wider jurisdictions over elected officials than the CMC with respect toinvestigations of non-criminal behaviour of elected officials. These bodies are not responsible toparliament in the conventional way through ministerial responsibility to parliament. Since the demise ofthe Star Chamber in the seventeenth century, there has been no analogy in the Westminster system fora standing body that possesses such significant coercive powers over private and public citizens,especially in an organisation outside the familiar structures of responsible government.


The question is: should parliamentary privilege be codified? Despite the protestations during thedebate on the Criminal Code amendments that the action was taken to protect freedom of speech inparliament, what none of the political figures seem to have recognised is that the fundamentalprotections of article 9 of the Bill of Rights had, on any view, already been infringed by the CMClegislation itself, and by the CMC conducting an investigation that clearly impeached or questioned theproceedings of parliament.

In terms of best practice legislative drafting, the approach of Sir Samuel Griffith in drafting theCriminal Code provisions to include parliamentary offences was almost a century ahead of its time.Even though the terms of those provisions were probably driven more by the restricted jurisdiction ofcolonial parliaments than by contemporary law reform considerations, Queensland had, by a quirk,enjoyed best practice legislative provisions that Westminster itself now proposes to adopt. Of course,the government, which will not normally change a word of the Criminal Code, came into this place andgot rid of three sections of it with one fell swoop.

Because the Nuttall matter did not proceed in the usual way, lawyers have been deprived of thebenefits of a test case and a precedent with respect to how contemporary local courts would havereacted. A prosecution could have been the catalyst for a judicial examination of some of thefundamental aspects of Queensland’s constitutional structure, where a civil case involving what hadseemed at first to be a fairly mundane privilege point developed into a significant constitutional case. Itmay well be that in any event Queensland and other Westminster style legislatures will be forced torecognise the coercive aspects of privilege, should they ever try to use them in the future.

We know that at the time many clearly partisan comments were made with high emotion. Theywere made in the context of a debate on a day when the parliament was specially recalled by the thenPremier, who was a master at manipulating the media. Those comments underscore some of thedifficulties that face a modern legislature dealing with contempt itself, especially with the modernrequirements of procedural fairness and international human rights obligations. There is a political andlegal imperative that justice has to be not only done but also seen to be done.

Rather than waiting for the next crisis to occur and relying on a hurried and ill-considered ad hocresponse, a coherent response should be developed by Queensland and other Australian legislatures.The Griffith Criminal Code provisions that were repealed in Queensland provide a good starting point forthe codification of criminal offences concerning parliaments, and that is what the Leader of theOpposition is proposing with this bill. I urge members opposite to support it. I urge them to look back onwhat they have done in years gone by and to listen to the passion with which members of the LNPspeak about this. I urge them to recognise that what was done in December 2005 and May 2006 whenthe government brought in the amendments to the Criminal Code, which normally it will not change atall, undermined some of the fundamental tenets of our democracy and our whole Westminster system. Iask them to look deeply into what they are going to do when they vote and support the bill before theHouse.

Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.18 pm), in reply: Inrising to summarise this bill before the parliament, I thank all honourable members for theircontributions, particularly those honourable members on this side of the House and also thoseIndependent members of the parliament who made a contribution with a true and decent understandingof what the intention of the legislation is all about.

There is no doubt that the whole approach to this legislation has become quite partisan. Wecannot blame people for establishing a partisan position, particularly when we go back and look at thegenesis of the issue that led to the repeal of the section in May 2006 by a parliamentary majority of thegovernment. When this section was repealed, that was one of the darkest stains which this parliamenthas ever witnessed in Queensland.

I listened earlier to the passion with which the honourable member for Nanango made hercontribution. What she said that the people were saying in the Blackbutt or Nanango hall that day wasexactly what I was detecting in my electorate—the incredulity that was being experienced rightthroughout Queensland at the time. People were saying that they could not believe that members ofparliament—parliament, which was supposed to be the pinnacle of truth, honesty and acting in thepublic interest—were prepared to actively legislate in favour of those people who deliberately lie to theparliament. The parliament is the highest democratic institution in this state, and the people out theresaw members—such as the then Premier and the then Deputy Premier, Anna Bligh—coming into thisplace and being prepared to legislate in favour of that.

One needs to go back and look at the catalyst of that. That has been enunciated in this placetonight by a number of members. Obviously the member for Cunningham was very much involved at thetime. He was the person involved in questioning the then health minister and member for Sandgate,Gordon Nuttall. It was not just a one-off. This was not a circumstance where a member of parliamentmade a slip-up, a person made a mistake of fact, a person was just provided with wrong information and


presented that information to the committee, a person actually said something and did not realise thathe was saying the wrong thing. We are talking here about a person who, under the intense scrutiny ofthe estimates committee process, was asked to enunciate certain information. He was asked about hisknowledge of untrained foreign doctors or inadequately trained, qualified and scrutinised foreigndoctors—whether he was actually aware of any of those circumstances, whether he had been madeaware of any concerns by his department. That was specifically the line of questioning by thehonourable member for Cunningham. When the member for Sandgate, the then health minister,responded, he said, no, he did not—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Moorhead): Order! Leader of the Opposition, can you just be clearthat it is the former member for Sandgate.

Mr SPRINGBORG: The former member for Sandgate, Mr Nuttall, responded. He said, no, hewas not aware. He had no knowledge whatsoever. The member for Cunningham continued toforensically question the then member for Sandgate, Mr Nuttall, about this issue. Not on one or twooccasions but, as I recollect, on 16 occasions he was actually asked that question. Not only that but thethen member for Sandgate and then health minister, Mr Nuttall, was also advised of the consequencesof deliberately providing false testimony to a parliamentary committee. That means that the thenmember for Sandgate was very much aware of potential criminal sanctions which existed in the case ofthose people who knowingly provide false evidence to the parliament of Queensland. So Mr Nuttall wasvery much made aware of that particular fact.

But notwithstanding that, he continued to peddle the falsity that he had been proffering from thefirst answer to the honourable member for Cunningham. He continued to maintain that he had noknowledge, that he had never been briefed. He continued that line of false evidence. Not only that buthe continued to dig himself in deeper when his own senior departmental officers—namely, his director-general—when asked if he had made the minister aware said, ‘Yes, the minister was aware of it.’Notwithstanding that fact, the minister continued to deny and then subsequently denied the deputydirector-general the opportunity to be able to testify to the factual circumstances before the committee.This was not just a case of where somebody came into parliament or came into a committee and was ofa particular view that something was right, presented that evidence and that was it. It was a case ofwhere a person condemned himself by his own words on not one but on 16 separate occasions—not onone occasion but on 16 separate occasions.

We have heard also tonight this absolute fabrication and this preposterous proposition putforward by honourable members opposite of what happens if somebody makes some claim aboutsomething or other in here. As the honourable member for Noosa said a while ago, there is an argy-bargy that goes on in this place which is well and truly established with regard to the democraticparliamentary process. That is not the same as providing evidence before this parliament or before aparliamentary committee.

Mr Shine: It wasn’t evidence. Evidence is sworn. It wasn’t sworn.Mr SPRINGBORG: It was evidence before a committee, providing testimony before a committee.

That is what it is about. When you are before a committee of the parliament and you are beingexamined, you are providing evidence to that particular committee. That is what you are there for. It isthe highest court in the land. That is established. That is something that the Hon. Attorney-General wasprobably even told at law school. Whether it actually sunk in is another matter.

That is why this case, when it was actually presented to the police and subsequently to the CMC,had such standing and such veracity. I was intricately linked to that because I was the one who wascharged with the responsibility of reporting the matter to the police, as the honourable member forSurfers Paradise pointed out. Then it went to the CMC. The CMC subsequently investigated it. TheCMC, in its report to this parliament, actually found and concluded that there was enough evidence tosubstantiate a case that there could have been breaches of the Criminal Code and therefore put to thisparliament for its deliberation whether the matter should be dealt with by the parliament or whether thematter should be referred straight to the Director of Public Prosecutions in Queensland. So the CMC,which properly investigated this—they had had lawyers actually look at this—and duly considered thisoutside of a partisan environment, actually said that there was enough evidence to enliven not only itsjurisdiction but also that section of the Criminal Code which had never, ever been used in the 100-oddyears that it had been in existence.

But the government response was quite extraordinary. It was to automatically fall in behind one ofits own in order to protect the reputation of the government and to subjugate the rights of the people ofQueensland who expected far more from the Minister for Health, who should have been telling the truthto the parliament of Queensland, particularly at that time when we were dealing with the issuessurrounding the Bundaberg Hospital crisis and allegations made against a certain doctor there and aheightened level of sensitivity in the community with regard to concerns about foreign trained doctorsbut, more importantly, about the proper and due accreditation and classification of those particulardoctors.


So the government came into this place, and what did it do on 9 December 2005? Let us seewhat the now Premier Anna Bligh, who was then the Deputy Premier, minister for finance and ministerfor state development, did. In the Hansard she says—Making this choice is a grave and serious duty and, as we consider it, we have certain obligations. Firstly among those obligations,in my view, is to put aside both our friendships and our political rivalries. For those of us who are colleagues of the member forSandgate, for those of us who have worked with him, for those of us who have sat with him around a cabinet table and know himto be a decent man—a man of integrity—this will not be easy. Putting aside our friendships as we consider this matter may well beamong some of the hardest political tasks that we will face.

The parliament and the people of Queensland will ultimately judge whether he is a man ofintegrity. It was about defending one of their own. It was always going to be that members of the LaborParty were going to defend one of their own and to exonerate their own in this place and to keep this outof the court jurisdiction because they knew what the consequence of that was going to be. Members ofthe government—many of them are still here today—sat there and were prepared to see the thenmember for Sandgate continue to tell these mistruths. They made him apologise to this parliament—they actually forced an apology out of him—but that was all. That was all the reprimand, the onlysentence, that that member actually got.

That reprimand has to be considered in the overall context of what some other members ofparliament who have been found in contempt of this parliament have actually received—that is, 21 dayssuspension or 28 days suspension. He deliberately fabricated evidence and lied to a parliamentarycommittee, and some other members of parliament have actually pre-emptively apologised to this place.But that was not good enough, because we then saw this government, which was not able to trust itself,go about further pre-emptive damage control because it then brought legislation to this parliamentbefore the middle of 2006 which struck down provisions of the Criminal Code which had existed formore than one century.

Basically, the government thought if you cannot trust yourself to tell the truth, then remove thelegislation that actually makes it a criminal offence. So this government could no longer trust itself in thisplace and felt it necessary to take out of the Criminal Code in Queensland those provisions whichactually made it a criminal offence to deliberately falsify evidence or tell a lie to the Queenslandparliament. So that is precisely what happened.

Let us look at whose reputation they impugned along the way, and it was none more than thegreat Sir Samuel Griffith, one of the foremost legal scholars and legal minds not only in the history ofQueensland but in the history of Australian Federation and right across all of our Commonwealthjurisdiction. He was a person who was pre-eminently qualified to draft the world’s first criminal code. Notonly did he draft the world’s first Criminal Code, but that Criminal Code has subsequently been used asa template for other criminal codes within our Westminster jurisdiction. This is a man who wasrecognised amongst his peers so much that he was Attorney-General of Queensland and Premier ofQueensland. He had a legal mind that was arguably unlike any we have seen in Queensland since thattime. He had an extraordinary legal mind and he was an extraordinary scholar.

Can members tell me that this person would not have considered the 1688 Bill of Rights in hisdeliberation of what he was going to do with those sections in the Criminal Code? Samuel Griffith wouldhave thought about whether it impugned the 1688 Bill of Rights, and he felt at the time that there was noimpugning of the Bill of Rights which made the parliament supreme in its deliberations. He felt that the1688 Bill of Rights and the supremacy of parliament could cohabitate with provisions of the CriminalCode and it would actually put a very strong obligation on members of parliament to do the right thing.The honourable member for Surfers Paradise addressed some of those particular issues earlier when itcomes to the nature of coercion and the circumstances under which the Bill of Rights may be impugned.

I would take Sir Samuel Griffith and his construction of the Criminal Code over honourablemembers opposite, particularly the Attorney-General, at any time. Not only that, Sir Samuel Griffith wasactually involved in drafting the Australian Constitution.

Mr Cripps: He was a founding father.Mr SPRINGBORG: He was a founding father of the Australian Constitution. The Constitution

which he was involved in drafting over 100 years ago has stood the test of time and has been generallyunchanged in more than one century, with the exception of a couple of referendums that have beenpassed to change the Constitution. So this is a man who should know what he is on about.

We heard tonight from the Attorney-General about how there can still be contempts of parliament.Yes, we are not arguing that parliament does not have a duty to consider alleged contempts against theparliament, and the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee actually does that on aregular basis and does it with generally good bipartisan deliberation.

What we saw here when it came to the issue of contempt is that we had a member who in not avery balanced way was exonerated with just a small apology when compared to others. It comes downto the partisan nature of this parliament. There is no undermining the supremacy of parliament based onthe legislation which I have put before this place, and we need to set that aside straight away.Parliamentary privilege is not impugned in any way whatsoever.


What I am proposing here is actually designed to ensure that MPs and those who provideevidence to parliament have a very clear and unequivocal deterrent. They should not knowingly providefalse evidence or a false statement to this place. That is very, very clear. The privileges which actuallyattach to this place also attach extremely high obligations to tell the truth before the parliament. That iswhat is actually attached, so therefore there should be a high penalty for someone who knowingly anddeliberately provides a false statement to this parliament in the way that the then member for Sandgatedid. This is about clear, unabashed dishonesty. This is about making sure this parliament does not bringitself into disrepute.

The member for Murrumba stood in this place earlier and said that, as soon as this is passed, itwill be a green light to the prosecutors around Queensland to run around and gather up all the strangersin this place and drag them before the criminal jurisdiction and that we will have to build all these extraprisons. I do not see that actually being the case. The honourable member for Murrumba must bejudging the non-elected members of parliament by the standards of his own elected cronies on that side.That is what he has to be doing, because I have not seen false evidence being provided to parliamentby strangers or non-elected members in this place. We have heard an unbelievable construction ofarguments by those members on the other side who simply cannot trust themselves to tell the truth inthe parliament of Queensland. Therefore, they want to construct a whole range of arguments in order toundermine it, and they do not hold water in any way.

The honourable member for Nicklin mentioned in his contribution that there is a need to tell thetruth in this place all the time. I think most honourable members attempt to do that. We seecircumstances where information is actually provided to members of parliament. They come in here andraise a question and the government has a chance to answer a particular question. There is a job to aska question and there is a job for the government to answer a question; that is the nature of this place.Information is provided here and ministers are supposed to provide information to the best of theirknowledge. If there is a point of clarification, they need to clarify it. It is the same as we have seen onthis side.

So I say to the honourable member for Nicklin that it is a fundamental principle that there shouldbe a genuine attempt on the part of all members of parliament to come in here and knowingly tell thetruth because of the special privilege they have attached to themselves. That is what it should be about.Therefore, as a general principle, no-one should argue against it.

In conclusion, there has not been a private member’s bill in the time that I have been here thathas engendered as much passion, as much searching for principles, as much in-depth considerationand deliberation as this one. The reason for that is that an important principle is at stake—that is theprinciple of parliamentary privilege, the principle of telling the truth, the principle of being an electedrepresentative and being held in high regard and high esteem, and the principle of leading by example.

The fact that the parliament almost three years ago decided deliberately and in a calculating wayto take out a penal provision that had existed in the Criminal Code for over 100 years is somethingwhich I think sits very uncomfortably with members of parliament, particularly those on this side and theIndependent members of this place. That is what this is about. I simply say to those members oppositethat having these provisions in the Criminal Code of Queensland is a decent check and balance. This isabout making sure that we, the elected members of parliament, can be held in very high regard.

It puts a barrier in place against people such as the then member for Sandgate who deliberately,in a calculating way, maliciously went about misleading this parliament notwithstanding the fact that itwas brought to his attention that what he was doing could potentially end in a criminal charge. Thatalmost happened and would have happened if it was not for the actions of the Labor mates whogathered around him and protected him from criminal sanction.

My plea to parliament is to reinstate those provisions. They are important provisions. This is aboutreinstating the faith and the confidence of the people of Queensland which was so significantlyundermined by the actions of this Labor government in 2006 when it took those provisions out of thecriminal law in Queensland.

Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time.

AYES, 25—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Dickson, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Langbroek, Lee Long,McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss,Elmes

NOES, 45—Attwood, Barry, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe,Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, McNamara, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pitt,Purcell, Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wendt,Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Jones

Resolved in the negative.

03 Dec 2008 Adjournment 4137

ADJOURNMENTHon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.47 pm): I move—

That the House do now adjourn.

Gold Coast AFL Team

Mr STEVENS (Robina—LNP) (10.47 pm): The community of the Gold Coast deserves an AFLteam playing out of Carrara Stadium. The Gold Coast is the sixth largest city in Australia and warrants itsown separate AFL team apart from the Brisbane Lions. We know that Adelaide and Perth have twoteams. This state Labor government as usual is neglecting the Gold Coast region by idly sitting by andletting the opportunity for an AFL team to be established on the Gold Coast pass by.

The ineptitude of this Labor government to effectively negotiate a beneficial sporting opportunityfor the Gold Coast appears somewhat reminiscent of its inability to secure Indy for the region and losingthe Australian Surf-Lifesaving Championships at Kurrawa for quite a few years. It seems it is shy oninvesting in the Gold Coast whereas everything is fine for investing in a Labor dominated Brisbane.

Where are the silent six Labor members of the Gold Coast on this issue? I think the name speaksfor itself: the silent six. The Carrara Stadium has been set up for years to accommodate Aussie Rules.The size of the ground is appropriate for AFL, the lights are there for night games, and all that is neededis for the auxiliary and corporate facilities to be upgraded as well as the stadium seats to bring it into linewith national AFL facility standards.

The Bligh Labor government invested $160 million to secure a NRL team at Skilled Stadium, butis silent on investing any substantial amount of money for an AFL team on the Gold Coast. While theAFL is spending millions trying to invest in the youth of the Gold Coast region the government and thesilent six are nowhere to be found. Yet again they are thumbing their noses at the people of the GoldCoast who enjoy AFL football by denying them their own AFL team. Surely a three-way investmentbetween the AFL, the Gold Coast City Council and the state government to upgrade Carrara is areasonable ask from the second largest population in Queensland to enable this national sport to beproudly played and supported by Gold Coast City.

I ask this government why it is that at quarter time, with the field wide open for opportunity, does itrefuse to kick a goal for the Gold Coast in helping to secure an AFL team for the region. It is perplexingwhy the government on one hand invests substantially in one code yet refuses to barrack for a GoldCoast AFL team. The only conclusion that I can draw from this growing trend of negotiating failures andnear failures for sport on the Gold Coast is that the state Labor government is well and truly scoringbehinds when it comes to Gold Coast sporting infrastructure.

Volunteer Marine Rescue Whitsunday

Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (10.50 pm): Last Sunday I had the pleasure of attending anopen day at the Volunteer Marine Rescue Association’s Whitsunday headquarters in Airlie Beach andinspecting its new state-of-the-art radio room. In a region that boasts the southern hemisphere’s largestcharter boat fleet, three major coal loading facilities servicing some of the world’s largest coal carryingvessels, together with a large fleet of privately owned and other commercially operated marine vessels,the Volunteer Marine Rescue Association is a valued organisation.

As the name suggests, VMR is an organisation of volunteers that is required to supplement itsgovernment funding with money raised within the community. To this end I am looking forward to theVMR Whitsunday Titanic cocktail party this Friday night where it has been suggested that we might ‘sinka few’. In true community spirit, the local VMR is also well supported by various service organisationsincluding the Rotary Club of Airlie Beach, which contributed most generously to the organisation’srescue boat, and the Whitsunday Lions Club, which assisted in the fit-out of the organisation’s new radioroom.

The open day on Sunday attracted a steady stream of locals who were interested to learn moreabout how the organisation works and why they should become a member of the VMR. The day’shighlight was the official opening of the new radio room, which is fitted out with the latest VH and VHFradio communication equipment.

The new VHF system, which was funded by the state government, represents one part of a newmarine communications network that now exists along most of the Queensland coast. The Mackay-Whitsunday VHF system consists of international maritime VHF radio base stations installed at elevatedsites on Hayman Island, Whitsunday Island, Mount Blackwood near Seaforth and the Maritime SafetyQueensland’s vessel traffic service centre at Hay Point south of Mackay.

4138 Adjournment 03 Dec 2008

This combination of bases ensures almost continuous marine radio coverage across the watersof the region and provides a new level of emergency radio capacity. I acknowledge that without the radiomonitoring carried out by volunteers, the system is merely hardware. But thanks to the wonderfulpartnership between the volunteers in Mackay and the Whitsunday and Hay Point vessel trafficservices, a whole new level of emergency response has been activated.

Speaking of good deeds and community responsiveness, I want to pay tribute to Hamilton Islandfor its generosity in offering to come to the rescue of local boaties by assisting in the reconstruction ofthe boat ramp pontoon located next to the VMR base. The pontoon was destroyed in the February stormand its reconstruction was held up by the unavailability of a pile-driver capable of placing a pylon in itsstrategic location. The good people at Hamilton Island kindly offered to release their contactor to do thework so that the community could enjoy the facility over the Christmas holidays.

In the end, council was able to make alternative arrangements. But I place on record my thanks toCEO, Glenn Bourke, Executive Managing Director, Craig Davidson, Jock Edgar and Mike Johnston fortheir generosity. I wish them and all my constituents a very happy Christmas.

Gympie Electorate, ChristmasMr GIBSON (Gympie—LNP) (10.53 pm): Tonight I find myself echoing the same position as the

editor of the New York Sun back in 1897 when he penned those famous words in reply to a letter writtenby eight-year-old Virginia O’Hanlon: ‘Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as loveand generosity and devotion exist.’ In the electorate of Gympie, Santa Claus is not just one person butfound in the actions of many—like Craig Campbell and Michael Kerr who have put in their own time,money and effort to ensure that the water tower’s Christmas star is once again lighting up the skyline inGympie. There was concern this year that this landmark would not be fulfilling its traditional role—that is,to light up as part of the community Christmas lights on 1 December. But thanks to the efforts of thesemen, their community spirit, their money and the support of the Gympie Regional Council we can onceagain say, ‘Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

The volunteers at the Salvos and St Vincent de Paul in Gympie, who find themselves giving oftheir time and support to those families in need, serve as the real Santa’s helpers in providing the basicsto those who need it the most—those who are struggling in these difficult financial times. We must notforget those who donate in support of these charities to help them do their good work. ‘Yes, Virginia,there is a Santa Claus.’

Our police, our hospital staff and our emergency service workers will pull those shifts over theChristmas holiday period to ensure that we are all safe and protected as we go about celebrating. Iknow myself the benefit of these workers firsthand as one year, not that many years ago, I experiencedkidney stones after Christmas dinner and found myself in the emergency ward in the care of thesededicated individuals. Boy, was I grateful they were on. ‘Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.’

Members of our community service clubs give gifts and joy to those in need. The Gympie ApexClub, of which I am a member, regularly holds its Santa fair—a community Christmas party that isprovided at no cost to the community. I am a proud member of the club and know what great work theydo as they contribute to the community. They visit the hospital and give gifts to those children who will bein over the Christmas period. Our other service clubs—Lions, Rotary, Zonta and others—all do greatwork at this time of the year. ‘Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.’

We only need to look around Gympie to see that the Christmas spirit is alive and well. To all, Iwish you the blessings of the season for a safe and special holiday break with your families. May themiracle of Christmas fill your heart with warmth and love. ‘Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.’ Theyare found in the people of Gympie through their love and generosity for each other.

Point Lookout Surf Life Saving ClubMr WEIGHTMAN (Cleveland—ALP) (10.35 pm): I rise to pay tribute to those men and women of

the surf-lifesaving movement who volunteer their time and energy to providing a safe environment forthose of us who wish to enjoy one of the most cherished of Australian lifestyle choices—the day at thebeach. Each year, for many months of the year, everyday men and women don the yellow and red of thesurf-lifesaver to perform amazing deeds that largely go unrecognised.

Thanks to the Year of the Surf Lifesaver, which was celebrated last year, the profile of these goodpeople and the roles they play received a timely boost. I am proud to say that I am a member of one ofthose great clubs—the Point Lookout Surf Life Saving Club, situated on beautiful North StradbrokeIsland in our own Moreton Bay. I am proud to be part of a great team of people working hard to providea great service to those who visit the patrolled beaches on the island.

Point Lookout is a club that does it hard. It is one of those unique clubs in Queensland that stillretains a bunkhouse for the use of club members and does not have pokies. It still relies on grants fromthe council, state government and Surf Life Saving Queensland as well as community contributions toenable it to perform the services required to patrol its beaches throughout the summer.


Mr Wettenhall: A great club.

Mr WEIGHTMAN: It is a great club. I know that local councillor Craig Ogilvie contributes about$5,000 from his community fund and is also a great supporter of the club. The club is also uniquebecause it patrols up to three beaches during peak times. It is deemed to be an isolated location. Thenearest support comes from clubs on the Gold Coast. I sincerely commend club president, George Hill,and his committee for the hard work they do to keep the club performing at such a high level.

This last weekend was the annual Surf Safe Summer Appeal, which provides the many surf clubsin Queensland the opportunity to raise much-needed funds. During the appeal Surf Life SavingQueensland raised approximately $642,000, with Point Lookout collecting nearly $35,000. It is hoping toreach about $40,000 by the end of the week.

Another fundraiser for Surf Life Saving Queensland is the Summer Surf Girl competition. PointLookout has its own entrant this year, the very talented surf-lifesaver Alanna Bodger. Alanna has beenworking very hard with her committee to once again raise much-needed funds for her club. So far shehas raised around $10,000 and is hoping to crack $30,000.

Summer Surf Girl is a very important fundraising event for surf-lifesaving clubs, which raised over$783,000 last season. It also develops the lifetime skills and confidence of the young ladies whovolunteer to represent their clubs within our association. I wish Alanna all the very best in herendeavours and I am sure she will do very well. With the support of the great people in the club, Alannawill follow in the footsteps of many great Summer Surf Girls, including her sister, Jenaya.

Time expired.

Economy; WhalingMr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (10.59 pm): Recently our federal government has made a

number of decisions to release a lot of money to Australians with the message, ‘Spend, spend, spend.By spending, you will save Australia from going into recession or having a depression.’ Whatdisappoints me is that our federal government has not matched its enthusiasm of the message to spendwith the need to spend that money on local products—on Australian products and on Queenslandproducts. When times get tough, we should be protecting our own. We should be supporting our own.We should be encouraging people to buy local, buy Queensland, buy Australian. But unfortunately itappears that our federal government is not prepared to directly challenge the Chinese or Japanesegovernments. I have researched our state government’s activities in promoting Queenslanders to buylocal, buy Queensland and buy Australian and I confess that I believe that a lot more could be done.

Before I resume my seat I have to say how disappointed I am in watching our federalgovernment’s failure to take a strong public and decisive stance against the Japanese resumption ofwhaling in the Southern Ocean. Thank goodness for the Steve Irwin and the many volunteers who goout of their way to save the great whales and directly challenge the Japanese whaling endeavours in theSouthern Ocean. It now appears that our close cousins New Zealand will take a strong stand. It is goingto lead Australia in challenging the Japanese whaling fleet. Where is Australia? Silent. Australia is silent.It is not prepared to challenge Japan. Thank you, New Zealand! I am disappointed with our Australiangovernment. Many Queenslanders and many young Australians are also disappointed. The federalgovernment has the power to take strong, decisive action. Heck, it is sending Australians toAfghanistan! But, no, it cannot take a strong stand to protect the great whale. I wish our federalgovernment would take a stronger stand and follow the New Zealand government’s lead.

Waterford Electorate, Police Citizens Youth ClubMr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (11.00 pm): The electorate of Waterford has much to

celebrate, but this year we are celebrating the 60th anniversary of the PCYC movement in Queensland.In 1948 Queensland had its first PCYC club opened at Lang Park in Brisbane.

Mr Dempsey: It’s still there.

Mr MOORHEAD: It is still there, member for Bundaberg. The Waterford electorate is quite luckyin that it has the Beenleigh PCYC, which this year celebrates its 30th anniversary. It has been a serviceto our community for that period of time providing both recreation and support for the young people ofour area. But the Woodridge electorate is also lucky to have a facility with the Logan PCYC whereconstituents of the Waterford electorate can seek those same services as well. We are very wellserviced in our area with the two PCYC clubs and their service to our local community. In that 30 yearsof the Beenleigh PCYC being in place, one of the stalwarts of that club has been Senior Sergeant MarkDufficy. He is someone who has dedicated many years of his life to serving the young people ofBeenleigh in a compassionate and understanding way, and I hope that we can continue to recognise hishard work into the future.

4140 Adjournment 03 Dec 2008

One of the innovative initiatives that has come out of the Beenleigh PCYC is the Restart program.As an idea of young people to bring together other young people and have a frank discussion aboutthose issues facing them, this program provided a group of young people with an opportunity to cometogether in a team-building and self-esteem program and then to move on to a forum where youngpeople were provided with an opportunity to put their views to community leaders. The member forWoodridge, Desley Scott, and I were very proud to attend and listen to those young people makingthose views known to us. In particular, one of the issues they raised was truancy. I must say that I wassurprised by the strength of some of their opposition to truancy and some of the issues behind it. Thisdiscussion has led to a local project, the Truancy Project, which has seen the PCYC employ acommunity worker seconded from the Beenleigh State High School to focus on truancy and to workhand in hand with the local police to provide an immediate response to absenteeism and truancy in theBeenleigh area. This will be assisted by the Logan-Albert-Beaudesert region of Education Queenslandintroducing the I Attend system, which is quite popular. That means that students will be provided with apermission slip which has their photo on it to make sure that they are authorised to be absent fromschool.

Time expired.

Wide Bay Australia Bundy Thunder Powerboat Spectacular

Mr DEMPSEY (Bundaberg—LNP) (11.04 pm): There is a saying that from little things big thingsgrow, and that is certainly the case with the Wide Bay Australia Bundy Thunder Powerboat Spectacular.Now in its ninth year, Bundy Thunder is Queensland’s biggest powerboat race event. Staged over twodays each November, the usual tranquil waters and surrounds of Sandy Hook on the Burnett River aretransformed into a racing cauldron buzzing with the roar of engines, speed and excitement coupled withthe smell of fresh hamburgers under the shade of riverbank eucalypts. This event presents two days ofAustralia’s best racing and lunchtime water displays and is also the culmination of a number of ancillaryevents such as the Wide Bay Australia ambassador quest, gala pre race party and the drivers’ meet andgreet.

Established in 2000, Bundy Thunder is not yet in the same league as the other race which stopsthe nation on the first Tuesday each November but it still captivates the nation’s powerboat community,and this year this magnificent event attracted over 10,000 spectators. The actual racing is conducted bythe Australian Power Boat Association Queensland Council. This event is a project of the Rotary Club ofBundaberg West and is organised by the successful Bundy Thunder committee, which again did abrilliant job at this year’s event, with Rotary and the Leukaemia Foundation raising a total of $100,000,an increase of around $25,000 on last year’s amount.

Another international class field was again assembled from throughout Australia and it was againpleasing to see the local flag being flown by Peter Leaney with a great deal of pride and enthusiasm.Great credit goes to the 2008 committee, which includes Chairman Wayne Thompson, who took thereins from follow Rotarian Anthony Kelly this year after one year as vice-chairman. Sue-Ellen Pitt hasalso done a magnificent job as event coordinator since 2005, while the Rotary Club was alsorepresented on the committee by Derek McGrath and Alan Limpus, who have also been there since dayone. The vice-chairman is Steve Barrett, another foundation member who represents the Sandy HookSki Club along with Neville Hounsell. Mrs Veronica Timms continues to give great service after havingbeen event coordinator from 2000 to 2003 and also on the committee were Mrs Pat Hooper from theLeukaemia Foundation Bundaberg branch and minute secretary Garry Cooper, while the expertise ofBundaberg Regional Council events coordinator Karen Richters was also beneficial.

The 2008 Bundy Thunder’s outstanding success was the result of 12 months of hard work by allof those people and a variety of volunteers and community organisations all working together for a goodcause. For an event that started as a low-key trial at Queen’s Park underneath Bundaberg’s Burnettbridge in 1999, Bundy Thunder’s constant growth and skyrocketing profile is a tribute to the vision andinitiative of everyone involved in this event. Bundy Thunder has been included in Queensland’s 150must-dos in 2009. I invite everyone to come to Sandy Hook on 7 and 8 November 2009 for a sportingspectacular of mammoth proportions that all of the family will enjoy.

Jac’s For Kids Association Incorporation

Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (11.07 pm): At this time of the year we usually get into somehectic running around to attend different events on behalf of organisations and sometimes it helps to juststop and smell the flowers. I had such an afternoon on Sunday when I was asked to open thepantomime A Christmas Toy Shop at the Yeppoon Town Hall. There was a little bit of an ulterior motive:I had family involved in it with my grandchildren and children. It was an enjoyable afternoon for 2½hours. It was great to see the cast of 19 and the crew who put it together, but it was the people whoorganised it that I want to mention to the members of this House.


This pantomime was organised by the staff and families of Jac’s Learning World in Yeppoon.Jac’s Learning World has set up Jac’s for Kids Association Incorporation, which is a charitableorganisation run by the parents and staff. They provide all of the assistance and, in this instance, theyprovided their time, props, costumes and organised the day. Donna English and her staff and thefamilies of Jac’s Learning World really produced something special. I also thank Narelle Penny fromMUK entertainments and Tamara Anderson from Encompass Art Production. Jac’s for Kids AssociationIncorporated set out to raise funds for members in the community who have unexpected financial stressor help to improve the quality of life for families.

In the past two years since it was set up, they have provided a Christmas present for each foster-child in the region and 15 Christmas hampers and gifts for several families through other organisations,such as Anglicare and St Vincent De Paul. They have also paid for a young boy’s accommodation,flights and uniform for him to compete in the national disabled little athletics championships in Perth,covered fees for a talented little girl’s music tuition, covered the fees and uniform expenses for a littleboy competing at state level in soccer, covered the costs of several other children’s sporting uniformsand fees, purchased several washing machines and fridges for families on low incomes in desperateneed of the items and run a furniture drive and collected a semitrailer load of furniture to go to Emeraldto assist families after the floods. I ask members to bear in mind that this is only a small group that ismade up of community members who are working really hard to make sure that those less fortunatepeople in our community get the benefit of some hard work and real caring by others in the community.

Whaling

Mr DICKSON (Kawana—LNP) (11.10 pm): I rise to speak about an issue that is very close to myheart and to those of most Queenslanders, and that is the issue of Japanese scientific whaling andbroken government promises. I would like to refer honourable members to an article written by GlennMilne that appeared in the Courier-Mail on 29 November, in which he raised the issue of brokenpromises by the federal minister for the environment, Peter Garrett, and his esteemed leader, KevinRudd.

During the last federal campaign Peter Garrett and his political master, Kevin Rudd, committed anincoming Labor government to sending the Royal Australian Navy to the Great Southern Ocean toconduct surveillance operations of Japanese scientific whaling. Most of us can remember PeterGarrett’s face all over the TV screens and in the newspapers claiming that one of the first decisions ofthe new Labor government would be to fulfil its election promise to send the Australian Navy south tomonitor Japanese scientific whaling.

Although whaling is banned in the Great Southern Ocean, each year Japanese fleets killhundreds of minke whales, claiming the slaughter is for scientific study. In actual fact, it is well knownthat the flesh is sold in Japanese restaurants. On 14 December 2007 in an article in the Australian,Kevin Rudd was quoted saying—We take seriously Australia’s international obligations on the proper protection of whales...We have said in the past that we wouldlook at measures which would fortify any future case to be brought before international legal tribunals on the implementation ofJapan’s whaling policies, in particular Japan’s assertion that these are for research purposes and not commercial purposes.

What has he actually done for the whales? What is he doing about the whale-watching ecotourismindustry that is gaining in popularity?

The Labor governments in Queensland and federally have a bad record when it comes toprotecting our endangered species. Apart from the whales, we have examples of the Queenslandlungfish and the Mary River turtle, whose habitat will be endangered when the Bligh government goesahead with the Traveston Crossing Dam on the Mary River in Queensland.

Kevin Rudd and Peter Garrett must fulfil their promise to the people of Queensland to take thenecessary measures to collect evidence for an international court challenge against the annualJapanese whale hunt. I call on the Premier, Anna Bligh, to use her influence with the Prime Minister tomake it happen for the people of Queensland.

I would like to congratulate Captain Watson from the Sea Shepherd’s flagship, the Steve Irwin, forhis and his crew’s efforts and also Daryl Hannah’s efforts to protect the world’s whale population. I thankthose people so much, because they really care.

Mount Ommaney Electorate, Bushcare

Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (11.12 pm): I would like to put on record theoutstanding work of a number of volunteer groups in my electorate which are dedicated to caring for ourlocal environment.

Mr Bombolas: A bit like the B4C in Chatsworth.

4142 Attendance 03 Dec 2008

Mrs ATTWOOD: I will take that interjection. On one side of my electorate there is the BlackheathRoad, Fort Road, Benarrawa and Edenbrook Bushcare groups, the Friends of Sherwood Arboretum, theOxley Creek Environment Group and the Oxley Creek Catchment Association. On the Centenary side,there is the Rocks Community Garden group, the Jindalee Bushcare group, the Wacol Action Group,the Save Our Riverfront Bushland group, the Wolston Creek Bushcare group, the Horizon Drive andWestlake-Riverhills Bushcare group, Friends of Pooh Corner and Sustainable Jamboree.

An overarching group called CDEA—Centenary and District Environmental Action—works withthe council and me to keep tabs on the range of environmental concerns around the area. The presidentof CDEA, Shealagh Walker, and her hardworking committee take a great interest in and support many ofthese Bushcare groups whilst keeping a watch on development proposals, catchment areas, flora andfauna issues, kangaroo protection strategies, rail and road infrastructure proposals, significant heritagefigtrees and the revegetation of significant areas.

Local Westlake resident, Ed Parker, has worked long and hard to get the council to realise theimportance of having a catchment coordinator for the Wolston Creek Catchment. He began the fight topreserve our environment by setting up the Save Our Riverfront Bushland group in the Centenary areaa number of years ago. The SORB and CDEA groups are taken very seriously by potential developersand the Brisbane City Council. They have managed to save large tracts of bushland in Horizon Driveand in Fort Road from development.

The Friends of Pooh Corner won their fight against the former federal government to stop the saleof another large area of bushland along Wolston Road. Another recent win for all of us was getting theBrisbane City Council to provide another exit out of the Sumner Park Industrial Estate. The BrisbaneCity Council has agreed to provide fauna underpasses to allow kangaroos safe movement from PoohCorner to the Brisbane River corridor. Hundreds of kangaroos and wallabies continue to amaze anddelight visitors to the Wacol-Wolston area.

Earlier in the year, Main Roads removed a number of pine trees along the Centenary Highwaynear Jindalee. CDEA acknowledged that those trees were diseased and needed to be taken down.They have successfully worked with Main Roads to identify suitable trees for replanting and had inputinto the replanting design of the area. Work has started to replace these trees on the site and I ampleased that Main Roads has been able to work towards a solution with this group.

CDEA is also concerned about feral deer, which continue to destroy vegetation around the MountOmmaney walkway. After the minister for primary industries visited the area in January this year, thegovernment is proposing to declare the rusa deer as a class 2 pest via legislation that is currently beingdrafted. These deer are not only a motorist’s hazard but constantly undo the good work of the JindaleeBushcare group by destroying the plantings and causing erosion.

I commend the good work of all of the bushcare groups in my electorate and their enthusiasm forcontributing to keeping the local bushland areas preserved.

Question put—That the House do now adjourn.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 11.15 pm.

ATTENDANCE

Attwood, Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Copeland, Cripps, Croft, Cunningham, Darling,Dempsey, Dickson, Elmes, English, Fenlon, Finn, Flegg, Foley, Fraser, Gibson, Grace, Gray, Hayward,Hinchliffe, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Hopper, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Langbroek,Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee Long, Lee, Lingard, Lucas, McArdle, McNamara, Male, Malone, Menkens,Messenger, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk,Pearce, Pitt, Pratt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, Rickuss, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott,Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, vanLitsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson

hansard home page: e-mail: phone: (07) 3406 7314 fax: (07 ......1 december 2008 tabled paper:...

Documents