hansard home page: e-mail: phone: (07) 3406 7314 fax: (07) … · 2008. 9. 3. · 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

Tuesday, 26 August 2008ASSENT TO BILLS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2199

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 12 June 2008, from Her Excellency, the Governor to Mr Speaker advising of assent to bills on 11 June 2008. ............................................................................................................................. 2199

REPORTS ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 2199Auditor-General .................................................................................................................................................................. 2199

Tabled paper: Auditor-General of Queensland: Report to Parliament No. 5 for 2008—Protecting Queensland’s primary industries and environment from pests and disease, A Performance Management Systems Audit................................................................................................................................... 2199Tabled paper: Auditor-General of Queensland: Report to Parliament No. 5 for 2008—Protecting Queensland’s primary industries and environment from pests and disease, A Performance Management Systems Audit—Executive Summary. .............................................................................................. 2199

Register of Members’ Interests .......................................................................................................................................... 2199Tabled paper: Twenty-first report on the Register of Members’ Interests. ............................................................. 2199

Expenditure of the Office of the Speaker ........................................................................................................................... 2199Tabled paper: Statement for public disclosure—Expenditure of the Office of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly for the period 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008.......................................................................... 2199

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 2200Privilege, Referral to Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee .............................................................. 2200Official Photograph ............................................................................................................................................................. 2200

APPOINTMENTS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2200Opposition .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2200

Tabled paper: Document detailing opposition appointments and shadow portfolios.............................................. 2201PETITIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2201TABLED PAPERS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2201MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 2210

Health System .................................................................................................................................................................... 2210Bligh Government, Achievements ...................................................................................................................................... 2212Her Excellency the Governor, Ms P Wensley .................................................................................................................... 2213Macrossan, Hon. JM .......................................................................................................................................................... 2213Ministerial Expenses .......................................................................................................................................................... 2213

Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Public Report of Ministerial Expenses: for the period 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 and the Independent Auditor’s Report’. .......................................................................................... 2214

Advancing Health Action .................................................................................................................................................... 2214

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 — Tuesday, 26 August 2008

Mary Valley, Forest Initiative ...............................................................................................................................................2214Tabled paper: Document by Queensland Water Infrastructure Pty Ltd titled ‘Forest Initiative: Sustainable Timber and Carbon Project, Mary Valley, South East Queensland’. .....................................................................2215

Millungera Basin .................................................................................................................................................................2215Hendra Virus .......................................................................................................................................................................2215Beijing Olympic Games; Sports Funding ............................................................................................................................2216

Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Beijing 2008 Medal Tally: Queensland Medal Tally’. ............................................2216Gold Coast, Public Transport Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................2216State Schools; Beijing Olympic Games ..............................................................................................................................2217Social Housing ....................................................................................................................................................................2217Intercountry Adoptions, India ..............................................................................................................................................2218Interest Rates .....................................................................................................................................................................2218

INVESTIGATION INTO ALTRUISTIC SURROGACY COMMITTEE ..............................................................................................2219Extension of Time ...............................................................................................................................................................2219

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES ................................................................................................................................................2219Membership ........................................................................................................................................................................2219

SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE ................................................................................................................................2219Report .................................................................................................................................................................................2219

Tabled paper: Scrutiny of Legislation Committee—Alert Digest No. 8 of 2008. .....................................................2219SPEAKER’S STATEMENT .............................................................................................................................................................2220

Hearing Awareness Week ..................................................................................................................................................2220QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...................................................................................................................................................2220

Labor Party Polling .............................................................................................................................................................2220Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Invitation to Offer: DPC-1754-08—Provision of Market Research Services’..................................................................................................................................................................2220

Labor Party Polling .............................................................................................................................................................2221Advancing Health Action .....................................................................................................................................................2221Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Leaked Documents ............................................................................................2222Political Donations, Disclosure Laws ..................................................................................................................................2223Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Leaked Documents ............................................................................................2223Water Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................................................2224

Tabled paper: Copy of article from the Dalby Herald, dated 13 May 2008, page 9 titled ‘Oil pipeline to supply water?’ and two extracts from Hansard, 6 June 2008, page 2137, and 16 April 2008, pages 1045 to 1046. ...................................................................................................................................................................2225

Queensland Racing ............................................................................................................................................................2225Taxation Reform .................................................................................................................................................................2225Nambour Fire Station ..........................................................................................................................................................2226Gold Coast, Light Rail .........................................................................................................................................................2227Member for Bulimba, ABC Radio Interview ........................................................................................................................2227Swimming Queensland, Funding ........................................................................................................................................2228Intercountry Adoptions, India ..............................................................................................................................................2228State Schools of Tomorrow ................................................................................................................................................2229Queensland Rail, Peak Hour Passenger Numbers .............................................................................................................2230Social Housing ....................................................................................................................................................................2230

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...........................................................................................................................................................2231Labor Party Polling .............................................................................................................................................................2231

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ................................................................................................................................................2231 Labor Party Polling ............................................................................................................................................................2231Blueprint for the Bush, Regional Plans ...............................................................................................................................2233Oil Shale Mining, McFarlane Deposit ..................................................................................................................................2234Health System ....................................................................................................................................................................2235Energy Efficiency ................................................................................................................................................................2236Queensland Racing ............................................................................................................................................................2236Water Tanks .......................................................................................................................................................................2237Moggill Electorate, Road Safety .........................................................................................................................................2238

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 11 August 2008, from Mr Ross Blinco, Manager (Road Operations), Brisbane District Office, Metropolitan Region, Department of Main Roads, to Dr Bruce Flegg MP regarding Moggill Sub-Arterial Road U96. ..............................................................................................................2239Tabled paper: Transcript of an interview, dated 25 August 2008, on radio 4BC Brisbane. ....................................2239Tabled paper: Letter, dated 24 August 2008, from Ray Rice, Area Coordinator, Bellbowrie Neighbourhood Watch, regarding a request for pedestrian activated lights along Moggill Road, Bellbowrie. ........2239Tabled paper: An unsigned letter, dated 26 August 2008, to Dr Bruce Flegg MP and Mayor Newman, concerning the pedestrian fatality on Moggill Road on 26 August 2008 and the need for better lighting and roadmarking.........................................................................................................................................2239

Richlands Railway Station; Darra-Springfield Transport Corridor .......................................................................................2239Fraser Coast Health Service District ...................................................................................................................................2240Chronic Disease Prevention ...............................................................................................................................................2241

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...........................................................................................................................................................2242Beijing Olympic Games, Queensland Medal Winners ........................................................................................................2242

Tabled paper: Revised document titled ‘Beijing 2008 Medal Tally: Queensland Medal Tally’. ...............................2242

Table of Contents — Tuesday, 26 August 2008

POLICE SERVICE ADMINISTRATION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ......................................................... 2242First Reading ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2242Second Reading ................................................................................................................................................................. 2242

CRIMINAL CODE AND JURY AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL .................................................................................. 2244First Reading ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2244Second Reading ................................................................................................................................................................. 2244

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) .................................................. 2245First Reading ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2245Second Reading ................................................................................................................................................................. 2245

ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL ................................................................................................................................................. 2247First Reading ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2247Second Reading ................................................................................................................................................................. 2247

FISHERIES AMENDMENT BILL .................................................................................................................................................... 2248Second Reading ................................................................................................................................................................. 2248

Tabled paper: Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Information paper titled ‘Sustainable fishing in Queensland—proposal to amend Section 14 of the Fisheries Act 1994’. ............................................... 2263Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Mr Mulherin’s amendments to the Fisheries Amendment Bill. ..................... 2264

Consideration in Detail ....................................................................................................................................................... 2265Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. ....................................................................................................................... 2265Clause 4—(Amendment of s 14 (Aborigines’ and Torres Strait Islanders’ rights to take fisheries resources etc.))— ................................................................................................................................................... 2265Clause 4, as amended, agreed to. ......................................................................................................................... 2265

Third Reading ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2266Long Title ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2266

SUMMARY OFFENCES (GRAFFITI REMOVAL POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL ........................................................................ 2266Second Reading ................................................................................................................................................................. 2266

AIRPORT ASSETS (RESTRUCTURING AND DISPOSAL) BILL ................................................................................................. 2284First Reading ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2284Second Reading ................................................................................................................................................................. 2285

LIQUOR AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL ........................................................................................................................ 2286First Reading ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2286Second Reading ................................................................................................................................................................. 2286

SUMMARY OFFENCES (GRAFFITI REMOVAL POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL ........................................................................ 2288Second Reading ................................................................................................................................................................. 2288

Tabled paper: Explanatory notes for Minister Spence’s amendments to the Summary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill. .......................................................................................................... 2292

Consideration in Detail ....................................................................................................................................................... 2292Clauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to. ....................................................................................................................... 2292Clause 6 (Insertion of new pt 3)— .......................................................................................................................... 2292Clause 6, as amended, agreed to. ........................................................................................................................ 2292Clause 7, as read, agreed to. ................................................................................................................................ 2292


MINING AND OTHER LEGISLATION (SAFETY AND HEALTH FEE) AMENDMENT BILL ........................................................ 2293Second Reading ................................................................................................................................................................. 2293

ORDER OF BUSINESS .................................................................................................................................................................. 2310MINING AND OTHER LEGISLATION (SAFETY AND HEALTH FEE) AMENDMENT BILL ........................................................ 2310

Second Reading ................................................................................................................................................................. 2310Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. ......................................................................... 2310Resolved in the affirmative. .................................................................................................................................... 2310

Consideration in Detail ....................................................................................................................................................... 2310Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. ........................................................................................................................ 2310Clause 4, as read, agreed to. ................................................................................................................................ 2311Clauses 5 to 10, as read, agreed to. ..................................................................................................................... 2311


ADJOURNMENT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2312Gatton, Flying Foxes .......................................................................................................................................................... 2312Labrador, Community Renewal .......................................................................................................................................... 2312Agnes Water, Desalination Plant ........................................................................................................................................ 2313

Tabled paper: Copy of letter, dated 22 August 2008, to the member for Lockyer from the Acting Executive Director, Churches of Christ Care concerning aged constituents in Gatton. ......................................... 2313

Brisbane City Council, Rate Increases ............................................................................................................................... 2314Queensland Alumina Ltd .................................................................................................................................................... 2314Coomera Police District ...................................................................................................................................................... 2315Olympic Medallist, Mr Ken Wallace .................................................................................................................................... 2315Pacific Motorway Upgrade ................................................................................................................................................. 2316Wilful Negligence ................................................................................................................................................................ 2317Barron River Electorate, Schools ....................................................................................................................................... 2317

ATTENDANCE ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2318

26 Aug 2008 Legislative Assembly 2199

TUESDAY, 26 AUGUST 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: 11 June 2008

“A Bill for An Act to facilitate the disclosure of justice information or child protection information between particular publicsector agencies and to amend particular Acts in relation to the appointment of a Judge Administrator for the District Court”“A Bill for An Act to amend the Duties Act 2001, the Land Tax Act 1915, the Pay-roll Tax Act 1971 and the Petroleum andGas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 for particular purposes”“A Bill for An Act about the administration of the public service and the management and employment of public serviceemployees, to provide for matters concerning particular agencies in the public sector, and to amend the Acts mentioned inschedule 3 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 sincerelyGovernor12 June 2008Tabled paper: Letter, dated 12 June 2008, from Her Excellency, the Governor to Mr Speaker advising of assent to bills on 11 June2008.

REPORTS

Auditor-GeneralMr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that I have received from the Auditor-

General his report titled Report to parliament No. 5 for 2008: Protecting Queensland’s primary industriesand environment from pests and disease. I have also received an executive summary brochure to reportNo. 5. I table the report and the brochure for the information of members. Tabled paper: Auditor-General of Queensland: Report to Parliament No. 5 for 2008—Protecting Queensland’s primary industriesand environment from pests and disease, A Performance Management Systems Audit. Tabled paper: Auditor-General of Queensland: Report to Parliament No. 5 for 2008—Protecting Queensland’s primary industriesand environment from pests and disease, A Performance Management Systems Audit—Executive Summary.

Register of Members’ InterestsMr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay upon the table of the House the 21st report on the

Register of Members’ Interests. Tabled paper: Twenty-first report on the Register of Members’ Interests.

Expenditure of the Office of the SpeakerMr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay upon the table of the House the ‘Statement for public

disclosure: expenditure of the Office of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly’ for the period 1 July2007 to 30 June 2008. Tabled paper: Statement for public disclosure—Expenditure of the Office of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly for the period1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008.

2200 Appointments 26 Aug 2008

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS

Privilege, Referral to Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges CommitteeMr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have been advised by the registrar of interest that a

complaint by the member for Caloundra about the Premier’s registration of interest was received inaccordance with schedule 2, section 14 of the Standing Rules and Orders. A complaint in accordancewith this section is required to be forwarded to the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary PrivilegesCommittee by the registrar. Given that this matter has been the subject of considerable public attentionand has not been made in a confidential way, it is appropriate that the House be formally advised.Further, given that these matters do not arise frequently, I draw to the attention of members thatstanding order 271 now applies.

Official PhotographMr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that on this coming Thursday, 28 August 2008,

there will be an official photograph taken of members in the chamber. This will occur at 10.20 am. It isrequested that all members are in the chamber for this official photograph.

APPOINTMENTS

OppositionMr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (9.35 am): Following the

formation of the LNP in Queensland, I wish to advise the House of the full list of oppositionappointments, including shadow ministers. As members would already know, an LNP government willreform our parliament by abolishing the 11 redundant parliamentary secretaries, a saving to taxpayers of$3 million per term. Consequently, there are no parliamentary secretaries—

Mr SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, can I just say that I think you make the appointments. Ina sole way, inform the parliament of the appointments.

Mr SPRINGBORG: Consequently, there are no parliamentary secretaries among the LNP’sparliamentary team. As Leader of the Opposition, I will take on responsibility for trade, as under an LNPgovernment this portfolio once again will rest with the Premier. Mark McArdle is appointed DeputyLeader of the Opposition—

Mr SCHWARTEN: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. My point of order is that there arematters of debate being canvassed by the Leader of the Opposition. This is not a statement.

Mr SPEAKER: I did actually ask the Leader of the Opposition—Mr Hobbs: Sit down! Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, you are announcing appointments. I would ask

you just to announce the appointments. That is what the standing orders allow you to do. Mr SPRINGBORG: Mark McArdle is appointed Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow

minister for health. Fiona Simpson is appointed shadow minister for infrastructure, including ICT, andthe shadow minister for main roads and transport. Tim Nicholls is the shadow Treasurer and the shadowminister for future growth. Stuart Copeland is the shadow Attorney-General and the shadow minister forjustice, including youth justice, and the shadow minister for open government and the Leader ofOpposition Business. Steve Dickson is the shadow minister—

Government members interjected.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I ask members of the government on my right to allow the Leader of

the Opposition to announce the appointments. Mr SPRINGBORG: Thank you. Steve Dickson is the shadow minister for workplace and job

security, which includes employment and industrial relations. David Gibson is the shadow minister forsustainable environment and climate change and the shadow minister for clean energy strategy.Howard Hobbs is the shadow minister for local government, planning and regional development. RayHopper is the shadow minister for natural resources and water, including the water grid. Mike Horan isthe shadow minister for food security and agriculture, including fisheries and biosecurity, and theshadow minister for sport, including racing.

Vaughan Johnson is the shadow minister for police and corrections. John-Paul Langbroek is theshadow minister for education and skills and the shadow minister for the arts. Ted Malone is the shadowminister for emergency services and the shadow minister for northern development. RosemaryMenkens is the shadow minister for social inclusion, including communities, disability services, seniors,multicultural affairs and women’s policy. Rob Messenger is the shadow minister for tourism and small

26 Aug 2008 Tabled Papers 2201

business. Jeff Seeney is the shadow minister for mines and energy. Ray Stevens is the shadow ministerfor housing accessibility and the shadow minister for public works. Jann Stuckey is the shadow ministerfor child safety and the shadow minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island community development.I table the list of shadow ministerial appointments. Tabled paper: Document detailing opposition appointments and shadow portfolios.

Mr Schwarten: Bruce Flegg, shadow minister for getting square! Mr SPRINGBORG: Which one were you in the Left’s hit list the other day? Which one of those

were you?Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet!

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

Motorised Bicycles, LicensingMr Moorhead, from 52 petitioners, requesting the House to amend rules to allow a rider with an open licence plus a specialregistration plate to ride a pushbike with a motor no greater than 50cc displaying this plate.

Kenmore, Traffic ManagementMrs Attwood, from 1099 petitioners, requesting the House to investigate other practical and sensible short and long termsolutions to traffic problems in Brisbane’s west and rule out any further arterial road development through the residential heart ofKenmore.

Toowoomba, Senior Breast Care NurseMr Hobbs, from 18 petitioners, requesting the House to ensure Toowoomba Health Service honours the in principal agreement tofund the full time Senior Breast Care Nurse position and undertake consultation with stakeholders who support/treat women withbreast cancer.

Roma, Flying Obstetrician and GynaecologistMr Hobbs, from 16 petitioners, requesting the House to ensure there is no reduction of services provided by the FlyingObstetrician and Gynaecologist position operating from Roma, and that meaningful consultation be undertaken with the generalpublic currently being serviced.The Clerk presented the following e-petitions, sponsored by the honourable members indicated—

Raines Road, UpgradeMr Messenger, from 130 petitioners, requesting the House to immediately allocate funds sufficient to upgrade and seal RainesRoad, Sharon, in the electorate of Burnett, for the safety of all motorists to prevent further accidents or loss of life on thisdangerous road.

Graffiti OffencesMr McArdle, from 241 petitioners, requesting the House to enact legislation so that any person found guilty of a graffiti offence ora graffiti related offence must be required to remove the graffiti or such other graffiti as directed.Petitions received.

TABLED PAPERSPAPERS TABLED DURING THE RECESSThe Clerk informed the House that the following papers, received during the recess, were tabled on the dates indicated—10 June 2008—• Response from the Minister for Main Roads and Local Government (Mr Pitt) to a paper petition (1052-08) sponsored by

Mr Knuth from 540 petitioners regarding the naming of the new Barcaldine Regional Council• Overseas travel report: Letter, dated 10 June 2008, from the Premier (Ms Bligh) to the Clerk of the Parliament, indicating

the approval of an overseas visit by the Speaker (Mr Reynolds) to the People’s Republic of China between 13 and 22June 2008 and attaching relevant information from the Speaker to the Premier regarding the visit

11 June 2008—• Response from the Treasurer (Mr Fraser) to an e-Petition (891-07) sponsored by Mr Fraser from 25 petitioners requesting

amendments to liquor licensing practices12 June 2008—• Public Works Committee: Government Response to Report No. 98—Suncorp Stadium Project, March 2008• Island Industries Board (IIB) operating as Islanders Board of Industry and Service (IBIS)—Financial Report for the

financial year ended 31 January 200813 June 2008—• Report by P J Davis SC, Barrister-at-Law titled Review of Cape York Sentences• Response from the Minister for Education and Training Minister for the Arts (Mr Welford) to an e-Petition (902-07)

sponsored by Mrs Reilly from 1248 petitioners regarding air-conditioning in schools

2202 Tabled Papers 26 Aug 2008

16 June 2008—• Response from the Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation (Mr McNamara) to an e-Petition (904-07)

sponsored by Mrs Reilly from 610 petitioners regarding protection of wildlife• Response from the Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation (Mr McNamara) to a paper petition (1054-

08) presented by Mrs Stuckey from 2770 petitioners regarding management of the Currumbin Wildlife Sanctuary• Response from the Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation (Mr McNamara) to an e-Petition (1005-08)

sponsored by Mr Langbroek from 24 petitioners and a paper petition (1056-08) presented by Mr Langbroek from 152petitioners regarding an environmental problem affecting the waterways in Carrara

• Response from the Premier (Ms Bligh) to an e-Petition (973-07) sponsored by Mr Stevens from 3289 petitionersrequesting a referendum to trial daylight savings

17 June 2008—• Queensland Ombudsman: Report, dated June 2008, titled ‘The Regulation of Mine Safety in Queensland: A review of the

Queensland Mines Inspectorate’18 June 2008—• Response from the Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (Mr Lucas) to a paper petition (1021-08)

presented by Mr English from 1322 petitioners regarding bushland owned by the Scout Association at Victoria Point• Overseas travel report: Report on an overseas visit by the Minister for Tourism, Regional Development and Industry (Ms

Boyle) to New Zealand from 20 to 25 May 2008• Final Report of the Rail Safety Investigation QT2140 into the Double Rail Fatality Track Machine MMA59, Mindi,

Queensland on 7 December 2007• Response from the Treasurer (Mr Fraser) to an e-Petition (980-08) sponsored by Dr Flegg from 71 petitioners requesting

the House to legislate to prohibit the supply of alcohol to minors25 June 2008—• State Planning Regulatory Provisions (Regional Plans)—Draft, May 2008, pursuant to s 2.5C.7 of the Integrated Planning

Act 199726 June 2008—• Response from the Minister for Health (Mr Robertson) to a paper petition (1050-08) presented by Mrs Cunningham from

4658 petitioners regarding oncology services at the Gladstone Public Hospital1 July 2008—• Overseas travel report: Report on an overseas visit by the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport (Ms Spence)

to the United States of America from 22 to 31 May 2008• Response from the Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Mickel) to an e-Petition (1018-

08) sponsored by Mr Weightman from 129 petitioners and a paper petition (1034-08) presented by Mr Weightman from686 petitioners requesting a safe crossing on Hardy and Birdwood Roads, Birkdale

3 July 2008—• Market Rules SEQ Water Market4 July 2008—• Response from the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland

(Mr Shine) to an e-Petition (975-07) sponsored by Mr Messenger from 197 petitioners regarding findings andrecommendations in relation to Dr Darren Keating

8 July 2008—• Auditor-General of Queensland: Report to Parliament No. 4 for 2008—Results of Audits at 31 May 2008• Auditor-General of Queensland: Report to Parliament No. 4 for 2008—Results of Audits at 31 May 2008—Executive

Summary• Marine Incidents in Queensland—Annual Report 2007• Overseas travel report: Report on an overseas visit by the Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial

Relations (Mr Mickel) to Korea from 8 to 13 June 2008—Report on Trade Mission9 July 2008—• Response from the Minister for Main Roads and Local Government (Mr Pitt) to an e-Petition (984-08) sponsored by Ms

Stuckey from 6 petitioners and a paper petition (1043-08) presented by Ms Stuckey from 446 petitioners requesting theconstruction of an interchange at the continuation of Boyd Street into Old Piggabeen Road, Tugun

• Response from the Minister for Mines and Energy (Mr Wilson) to a paper petition (1038-08) presented by Mrs Smith from131 petitioners requesting an energywise scheme

• Response from the Minister for Police and Corrective Services (Ms Spence) to a paper petition (1041-08) presented by MsStuckey from 140 petitioners and an e-Petition (985-08) sponsored by Ms Stuckey from 8 petitioners requesting provisionsto combat jumping from Gold Coast bridges

• Report by the Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (Mr Lucas), pursuant to s3.6.9 of the IntegratedPlanning Act 1997, in relation to the Ministerial Call In of a development application by Churches of Christ Care—363Gregory Terrace and 50 Kinross Street, Spring Hill

10 July 2008—• Response from the Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (Mr Lucas) to a paper petition (998-08)

presented by Mr Wettenhall, from 870 petitioners, relating to the Mareeba Shire Planning Scheme (Myola Zone)


11 July 2008—• Additional response from the Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (Mr Lucas) to a paper petition

(1021-08) presented by Mr English from 1322 petitioners regarding bushland owned by the Scout Association at VictoriaPoint

14 July 2008—• Review of Organ and Tissue Donation Procedures Select Committee: Issues Paper—July 200815 July 2008—• Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee: Interim Government Response to Report No. 64—The

Accessibility of Administrative Justice, April 200816 July 2008—• Amendments to the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement—Schedule F—Cap on Diversions approved by the Murray-Darling

Basin Ministerial Council on 9 May 200817 July 2008—• Public Works Committee: Government Response to Report No. 99—Townsville Correctional Centre, April 200818 July 2008—• Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee: Biannual Review of the Office of the Ombudsman May

2008—Report No. 65, July 2008• Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee: Biannual Review of the Office of the Information Commission

May 2008—Report No. 66, July 2008• Response from the Minister for Main Roads and Local Government (Mr Pitt) to a paper petition (1062-08) presented by Mr

Dickson from 4542 petitioners regarding directional signage to Buderim from the Bruce Highway• Response from the Minister for Main Roads and Local Government (Mr Pitt) to a paper petition (1051-08) presented by Mr

Hobbs from 988 petitioners and an e-Petition (1032-08) sponsored by Mr Hobbs from 411 petitioners requesting that theBullockhead Street access to Sumner Park be maintained until a safe alternative entry and exit from Sumner Park isestablished

• Overseas travel report—Report on an overseas visit by the Premier (Ms Bligh) to the United States of America from 12 to19 June 2008—Report on Trade Mission to USA

21 July 2008—• Response from the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries (Mr Mulherin) to a paper petition (1075-08) presented by

Ms Lee Long from 9 petitioners regarding a halt to mob-based National Livestock Identification System movement oflivestock for use in campdrafting, rodeo and other sporting events

• Report titled ‘Improving Cape York Justice Services: 30 June 2008’• Response from the Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Mickel) to a paper petition

(1046-08) presented by Mr Dempsey from 259 petitioners regarding children standing on school buses travelling 100kilometres an hour

• Response from the Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Mickel) to a paper petition(1073-08) presented by Mr Dickson from 118 petitioners requesting a bus stop outside Island Point Villas, Kawana Way,Parrearra

23 July 2008—• Overseas travel report—Report on an overseas visit by the Speaker (Mr Reynolds) to the People’s Republic of China from

13 to 21 June 2008—Report on an Official Visit to the People’s Republic of China in response to an invitation from theVice-Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Heilongjiang People’s Congress

24 July 2008—• Overseas travel report—Report on an overseas visit by the Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation (Mr

McNamara) to Brazil from 18 to 23 June 2008—Brazil Mission Report• Response from the Minister for Main Roads and Local Government (Mr Pitt) to an e-Petition (1057-08) sponsored by Ms

Kiernan from 111 petitioners regarding the building of a footbridge and weir on the Leichhardt riverbed between Isa andGrace Streets, Mt Isa

• Response from the Treasurer (Mr Fraser) to a paper petition (1076-08) presented by Ms Nolan from 283 petitionersregarding the Hotel Metropole located on the corner of Brisbane and Waghorn Streets, Ipswich

• Response from the Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Mickel) to an e-Petition (1013-08) sponsored by Mr Fraser from 300 petitioners regarding an afternoon direct school bus service from Gregory Terrace,Spring Hill to The Gap/Ashgrove/Bardon/Red Hill areas and a direct morning and afternoon bus service for studentsattending All Hallows’ School

25 July 2008—• Response from the Minister for Main Roads and Local Government (Mr Pitt) to an e-Petition (1009-08) sponsored by Mr

English from 296 petitioners and a paper petition (1072-08) presented by Mr English from 230 petitioners requesting theinstallation of traffic signals at the intersection of Beveridge and Ziegenfusz Roads, Thornlands

29 July 2008—• Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games, as amended, made under s 12 of the Classification

(Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995• Guidelines for the Classification of Publications 2005, as amended, made under s 12 of the Classification (Publications,

Films and Computer Games) Act 199530 July 2008—• Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian: Report titled ‘Child Guardian—Views of Young People in

Detention Centres—Queensland 2008’


• Response from the Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Mickel) to an e-Petition (1006-08) sponsored by Mrs Attwood from 278 petitioners regarding Ten Trip Saver bus tickets

• Response from the Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation (Mr McNamara) to a paper petition (1067-08) presented by Mr Finn from 1019 petitioners regarding heritage issues at the Regent Theatre in Brisbane

• Response from the Minister for Main Roads and Local Government (Mr Pitt) to a paper petition (1071-08) presented by MrReynolds from 203 petitioners requesting the removal of Option 5 for the Walkerston Bypass on the Peak Downs Highway

4 August 2008—• Health Quality and Complaints Commission, report titled ‘Report of the Health Quality and Complaints Commission: An

investigation into concerns raised by Mrs De-Anne Kelly MP about the quality of health services at Mackay Base Hospital’,August 2008

5 August 2008—• Overseas travel report—Report on an overseas visit by the Minister for Tourism, Regional Development and Industry (Ms

Boyle) to Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and Macau from 29 June to 5 July 2008—Report on Queensland GovernmentDelegation

• Response from the Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation (Mr McNamara) to an e-Petition (1017-08)sponsored by Mrs Stuckey from 109 petitioners regarding the National Trust of Queensland’s management of theCurrumbin Wildlife Sanctuary

8 August 2008—• Letter, dated 7 August 2008, from the Premier (Ms Bligh) to the Clerk of the Parliament enclosing a copy of a letter from

the Commonwealth Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Treaties listing proposed international treaty actions tabledin both houses of the Federal Parliament on 17 June 2008 and the National Interest Analyses for the proposed treatyactions listed

• Letter, dated 7 August 2008, from the Premier (Ms Bligh) to the Clerk of the Parliament enclosing a copy of a letter fromthe Commonwealth Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Treaties listing proposed international treaty actions tabledin both houses of the Federal Parliament on 25 June 2008 and the National Interest Analyses for the proposed treatyactions listed

11 August 2008—• Estimates Committee E: Report 2008• Estimates Committee E: Additional Information Volume 200812 August 2008—• Mining and Other Legislation (Safety and Health Fee) Amendment Bill 2008: Erratum to Explanatory Notes• Response from the Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Mickel) to a paper petition

(1069-08) presented by Mr Lawlor from 344 petitioners regarding the planned light rail station for Southport15 August 2008—• Response from the Minister for Mines and Energy (Mr Wilson) to two paper petitions (1000-08 and 1002-08) presented by

Mr Wellington from 427 and 487 petitioners respectively requesting an alternative route be found for the proposed powertransmission lines through the Eumundi, Eerwah Vale, Belli Park, Ridgewood and Cooroy West community

18 August 2008—• Estimates Committee A: Report No. 1 2008• Estimates Committee A: Report No. 2 2008• Estimates Committee A: Additional Information Volume 2008 20 August 2008—• Estimates Committee B: Report• Estimates Committee B: Additional Information Volume 2008• Overseas travel report: Report on an overseas visit by the Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and

Communication Technology (Mr Schwarten) to New Zealand from 22 to 25 July 2008. Report on New Zealand IndigenousHousing Northland

21 August 2008—• Estimates Committee G: Report 2008• Estimates Committee G: Additional Information Volume 2008• Response from the Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Mickel) to a paper petition

(1060-08) presented by Ms Palaszczuk from 265 petitioners relating to road safety issues in the Oxley State Schoolprecinct

22 August 2008—• Overseas travel report—Report on an overseas visit by the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister

Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland (Mr Shine) to Canterbury, New Zealand from 24 to 25 July 2008—Report onthe Standing Committee of Attorneys General Meeting, Canterbury, New Zealand

25 August 2008—• Estimates Committee F: Report 2008• Estimates Committee F: Additional Information Volume 2008• Estimates Committee D: Report 2008• Estimates Committee D: Additional Information Volume 2008 • Estimates Committee C: Report 2008• Estimates Committee C: Additional Information Volume 2008


• Queensland Redistribution Commission: 2007 Queensland Redistribution of Electoral Districts—Public Suggestions:November 2007

• Queensland Redistribution Commission: 2007 Queensland Redistribution of Electoral Districts—Public Comments on theSuggestions Received by the Commission: January 2008

• Queensland Redistribution Commission: Proposed Queensland Electoral Districts—Reasons, Descriptions and Maps(Electoral Act 1992): May 2008

• Queensland Redistribution Commission: Regional Map 1: Showing Proposed Electoral Districts in Queensland• Queensland Redistribution Commission: Regional Maps 2 to 12: Showing Proposed Electoral Districts in Cairns,

Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Hervey Bay, Darling Downs, Sunshine Coast, Brisbane North, Brisbane South, GoldCoast and Ipswich Regions

• Queensland Electoral District Boundary Maps—89 maps: Showing the Proposed Electoral Districts for 89 LegislativeAssembly Electoral Districts

• Queensland Redistribution Commission: Public Objections to the Proposed Redistribution of Queensland’s LegislativeAssembly Electoral Districts—Volume 1 (Objections 1 to 415): June 2008

• Queensland Redistribution Commission: Public Objections to the Proposed Redistribution of Queensland’s LegislativeAssembly Electoral Districts—Volume 2 (Objections 416 to 852): June 2008

• Queensland Redistribution Commission: Public Comments on Objections to the Proposed Redistribution of Queensland’sLegislative Assembly Electoral Districts: July 2008

• Queensland Redistribution Commission: Notification Under Section 51(1) of the Electoral Act 1992—Determination ofQueensland Legislative Assembly Electoral Districts, including the Commission’s reasons for distributing the State in theway set out in the notice—Extraordinary Queensland Government Gazette, Wednesday 20 August 2008, No. 111

• Queensland Redistribution Commission: Regional Map 1: Showing Electoral Districts in Queensland• Queensland Redistribution Commission: Regional Maps 2 to 12: Showing Electoral Districts in Cairns, Townsville,

Mackay, Rockhampton, Hervey Bay, Darling Downs, Sunshine Coast, Brisbane North, Brisbane South, Gold Coast andIpswich Regions

• Queensland Redistribution Commission: Queensland Electoral District Boundary Maps—89 maps: Showing the ElectoralDistricts for 89 Legislative Assembly Electoral Districts

• Queensland Law Reform Commission: A review of the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982: Report, Volume 1• Queensland Law Reform Commission: A review of the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982: Report, Volume 2STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS The following statutory instruments were tabled by the Clerk—State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995—• Transport Legislation and Another Regulation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 148Acquisition of Land Act 1967, Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980, Foreign Ownership of Land Register Act 1988, Land Act1994, Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002, Land Title Act 1994, Surveyors Act 2003, Valuation of LandAct 1944, Valuers Registration Act 1992, Vegetation Management Act 1999, Water Act 2000—• Natural Resources and Water Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 149Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990—• Fire and Rescue Service Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 150Plant Protection Act 1989—• Plant Protection (Approved Sugarcane Varieties) Amendment Declaration (No. 2) 2008, No. 151Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977—• Financial Administration and Audit Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 152Pay-roll Tax Act 1971—• Pay-roll Tax Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 153Electrical Safety Act 2002, State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999—• Electrical Safety and Another Regulation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 154Industrial Relations Act 1999—• Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Amendment Rule (No. 1) 2008, No. 155Fisheries Act 1994—• Fisheries Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 156Fisheries Act 1994—• Fisheries Management Plans Amendment Management Plan (No. 2) 2008, No. 157Mineral Resources Act 1989, Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004—• Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 158Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000—• Property Agents and Motor Dealers (Auctioneering Practice Code of Conduct) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No.

159Building Act 1975, Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990, Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, State PenaltiesEnforcement Act 1999—• Building Fire Safety Regulation 2008, No. 160 and Explanatory Notes and Regulatory Impact Statement for No. 160


Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2007—• Proclamation commencing certain provision, No. 161State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971—• State Development and Public Works Organisation (State Development Areas) Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No.

162State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971—• State Development and Public Works Organisation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2008, No. 163Iconic Queensland Places Act 2008—• Iconic Queensland Places Regulation 2008, No. 164State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971—• State Development and Public Works Organisation (State Development Areas) Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2008, No.

165Motor Racing Events (Townsville) Amendment Act 2008—• Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 166Gold Coast Motor Racing Events Act 1990—• Gold Coast Motor Racing Events Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 167Statutory Instruments Act 1992—• Statutory Instruments Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 168Family Responsibilities Commission Act 2008—• Family Responsibilities Commission Regulation 2008, No. 169Family Responsibilities Commission Act 2008—• Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 170State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971—• State Development and Public Works Organisation Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2008, No. 171Integrated Planning Act 1997—• Integrated Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2008, No. 172Architects Act 2002, Professional Engineers Act 2002—• Public Works Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 173State Buildings Protective Security Act 1983—• State Buildings Protective Security Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 174Housing Act 2003—• Housing Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 175Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000—• Police Powers and Responsibilities Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 176 and Explanatory Notes for No. 176Casino Control Act 1982, Charitable and Non-Profit Gaming Act 1999, Gaming Machine Act 1991, Interactive Gambling (PlayerProtection) Act 1998, Keno Act 1996, Lotteries Act 1997, Wagering Act 1998—• Gambling Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 177South East Queensland Water (Restructuring) Act 2007—• Proclamation commencing remaining provision, No. 178Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982—• Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 179Queensland Competition Authority Act 1997—• Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 180Education (General Provisions) Act 2006, Liquor Act 1992—• Liquor and Another Regulation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 181Higher Education (General Provisions) Act 2008—• Proclamation commencing certain provisions, No. 182Vocational Education, Training and Employment Act 2000, Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982—• Vocational Education, Training and Employment and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 183Vocational Education, Training and Employment Act 2000—• Vocational Education, Training and Employment Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 184Food Act 2006, Health Act 1937, Health Services Act 1991, Nursing Act 1992, Pest Management Act 2001, Private HealthFacilities Act 1999, Radiation Safety Act 1999—• Health Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2008, No. 185Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994—• Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 186Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995—• Transport Operations (Road Use Management-Driver Licensing) Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 187


Transport Operations (TransLink Transit Authority) Act 2008—• Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 188State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995—• Workplace Health and Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 189 and Explanatory Notes

for No. 189Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002—• Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 190Clean Energy Act 2008—• Proclamation commencing certain provisions, No. 191Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999, Electricity Act 1994, Explosives Act 1999, Fossicking Act 1994, Gas Supply Act 2003,Geothermal Exploration Act 2004, Mineral Resources Act 1989, Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999, Petroleum Act1923, Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004—• Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2008, No. 192Electricity Act 1994—• Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 193Electricity Act 1994—• Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 194National Gas (Queensland) Act 2008—• Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 195National Gas (Queensland) Act 2008—• National Gas (Queensland) Regulation 2008, No. 196Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2007—• Proclamation commencing certain provisions, No. 197Drug Court Act 2000—• Drug Court Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 198Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991—• Uniform Civil Procedure Amendment Rule (No. 2) 2008, No. 199Public Trustee Act 1978—• Public Trustee Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2008, No. 200Disability Services and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2008—• Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 201Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008—• Proclamation commencing certain provisions, No. 202State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999—• State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 203Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980, Land Title Act 1994—• Natural Resources and Water Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 204Ambulance Service Act 1991—• Ambulance Service Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 205Brisbane Forest Park Act 1977—• Brisbane Forest Park Amendment By-law (No. 1) 2008, No. 206Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995, Environmental Protection Act 1994, Forestry Act 1959, Marine Parks Act 2004,Nature Conservation Act 1992, Queensland Heritage Act 1992, Recreation Areas Management Act 2006—• Environmental Protection Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 207Public Service Act 2008—• Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 208Chemical Usage (Agricultural and Veterinary) Control Act 1988, Criminal Code Act 1899, Electricity Act 1994, Fisheries Act 1994,Forestry Plantations Queensland Act 2006, Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002, Nature ConservationAct 1992, Parliamentary Service Act 1988, Police Service Administration Act 1990, Public Service Act 2008, Summary OffencesAct 2005, Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990, Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991, Transport Operations (RoadUse Management) Act 1995—• Public Service Regulation 2008, No. 209Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982, Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994, Transport Operations(TransLink Transit Authority) Act 2008, Travel Agents Act 1988—• Transport Operations (TransLink Transit Authority) Regulation 2008, No. 210Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994—• Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Interim Standard 2008, No. 211Water Act 2000—• Water (Market Rules) Notice 2008, No. 212Plant Protection Act 1989—• Plant Protection (Approved Sugarcane Varieties) Amendment Declaration (No. 3) 2008, No. 213


Vocational Education, Training and Employment Act 2000—• Vocational Education, Training and Employment Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 214Health Services Act 1991—• Health Services Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 215Environmental Protection Act 1994, Nature Conservation Act 1992—• Environmental Protection Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2008, No. 216Legal Profession Act 2007—• Legal Profession (Society Rules) Amendment Notice (No. 3) 2008, No. 217Public Health Act 2005—• Public Health Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 218Water Act 2000—• Water Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 219Sugar Industry Act 1999—• Sugar Industry Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 220Consumer Credit (Queensland) and Other Acts Amendment Act 2008—• Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 221Consumer Credit (Queensland) Act 1994—• Consumer Credit (Queensland) Special Provisions Regulation 2008, No. 222Aboriginal Land Act 1991—• Aboriginal Land Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2008, No. 223Nature Conservation Act 1992—• Nature Conservation (Protected Areas) Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 224Wagering Act 1998—• Wagering Amendment Rule (No. 2) 2008, No. 225Governors (Salary and Pensions) Act 2003—• Governors (Salary and Pensions) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 226Building Act 1975, Integrated Planning Act 1997, Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002—• Building and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 227Urban Land Development Authority Act 2007—• Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 228Integrated Planning Act 1997—• Integrated Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2008, No. 229Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994—• Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 230Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994—• Transport Planning and Coordination Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 231Legal Profession Act 2007—• Legal Profession Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 232Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Amendment Act 2008—• Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 233Aboriginal Land Act 1991, Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991—• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 234Forestry Act 1959, Nature Conservation Act 1992—• Forestry and Nature Conservation Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 235Urban Land Development Authority Act 2007—• Urban Land Development Authority Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 236Public Records Act 2002—• Public Records Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 237Housing Act 2003—• Housing Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2008, No. 238Gaming Machine Act 1991—• Gaming Machine Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 239Gambling Legislation Amendment Act 2008—• Proclamation commencing certain provisions, No. 240Child Care Act 2002, Education (Overseas Students) Act 1996, Education (Queensland Studies Authority) Act 2002, HigherEducation (General Provisions) Act 2008—• Higher Education (General Provisions) Regulation 2008, No. 241Higher Education (General Provisions) Act 2008—• Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 242


Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994—• Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2008, No. 243Transport Legislation Amendment Act 2007—• Proclamation commencing certain provisions, No. 244Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994—• Rural and Regional Adjustment Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2008, No. 245Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004—• Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 246Marine Parks Act 2004—• Marine Parks (Great Barrier Reef Coast) Amendment Zoning Plan (No. 1) 2008, No. 247Fair Trading Act 1989—• Fair Trading (Fire Footbag) Order 2008, No. 248State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971—• State Development and Public Works Organisation (State Development Areas) Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2008, No.

249Public Trustee Act 1978—• Public Trustee Amendment Regulation (No. 5) 2008, No. 250Nature Conservation Act 1992—• Nature Conservation Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 251Nature Conservation Act 1992—• Nature Conservation (Protected Areas Management) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 252Transport Legislation Amendment Act 2007—• Proclamation commencing certain provisions, No. 253Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995—• Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Regulation 2008 (Volumes 1 and 2), No. 254, and Regulatory Impact Statement

and Explanatory Notes for No. 254Nature Conservation Act 1992—• Nature Conservation (Protected Areas) Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2008, No. 255Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995—• Workplace Health and Safety (Codes of Practice) Amendment Notice (No. 1) 2008, No. 256State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971—• State Development and Public Works Organisation Amendment Regulation (No. 5) 2008, No. 257Industrial Relations Act 1999—• Industrial Relations Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 258Building and Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) Act 1991—• Building and Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 259 and

Explanatory Notes and Regulatory Impact Statement and for No. 259Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2007—• Proclamation commencing certain provisions, No. 260Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2007—• Justice and Other Legislation Amendment (Postponement) Regulation 2008, No. 261State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971—• State Development and Public Works Organisation Amendment Regulation (No. 6) 2008, No. 262Petroleum Act 1923, Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004—• Mines and Energy Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2008, No. 263Civil Liability Act 2003—• Civil Liability Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 264 and Explanatory Notes for No. 264Storage Liens Act 1973—• Storage Liens Regulation 2008, No. 265Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973, Associations Incorporation Act 1981, Bills of Sale and Other Instruments Act 1955, Births, Deathsand Marriages Registration Act 2003, Business Names Act 1962, Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003, Cooperatives Act1997, Coroners Act 2003, Electoral Act 1992, Evidence Act 1977, Freedom of Information Act 1992, Funeral Benefit Business Act1982, Integrated Planning Act 1997, Introduction Agents Act 2001, Justices Act 1886, Justices of the Peace and Commissionersfor Declarations Act 1991, Land Court Act 2000, Land Sales Act 1984, Legal Profession Act 2007, Liens on Crops of Sugar CaneAct 1931, Motor Vehicles and Boats Securities Act 1986, Partnership Act 1891, Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000,Property Law Act 1974, Residential Services (Accreditation) Act 2002, Retail Shop Leases Act 1994, Retirement Villages Act1999, Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 2003, Small Claims Tribunals Act 1973, State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999,Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991, Tourism Services Act 2003, Trade Measurement Administration Act 1990, Travel AgentsAct 1988—• Justice and Other Legislation (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2008, No. 266

2210 Ministerial Statements 26 Aug 2008

Recording of Evidence Act 1962—• Recording of Evidence Regulation 2008, No. 267Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991—• Uniform Civil Procedure Amendment Rule (No. 3) 2008, No. 268Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997—• Body Corporate and Community Management Regulation 2008, No. 269 and Explanatory Notes for No. 269Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997—• Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2008, No. 270, and Explanatory

Notes for No. 270Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997—• Body Corporate and Community Management (Commercial Module) Regulation 2008, No. 271, and Explanatory Notes

for No. 271Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997—• Body Corporate and Community Management (Small Schemes Module) Regulation 2008, No. 272, and Explanatory

Notes for No. 272Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997—• Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2008, No. 273, and Explanatory Notes and

Regulatory Impact Statement for No. 273 (Note: The Regulatory Impact Statement for SL No. 273 also applies to SL No.269, 270, 271 and 272)

Nature Conservation Act 1992—• Nature Conservation (Protected Areas Management) Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2008, No. 274Public Trustee Act 1978—• Public Trustee (Fees and Charges Notice) (No.1) 2008EXEMPT STATUTORY INSTRUMENTSThe following statutory instruments were tabled by the Clerk—Queensland University of Technology Act 1998—• Queensland University of Technology (QUT Alumni) Statute 2008Queensland University of Technology Act 1998—• Queensland University of Technology (Conduct of Elections for Elected Members of Council) Amendment Statute 2008MINISTERIAL PAPER TABLED BY THE CLERKThe following ministerial paper was tabled by the Clerk—Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology (Mr Schwarten)—• Non-conforming petition relating to superannuation and Queensland local government employeesMEMBERS’ PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK The following members’ papers were tabled by the Clerk—Member for Inala (Ms Palaszczuk)—• Non-conforming petition relating to the relocation of Inala tenantsMember for Southport (Mr Lawlor)—• Non-conforming petition relating to the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Health SystemHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.40 am): In recent years our government

has faced some tough decisions in relation to health, and we have acted—undertaking Australia’slargest health infrastructure program, providing more elective surgery centres, examining the merits ofan opt-out system for organ donation, and providing new hospitals for our regions. We have also madegreat strides in reforming and improving our health system through a $10 billion Health Action Plan. Thejob of building a world-class health system is not finished, and our five-year Health Action Plan willcontinue over the next two years to see our existing programs and policies through. But I am not contentto simply continue along a set course established three years ago. We need to continually look over thehorizon. What we see over the horizon is a tidal wave of chronic disease if left unchecked.

Today I will join with the health minister to launch a plan that will set a platform for further renewal.Entitled ‘Advancing Health Action’, this plan lays out our bold vision to build on the early gains made sofar through our Health Action Plan and to claim the mantle of Queenslanders as Australia’s healthiest

26 Aug 2008 Ministerial Statements 2211

people. The plan identifies five challenges, and these are: first, expanding our health services to meetthe needs of a growing population; second, stemming the devastating tide of preventable disease; and,third, giving mothers and babies the best start. I do not know what those opposite have against mothersand babies, but we on this side of the parliament believe that we should be investing more in them. Thefourth challenge is improving mental health care, and the fifth challenge is reducing the gap for ruralcommunities and for all Indigenous Queenslanders.

Our first priority must always be hospitals and medical services. Health care must always be therewhen we need it, but the reality is that our health system is under pressure from too many seriouspreventable diseases. I want to see Queenslanders become Australia’s healthiest people by leadinghealthier lifestyles and receiving better health care. Members will see a strong focus on tacklingpreventable disease in our new strategy. For example, compared with other states, Queensland has thehighest percentage of men who smoke and the highest percentage of men who are overweight or obeseand who do not regularly exercise. We also have the worst rate of skin cancer in the world. Every year4,300 Queenslanders are dying prematurely from preventable diseases and many more are regularhospital users as a result of chronic disease. This is clearly not acceptable or sustainable for a systemthat is already working overtime and will continue to do so to cope with extraordinary population growthand the ageing of our population.

I am pleased to announce this morning another crucial issue that our government will examinewith particular reference to our children’s health. Today I will launch a discussion paper calling forQueenslanders’ views on whether we should place restrictions on junk food advertising on children’stelevision. Queensland is now facing a problem of epidemic proportions that will have devastatingconsequences if left unchecked. One in five children in Queensland aged between five and 17 isoverweight or obese, and this rate is growing. Children as young as five now have type 2 diabetes,considered only an adult condition about a decade ago.

We have already done a lot of work in this area, but we can do more. We can no longer ignore theinfluence that television has over our children’s food choices. As a parent I know—and I am sure thereare other parents on both sides of the parliament who share my experience—all too well the pesterpower of junk food advertising. It can make it very difficult for mums and dads to say no. By ‘junk food’we refer to food and drink that are high in energy and low in nutrients—food that requires extendedexercise to burn off the extra fuel. For instance, a 60-gram chocolate bar requires a 40-minute jog toburn off while a can of soft drink requires 20 minutes.

I believe that junk food advertising, particularly in children’s viewing times, is an issue that is longoverdue for widespread discussion in our community. Currently three out of every four advertisementson children’s television promote junk foods. This is up from two out of three just two years ago. Whenyou consider that an average Queensland child sits in front of the television for more than two hoursevery day, some serious questions need to be asked about how we can best promote healthy eating toour children.

I am pleased to advise the House that recent legal advice confirms that Queensland does havethe power to regulate advertising in state legislation. We do not need to wait for the Commonwealth toact in this regard. Many countries have already followed the overwhelming evidence and moved torestrict television advertising to children. They include the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Sweden,Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Greece and Ireland. The public will have until 31 October to share their views.

We will also consult directly with the television industry. My government understands thecommercial realities of free-to-air TV, including the importance of advertising. We do not want tojeopardise the commercial viability of free-to-air television, but I believe it is time to act and we need totalk about how best to act. It is not that long ago—I notice the new shadow minister for health laughingabout this issue, but I believe the community—

Mr Langbroek: He’s not here.A government member: Where is he? Mr Lucas: You’ve got it confused. He’s the guy who hasn’t got a seat. Ms BLIGH: Sorry, the shadow minister for no seat. It is not that long ago—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members interjected.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. I call the Premier. Ms BLIGH: Mr Speaker, I would have expected that this is an issue we would see bipartisan

support on. Our children’s health matters and Australia as a country needs to do better in theadvertisements that we put in front of our children every time they turn on the television. It is not thatlong ago that our community recognised the dangers of cigarette advertising and cigarette sponsorshipof sport. When the ban was first contemplated it seemed unrealistic, far-fetched and unachievable. Butas a community we have successfully consigned it to the past. Let us do the same with the advertisingassault on our children. Let us give Queensland children the best chance of being Australia’s healthiestkids.


Bligh Government, AchievementsHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.48 am): While parliament has been in

winter recess my government has been getting on with the job of securing Queensland’s future. I ampleased to say that later today I will be introducing legislation that will deliver the toughest electoraldonation reporting requirements in the country. Queensland will also lead the nation in the reform offreedom of information laws. The government has supported in full or in part 139 of the 141recommendations of the Solomon report, and in some cases we have gone further than therecommendations, particularly in relation to cabinet documents.

I have just told the parliament about our government’s aim to make Queenslanders Australia’shealthiest people. As part of this push, I announced the inaugural statewide Healthiest CommunityAwards to promote healthy lifestyles and tackle preventable diseases such as diabetes, heart diseaseand lung cancer. The health minister and his director-general have announced major reforms toQueensland Health designed to reduce bureaucracy and deliver more front-line services. These reformswill save at least $5 million. This will be used to cut children’s long wait lists for elective surgery. Still onhealth, regional maternity services will be improved in Charleville, Ipswich and Logan under a newprogram for one-on-one midwifery support from conception to post birth.

We are also working to preserve the natural environment and great lifestyle of Queensland. Wehave protected the environment of the beautiful Whitsunday region by putting a 20-year moratorium onall mining activities, bulk sampling and exploration over the McFarlane shale oil deposit.

Mr Springborg interjected.Mr Lucas interjected.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Ms BLIGH: Again, we would expect the protection of the Great Barrier Reef to have bipartisan

support, but it does not appear to be the case. I am pleased to advise the House that the DeputyPremier brought the submission to cabinet. We have also protected one of the largest remaining pristinerainforests in Australia, in the Kulla (McIlwraith Range) National Park on Cape York, in a unique landmanagement agreement with local Indigenous groups. On the weekend I opened the $10 million MamuRainforest Canopy Walkway in the Wooroonooran National Park near Innisfail. This is the largest capitalworks project ever undertaken in a Queensland national park. I believe it will become a national icon.

My government understands that families are under financial pressures. That is why weannounced that we would introduce mandatory unit pricing in supermarkets—to give consumers morepower at the checkout.

Last week I announced significant changes to Queensland’s justice system with the introductionof majority verdicts and judge-alone trials for some criminal proceedings. These reforms will open upnew options to the court to deal with exceptional cases where the current system may not be ideal. Thiswill ensure our legal system continues to be robust and equitable.

I am pleased to advise the parliament that our government will be putting forward a bid for theGold Coast to host the Commonwealth Games in 2018. The Gold Coast region is one of Australia’sfavourite destinations and a world-class tourism icon. I can think of no better place to host the best theCommonwealth has to offer.

The Gold Coast, with its growing population, needs better public transport. We believe it is theright place for light rail. Last week we announced the preliminary business case recommendation forlight rail and we will now start talking to the private sector about partnering with us to deliver this.

The completion of the south-east Queensland water grid is on track, with the last pipe of thesouthern regional pipeline laid during the parliamentary break.

Mr Springborg: On budget?Ms BLIGH: Yes, on budget. I also travelled to western Queensland—Opposition members interjected.Ms BLIGH: Here they are again opposing water for the people of the south-east. Mr Hobbs: $2 billion over? $3 billion?Ms BLIGH: So far they have opposed mothers and babies, the Great Barrier Reef and water for

south-east Queensland. They are off to a great start six weeks in. I also travelled to Rosscoe Downsnear Cunnamulla where I announced a review of the state’s wild dog management strategy andinspected our work with the endangered bilby.

The sports minister and I announced that the ultimate prize in Rugby League—the Rugby LeagueWorld Cup—will tour Queensland in November as part of the celebrations marking Queensland’shosting of the 2008 Rugby League World Cup. Queenslanders from Cairns to Coolangatta will have thechance to see the trophy in person, meet current and former greats and take part in a series of WorldCup festivities.

Mr Horan: You’re not sending it to Toowoomba, and it is the best Rugby League city in Australia.


Mr Lucas: You’re only saying that because your son played Rugby.Mr SPEAKER: Order! There would be members who would agree and not agree that

Toowoomba is the best Rugby League centre in Australia. There is far too much interjection. I call thePremier.

Ms BLIGH: We also held a hugely successful community cabinet at Hervey Bay in early July.Within days the outcomes were flowing, including $30,000 to a new patient transfer facility for the RoyalFlying Doctor Service at Hervey Bay.

Finally, earlier this month I launched the events program for Queensland’s 150th celebrationsnext year. This will be a celebration for all Queenslanders. Everyone is invited. I take a moment toremind all members that the Q150 Community Funding Program final round of grants closes on 5September. I ask members to remind their community groups to get their applications in.

That is just some of what the government has been doing during the parliamentary break. That isin stark contrast to those opposite, who have done little more than talk to themselves about themselves.

Her Excellency the Governor, Ms P WensleyHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.55 am): I wish to formally place on the

record that on 29 July 2008 Her Excellency Penelope Wensley AO was sworn in as the 25th Governorof Queensland. In excess of 400 Queensland community members including the judiciary, members ofthis House and representatives of community groups attended the swearing-in ceremony on theSpeaker’s Green. Mr Speaker, I place on record my thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for hissupport in the program and to you and your staff for what I think was a very successful ceremony.

Her Excellency Penny Wensley’s extensive diplomatic career has seen her represent our countryat the highest level. Her dedication to social welfare, human rights and humanitarian and environmentalissues will make her a compassionate Governor for all Queenslanders and enable her to carry out theresponsibilities of Governor with great dignity.

I would also like to take the opportunity to place on record an acknowledgement of the wonderfulwork of the former Governor, Ms Quentin Bryce, which she undertook during her five years as Governorof Queensland. Ms Bryce carried out her duties with distinction and brought a great deal of warmth tothe high office of Governor. She was a passionate advocate for the rights of women and children. I knowshe will be an outstanding Governor-General for all Australians. I also place on record our thanks to herhusband, Michael Bryce, for the significant contribution he made during Ms Bryce’s time as Governor.

Macrossan, Hon. JMHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.56 am): I wish to pay tribute to the Hon.

John Macrossan AC, a former Chief Justice of Queensland, who passed away on 5 August this year.John Murtagh Macrossan was born in Brisbane on 12 March 1930 and was educated at St Columban’sCollege, the University of Queensland and Exeter College of Oxford University.

He was born into one of Queensland’s best known legal families. His uncles Hugh and NealMacrossan also served as Chief Justices of Queensland and his father, Vincent, was a well-knownsolicitor. John Macrossan’s grandfather, also named John, was a member of this House from 1873 to1891 and served as a cabinet minister.

As a young man, the former Chief Justice had a lot to live up to and he did not disappoint. He wasjust 21 when he was admitted to the bar in 1951 and was made a Queen’s Counsel in 1967. In 1980 hewas appointed to the Supreme Court and in 1989 he was appointed as the 16th Chief Justice ofQueensland. Mr Macrossan served as Chief Justice until his retirement in 1998, overseeing many legalreforms in this state.

Throughout his distinguished career, John Macrossan was known not only for his learned legalopinions but also for his eloquence, courtesy and even temper. In 1993 he was made a Companion inthe Order of Australia for his service to the law, higher education and the arts. He served in many otherpublic roles, such as the Chancellor of Griffith University from 1988 to 2000, Chairman of theQueensland Committee of the Churchill Trust and the President of the Queensland Art Gallery Society.

A funeral service to celebrate the life of the Hon. John Macrossan AC was held at Our Lady Helpof Christians Church, Hendra on 11 August 2008. I take this opportunity to extend my condolences andthose of this House to his wife, Margery, their son, Mark, and the rest of his family.

Ministerial ExpensesHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.58 am): I lay upon the table of the House

the public report of ministerial expenses for the period 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008. The public reportgives transparency to the community regarding the expenses of ministers, parliamentary secretariesand their officers. This report shows how my government continues to be mindful of its fiscalresponsibilities and is prudent in its spending.


Overall, expenditure has increased by $2.082 million, or 6.9 per cent, compared to the 2007financial year. Salary costs for the financial year have increased by 6.8 per cent. This includes a four percent increase as a result of enterprise bargaining. Other increases relate to upgrades of some staffpositions following a review of their duties. Overall, administrative costs have increased this year by$696,000 which is principally due to increases in the lease costs of motor vehicles and rent and utilitiescosts of $850,000 affecting all ministerial offices. Some of these increases have been offset by savingsin overseas travel expenses of $124,000 and other administrative costs such as minor equipmentpurchases of $171,000. I believe that the report clearly shows that expenditure is being kept as low aspossible while ensuring that staff do receive the pay rises that they are entitled to, and I table that report.Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Public Report of Ministerial Expenses: for the period 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 and theIndependent Auditor’s Report’.

Advancing Health Action

Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (10.00 am): If we are to look over thehorizon to meet the challenges of a growing and ageing population, it is not enough to invest all of ourenergy and resources into our public hospitals. As important as building new world-class hospitals,opening more beds and employing more health professionals are, we also need to invest in helpingQueenslanders avoid needing treatment so they enjoy a healthy life well into their senior years. OurAdvancing Health Action Strategy represents an important addition to our five-year Health Action Planby targeting preventable lifestyle illnesses in Queensland. A tsunami of chronic disease, most of whichis preventable, is fast approaching, and simply building bigger hospitals cannot be the only response bya forward-thinking, responsible government.

Today 2.9 million Queenslanders are living with some form of chronic disease, whether it be type2 diabetes, heart disease, kidney or liver failure, or other serious ongoing illnesses. This number isgrowing, because each and every day 50 Queenslanders are being told that they have type 2 diabetesand will have so for the rest of their lives. And for the first time in our history the incidence of childhoodtype 2 diabetes is on the rise, from a time not all that long ago when it was virtually unheard of. Nohealth system in the world can sustain this growing burden. We are increasingly living to excess and it ishurting ourselves, our hospitals and our economy. If Queensland is to stem this tide, then everyone hasa role to play. Prevention and early action need to be paramount in our response.

There are other challenges that we need to tackle head-on to improve the overall health of ourpopulation. Nearly a million Queenslanders have a mental illness—one in four cases are drug andalcohol inflicted—and Queensland’s baby boom shows no signs of abating, with 60,000 newbornsdelivered each year. Life expectancy amongst Indigenous Queenslanders is still 17 years less than forthe non-Indigenous population.

Our growing, ageing and uniquely decentralised population will see hospital admissions double inthe next 13 years. If we are to hang on to the gains that we have achieved in the past three years, wehave to look at doing things differently. Whilst we enjoy one of the longest life spans of any country,Australia is now one of the most obese nations on earth. Governments at all levels have a responsibilityto shape a health system that helps prevent lifestyle illnesses in the first place, before they becomemore serious, and to care for as many people as possible out of hospital and closer to home wherepeople live. But it also requires individuals, communities and non-government organisations workingtogether to create a healthier Queensland—a state where the healthiest people in Australia live if we alljust do our bit. Queenslanders love a challenge. The challenge the Bligh government announces todayis nothing short of a fight for our own lives.

Mary Valley, Forest Initiative

Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning)(10.03 am): During the parliamentary recess the state government has been getting on with the job ofdelivering water security to south-east Queensland. Not only have there been significant milestonesreached when it comes to the pipes being laid across south-east Queensland to connect the water grid;there have also been several major developments on the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam. QWI hassubmitted a supplementary environmental impact statement for the dam to the Coordinator-General. Itwill now be provided to a number of government agencies and local councils for comment before furtherconsideration by the Coordinator-General, and it will be released publicly before any assessment of theproject by the Coordinator-General is sent to the federal government.

Today I am also announcing a call for expressions of interest in a groundbreaking forestryinitiative that could pave the way for similar schemes under any new national carbon trading scheme.Unlike fixed infrastructure, developments such as a dam provide an opportunity to deliver additionalfacilities that provide supplementary benefits to the local community, economy and environment. This$1.6 billion project will inject long-term economic benefits for the local region through the creation ofinitiatives such as tourism facilities, recreational trails and downstream flood mitigation.


This week Queensland Water Infrastructure will call for expressions of interest in developing aforest initiative that will see more than 2,000 hectares of native timber plantations developed on landsurrounding the dam. Not only will the forest initiative revitalise the Mary Valley timber industry; theoffset of up to 850,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions will more than offset the dam’s estimated140,000-tonne construction carbon footprint. It will effectively give the project a better-than-carbon-neutral profile. But the benefits do not end there, with opportunities for other industries includingbeekeeping, medical honey, power poles and alternative fuel sources.

Overseeing the development of this unique initiative, QWI has forged strategic alliances withCSIRO, Griffith University, the University of the Sunshine Coast, Timber Queensland and GreeningAustralia. Work is already underway, with a 20-hectare trial plantation already established to providevaluable information about the types of timber that deliver the best results. The Bligh government iscommitted to the development of forestry initiatives that support carbon reduction and the offsetting ofmajor infrastructure projects. This is an exciting project that could help show the way to the rest ofAustralia when it comes to carbon offsets. And we are not alone, with the federal governmentcommitting to the development of a carbon pollution reduction scheme. I table that document. Tabled paper: Document by Queensland Water Infrastructure Pty Ltd titled ‘Forest Initiative: Sustainable Timber and CarbonProject, Mary Valley, South East Queensland’.

Millungera BasinHon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Mines and Energy) (10.05 am): The Bligh

government is looking beyond the horizon—beyond the resources boom. Over the winter breakgeologists from my department have discovered a new mineral and energy basin in one of the world’srichest resource regions—north-west Queensland. This is a great find and it came through our$50 million Smart Mining and Smart Exploration initiative. The new basin, 100 kilometres east ofCloncurry, could hold geothermal energy to rival the Cooper Basin. It is one of the most exciting finds ofthis century. The discovery of an untapped basin of this size is rare anywhere in the world, let alone in‘the Curry’. The new basin is around 300 kilometres long, and rocks there could be up to 540 millionyears old. Their discovery until now was masked by a younger, thinner Carpentaria Basin, where therocks are only approximately 230 million years old. Other rocks of this age in other basins holdsignificant petroleum, coal seam gas and water reserves. A new energy source for the north-westminerals province is exciting news, and the added bonus of a potential new water source would be theicing on the cake.

The new basin was uncovered by geoscientists from my department’s Geological Survey ofQueensland and heading the team is Dave Mason. While many of his colleagues would like the newdiscovery to be called the ‘Mason Basin’, we will stay true to the region’s heritage. Dave and his team ofgeologists carried out deep seismic surveys to see up to 60 kilometres below the surface. Mydepartment plans to conduct further surveys in the area to better define the size, shape and depth of thebasin. There are also plans to drill a number of relatively shallow holes to measure the geothermalpotential. We will shortly consider which blocks of land could be released for tender for geothermal andfor petroleum and gas exploration.

Any significant mineral or energy resource discovered here will be of huge benefit to the north-west minerals province and to nearby towns like Cloncurry and Julia Creek. It is possible that this basincould hold clean energy sources that could provide low-emissions power for the entire north-westregion. This is about the Bligh government tackling climate change with yet another step forward into thefuture.

Hendra VirusHon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (10.07 am):

Over the past five weeks the deadly Hendra virus has caused tragedy in our community. Today ourthoughts and prayers go out to those who have been touched by this disease, their families andcoworkers. Hendra virus is a rare pathogen that is carried by flying foxes. Since 1994 there have beenonly 11 recorded cases of equine infection, including the two most recent cases at Redlands and upnear Proserpine. Biosecurity Queensland has been working closely with our state and national partnersin managing these two isolated cases. A Proserpine horse has undergone a second round of Hendravirus tests at the owner’s request. Experts await the results. Quarantine was lifted at the Redlands clinicyesterday after experts declared the site free from Hendra virus. A number of horses have died as aresult of contracting this illness and one horse had to be put down after recovering. This was not aneasy decision and it was not taken lightly. Strong action is sometimes needed to provide biosecurity forQueensland and to do what can be done to combat serious diseases like Hendra virus.

When it comes to Hendra virus research, I am advised that scientists still do not fully understandhow horses contract the virus. Indeed, some of the clinical symptoms in these most recent casesdiffered from previous events. Researchers hope that the recent cases will provide valuable informationin the battle against this concerning virus. Further, I have already written to my federal counterpart, TonyBurke, to see what more can be done to assist researchers in their efforts.


Horse owners and veterinarians continue to do the right thing and notify DPIF when they have ahealth concern about an animal. In recent days, awareness of the Hendra virus has seen a modest risein routine testing and already three horses have returned negative results. Biosecurity Queensland isworking with the Queensland Horse Council and the Australian Veterinary Association to ensure thathorse owners and carers know the facts about the Hendra virus and what to do if they think their horseis showing some of the symptoms.

I am aware there is a high level of public interest in the Hendra virus, which is why I have askedfor an independent review of the department’s emergency response. The processes required to appointan independent consultant to head the review are underway. The AVA and the Queensland HorseCouncil are being consulted about the terms of reference. It is expected the services of an appropriatelyqualified person will soon be secured. I have asked for the report on the findings by the end of October2008 and that report will be tabled in parliament.

Beijing Olympic Games; Sports FundingHon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport)

(10.10 am): The Olympics have been an outstanding success, especially for the host, China, and for ourQueenslanders. Four hundred and thirty-five Aussies made up the Australian team. Of those, 96 wereQueenslanders, including 68 Queensland Academy of Sport scholarship holders.

Honourable members: Hear, hear! Ms SPENCE: Yes. Hear, hear! The 96 Queenslanders claimed 31 of the nation’s 46 medals—a

sensational 67 per cent of Australia’s medals. Queensland’s medal haul included nine gold, nine silverand 13 bronze. I table the list of Queensland’s medal winners. Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Beijing 2008 Medal Tally: Queensland Medal Tally’.

Our medallists set four new world records—two by Olympic debutante Stephanie Rice in herindividual events and the others by our women’s 4 x 100 metres medley relay and 4 x 200 metresfreestyle relay swimmers. A welcome-home parade and function are planned for our Olympians here inBrisbane on 19 September. If Queensland were a stand-alone country and not part of Australia, wewould have finished seventh in the overall medal tally. That is an exceptional outcome. Having hailedour Olympians, we now send our Paralympians every good wish as they begin their battles.

There is another Queensland Beijing group deserving recognition. Our local sporting journalistsworking with their national media teams have done an extraordinary job. In my view, there are threeother gold-medal performers: Seven’s Pat Welsh for the athletic track-side interviews, ABC Radio’sGerry Collins for swimming and ABC Radio’s Quentin Hull for water polo.

This government is investing more in sport and recreation than any other state. This financial yearwe will spend over $220 million. No other state matches that. A comparison done a few years agoshowed that we were spending four to five times more than most other states, and that has notchanged. This government is committed to providing our athletes with the most innovative sportingfacilities, internationally renowned coaches and support programs. Our Queensland Academy of Sportis the leading Australian sporting academy, delivering cutting-edge facilities to our athletes. We investmore than $10 million a year in the QAS. This is nearly double the amount given by most other stategovernments to their sports institutes or academies.

In June, I opened the new $10 million QAS Recovery Centre, which has a cross-training pool, icebaths, a hot spa, a sauna, a cold plunge pool and massage and physiotherapy areas to mend injuredathletes and for a quick recovery after intense training. We also hand out nearly $10 million annually tostate sport and recreation organisations. In comparison, South Australia provides $6.6 million, WesternAustralia provides $4 million and most other states provide even less.

This financial year we also have a record funding package of $78 million to develop communitysport and recreation facilities and programs. This funding package includes $30 million for the MajorFacilities Program, $12.5 million for the Minor Facilities Program, $8 million for a network of regionaltennis facilities, $5 million to local governments for new and improved sport and recreational facilities,$3 million to local clubs, $3 million for projects aimed at physical activity and encouraging healthyeating, and $2 million for aspiring young athletes to travel to competitions. It does not end there. Thereis more than $7 million to support PCYC programs for Indigenous communities that go dry and$2.5 million for the highly successful Find Your 30 campaign. We are supporting sport and recreationlike no other state to help our athletes be the best they can be and to encourage Queenslanders to getactive and lead healthier lives.

Gold Coast, Public Transport InfrastructureHon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial

Relations) (10.14 am): Like a bad date that you cannot wait to end, opposition members have spent thelast couple of months talking about themselves and largely talking to themselves. At the same time, wehave been getting on with the job—the job of securing better transport options for Queenslanders. Wehave turned the first sod on not one but two train stations: one at Richlands in the electorate of Inala andthe other at Varsity Lakes on the Gold Coast.


In addition to reversing the sins of the sixties with respect to rail infrastructure on the Gold Coast,we have strengthened the east-west transport connections. Last Friday we announced that light rail hasbeen found to be the preferred option for the Gold Coast Rapid Transit project. The preliminary businesscase has found that it offers greater capacity with carriages and it has a 10-year longer life span thanbuses. Next we are looking to the Gold Coast City Council to deliver on its strong support. Then, thenext test is to embark on market sounding in October through which we will determine the privatesector’s willingness to partner with us. We will also do further work on the corridor planning study. Wewould expect that, if all this goes to plan, construction could be estimated to commence in 2010. Thisinvolves the community being able to have their say, and I plan to do this throughout October andNovember. The community can help us with having a say on traffic, parking and the locations ofstations.

Doing nothing on the Gold Coast is simply not an option. Traffic on the city’s main roads isestimated to be increasing by an average of 4.3 per cent each year, and studies have found that this willonly add to the congestion, especially through central Surfers Paradise. Currently, only four per cent—or65,000 trips—are made on public transport. By making public transport faster, more efficient and morereliable, this project is estimated to take, in time, up to 40,000 car trips off the roads. That will have asignificant impact on future congestion and avoiding gridlock. That is why last week’s announcement isso important for the future of the Gold Coast.

State Schools; Beijing Olympic GamesHon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training and Minister for the

Arts) (10.17 am): Like the minister for sport, I, too, recognise the many Queenslanders who haveparticipated in the Olympics. Over the years, Queenslanders have been renowned for their sportingprowess—Pat Rafter, Cathy Freeman, Susie O’Neill, Greg Norman and Darren Lockyer to name a few.Many of these athletes, both those of the past and those of these Olympics, have come from our stateschools. So today I would like to acknowledge some state school achievers who represented ourcountry and Queensland at the Beijing Olympics.

Firstly, 16-year-old swimming sensation Cate Campbell, from Kenmore State High School, wasthe youngest swimmer on the Australian Olympic team. But she did not let that stand in her way. In the50-metre freestyle final she held her nerve and was rewarded with a bronze medal. The year 11 studentjuggled her Olympic preparations with studies, completing years 11 and 12 over three years to havetime off to train and compete.

Over at North Lakes State College there was keen interest in the Olympic softball. There, teacherJodie Bowering was a member of the Australian Olympic softball team. She was joined by Sandy Lewisin the team. Sandy is also a teacher and has been doing relief work at schools around the state’s south-east in the lead-up to the games. They are both returning home with bronze medals for their efforts.Diver Melissa Wu, who studies through distance education, received a silver medal in the synchroniseddiving 10-metre platform. No doubt there are many former state school students who were successfulQueenslanders at the Olympics such as Matthew Mitcham, a former student of Mansfield State HighSchool.

Queensland’s state schools were represented not only in the pool and on the playing fields duringthe games. Nineteen years 10 to 12 students and five past students from Mackay North State HighSchool, participating in a marching band, were among those from 40 countries invited to be part of the2008 Olympic international band. I am looking forward to catching up with the students next week whenI am in Mackay for community cabinet.

Lastly, I congratulate my training colleagues from John Rogers Swim Squad at Albany Creekswimming pool—Leith Brodie, Kylie Palmer and Bronte Barratt. Kylie and Bronte were in the women’s200-metre freestyle relay final and won gold, and Leith won a bronze in the men’s freestyle relay.Congratulations to all our state school achievers who represented their country, Queensland and ourstate education system at the Beijing Olympics. With this being the year of physical activity they aregreat role models for our students.

Social HousingHon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and

Information and Communication Technology) (10.20 am): In April I announced that the Department ofHousing would introduce a new needs based system. All Department of Housing tenants and applicantswere asked to complete a housing needs assessment review which would identify their need in relationto other persons on the list. This work is now complete. This week, applicants who have advised us thatthey are paying less than 30 per cent of their income towards housing will be advised that they are noteligible for long-term social housing. The department advises me that this will apply to around 25 percent of the people currently on the waiting list. This is in line with national benchmarks that identify aperson paying less than 30 per cent of their income as not being in housing need.


However, this does not mean that our government will be walking away from these people. Theywill be able to access products available in the department’s private housing assistance scheme, suchas bond loans. As this group is currently sustaining private housing, they are a natural fit with therecently announced Rudd Labor government’s National Rental Affordability Scheme. As such,Queensland will have a ready-made list of applicants to immediately place people in the scheme themoment it becomes available. Furthermore, this group is being targeted in the recently announced pilotof RentConnect, which is being trialled in Rockhampton and Caboolture. If this scheme proves viable,and indications are that it will, it will be extended into other areas. Put simply, it is about matchingtenants with the private rental market and assisting with the sustainability of tenancies.

I might also point out that there has been a huge reduction in our waiting list of some 26 per cent.Our waiting list now stands at 30,135. This result has come about through a variety of measures, not theleast of which is the fact that we have added 950 new social housing dwellings to the stock in the past12 months. In fact, we have spent $110 million since June building and buying more dwellings—at thesame time when those opposite have been talking about themselves. The ongoing review of tenanteligibility has also yielded 840 dwellings, which has further assisted in this process. On top of that,departmental staff have conducted a thorough review of all data relating to applicants which has, I amadvised, also identified persons who no longer need or want housing assistance.

This shows that our government with the largest funding injection into public housing ever, with itsnew eligibility policies and with the creation of one social housing system is serious about helpingbattlers. This sharply contrasts with the policy vacuum that has existed in the opposition for the pastdecade and which does not appear likely to be filled any day soon.

Intercountry Adoptions, IndiaHon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Women) (10.22 am):

An article was published on the Time magazine web site on Friday, 22 August relating to alleged illegaladoption practices in India. The article alleges a fraudulent adoption was performed by an Indianadoption agency for a Queensland couple. Other media have since reported the allegations. This is avery disturbing allegation of child trafficking. I stress that at this stage these are allegations. Queenslandhas not been provided with any documented evidence that any child adopted into Queensland waskidnapped in India.

However, this is a terrible predicament for a Queensland family who loves their adopted child andfor the Indian family who has lost a child. When the allegations first emerged last year, AdoptionServices Queensland in my department conducted a review of Indian children adopted into Queenslandbetween 1995 and 2007. I am advised that only two of the adoptions were through Malaysian SocialServices, the Indian based placement agency alleged to be involved in child trafficking. Only one ofthose adoptions fell within the period being investigated by Indian police. I am advised that all adoptionswere arranged through the official Indian government adoption agency and its authorised agencies. It isimportant to note that the adoption of the child referred to in the media reports was authorised by theHigh Court of Madras.

My department’s role is to approve Queensland families as suitable adoptive families and to sendthe file to overseas countries for processing. Queensland works to ensure that not only is the lawadhered to but also the best interests of the child are met in all overseas adoptions. Australia is asignatory to the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of IntercountryAdoption. The objectives of the convention include establishing safeguards to ensure that intercountryadoptions take place in the best interests of the child and in accordance with their rights underinternational law and establishing a system of cooperation among signatories to prevent the abduction,sale or traffic in children. To this end, Australia’s obligation is to ensure the suitability of prospectiveadoptive parents in Queensland, and it is the overseas country that is responsible for the bona fides ofthe adoptive child in that country.

I have asked my department to conduct a second audit of all Indian adoptions between 1995 and2008 to ensure that there are no other children who have been adopted through MSS. The Australiangovernment currently has responsibility for management of the Indian adoption program. I spokeyesterday to federal Attorney-General, Senator Robert McClelland, about the allegations. I offered thefull cooperation and assistance of my department to federal and Indian authorities in any investigation.My department has also made contact with the family and has offered them whatever assistance isneeded, including counselling, during this very difficult time for them.

Interest RatesHon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (10.26 am): The Reserve Bank’s latest

quarterly statement on monetary policy was released earlier this month. In it we saw the first clearindication that the Reserve Bank is now moving to a view that the raising of interest rates needs to stopand that a cut is now required. In our government’s view this cannot come soon enough. There is aream of economic data in support of the proposition.

26 Aug 2008 Scrutiny of Legislation Committee 2219

For some months I have been putting forward the argument that the Reserve Bank’s tighteningpolicy has not only curbed demand but smashed it. Both in this place and outside I have clearly putforward the view that the tightening was biting beyond the target and needed curtailing. We have seenover the course of the year a substantial slowing in retail turnover, which declined 0.6 per cent in theJune quarter. High interest rates hit consumer confidence first and hard, and this is the stark evidence.Combined with rising petrol prices, discretionary spending has been wiped out as high interest rateshave hit home. While household consumption growth has been moderating under the tighter monetarypolicy pursued by the central bank, dwelling investment has also taken a hit. Over the year to the Marchquarter, dwelling investment has declined 6.2 per cent, with the biggest falls in alterations and additions,reflecting households that have been frightened into lockdown on future spending plans.

Looking forward, the decline in trend building approvals reflects ongoing household wariness offuture conditions and signals a period of subdued housing investment. Higher interest rates alsotranslate first and foremost into reduced household consumption and dwelling investment. After all, thatis what they are designed to do. Around Australia the story is similar as the Reserve Bank’s aggressivestance against inflation is biting into confidence. Earlier this year, just as the Reserve Bank’s tighteningpolicy was really gaining traction, Queensland was ravaged by widespread flooding. This caused majorinterruptions to mine production and export flows and has been a significant, albeit once-off, impact onnet exports in the March quarter. Taken together, this trend has seen gross state product decline by0.1 per cent in the March quarter to deliver an annual economic growth rate of 3.7 per cent.

Of course, Queensland families and businesses do not need to read through this data. They knowfirsthand that tighter conditions have hit hard. The fundamentals of the Queensland economy remainstrong, but we need a more accommodating interest rate setting. The case was made out months ago.The evidence now is incontrovertible. Higher interest rates have been biting. Inflation needed to betackled but the task is done and now relief is required lest the landing be too hard. I repeat my earliercalls for the Reserve Bank to adopt an easing policy and I add my voice to the case that implores thebank to move aggressively and cut rates by 50 basis points at its meeting one week from today.

INVESTIGATION INTO ALTRUISTIC SURROGACY COMMITTEE

Extension of Time

Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.29 am), by leave,without notice: I move—That the date for the select committee known as the Investigation into Altruistic Surrogacy Committee to report to the House inaccordance with its order of appointment dated 14 February 2008 be extended from 30 September 2008 to 9 October 2008.

Question put—That the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES

Membership

Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.29 am), by leave,without notice: I move—That the member for Glass House, Ms Male, be discharged as a member of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee and themember for Broadwater, Ms Croft, be appointed as a member of that committee; and

That the member for Noosa, Mr Elmes, be discharged as a member of the Travelsafe Committee and the member for Moggill, DrFlegg, be appointed as a member of that committee.


SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Report

Mrs SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (10.29 am): I table the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’sAlert Digest No. 8 of 2008. Tabled paper: Scrutiny of Legislation Committee—Alert Digest No. 8 of 2008.

2220 Questions Without Notice 26 Aug 2008

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Hearing Awareness WeekMr SPEAKER: Order! Before we commence question time today, I advise honourable members

that this week is Hearing Awareness Week. I acknowledge in the public gallery members of CICADAQueensland, the Cochlear Implant Club and Advisory Association.

Honourable members: Hear, hear! Mr SPEAKER: I welcome Liz Evans, the CICADA President and a board member of the

deafness forum, who has organised today’s visit to the Queensland parliament by CICADA groupmembers. I look forward to hosting a morning tea at 11.30 am in the Premier’s Hall for our visitors fromCICADA Queensland and I invite all honourable members to join us for that event after question time.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Labor Party PollingMr SPRINGBORG (10.30 am): My first question without notice is to the Premier. It is obvious that

the Premier will do anything to cling to power. After 10 years in office with 59 members of parliamentwho are supposedly her eyes and ears, including 18 ministers and 11 parliamentary secretaries and with229 ministerial staff/spin doctors, apparently she still does not know what Queenslanders want. I tablethis two-year, open-ended document from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet calling for peopleto conduct for her (1) telephone surveys; (2) face-to-face surveys; (3) online surveys; (4) focus groups;and (5) depth interviews. Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Invitation to Offer: DPC-1754-08—Provision of Market Research Services’.

I ask: given that the Premier already uses taxpayer funds for advertising, will she explain whytaxpayers are now funding Labor Party polling simply because she no longer knows whatQueenslanders want?

Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. Let me clarify absolutely that theLabor Party does Labor Party polling but no government or taxpayer funds are used for Labor Partypolling, and nor should there be. As long as I am Premier, there will not be—

Mr Lucas: Did they do polling when you were a minister in the Borbidge government?Ms BLIGH:—unlike what happened under the Borbidge government and the cabinet that the

member for Southern Downs was a member of. Having said that, I make no apology for making surethat our government is regularly in touch with the views of Queenslanders on a range of issues. Wekeep our finger on the pulse in a range of ways. We attend community cabinets on a very regular basis.I attend public meetings, morning teas and other events in the electorates of my caucus members attheir request and with their support.

From time to time the government does conduct surveys on particular issues. This morning I haveannounced that we will be doing online surveys in relation to the issue of junk food advertising aimed atchildren. Recently the minister for transport commissioned work to look at the effectiveness of our roadsafety advertising campaigns. We want fewer people dying on our roads. We want to know that thetaxpayer investment in the advertising that we do for road safety campaigns is effective. Do membersknow what that means? It means that focus groups have been put in place to test things like road safetyadvertising. In fact, the minister for transport brought that question to cabinet recently. There is no secretabout this.

Earlier this year I announced that we would be completely reviewing all of our road safetyadvertising. I am not an advertising expert. We have companies that do that for us and provide advice tocabinet. I want taxpayer funds spent in the most effective way possible. If that means employing peoplewho have the professional skills to determine the most effective advertising investment, then I make noapology for it.

Mr Schwarten: And you wouldn’t do that, hey?Mr Springborg: I can see what the Premier’s research on you shows. Mr Schwarten: That 77 per cent of the people of Rocky love me. Mr Springborg: The Left doesn’t. Which one of the three are you? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the House, I ask both of you not to

comment across the chamber. Speak through me, in accordance with the standing orders. Leader of theOpposition, if you are going to ask a question, ask a question.

26 Aug 2008 Questions Without Notice 2221

Labor Party PollingMr SPRINGBORG: It is obvious that the Premier will do anything to cling to power. I refer to the

tender documents that I have just tabled for taxpayer funded polling, because after 10 years in office shestill does not know what Queenslanders want. Despite her pledge of open government, the tenderdocuments state that offers ‘will not be publicly opened’. Given that offers closed last Wednesday, willshe now tell Queenslanders how many offers were received and, more importantly, what will be the costof this taxpayer funded election polling? Will she also release a copy of the questions and the results ofthe surveys so that Queenslanders can truly judge whether or not this is just political surveying on herpart?

Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. I can outline, for example, a piece of researchthat was done and was made public, which is the daylight saving one. There are no secrets here.

Opposition members: Ha, ha! Ms BLIGH: Members can go onto the Premier’s web site and they will find all the results of the

daylight saving research. Mr Copeland: What about this one!Ms BLIGH: It has not been done. Mr Springborg: Will you do it? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition!Ms BLIGH: One thing I do know is that Queenslanders want a stable government that can

provide them with certainty, a government with which they can deal fairly, a government with which theycan deal confidently. This morning the Leader of the Opposition has asked that all of the tenderdocuments from companies making application for a successful tender with government should be putinto the public arena. Those documents will contain commercial-in-confidence material and everysensible, stable government in the world protects the business dealings of organisations that deal withit. That is what this government will do. When there are results from material that this government isdealing with in a policy matter, we make it public. That is what we have done in the past and you will seeus do it in the future. As I said, our government is an open government, it is a transparent government—

Mr Springborg: Well, release them!Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will warn the Leader of the Opposition shortly. Ms BLIGH: The tenders closed last week, so the total results to date look like this blank piece of

paper. This is the survey result. The tender has not been selected, nor has the research been done. Ican release as many blank pages as the members like, but I do not think it will help.

Advancing Health ActionMs MALE: My question without notice is to the Premier. Opposition members interjected.Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. I will not tolerate constant interjections. We have robust

interjections here. I will not tolerate the interjections. Member for Glass House. Ms MALE: Thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker. My question without notice is to the

Premier. Given the launch of Advancing Health Action, can the Premier outline the cost of not acting, ofnot doing anything?

Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question and for her well-known interest in health issues. Ilook forward to her support for this program.

Before answering her question, I have now had an opportunity to look at the documents tabled bythe Leader of the Opposition. Will it surprise anybody on this side of the chamber to know that what wehave seen this morning from the Leader of the Opposition is his usual half truth. The document that herefers to is an invitation from market research companies for appointment to a panel—not for a particularresearch program, not for any survey, but for appointment to a panel—for a two-year standing period.That means that there is a panel that is authorised and rigorously tested so that, when governmentdecides that we need to do things like market test government advertising, the standing offer can beapplied to the people who have been authorised to be on the panel.

This is a standard procurement procedure for every service offered to government. Mr Speaker,do you think it might be possible that the Leader of the Opposition was telling a fib to the parliament? Doyou think he was a little less than honest in his question? Mr Speaker—

Mr Schwarten: Get the coppers!Ms BLIGH: Get the police down here immediately! He is the master of the half-truth, as usual.


Mr Speaker, can I also join you in recognising members of the Cochlear Implant Club andAdvisory Association in the public gallery today. It is great to have you here with us. I hope we can giveyou something worth listening to.

Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can we have a bit of respect on this side, thank you. Ms BLIGH: In relation to the question raised by the honourable member, the statistics are indeed

very scary. We estimate that serious preventable conditions like type 2 diabetes, emphysema andkidney failure are costing Queenslanders an estimated $6 billion every year.

A report released last week by Access Economics is even more sobering. It shows that in 2008approximately 3.71 million or 17½ per cent of all Australians were estimated to be obese. Thecalculated increases in the following diseases are as a result of obesity: 242,033 Australians had type 2diabetes, up 137 per cent from 2005; 644,000 Australians had a cardiovascular disease, up 70 per cent.The report estimated the total cost of obesity to the Australian economy at $58 billion. The statistics alladd up and make it clear that the cost of doing nothing is simply too high.

We are not the only place in the world that is struggling with this and, frankly, nobody has found asilver bullet, but that is no reason for us not to continue in our efforts. I would encourage all members onboth sides of the House to get behind their communities in things like the community awards program.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Caloundra, I recognise in the public gallerytoday teachers and students from the Banksia Beach State School in the electorate of Pumicestone,represented in this House by Carryn Sullivan.

I also acknowledge in the gallery the presence of Jessica Owens and Andrew Thomsen,parliamentary interns from James Cook University, and Rachel Missingham, parliamentary intern fromGriffith University, accompanied by her sign language interpreters. Welcome.

Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Leaked DocumentsMr McARDLE: My question is to the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport. Minister, it

is obvious that the Premier will do anything to cling to power. Earlier this month a letter you had writtento the Premier was leaked—a letter about your overseas travel. In your local paper, the Southern Star,on 13 August you claimed, ‘Clearly it was leaked from the Premier’s department.’ Minister, was thiscomment the result of an investigation by you or your department, and can you explain why you thinkthe Premier would leak this letter when she has stood so loyally beside you for endorsement in a newseat?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the minister for police to answer that question, standing order 115provides that questions must not contain inferences or imputations. I will allow the question on thisoccasion, but I once again say that standing order 115 is quite clear.

Ms SPENCE: Having been the minister for police and corrective services for more than fouryears now, I am very used to things leaking from my departments and I do not get too excited about it.The letter the member is talking about is one that was leaked from the Premier’s department. I said thatin the media to put some context around it. I was asked whether it would have been leaked from mydepartment. I said no, because it was actually written in my office. So clearly it was leaked not from mydepartment. That is the context in which I answered that question.

Mr Speaker, would I expect an investigation? No, I would not expect necessarily any sort offormal investigation, nor do I seek any formal investigation when things get leaked from mydepartments. As I said, this happens on a regular basis. I appreciate that the member for Caloundra hasnever been a minister and is unlikely to ever be one, but I have to tell him that part of being ingovernment is that we accept that these things inevitably happen from time to time.

I am happy to talk about the content of the letter. It was to do with my trip to secure the Indy racefor another year. I have great news to report to parliament on that particular event. We have recently, inthe last couple of weeks, signed up Nikon as the naming rights sponsor for this year’s event. YesterdayI was talking to the chairman of the Indy, Mr Terry Mackenroth. He told me that ticket sales are goingvery, very well and that we expect the great American teams to be here this year. Some of the greatestdrivers and the biggest names in the world will be on the Gold Coast from 23 October to 26 October forthis year’s Indy. It is expected to be one of the biggest and best Indys we will ever have.

It is no secret that it has been challenging to get this contract with the IRL signed. Thosemembers who follow this event would know that the Champ Car Series that originally hosted our Indyfolded at the end of last year and combined with the Indy Racing League of America. It was alwaysgoing to be difficult to do a new deal with a new player, and that is why I travelled to America and metthe Chairman of the IRL, Mr Tony George, and told him about our event on the Gold Coast and told himhow committed the Queensland government is to this event. I am very pleased that we have an MOUwith the IRL for the next five years and that it is coming here to the Gold Coast for the first time toexperience our marvellous event.


I make no apologies for doing everything I can to make sure that the Indy race on the Gold Coastis secured in the future, because I know how much this race means to the Gold Coast and I know howmuch it means to motor racing fans not just in Queensland but all over Australia and, indeed,internationally. It is the biggest single event we have in this state, and I make no apologies for chasing it.

Time expired.

Political Donations, Disclosure LawsMr FINN: My question without notice is to the Premier. Can the Premier outline the response to

the government’s decision to introduce the toughest political donation disclosure laws in the country? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Excuse me, Premier. I am not too sure if there has been laughing gas

given to the member for Cunningham. I think I am giving the opposition a fair go in asking thesequestions. I want a fairer go in terms of ministers at least starting to answer the questions. I call thePremier.

Ms Spence interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Minister for police! Ms BLIGH: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the member for his question. As I announced

publicly yesterday, the government will be introducing new laws that will make the political disclosureprocess in Queensland more open and tougher than anywhere else in the country. They will send a veryclear signal that Queensland’s political process is not for sale. Much of these new laws will mirror whatis in the Commonwealth bill, but the Commonwealth bill has been referred to a committee of the Senateand will not be returning for discussion until June next year and therefore is unlikely to result in new lawsin time for the next state election. The bill that we will be introducing goes further than what is proposedin the Commonwealth legislation. For example, donations of $100,000 from any single donor must bedeclared within 14 days of receipt. That figure relates to accumulative donations, not a single donation.

I think these proposals are very fair and reasonable. The Labor Party will have no troublecomplying with them and no problem with them. I did actually think I would see from the Liberal NationalParty a sign of support. I thought we would hear a comment that it had no concerns about being open toscrutiny. What I saw instead was the Leader of the Opposition describe these moves this morning as‘the politics of intimidation’. This from a man who is the main beneficiary of a billionaire’s openchequebook! Why does he feel intimidated? He says that he stands for openness and accountability, buthe is intimidated by electoral disclosure.

The Labor Party has nothing to hide—absolutely nothing. In the Australian today, again what didwe see from a former member of this House, a former Queensland Liberal minister, Bill Hewitt? Hetalked about the Liberals being bullied into agreeing to be part of a new party. The article quotedMr Hewitt as saying—It didn’t help that there was a billionaire standing on the sidelines saying to everyone that he had the money.

I do not make any apologies for making sure that when Queenslanders go to the polls in 2009they know who has donated to the Labor Party and who has donated to the Liberal National Party. Thereaction this morning from the Leader of the Opposition and his benefactor, Clive Palmer, indicates thathe does have something to hide. It was a shameful reaction. It was absolutely disgraceful.

These laws are being introduced because they are the right thing to do. Queenslanders should beproud of being the most open state in the country. They should not have these laws dragged down byaccusations of political intimidation. What are those opposite intimidated by, and what are they scaredof?

Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Leaked DocumentsMr JOHNSON: My question is directed to the honourable Premier—and it is pretty obvious that

she has the nervous Nellies. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory, under standing order 115 I will declare your question

out of order if you do not heed the statement I made earlier. Ask the question. Mr JOHNSON: I will ask the question, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Ask the question without any further comment. Mr JOHNSON: As it is obvious that all the Premier wants to do is cling to power, would the

Premier be aware that the minister for police has accused her department of leaking? The Premierwould be aware that it is a major security issue for Queensland if correspondence and briefing materialfrom the minister for police cannot be kept in confidence by her department. Given that the minister hasaccused her department of leaking, what investigations has the Premier undertaken into the leak, andwhat was the result of the investigations?


Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. This is the fresh new look of Queensland. Weare all going to spend the rest of the morning answering the same question.

Ms Spence: Interested in the big policy issues of the day! Ms BLIGH: Yes, the big policy issues of the day. A government member interjected.Ms BLIGH: Yes, it is the first six weeks of the new party, and what do we have? I thought we had a very comprehensive answer from the minister for police, but let me add a

couple of things. Firstly, it is no surprise or secret that the Premier of the day approves the overseastravel of ministers. That is what I do, it is what the previous Premier did, to the best of my knowledge it iswhat previous conservative premiers did, and it will certainly continue under my government. That is nosecret whatsoever.

A government member interjected.Ms BLIGH: I do not know that Premier Borbidge knew about the rhino trip, but apart from that. Secondly, this letter would have been available under FOI. There is no secret about this letter. It

would have been eligible for release under an FOI request. There is nothing in the letter that I am in anyway concerned about. What it did was openly and honestly tell me the purpose of the minister’s trip.That is what she went overseas for. She applied herself diligently to the task. She came back withouthaving secured exactly what she thought might be possible, but within weeks of her return it was fixed.There is nothing unusual about that. It is not at all unusual. Obviously there is somebody who hadaccess to that letter who thinks it is pretty scintillating. I am not sure who it was and, frankly, I do not caremuch, because our government believes in getting on with the job.

Mr Hobbs: Was it you? Ms BLIGH: I am very pleased that the minister opposite—the member opposite, not the

minister—Mr Johnson: It will be soon. Ms BLIGH:—has given me the opportunity to say a few words about the minister for police,

because I hear lots of interjections from over there. Judy Spence is one of the most successful policeministers this state has had for decades. Judy Spence has presided over an elevation of the policenumbers in this state of more than 1,000 in the four years that she has been in the position. She hastaken the Queensland police to population ratio to the national average for the first time ever in thisstate, and she has presided over a decline in a number of very critical areas of crime—in fact, a four percent reduction in crime last year.

Mr Johnson: Is she going to give them telephone interception powers and a helicopter?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory!Ms BLIGH: I draw attention to the fresh new face that the Liberal National Party proposes as an

alternative police minister. Mr Johnson: What are you trying to get rid of her for? You want me, don’t you? Ms BLIGH: There are many things that have been said about the member, and I am sure he has

had a few things to say about it himself. A real estate agent might describe it as having some rusticcharm, but let me say that it has been around a lot longer than Judy Spence’s has.

Water InfrastructureMs PALASZCZUK: Unlike the opposition, I have a policy question. My question without notice is

to the Deputy Premier. Can the Deputy Premier please update the House on progress of work to providewater security to south-east Queensland? Is the Deputy Premier aware of any alternative approaches tosecuring water supply for our region?

Mr LUCAS: I am delighted to announce to the House that we are making major progress on the$9 billion south-east Queensland water grid over this winter. It is now almost 90 per cent complete, withmore than 354 kilometres of pipe in the ground. The western corridor project is over 90 per centcomplete, with 190 kilometres of pipe laid. Recently, the last piece of the 94-kilometre pipe of thesouthern regional water pipeline was laid and 8.4 kilometres of the eastern pipeline interconnector wasrecently finished.

On the Gold Coast our $1.2 billion desal plant is now almost 86 per cent complete. Last monththe government confirmed that we would secure water supplies for Toowoomba by spending$187 million to build a pipeline from Wivenhoe Dam to Toowoomba. The 40-kilometre pipeline is set tobe built by the end of 2009 and be delivering water in January 2010. Water levels in Toowoomba arenow up 2.10 per cent.


I was delighted when the Leader of the Liberal National Party announced who would beresponsible for the water grid in south-east Queensland. It is none other than the member for DarlingDowns. What are his answers for Toowoomba’s water security? If we look in the Dalby Herald on 13May, he states—I have recently completed a study and an approximate costing in respect to the piping of 100 megalitres/day from the proposedNathan Dam, near Taroom. This initiative would solve the dwindling water supply issue for Dalby, Chinchilla, Oakey, Toowoombaand surrounding towns.

The only problem is that the Nathan Dam is not scheduled to be built until 2014 and Toowoomba’s waterruns out in March 2010. Thank you very much! He said this in the parliament—It is not a policy of the National Party; it is an idea of Ray Hopper.

It is all his own work. Who could forget that the person in this chamber who not long ago criticisedthe government for increasing environmental flows in the Kolan River when it was at 76 per cent is in thesame party that opposes Traveston. They offer an opinion on everything and a solution for nothing. Themember for Darling Downs has a more radical idea for water security. In the same column of his localpaper he proposes a solution. I quote—I don’t believe in pessimism. If something doesn’t come up the way you want, forge ahead. If you think it’s going to rain, it will.

Who was that great water expert he was quoting? Clint Eastwood! Tabled paper: Copy of article from the Dalby Herald, dated 13 May 2008, page 9 titled ‘Oil pipeline to supply water?’ and twoextracts from Hansard, 6 June 2008, page 2137, and 16 April 2008, pages 1045 to 1046.

Queensland RacingMr HORAN: My question is to the honourable Treasurer and minister responsible for racing. The

minister was warned in this parliament about the disgraceful attempt by Queensland Racing Ltd to grabitself extended tenure from 2006 to 2018, and he did nothing. The minister was again warned duringestimates, and he did nothing. Now that the minister knows that the Country Racing Committee wasdenied its vote, that the Townsville president was blocked from voting and that the trainers and jockeysassociations did not meet to determine their vote, will the minister use his powers under the act to refuseapproval for this unaccountable extension of power?

Mr FRASER: I thank the shadow minister for his question about racing. The reality is that this is aprocess which has been pursued by Queensland Racing to secure a constitutional change inaccordance with its constitution. I am aware of the fact that there are allegations that have been made.Those allegations have been forwarded, as has been reported, to the CMC. The CMC believes that itdoes not have jurisdiction over the matter. In relation to the issues, because they relate to the way thatthe corporation, QRL, is constituted, they are relevant to ASIC. Therefore, ASIC will be the body whichinvestigates those matters.

I would put on the record the very clear view to the shadow minister that, as these matters arebeing investigated, I do not propose to comment beyond them save for saying this: in the circumstancesany application that has been received by me will not be progressed until these matters are sorted out.Should the matters that are currently the subject of investigation be resolved one way or another, thenthat will be determined in my assessment of whether or not to proceed with the application that is beforeme.

Taxation ReformMs JONES: Unlike the opposition, I too have a question about policy. I ask the Treasurer to

advise the House of the government’s commitment to delivering tax reforms. Is he aware of anyalternative views?

Mr FRASER: I thank the honourable member for her question about tax reform. This governmenthas had a long and strong track record in promoting sensible tax reform which sees Queenslanderspaying $243 less than other Australians. It is a track record which is about promoting growth andpromoting pro-investment policies to make sure that we attract investment to this state. Theindependent Commonwealth Grants Commission says that our taxation effort at 84 per cent is wellbelow what other states put on their taxpayers. That is because we as a state want to see that growthand want to see that investment coming into our state.

What is less clear but what may be clear by the end of this week with the opportunity for thesupposed new opposition to vote on the budget and the tax reform measures in the budget is whetherthe opposition maintains a commitment to tax reform. We saw in the last iteration when the Leader ofthe Liberal National Party was the leader of the National-Liberal Party that he proposed a wacky policyof abolishing stamp duty in full. It was an uncosted policy that would have blown a $3 billion hole in thestate budget. It would have imperilled the ability to employ the doctors, the teachers, the nurses and thepolice that actually service our growing state.


But we see as of last week in his third iteration—and in what he says is a fresh new chance tolead Queensland but is in fact the third time that the Leader of the Opposition has led the same Liberaland National Party—that he has now moved away from that commitment. But Queenslanders areentitled to ask, given that the Leader of the Liberal National Party—the National-Liberal Party—has putforward a view once again that he is interested in tax reform, whether he holds this view again.

Everything is apparently shiny and new. Everything is apparently different. In fact, it really is not.All that the Leader of the Opposition has done is undertake the Kentucky Fried Chicken marketingoverhaul of Queensland politics. A couple of years ago Kentucky Fried Chicken knew that people wereno long interested in eating fried chicken and that their tastes were changing. So they sat around themarketing table and said, ‘No-one is really interested in fried chicken anymore so what should we do?Let’s change our name from Kentucky Fried Chicken to KFC and maybe no-one will notice that what weare selling is oily, greasy chicken.’

The Leader of the Opposition has gone out there and said, ‘No-one really wants to vote for theLiberal National Party anymore so I have a great idea. What I am going to do is pretend that everythingis different. We are not going to call it the Liberal National Party; we are going to call it the LNP. Nobodywill notice that it is the same group of people with the same old ideas; the same greasy good old boysout there with a new marketing campaign and slogan and saying that it is all shiny and new.’ It is nothingmore than a marketing plan with no substance behind it. All it has behind it is the good old ColonelSanders sitting there with billions of dollars saying, ‘Come on boys, sit on my lap and I will tell you howto run a government.’ What we need to see from the opposition is not a marketing plan but policy andsubstance.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Nicklin, I recognise in the public gallery afurther group of teachers and students from the Banksia Beach State School in the electorate ofPumicestone, represented in this House by Carryn Sullivan. I call the member for Nicklin.

Nambour Fire Station

Mr WELLINGTON: My question is to the Minister for Emergency Services. With respect to theproposed new Nambour Fire Station, I ask: when will construction commence on the new fire stationand will the new building have the capacity for expansion if the need arises in the future?

Mr ROBERTS: I thank the member for the question. I took the opportunity to visit Nambour latelast year to present recognition certificates and medallions to firefighters at that station. The memberwas with me during that presentation. It was quite obvious that the Nambour Fire Station is totallyinadequate for the future needs of the fire service. The member for Nicklin has been a very strongadvocate for having that station upgraded. I am very pleased to reiterate the decision in the budget toallocate $3.65 million to construct that facility. The facility will be built on a block of land on Bli Bli Road,Nambour.

We have had independent flood studies done on that land which demonstrate that it is a verysuitable location for the new fire station. The site is large enough to accommodate future needs. Thestation is designed to cater for current and future needs. If it is necessary to expand in the future, theland is of sufficient size to do that.

In terms of the process for construction, I point out that the ministerial designation process iscurrently underway. Design is well underway and my expectation is that construction will commence inthe early part of next year. Hopefully, member for Nicklin, in the early months of next year you will seesome very significant construction activity underway at that site. That will be a great enhancement to fireand rescue services in the Nambour region. I thank the member for his strong support for that project.

I might just take the opportunity to talk about some of the achievements of the Queensland Fireand Rescue Service. Members of the House would be aware that late last year I announced a review ofthe service, along similar lines to the Ambulance Service review, to ensure that we focus resources onthe front line. As a result of that review—and this was announced during the budget estimatesprocess—we have identified $5.5 million in savings which will be redirected into front-line servicedelivery and which will allow us to employ up to 45 additional fire officers.

The other comment I want to make about performance is that one of the real tests of the fireservice is how quickly it responds particularly to structural fires where people’s lives are at risk. Over thelast financial year, the average response time for the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service was sevenminutes and 20 seconds. The national benchmark for fire and rescue services across the country isattending 90 per cent of structural fires within 14 minutes.

I am pleased to reiterate to the House that the structural fire response time for all categories offire stations across Queensland improved this year. For example, response times to structural fireswithin the benchmark of 14 minutes by urban 24-hour seven-day-a-week stations increased to 98.2 percent.


Gold Coast, Light RailMr LAWLOR: My question is to the Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial

Relations. Could the minister provide details to the House on the reaction to his announcement lastFriday on light rail for the Gold Coast?

Mr MICKEL: When it comes to public transport on the Gold Coast, the opposition will say and doanything to cling to opposition. Those opposite have always been ambivalent when it comes to publictransport on the Gold Coast. In the sixties they tore up the railway line and sold off the corridor—onethat we have had to put back down. Earlier this year the member for Robina said that people prefer todrive to Skilled Park. Last time I checked 85 per cent of people who go to Skilled Park go there by publictransport. Those opposite have never had any faith at all in public transport.

Last Friday we had the first statement from the shadow minister for transport. She said the LNP—that is the mob with the 11 herbs and spices—supports the idea of a PPP for the most appropriate rapidtransport system because it believes the infrastructure needs to be built as soon as possible. That isfrom the shadow minister for transport. But what did the member for Robina say? He said that no privatesector firm would be interested in bidding. So they are going to have a PPP without the private sector,according to the member for Robina. The point is that the party of private enterprise has given up on theprivate sector when it comes to the member for Robina.

But the doozy belongs to the shadow transport spokesperson. She said, ‘The government shouldbe calling for tenders today instead of making an announcement about an announcement.’ In otherwords, what we should have been doing last Friday is calling for tenders for a mode of transport that thebusiness sector knew nothing about and for a route that the business sector knew nothing about. This istheir approach to PPPs. They know nothing about them.

The opposition then went on to say that what we should have been doing is announcingimmediately the business case. In other words, what those opposite are saying is that we should havereleased the commercial-in-confidence business case. We did not do that because the private sectorwould have taken one look at the target amount and rather than competed to deliver the best value forthe money bid it would have delivered a tender that was just under the amount that the opposition wouldhave us release.

For heaven’s sake, those opposite might think they were born to rule but I tell them this: they areelected to opposition! Given the statements that came out last week and that have come outcontinuously about transport on the Gold Coast, it is apparent that the opposition has not changed fromthe sins of the sixties. It is riveted to the sixties and the idea of pulling up infrastructure and selling off thecorridor.

Time expired.

Member for Bulimba, ABC Radio InterviewMr COPELAND: My question is to the Premier. On ABC Radio this morning, on the issue of

Labor politicians lying, the Premier claimed on at least two occasions that the bullying and violentconduct of the member for Bulimba had been adjudicated on by a court. This statement conflicts withthe Premier’s claims earlier this year that the conduct of the member for Bulimba had been settled byway of an out-of-court settlement. Will the Premier tell the House why she wrongfully claimed on radiothat a court had adjudicated on the member for Bulimba’s conduct?

Ms BLIGH: Welcome to the first outing for the shadow Attorney-General of this state.An opposition member interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask you to withdraw that. I call the Premier.Ms BLIGH: This really is an extraordinary question. The shadow minister is correct. In response

to a question from Madonna King on radio this morning about matters involving the member forBulimba, I made the point that they were not matters that had been considered by the privilegescommittee of this parliament. They were not matters of the parliament; they were matters that had beenconsidered and resolved by a court process, and that is absolutely right. That is absolutely right. Therewas a complaint made. A legal proceeding was undertaken. The member for Bulimba arrived at thecourt and the court made a resolution in favour of an agreement reached by both parties to the matter.Who knows where the shadow Attorney-General’s question came from. Who knows what chaotic,twisted understanding of the Queensland legal process gave birth to that. This is day one.

Mr Robertson: This is their big day out.Ms BLIGH: It is a big day out for the Liberal National Party on its first day as one party. I join with

others today to recognise that, in fact, it is the same old party with the same old people who have thesame old ideas, the same old dishonest attempts to smear the truth and the same old twisted view of thelegal system. Those opposite have never understood the rule of law in this state, and the question wehave just heard—

Opposition members interjected.


Mr SPEAKER: Order!Ms BLIGH: As I was saying, the question we have just heard puts beyond doubt that those

opposite continue to struggle to understand the basic fundamentals of the legal system. I have to saythat that question has a lot of competition here this morning, but I reckon that question—we still have abit of time to go—wins the embarrassment prize for today.

Swimming Queensland, FundingMs van LITSENBURG: My question is to the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport.

Redcliffe has a long history of training Olympic swimmers such as current Olympians Leisel Jones andJessicah Schipper and many past Olympic swimmers at our high-performance facility in Redcliffe. Therehave been media reports over the weekend about funding for swimming. Could the minister inform theHouse about the Bligh government’s contribution to swimming in Queensland?

Ms SPENCE: I thank the member for Redcliffe—Honourable members interjected.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not going to tolerate the discussion across the chamber. Your points

will be made through me, and I say that to those on both sides of the parliament.Ms SPENCE: My observation is that, understandably, the opposition is excited about being here

today as a new party, but I think its excitement is bubbling into childishness and it is looking more like akid’s birthday party than a Liberal National Party. Nevertheless, I am happy to answer the question fromthe member for Redcliffe about sport. Understandably, the member for Redcliffe cares about swimming,having had so many Olympic champions train at the Redcliffe pool. In that regard, we are spending$1.5 million on the pool at Redcliffe. I understand that those extensions will open in the next month orso.

The fact of the matter is that last year we spent $12 million on swimming in this state. On top ofthat $12 million, we spent $10 million on a new rehab and recovery centre at the QAS which is a state-of-the-art facility. The $12 million went on a number of projects which include funding public pools atMount Gravatt East, Runcorn and Colmslie. Gatton received $2½ million for a pool, and $1.2 million wasspent on a pool at Longreach. We cannot have our next generation of Olympic swimmers if we do notput the facilities in on the ground in regional and rural Queensland and in the cities and the suburbs, andthat is what we are doing. Of course, we also fund the Queensland Academy of Sport, which I talkedabout this morning. The Queensland Academy of Sport is going to give Scott Volkers to SwimmingQueensland full time in the next 12 months to help with Queensland swimming.

I am surprised that Swimming Queensland is talking about funding cuts, because I met with theCEO of Swimming Queensland just a week and a half ago. I talked to him about its fundingarrangements. I said that I was happy to reconsider the future funding arrangements of thatorganisation. One day or so after that meeting I sent him a letter saying that I would also give SwimmingQueensland an additional $150,000 to enable it to amalgamate with Queensland Masters Swimming.So it did surprise me—given that we had that conversation and I gave him certain undertakings—that onthe weekend Swimming Queensland would start complaining about its level of funding. The fact of thematter is that the QAS spends more on swimming than on any other sport. Queensland spends more onswimming than any other state in Australia. That is why Queensland kids swim and love swimming, andthat is why we do so well in that sport.

Intercountry Adoptions, IndiaMrs STUCKEY: My question without notice is to the Premier. I refer to the Premier’s time as

family services minister—which mirrors her time as education minister with asbestos, state developmentminister with the absence of infrastructure and Treasurer with debt—in which she claimed that she hadno knowledge of the scandal surrounding the kidnapping and illegal adoption of Indian children. Todaythe Minister for Child Safety stated that her department was aware of problems in 2007. Why will thePremier not accept any responsibility for this chain of disasters which have befallen this state on herwatch as a minister and now as Premier?

Ms BLIGH: The revelations that are unfolding in the national media involving families inQueensland are nothing short of a human tragedy. I believe that the thoughts and care of every memberof this House should be with those families as they struggle with what must be an unimaginable level ofpain. Adoption can sometimes be a difficult issue, but it must be very traumatic for those adoptiveparents who have given these children a home and formed a family to now have a cloud over theirheads. Equally, the natural families of these children in India must be going through a very painful time.

I do not intend to make a political football out of this issue, but I will say this: I was asked at apress conference yesterday whether I recalled any advice about this particular Indian agency. Ianswered honestly and said that, given that it is 10 years ago and that during the time I was the


responsible minister one can imagine how many briefing notes I might have dealt with, I did not haveany recollection of this particular agency. But I said—and I am happy to repeat it here—that that doesnot mean I was not provided with information. I may well have been and the records may show that.

What I do know in relation to the children in these cases is that their adoptions and their releasefrom India were authorised by the Indian High Court. That does not mean that there are not furtherquestions to be asked about the process in India, and none of us, I think, should jump to conclusionsuntil the federal investigations have been completed.

I have already given a commitment—and I was pleased to hear the Minister for Child Safetyrepeat it this morning—that this government and the relevant agencies of this government and anyrelevant individuals, including me, will absolutely be making themselves available and any informationand any documents, which are currently archived, will be made available to those investigations.

But let me make it very clear that during the time I was minister, as I believe to be the case whenthe former minister, Kevin Lingard, was the minister, this country did not accept children who had notbeen authorised from their own countries for adoption. Under The Hague convention, to whichQueensland is a signatory, we have obligations to ensure that children coming into this country areauthorised for release by their own country. That happened in this case. These children’s adoptionswere authorised by the Indian High Court. So let us just wait and see what might have occurred behindthat decision of the High Court in India before we start making a political football out of what I think is aterrible human tragedy.

State Schools of TomorrowMs NOLAN: My question is to the Minister for Education and Training and Minister for the Arts.

Recently the minister announced four major multimillion-dollar projects to modernise Queensland’sschool facilities. How will these projects improve educational outcomes for students? How will otherschools benefit from the State Schools of Tomorrow initiative?

Mr WELFORD: I thank the honourable member for her question and for her keen interest insupporting schools in her electorate. While parliament has been in winter recess the Bligh governmenthas been getting on with the job of securing our future and the future of young Queenslanders acrossthe state. In the past three months I have announced the outcomes of our first four major educationrenewal projects under the $850 million State Schools of Tomorrow initiative.

We are building tomorrow’s Queensland today by investing in major projects across the state:$36.7 million in Innisfail, nearly $70 million in Inala, $150 million in Brisbane’s bayside schools and$134 million in east Ipswich schools. That is a total of $390 million being invested in some of our oldestschool communities. We will be building new schools and rebuilding existing schools so that they arebrought up to the standard of our latest and newest schools. Schools will be transformed with new andremodelled buildings and classrooms, undercover areas and assembly areas. The bigger classroomswill have state-of-the-art technology—not just practical learning areas but new wireless classrooms—and curriculum opportunities for maths, science, technology and engineering, especially in thesecondary schools.

These projects are about preparing our students for the world of the 21st century. That simply isan insurmountable challenge for teachers struggling in the conditions of very old schools, some of themmore than 100 years old. You cannot run a Formula One school system in the 21st century on a ModelT Ford system of infrastructure. So this investment is about ensuring that our students and our teachershave access to the very latest facilities in schools that have been neglected in terms of their age anddepreciation for far too long.

We will also be investing another $350 million in the next phase of the Tomorrow’s Schoolsrenewal program. We will be investing $100 million over two years to address maintenance issues inschools and in teacher housing. My department will be conducting an audit of school facilities todetermine which schools and which facilities are in the greatest need for modernisation. We will focusour resources on ensuring that those in greatest need are provided with funds first and foremost.

Classrooms will be transformed, just as in the existing four projects for Tomorrow’s Schools, andwill ensure not only that children have excellent learning facilities and opportunities no matter wherethey live but also that teachers are given the resources to provide the most engaging and inspiringclassrooms that we possibly can. So while the opposition members have been talking aboutthemselves, we have been getting on with the job.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Maroochydore, I acknowledge in the public gallerythe principal and student leaders from Carmel College in the electorate of Redlands, which isrepresented in this House by the Deputy Speaker, Mr John English. I also acknowledge in the publicgallery student leaders from Caningeraba State School in the electorate of Burleigh, represented in thisHouse by Mrs Christine Smith. I also acknowledge a further group of teachers and students fromBanksia Beach State School in the electorate of Pumicestone, represented in this House by Mrs CarrynSullivan.


Queensland Rail, Peak Hour Passenger NumbersMiss SIMPSON: My question is to the minister for transport. After public pressure the

government has finally released some figures regarding overcrowding on Queensland Rail’s peak hourCitytrain services but has failed to release actual passenger numbers. There are significant concernsthat the number of passengers exceeds the maximum safety loads of the trains. I ask: will the ministerrelease actual passenger figures—or is he too scared they will reveal significant safety breaches?

Mr MICKEL: I have a track record of releasing information that is available. Let us go through it.Soon after I became the minister we put on the web site the number of peak hour services. Thosemembers who listen to ABC Radio every morning would hear Spencer Howson—and I think he does anexcellent job—announcing whether the trains are running on time. How does Spencer Howson get thatinformation? Because I put it on the web site. Similarly, when I was the energy minister there was a bigcall then to put information on the web site. That is exactly what I did. Last week I found out that theopposition had put in an FOI request to a GOC about passenger loadings. So I said to Queensland Rail,‘Make the information available,’ because you then have an informed debate. That informed debate isabout how many services are crowded.

I can give the honourable member some insight into that, if she would like. As I understand it,Queensland Rail has uploaded those peak capacities, but the figures are calculated using carriagecounts. They are a physical count of a particular carriage on a particular service on a single line on aparticular day. As I understand it, that survey was carried out between 19 February and 20 March earlierthis year.

It is true that instead of that sort of system I would rather have the go card system to get accuratecounts of where people get on and what time they get off. As I understand it, the opposition has hadan ambivalent attitude towards the go card, but one of the pieces of information that is absolutely crucialis passenger loadings. That way you can assign in peak hours where you want the services to be.

Unlike the opposition when it was in government, where its percentage of spend on publictransport in the south-east was quite minuscule, I am advised that this year we are spending about$1 billion. The subsidy for passenger transport will be that for every dollar fare, the taxpayers will payaround about $4 to achieve that. It is true that in times of rising fuel prices people inevitably takepassenger transport. We have seen that in the Brisbane City Council bus loadings but, unlike BrisbaneCity Council buses which when they are full simply bypass bus stops, Queensland Rail does not do that.Queensland Rail will stop at the designated stops.

I should say that rather than sitting back and being indifferent to this problem, we are upgradingthe infrastructure. Those people years ago who—

Time expired.

Social HousingMr BOMBOLAS: My question deals with social policy and is directed to the Minister for Public

Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology. As the only state in Australia that hasintroduced a One Social Housing system, and given the minister’s ministerial statement earlier, will heelaborate on the policies he has put in place to help people who are not entitled to public housingbecause they are able to sustain private rent?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the honourable member for the question. While those on the other sidehave been involved in conversations with themselves and turning Dr Flegg into something of a voodoodoll—I notice he has not lasted through question time, and who could blame him after the way they havetreated him—the reality is that we have been getting on with the job. During that time we have spent$100 million in this portfolio to provide battlers in Queensland with housing.

But it does not just stop there. As I said this morning, we have also come up with a new productas a result of identifying that at least a quarter of the people on our waiting list do not need a publichousing option. We got in touch with the federal government, in light of what it is doing, and developed awaiting list for the new NRAS project. I wrote to the federal minister suggesting that we had a ready-to-go portfolio of names and she has accepted that having that is the way to go. What that will mean is thatwhen the new products are introduced by the Labor federal government we will have a wait list ready togo.

Contrast that sort of action with what has been happening with those opposite. The reality is thata kid’s birthday party is a pretty good analysis of what they were up to this morning. This new partyreminds me of someone who goes down to an op shop and buys a 1970s lava lamp and brings it homeand then kids themselves that they have something new, fresh and exciting. When they turn it on, out gothe shadowy figures. The shadowy figures of the opposition are still there. We still have them notwanting to be accountable for the money that they are getting through the back door.

Opposition members interjected.

26 Aug 2008 Matters of Public Interest 2231

Mr SCHWARTEN: Listen to them squeal. When it comes to money coming from big businessthrough the back door, do not get in their road; that is the most dangerous place to be. Those oppositelike that money through the back door.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Thank you, Minister. That concludes question time. I call the Premier.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Labor Party PollingHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (11.30 am), by leave: I rise to give a brief

clarification to the House about the document that was tabled by the Leader of the Opposition thismorning. The Leader of the Opposition sought to imply that this was a secret activity by my government,some sort of secret document that they have got their sticky hands on and that there was no intention ofit being made public. Let me outline the position for the House. Firstly, was it secret? Not only was itpublicly available to anyone who asked for it, it was downloadable from a government web site. It is aninvitation to offer for provision of market research services. Not only is it part of an open public tender, itwas advertised in the Courier-Mail on 23 July and in the Australian on 26 July. The document was madeavailable to anyone who asked for it and the government has received 29 offers.

A standard panel process will oversee the selection to ensure that it meets all procurementrequirements. The department is seeking a panel of prequalified preferred suppliers rather than lookingat one supplier. This is nothing new. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet has entered intostanding offer arrangements with a panel of suppliers on two separate occasions in the last seven years.Examples of possible research could include issues such as the recent research on daylight saving,attendance at major public events, such as Queensland Week and the Multicultural Festival, the impactof social marketing campaigns on behaviour change, such as road safety, smoking, domestic violenceet cetera, and satisfaction with delivery of government services.

The Leader of the Opposition then sought to say that clause 1.3 headed ‘Opening of Offers’ whichstates ‘Offers will not be publicly opened’ was some kind of desperately secret business. In fact, itsimply relates to the opening of envelopes containing completed tenders. In this case there will be nopublic event surrounding the opening of the envelopes because it is not a matter that requires such anevent. We could send the opposition leader an invitation to the opening of an envelope if he needs it.

The Borbidge government did conduct market research, I am advised, by the direct appointmentof preferred providers. The practice of the cabinet of which Mr Springborg was a member was tocommission its research work through the National Party’s political operator, the Kelly Gee company. Incomparison, my government is progressing selection of a panel by public open tender—open andaccountable, just like our political disclosure laws which were so dramatically opposed by the Leader ofthe Opposition this morning.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

Labor Party PollingMr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.33 am): The Premier

has again this morning failed the most fundamental of all tests—the openness and accountability test. Inthe last couple of minutes the Premier has tried to clarify the answers that she gave to the questionsasked in this place earlier. She said that these people will simply be panellists. Now she tells us that apanel will select these people. We are seeing a significant rewriting of what the Premier said in thisplace a little while ago.

Let us look at what is being called for in this particular offer document. It states—To be successful it is not necessary that every offerer will be able to provide all of the services listed below. However, offerers mustindicate in their response which of the following types of research they wish to provide and be assessed on: requiredmethodologies, telephone surveys, face-to-face interviews, online surveys, focus groups, depth interviews.

It also goes on to state that these people might be able to do it themselves or engage subcontractors.Further down it actually states—The agency requires a panel of market researchers to provide market research services in respect of the matters describedabove.

Quite clearly, it is expected that these people will be doing all of the market research on behalf ofthe government in line with those particular five criteria that have been set out. In clause 2.5, under‘experience and expertise’, it states—The agency requires a high level of experience and expertise in the provision of the market research services described in clause2.4.

2232 Matters of Public Interest 26 Aug 2008

One of the most disappointing things that we saw from the Premier this morning was when shewas asked quite clearly and quite precisely if she was prepared to indicate to this parliament the cost ofthe provision of these services, the questions which were actually going to be asked and the results ofthose things and she said no. That is certainly a far cry from what the Premier tried to do before whenshe indicated that this was about openness, honesty, accountability and a government that does all ofthese things in those sorts of ways as a matter of course. We know that that is far from the case.

I call on the Premier to clearly indicate to the people of Queensland what the cost of this processwill be and what questions will be asked. I also call on the Premier to assure this parliament that we willget the results of all of the surveys. No-one begrudges the cost of looking at the daylight saving issuelast year and the panellists who actually looked at that issue, or issues in relation to public transportmatters. What I am seeking is the true quantum of the research being undertaken by this governmentusing taxpayers’ money in order to be able to featherbed its electoral prospects at the next stateelection. Are other questions being asked, such as the degree of satisfaction with the government? Willthere be questions about other things that are more partisan political? The Premier today quitedeliberately stepped away from answering that. The Premier should clearly indicate to the people ofQueensland what is going on and how much it will cost.

Will anyone be surprised when the Premier comes in here and introduces new electoral fundinglaws? As far as the Premier is concerned, the Labor Party will not be paying for anything. The taxpayersof Queensland will pay for the advertising—about $90 million worth last year—and the taxpayers ofQueensland will also pay for the Labor Party’s own research in Queensland. The good old taxpayer getssocked in the chin again by the Labor Party in this state which is so filled with hubris after 10 years inoffice, so drunk with power that it no longer understands what its responsibilities are to the people ofQueensland. It believes it can do anything.

The Premier again talks about the issue of FOI and how it has gone further than what wasrecommended by Dr Solomon. All I saw last week was duplicity from the Premier. The Premier wasactually watering down the commitments that she had made previously. When Dr Solomon indicatedthat cabinet documents should be opened after 10 years, she said, ‘No, 20, thank you very much,because we plan to stay in government a lot longer and the government could continue on.’ It is notabout openness and accountability; it is about saving the Labor Party and not having theembarrassment of the way that it runs government in Queensland being exposed after a 10-year period.

The question that has to be asked is: what has this Premier presided over in the last 10 years, ormaybe is intending to do in the next year or so up to the next state election, which is so diabolicallyembarrassing that she does not want to have it disclosed in 10 years time? The reality is that we will seea situation in which it will not be until the Premier is 68 years of age that that information will be availableto the people of Queensland.

Let us look at the government’s approach to the legalised lying legislation that I will be introducinginto this parliament tomorrow, and it is something that should sadden all people in this state. Over 100years ago Sir Samuel Griffith was one of the nation’s great legal minds. He was instrumental in thefoundation of what was the world’s first criminal code, which has been used as a template around therest of the world. He was a brilliant legal mind of his time. He foresaw the need to put up a barrieragainst members of parliament, specifically ministers, deliberately providing false testimony to aparliamentary committee. We are talking about ministers and members of parliament who deliberatelylie to the parliament. It is not good enough to say, ‘Other parliaments do not have it so why should we?’

No-one should forget the circumstances that led to this situation. Almost three years ago in theold Legislative Council chamber, during an estimates committee hearing certain questions asked by themember for Cunningham led to this embarrassment. Then health minister Gordon Nuttall categoricallysaid that he had no knowledge about inadequately trained, unsupervised foreign doctors and relatedissues. He said that he had no knowledge of that and that there was no issue.

Mr Seeney: He’d never been briefed. Mr SPRINGBORG: He said that he had never been briefed on the matter and had no knowledge

of it, yet sitting next to him were his director-general and deputy director-general, who openlycontradicted him. Despite the member for Cunningham, Mr Copeland, alerting him to the fact thatdeliberately providing false testimony to a parliamentary committee was a criminal offence, hemaintained that particular line.

When the CMC was given a brief to look at this matter, it reported to the parliament that the thenminister’s comments did enliven the legal jurisdiction and the Criminal Code and should be referred tothe Director of Public Prosecutions. We then saw the Beattie-Bligh government exonerate one of itsown. Then Premier Mr Beattie and then Deputy Premier Ms Bligh moved a motion to exonerate amember of parliament of potential criminality. That has not happened in this place since Queenslandbecame a state. One can imagine the outcry if that had happened some 20 years ago, yet theyexonerated themselves and they exonerated Mr Nuttall. In addition, they could not trust themselves totell the truth so they took the provision out of the Criminal Code. Once again they show that they do notwant to set the bar high in this parliament.


Quite clearly, legislation that states it is illegal to provide false testimony to this place provides adeterrent to members of parliament in terms of what they tell this place. We are not talking about peoplewho inadvertently provide information that may be false because that is what they have been briefed,but about somebody who maliciously and deliberately does that. This government can no longer trustitself to tell the truth, so it changes the law so that it can tell lies and then adjudicate itself.

What was the Premier’s response when asked about this? She said, ‘This legislation is so passe.It is something of the past. Telling the truth is not important today. We deal with it all in-house. We canexonerate our own. It is not a problem. It is no problem whatsoever.’ Therefore, the Premier thinks it ispasse; it is something that we do not need to deal with.

Let us briefly turn to the issue of Labor Party factionalism in Queensland. Hasn’t it been a classic!In the last week the Queensland Left has finally got out of the box. The Lefties are on a rampage. Theyhave been off to see the Premier, to whom they said, ‘We have to do something, Premier, because theyare drunkards—or at least one of them is. They are hopeless—or at least one of them is. A whole rangeof the others are embarrassments.’ It is an interesting competition for us to see which one is the drunk,which one is hopeless and which ones are embarrassments. Those are not our words. Those are thewords of the Left in the Labor Party which is now flexing its muscle. This morning one of the right-wingers, Judy Spence, said that there is no need whatsoever for a police investigation because thesethings happen. It is a case of be careful of what you search for because you might actually find it.

Time expired.

Blueprint for the Bush, Regional PlansMr HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (11.44 am): This morning I rise to bring to the attention of the

House the action that the Bligh government has been undertaking during the winter recess. I note thatwe have been getting on with working with Queenslanders while opposition members have been talkingto themselves. Yesterday they spent some time in my electorate, at the Chermside Bowls Club, talkingto an empty room, from what I could see from television and from what people from the local communityhave told me. It is interesting that they met with a lot fewer people yesterday than I met with last weekwhen, in the very same room, I met with some 200 members of the Chermside branch of the NationalSeniors Association. The opposition does not have the ability to get together a decent crowd to talk toabout its issues.

I want to focus on what the Bligh government has been achieving since the parliament last met,particularly in relation to regional planning. Queensland’s unique decentralised nature features regionalhubs located up and down the coast and, most importantly, inland as well. The Bligh government’scommitment to the Blueprint for the Bush initiative recognises this reality.

Earlier this month I was pleased to join the Deputy Premier and our colleague the Minister forMain Roads and Local Government in Charleville and Longreach to release three draft regional plansthat will become the blueprint for guiding development and sustaining significant rural communities forthe next two decades. The draft plans cover the central-west, Maranoa and south-west regions, and willtake precedence over all other planning instruments. The draft plans will also help to integrate theplanning of all levels of government and ensure the adequate provision of infrastructure and services forthose regions. The plans will also provide more certainty to the residents and people in those areas thatthe government is planning for their future.

As rural members would appreciate, it is challenging to provide infrastructure and social servicesfor such a vast area with a sparse population. In 1901, the time of Federation, almost eight per cent ofQueensland’s population lived in western Queensland. That figure is now less than half of one per cent,sitting at 0.4 per cent. However, the Bligh government is committed to providing for thoseQueenslanders through the development of the first-ever regional plans for outback communities. Thedraft plans represent the efforts of members of the regional consultative committees who have workedwith planners from the Department of Infrastructure and Planning over many months to distil the keyissues for each of the three regions. It has been my pleasure to represent the Deputy Premier andcochair those committees with local mayors since my appointment as the parliamentary secretary forplanning. I particularly want to acknowledge the work that I was able to do with mayors Donna Stewart,Mark O’Brien and Bruce Scott.

This government is committed to outback Queensland. For instance, it is important for allQueenslanders to recognise that the Bligh government’s total capital outlay of $10,000 per person in thecentral-west region is more than double that of Brisbane, at $4,200 per capita. But those figures aremerely an indication of the investment in our outback regions. The Bligh government is also investing$800,000 statewide to enhance Indigenous agribusiness development with four initiatives in westernQueensland. We are spending $18.2 million to provide over 814,000 hours of vocational education andtraining, which includes $300,000 to provide additional trade training places as part of the QueenslandSkills Plan. This is expected to create 430 training places in western Queensland by 2010. Those placesare desperately needed to support thriving rural industries and the great opportunities that are also


arising out of energy industries. The Bligh government has also stepped up to the challenge of climatechange by providing $4.2 million to assist primary producers in western Queensland adapt to climatechange and support those affected by drought in the short term.

The draft regional plans are open for community consultation until 29 October. I encourage allregional members to speak to their communities about these plans and invite them to participate in theshaping of their future. The Bligh government is listening. The Bligh government is supporting the bushto ensure it remains prosperous into the future. Our regional communities, while changing, bringvibrancy to our society and economy and should be given the support they need to continue to thriveand be a very important part of Queensland.

Oil Shale Mining, McFarlane Deposit

Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (11.48 am): Last Sunday the Whitsunday community let out acollective sigh of relief as they heard about the Premier’s announcement of a 20-year moratorium on oilshale mining at the McFarlane deposit near Proserpine. On behalf of my community I thank the Premier,the Minister for Mines and Energy and their cabinet colleagues for making this difficult decision andeffectively protecting our precious environment from an uncertain future.

Oil shale is nothing more than a rock which when crushed and heated to around 350 degreesCelsius produces kerogen, as well as carbon dioxide and a few other dubious emissions. Kerogen canbe further processed to an oil like liquid and finally diesel. In a world running short of easily and cheaplyaccessible oil deposits, it is not hard to understand why Queensland Energy Resources Ltd thought thetime was right to consider a commercial opportunity based on Queensland’s largest oil shale depositknown as the McFarlane deposit. It has been estimated that the McFarlane deposit may have thepotential to yield up to 4.8 billion barrels of oil over 40 years and provide around 3,000 jobs for the localcommunity.

These are attractive figures for governments that are focused on regional development. For meas a local member and parliamentary secretary for regional development, I have to say that at first I sawpotential for the Whitsunday region to diversify and secure our economic future. But of course therewould be a price to pay for this wealth. Firstly, the oil shale would be mined using an open-cut processthat would create a massive scar on the landscape adjacent to a pristine wetland area that filters waterinto the reef lagoon just kilometres away. Many locals were concerned about the impact of a flood eventsweeping across the mine area and onto the wetlands because, when it rains like it did in February thisyear, no containment wall would hold back the flow.

If the company had decided to build a processing plant on site we would have had a massivemultistorey structure rising out of the plains and sprawling over 1,600 hectares just 15 kilometres southof the town of Proserpine. Many were concerned about this proximity because, while there is no directevidence to link oil shale emissions to health impacts, anecdotal evidence from the Gladstoneexperience suggested otherwise. The concern was that prevailing winds would direct the plant’semissions directly across Proserpine and on to the Cannonvale and Airlie Beach areas.

In addition to all of this, local tourism representatives were adamant that an oil shale industry inthe Whitsundays would be detrimental to our aspirations as a tourism destination renown for ourbeautiful and pristine environment. As parliamentary secretary for both tourism and regionaldevelopment, I had a lot to weigh up. I do not apologise for taking the time to listen to my constituentsand giving careful consideration to all points of view, including that of QER. I confess that at first I couldnot see an imperative for avoiding the usual process of assessment which would include a very rigorousEIS process and full community consultation. The problem with this position, however, soon becameclear.

Unlike coalmining or alumina refining, oil shale processing is an unproven process. Whatevidence does exist is not a recommendation for the process. QER was unable to give the communityanswers to questions like: what gases would be emitted from the stacks and in what quantities? Howmuch water would the process require and where would the water come from? What effect would themine have on the watertable? The answers to these questions would come out of an EIS during theassessment of the project, and this process would take years to complete. So it would be years beforewe had answers to some very specific and important questions—years during which the fear andanxiety of the community would build and years in which bitter debate would dissolve our appeal as afriendly holiday destination.

Ultimately, it was not Greenpeace or the organised antishale oil campaigns that swayed me; itwas conversations I had with ordinary people who were genuinely frightened by the prospect of livingwith an oil shale mine on their doorstep. I was hearing from people who were making plans to leave thearea. I know that many local tourism operators felt that oil shale mining would drive the last nail into thecoffin of an industry already reeling from the economic downturn and adverse weather events. TheWhitsunday community simply would not survive a long and protracted battle to stop oil shale mining.


So with long-term benefits dubious at best, short-term impacts already taking a toll and anapplication to sample up to 400,000 tonnes of oil shale imminent, it was time to speak up and I did.Again, I thank the Premier for a most welcome reprieve for my community. A 20-year moratorium onmining or sampling oil shale at the McFarlane deposit effectively means that we can get on with our livesknowing that the environment is protected and the community is safe.

Time expired.

Health SystemMr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11.53 am): When the

Beattie-Bligh government first formed government in Queensland, this state’s population was 3.5 millionand there were 10,809 public hospital beds. Ten years on this state’s population is 4.1 million but nowwe have 10,354 public hospital beds—a net loss of 445 hospital beds in the last decade. But the crisis inQueensland’s public hospital system is not limited to a lack of hospital beds but also a shortage ofclinically trained medical personnel using their expertise to make sick people well or more comfortable.

In addition to building public hospital infrastructure to increase hospital capacity, something needsto be done to improve the clinical processes and outcomes for sick Queenslanders today and into thefuture. I make no secret about the fact that I am not a doctor, I am not a nurse, nor am I an allied healthprofessional. But I am someone who values the best medical and scientific evidence available tounderstand the needs of sick Queenslanders. You do not need to be a doctor to recognise that theQueensland public health system is simply crook, and you do not need to be a doctor to recognise thatthe crisis in public hospitals is more about this government’s poor management than it is about one baddoctor.

The Beattie-Bligh government has developed a public health system that places its greatest valuein spin doctors and unwieldy bureaucracy. It is a bureaucratic structure that works its way down to thedoctors and nurses in hospitals at the front line and then to patient care. This needs to be turned upsidedown so that doctors, nurses and allied health professionals are supported by the government and itsbureaucracy and not the other way around as it is at this point in time.

The Liberal National Party is concerned about sick Queenslanders forced to lie on trolleys beforea hospital bed becomes available and the time it takes to get attention in accident and emergencydepartments. Under the Beattie-Bligh government, our state’s public hospital waiting lists are growinglonger and longer and, with the Rudd government’s changes to the Medicare threshold, more sickQueenslanders will have to wait even longer than they do now. For the proper clinical case managementof sick people there is no substitute for a medical doctor, there is no substitute for a clinically trainednurse and there is no substitute for allied health professionals. As health minister, I will make sure thatmore clinically trained medical practitioners use their expertise to attend to the clinical needs of sick andinjured Queenslanders.

Our state’s future health system needs to recognise the diversity of skill and expertise of itsworkforce. We need to make sure that we forge a strategic organisational structure that makes betteruse of the clinical capacity in the public and private health sectors to heal more sick people and not havethem waiting on ever-growing waiting lists. It is for this reason that I believe a comprehensive workforcestrategy is required for the state’s health system. This will require greater integration between public andprivate health sector health services and facilities, as well as a greater emphasis on clinically basedlearning.

Ms Barry: Back to the past—hospital training. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Member for Aspley.Mr McARDLE: Further, up to one-third of new graduate registered nurses are leaving the

profession within a year. Ms Barry: You should be ashamed of yourself.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Aspley, order!Mr McARDLE: One third of nurses are leaving. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will repeat that for the

member’s benefit. Further, up to one-third of new graduate registered nurses are leaving the professionwithin a year. There is something wrong if these highly qualified men and women are leaving theprofession. We need to attract the type of nurse who is going to stay and work with Queenslanders. Weneed to consider implementing a more flexible registration procedure that will recognise the clinicalexperiences of enrolled nurses. With a statewide shortage of graduate doctor training places, hospitalbased training capacity should be created in accredited private hospitals so more young doctors get thehospital based training they need. A comprehensive workforce strategy should cover education; clinicalskills and hospital training; patient care responsibilities; human resources and career developmentopportunities for all nurses, doctors, allied health professionals; and hospital administration.

Queenslanders are sick to death of a Labor government repeating over and over the same wordsand trotting out the same plans and getting absolutely nowhere at all. It is time for Queensland to lookhard at this government and say yet again that it has failed in health and it continues to fail in health. It istime for a change and to remove Labor from the government benches.


Energy EfficiencyMr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (11.59 am): I rise to speak on important Bligh government

initiatives to reduce the impact of rising energy prices on south-east Queensland households.Importantly, many of these initiatives not only help the household budget but also assist households toreduce their impact on the environment, empowering consumers to do their bit for global warming.

While the Liberals and Nationals were locked in a struggle for power, the Bligh government wasputting downward pressure on power bills. During the winter break, while the LNP were on holidays, Iwas able to attend the launch of the government’s EnergyWise kit by the Minister for Mines and Energy.These free kits empower electricity consumers to find ways of conserving energy in their own homes,whether that is basic energy-saving tips or helping households examine which appliances are using themost energy.

Householders are able to save money and reduce carbon emissions by turning off appliances atthe wall to cut stand-by power use, insulating their homes and reducing hot-water usage with water-saving shower heads. The Department of Mines and Energy has estimated that Queensland’shouseholds can easily make a 10 per cent saving on their quarterly energy bill through simpletechniques like these. The Bligh government’s EnergyWise kits provide a great opportunity forconsumers to make simple savings in their own homes.

Queensland households will also have access to the state government’s ClimateSmart HomeService, giving consumers a chance to play their part in responding to climate change. We have seen agreat change in how we use water in south-east Queensland, with a new culture of water-savingzealotry. I know that residents have taken the Target 140 and now Target 170 campaigns to heart.Residents are always keen to ring up and talk about the leaking pipe in the street that needs to be fixedquickly. They see that as playing their part in saving water for south-east Queensland.

The ClimateSmart Home Service, based on the popular WaterWise scheme, will see atradesperson visit a person’s home for only $50. The service will provide tailored advice on energysaving along with energy-saving tools such as a smart energy monitor, energy-efficient light globes, andwater-efficient shower heads. The smart energy monitor is a great tool for households, providingconsumers with real-time information about their energy usage and their own carbon emissions. Thisgives consumers the power to change their energy usage and their lifestyles to use energy moreefficiently, saving on power bills and reducing environmental impact.

With initiatives like these, it is clear that the Bligh government is on the side of the consumer. Thatis why the state government consumer action plan will see $450,000 of support over the next threeyears given to the Queensland Council of Social Services—the peak body for non-governmentorganisations. This support will see the establishment of a consumer advocacy service. Often those onfixed incomes and those who might be finding it difficult to deal with energy retailers need a voice. Thisproject will see consumers provided with an advocacy service for advice and support in dealing withenergy retailers. This will provide even more options for consumers.

From constituents who have sought assistance from my office, I know how effective the EnergyOmbudsman has been in resolving consumer complaints. Since its introduction in 2007, consumers andretailers have known that complaints can be resolved quickly and with a minimum of expense. This hasbeen a great initiative that has seen results for consumers and customer service improvement fromQueensland’s energy retailers.

The Bligh government is on the side of the consumer when it comes to power bills. Theseinitiatives will empower consumers to get a better deal out of their energy supply. We have provided allof this while the only person looking to the LNP for a better deal is the member for Moggill.

Queensland RacingMr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (12.03 pm): The key principle of anticorruption is that the

more power you have the more open and accountable you must be to prevent abuse of that power. Theorganisation charged with the absolute integrity of the conduct of racing is now itself under a cloud forthe way in which it has attempted to vote for its long-term, unfettered power from 2006 to 2018 with onlyone election in that process.

Queensland Racing is all-powerful. It provides the prize money, sets the race dates and providesTAB coverage and the spending approvals to all the race clubs in Queensland, be they city, regional orcountry. Today I want to show how this organisation has used every trick in the book—manipulation,taking advantage of organisations, deception and possibly coercion—to extend its time in power withouthaving to face the shareholders and the stakeholders in accordance with the constitution that was putbefore the parliament when it was licensed in 2006.

In 2006 Queensland Racing received a six-year licence from the government by the passage of abill in this House. The constitution at the time, which was part of the licence approval, said that it hadfrom 2006 to 2009 without any elections, then two people would face re-election in 2009, with another


two in 2010 and another one—presumably the chairman—in 2011. Then they would go into regular,alternate voting arrangements, as would any corporation. There was no need for Queensland Racing totry to get this massive extension of power.

There were two shareholder classes, each with one vote. A-class shareholders represent 16organisations, being race clubs in the city and the regions, the Country Racing Committee andorganisations representing bookmakers, trainers, owners and jockeys. B-class shareholders—with onevote—are the directors of Queensland Racing. Under the constitutional arrangements, it had to get atwo-nil vote in order to put through these changes. That meant that A-class votes of 16 had to have a75 per cent majority.

I warned this parliament in a previous speech about the dangers of this unfettered power beinggiven to Queensland Racing. During the estimates hearings I also warned the minister about and askedhim to stop this process, because he has the ability to do so, and make Queensland Racing stick towhat was put before this parliament originally.

This is what happened. When it came to the voting process, the Country Racing Committee,which represents eight associations—and the chairman is one of the directors, in this case Mr BillLudwig—did not know when they had to vote. They did not know that they could set up a proxy. They didnot know anything. They were told absolutely nothing. They were dudded because on the day themeeting occurred they were not there. They did not know of the meeting. Their proxy was taken into thevoting process by somebody—presumably by the chairman of the Country Racing Committee, Mr BillLudwig, who is a director and is one of the B-class shareholders.

A well-respected businessman from Townsville, Mr Alan Parry, was chairman of the TownsvilleTurf Club. They had made a decision as to which way they were going to vote and they sent Mr Parrydown to Brisbane, but he was barred at the door from going in, even though the constitution says thatyou can vote in person or by proxy. What happened in Mackay? Again, another proxy was given to oneof the employees of Queensland Racing. What happened with the trainers? They do not know whathappened. They did not have any meeting to decide how they would vote or who would be their proxy—not that they needed a proxy because they are there in Brisbane. What about the jockeys? It is thesame story: they did not know.

There is an obsession by Queensland Racing with proxies because the constitution says that youmay vote in person or you may have a proxy. That was on the original notice of the meeting that wentout. Then later on an email was sent saying, ‘You must register a proxy.’ That is how they stoppedMr Alan Parry from voting.

This minister can no longer stand frozen to the spot. He is responsible and he has the powerunder this act to investigate, to cancel approval, to vary approval, to censure and to give a direction torectify. He can also say, ‘I do not approve of this move to extend your power.’ There has been adeliberate attempt to deliver long-term, unfettered power to this organisation. The manner in which it hasoccurred is grossly wrong. It has cast a dark cloud all over racing in Queensland and has damaged thepublic’s confidence in Queensland Racing’s integrity. It has been a disgraceful nobbling of the CountryRacing Committee, a disgraceful nobbling of the Townsville Turf Club and a deception of other clubs.

Time expired. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms van Litsenburg): I would like to acknowledge another group of

school students, teachers and parents from Banksia Beach State School in the electorate ofPumicestone, represented in the House by Carryn Sullivan.

Water TanksMs JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (12.08 pm): The state government’s water tank rebate scheme has

been a huge success. More than $233 million in rebates have been allocated to Queenslanders rightacross the state. There are now an extra 237,430 water tanks and counting in Queensland’s homes asa result of the significant investment by the state government. In Brisbane alone there have been analmost additional 89,000 water tanks as a result of the state government’s and the Brisbane CityCouncil’s rebates.

In my electorate there has been an overwhelming response by local residents who want to get onboard and install a water tank. The Minister for Natural Resources and Water has spoken to me aboutthis several times, commending my community for their local support in tackling climate change and thewater shortage head-on. I think the great response I have had locally is because my community is verydedicated to climate change and it wants to protect our environment into the future.

With rebates of up to $1,500 available the unfortunate reality is that there are some in ourcommunity who want to take advantage of other people’s goodwill. Recently I was very disturbed tolearn that an elderly woman in The Gap had been telephoned by someone claiming to be a plumber andoffering her a free water tank. She said that he was very insistent that he could install a tank absolutely


free because of the government’s subsidy. Fortunately, this lady contacted my office before signing anyagreement. When he called her again she informed him that she had actually been in contact with herlocal member. Tellingly, he got off the phone very quickly after she relayed this information to him.

Mr Lawlor: He would be terrified. Ms JONES: I know; having me on the case. This is not the only example of my local residents

being targeted that has been brought to my attention. I believe that my community has been subjectedto extra attention from these unscrupulous operators because of the strong demand for water tanks, asI have mentioned. I have been advised that recently there was a mailout across the community sayingthat people can get a rainwater tank for free—that is, people will not part with any money.

I have made representations on behalf of another constituent who handed over $1,000 for a tanklast year. Due to personal circumstances that person did not keep on top of it. Only this year she hasbrought it to my attention that many months later she has not received her water tank. Fortunately, I wasable to step in. I spoke to people from Fair Trading, Natural Resources and the police Fraud Squad andsurprise, surprise, she got her $1,000 back. I am pleased to advise the House that I was able to helpher.

A government member interjected.Ms JONES: Thank you very much. On Monday, a constituent from Ashgrove contacted me after

paying $1,650 for a water tank in May. She was concerned that she had heard nothing. I have taken thisup with the natural resources minister and Fair Trading. We are getting onto that case now.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the work that Fair Trading and the Department of NaturalResources and Water are doing to minimise the number of unscrupulous businesses and shonks rippingoff people who are doing the right thing. Fair Trading has taken a two-pronged approach, firstly dealingwith operators and advising them of their responsibilities under the Fair Trading Act. Specifically, underthe act it is an offence for businesses to mislead customers into believing that they can supply goods orservices when they knowingly do not have the capacity to do so. Secondly, Fair Trading has released anumber of fact sheets. I have encouraged my constituents to be across these fact sheets and to contactme to get a copy of them. These fact sheets advise people of their rights under the Fair Trading Act.

I have given my constituents the following tips. Before engaging in any contract they should askthe trader their name, ask what the business name and number is, ask what their contact details are,ask how the trader obtained their contact details and make sure that they read any contract carefully.I am supportive of open disclosure with business.

What surprises me is the debate we have seen in the parliament today where the opposition, theLNP or whatever those opposite want to call themselves have made it very clear that they are offendedby the idea of having to disclose their financial donations. That rings alarm bells for me. As someonewho grew up in the Joh era and saw the disgraceful history of the National Party and, fortunately, itsdownfall, I cannot believe that this new outfit is going back to the old days where they do not want todisclose where their money is coming from. It is shonky and a shame. Those opposite should hang theirheads in shame. They will not look at me. It is unbelievable that they are not willing to disclose wheretheir donations come from. I cannot see the reason for not wanting to do this. What is the new LNPhiding?

Time expired.

Moggill Electorate, Road SafetyDr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (12.13 pm): Sadly, yet again I am standing on my feet in this place to

talk about safety—Government members interjected.Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms van Litsenburg): Order!Dr FLEGG: Sadly, I am standing on my feet in this place yet again to talk about the risk to

children, adults and families on Moggill Road, which runs through my electorate. I am embarrassed bythe behaviour of those opposite. This is a serious issue. It is not something for them to make jokes andinterject about.

Within my electorate, for a distance of 10 kilometres of state controlled metropolitan road, there isnot one single safe crossing point. There is no pedestrian crossing, no lights, nothing to allow peopleover a 10-kilometre radius to cross this busy, fast-moving, windy, hilly and dangerous road. We haveraised these issues with the ministers repeatedly in this place and elsewhere year after year.

One of the worst places but by no means the only serious blight with respect to safety on this roadis through Bellbowrie. Tragically, a 16-year-old student lost her life in circumstances which may wellhave been preventable. On a stretch of road through a built-up area with a shopping centre, with theonly service station, with a major bus stop where students catch the bus to school, with over a thousandcars an hour whizzing past with a speed limit of 70 kilometres an hour, there is no pedestrian crossing. Itwas an accident waiting to happen.


Our local councillor, Margaret de Witt, wrote to the minister about this in 2003 and had a proposalfor a pedestrian crossing rejected by this government. On 19 August 2004 I stood in this place andmade a passionate plea to the then minister for main roads, Mr Lucas, in relation to this exact stretch ofroad. I said to him in this place—it is in Hansard—that he would not tolerate this situation if it were in hisown area. Still nothing was done. There is a 70 kilometre an hour speed limit on this road. Cars arewhizzing past children running across the road—up to 60 an hour—to catch the bus.

This has been a community effort—not just on the part of Margaret or me but right across thecommunity. A couple of years ago I took the area manager from the Department of Main Roads out inmy own car to show him this stretch of road and others. On 1 May this year I wrote to the department inrelation to a pedestrian crossing. I received a reply, which I will table, rejecting this proposal even thoughthe number of cars met the criteria and up to 60 pedestrians an hour cross the road in that area.Tabled paper: Letter, dated 11 August 2008, from Mr Ross Blinco, Manager (Road Operations), Brisbane District Office,Metropolitan Region, Department of Main Roads, to Dr Bruce Flegg MP regarding Moggill Sub-Arterial Road U96.

If anyone is in any doubt that this is a political issue—and I note the comments from the Premier;I think she should be ashamed of those comments—I point out that we have been fighting this battle foryears. It is our job to keep children safe and to make these areas safe. I table for the interest ofmembers a transcript from 4BC where a constituent who identifies himself as a Labor Party personsupported the need for this. I table an email from the person who had to assist in the attempts toresuscitate the student who was killed. I also table a very intelligent, reasoned letter and photos from thelocal Neighbourhood Watch.Tabled paper: Transcript of an interview, dated 25 August 2008, on radio 4BC Brisbane.Tabled paper: Letter, dated 24 August 2008, from Ray Rice, Area Coordinator, Bellbowrie Neighbourhood Watch, regarding arequest for pedestrian activated lights along Moggill Road, Bellbowrie.Tabled paper: An unsigned letter, dated 26 August 2008, to Dr Bruce Flegg MP and Mayor Newman, concerning the pedestrianfatality on Moggill Road on 26 August 2008 and the need for better lighting and roadmarking.It is the whole community that wants something done about this. We will not rest until the governmentlives up to its responsibilities.

Resident Dave Davis has prepared a petition on this. We had one of the TV networks out thereyesterday looking at an equally dangerous situation on the corner of Grandview Road and Moggill Road.It is equally dangerous. It is a tragedy waiting to happen. On a hill with a bus stop, with children going toschool, cars are whizzing past in their thousands. In the last couple of weeks we have had a request fora safe crossing at that point refused. We also need a safe crossing near the RSL home where agedpeople cross under similar circumstances.

Time expired.

Richlands Railway Station; Darra-Springfield Transport CorridorMs PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (12.18 pm): The Bligh government is committed to building

Queensland’s future today. Already we have seen the beginning of the Darra to Springfield railway linein the south-west corridor. I am proud to report that the brand-new Richlands Railway Station, valued ataround $40 million, is now well under construction. On 1 July the minister for transport, John Mickel,joined with me and the local councillor, Milton Dick, for the official sod-turning event to mark thissignificant occasion.

Families from Inala and Richlands have been waiting for this train station for years, and it is greatnews for families living in Richlands, Carole Park, Forest Lake and Inala. When completed, the newRichlands Railway Station will give locals access to reliable public transport to get to work, study andaccess vital health and community services. This new rail station will be a one-stop shop for commutersto park and ride and enjoy designated council facilities located on the site. Approximately one year agoover 2,000 residents in Inala and Richlands voiced their opinion on their preferred site for this trainstation. I am pleased to advise that the Hon. Paul Lucas, the Deputy Premier, listened to their voicesand the site was chosen between Garden and Pine roads. Initially the Richlands train station wasplanned to hold approximately 200 car spaces, but this has been reconsidered. Due to the number ofpeople who will be using this train station in the future, it now plans to have over 650 car spaces,recognising the growth in this corridor. The expected completion date of the train station is 2011. Lastweek approximately 60 members of the public joined me for a community information morning tea tolook at the latest plans for the station and address any concerns regarding security, disability access tothe station and the proposed Brisbane City Council indoor sports complex.

The Bligh government is committed to building a new passenger rail line from Darra to Springfieldand the upgrading of the Centenary Highway between Richlands and Springfield at a cost of around$800 million. This is a huge amount of investment in our local region. This infrastructure is the firstintegrated road and rail project ever to be built in south-east Queensland. Some 16 kilometres of trackwill be built and 13 kilometres of road. Not a week goes by in my local community without someonecoming up to me and commenting on the amount of infrastructure and work that is happening in thisregion. I also understand that last week the Ipswich City Council approved the capacity for 86,000people to live in the city of Springfield. Every time I travel to Springfield there are more and more houses


and more and more roads being built. The Centenary Highway is vital to the infrastructure of theSpringfield region. I have no doubt that it will become a major thoroughfare for commuters who arecoming from both the Cunningham Highway and from Ipswich. It is essential that this infrastructure isdelivered in a timely manner that meets the demands of the number of vehicles that will utilise this roadover the coming years and the number of people moving out into this growth corridor. I also believe thatit is worthwhile for the government to look at the Logan-Centenary interchange road plan through toSpringfield. We need to ensure that with the opening of new roads the extension caters for the expectedincrease in traffic volume.

With the expansion of the Centenary Highway, some concerns are naturally raised by residentswho have concerns about noise levels. I am pleased to report that Carole Park residents have finally gota huge win. These residents have been living along Sinclair Drive, which backs on to the Centenaryinterchange, and a lot of them have had no sound barriers or they have been burnt down over the years.They are now getting sound barriers, and I want to thank the minister for transport, John Mickel, forproviding that for these residents. On the other side of the highway there are some legitimate concernsbeing raised by residents of Ellen Grove about sound barriers, and I am happy to host a communityinformation night at the end of next month to address their concerns.

From Springfield and down past Richlands, I want to address the tremendous work that is beingdone on the $700 million upgrade to the Ipswich Motorway and the Centenary interchange. Inspectingthis site firsthand earlier this month was indeed an eye-opener. What an engineering feat! I am advisedthat approximately three million cubic metres of fill has been moved to the site, most of it from the landdevelopments out at Springfield. When completed there will be no roundabout and no congestion at theCentenary-Ipswich Motorway interchange. I understand that this is the largest interchange inQueensland and the second largest in Australia. In conclusion, it is clearly evident that massive worksare being carried out in the south-west corridor. Some 20 years ago or even a decade ago I would neverhave imagined that so much construction would be underway all at once to deliver the vital networks ofroad and rail that are needed for our ever-growing community. The Bligh government is planning for thefuture. We are committed to the railway from Darra to Springfield. We are committed to providing thenecessary road infrastructure that is needed for the future. We are planning, we are building and we aredelivering.

Fraser Coast Health Service DistrictMr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (12.23 pm): I rise to bring to the attention of the House the recent

announcement that the Fraser Coast Health Service District would be folded into the Sunshine CoastHealth Service District. This week I will be seeking an unequivocal commitment from the minister thatthe Maryborough Hospital will not be closed down and that services will not be downgraded. This isactually critical to the continuance of reasonable health services in our area. Recently the road was cutdue to an accident. If there were any major health traumas during that time, they simply would not havebeen able to get to the hospital in time at Hervey Bay. Despite all of the talk about global warming, itseems that flooding in our area is on the significant increase. When there is significant flooding, the roadto Hervey Bay is cut off and therefore ambulance transport to Hervey Bay Hospital becomes out of thequestion. A greater problem at the moment is that the condition of the road is very poor, and I personallywould hate to be in an ambulance trying to dodge the potholes on the way to a serious medicalintervention. The potholes are shocking on this road and really need some urgent attention.

Recently I visited EDI Rail, which is humming along very well and which has around about 500workers employed. This underscores the critical need for Maryborough Hospital in case of industrialaccidents. There is also the Maryborough Sugar Factory, Hynes Timber, Dale and Meyers and a verygreat number of smaller manufacturing and industrial businesses. Because our city is a hub ofmanufacturing industry, we really need that meaningful accident and emergency facility to be alwaysopen. We also have the Maryborough equestrian centre which has regular horse events and of coursethere can be some pretty terrible accidents, as we have seen in the Olympics. We also have regularshowground festivals such as home and outdoor leisure shows, which this weekend was absolutelypacked out. Of course if there is an accident, we need rapid transport to a high-functioning A&E.Proximity to the Bruce Highway is one of the great features of Maryborough, but unfortunately there hasbeen a very high incidence of major traffic accidents to the south and north of Maryborough recently.Also, Maryborough is the intersection of major arterial roads from the west and the beachside areas onthe way to Rainbow Beach and Tin Can Bay. The increased number of housing estates and the ageingpopulation in these areas make this issue of critical importance. Again, I seek from the minister anurgent clarification that this hospital will not close and that there will be no downgrading of facilities.

With regard to the recentralisation of health services, I have long been an advocate for this. Mostreasonable people would say that with the waiting lists the way they are we need more clinicians andless bureaucrats. With this rolling back into the Sunshine Coast health district, it underscores even morethe need to bring back either a local hospital board or its equivalent situation so that local people cangive meaningful input into the recentralised administration unit. I believe that that hospital board or itsequivalent should consist of staff clinical representatives from both doctors and nursing, key


administrative staff, community representatives such as chamber of commerce presidents, key businessCEOs from the area and also representatives from the private general practice area. Centralisation ofservices for the Fraser Coast health district is a great idea in that money can be saved. But, frankly, withthe amount of money that has been saved, there have to be some pretty heavy questions asked interms of cutting down all of those jobs for the sake of saving around about $6 million. I hope this is notshort-term thinking.

I would also ask the minister for clarification in that we finally have some sort of a health actionplan and now basically all of the balls have been thrown up in the air again and we have to wait now tosee what is going to happen. Obviously a health action plan for the Fraser Coast district has becomerather superfluous if it is all going to be managed from the Sunshine Coast. Some very seriousquestions need to be asked and some very strong indications need to be given about its future.

Chronic Disease PreventionMs STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (12.29 pm): No Australian or Queenslander would be proud

that we have become the chubby country—a nation that has one of the highest rates of obesity in theworld. A new study by Access Economics estimates that in 2008, 3.71 million people—or about 17.5 percent of our population—were obese. That is a 14.5 per cent increase on the 2005 figures. By 2025, asmuch as 18.3 per cent of our nation could be obese. Sadly, many of these are young children. What abad start they are getting in terms of trying to lead a healthy life.

If radical action is not taken to slim down the chubby nation, the cost to individuals, families andour community as a whole will be enormous, particularly the burden on our health systems. In recentmonths, as chair of the Review of Organ and Tissue Donation Procedures Select Committee, I have metmany people suffering from chronic diseases. Many of them have suffered enormous hardship anddisability because of complications from diseases such as diabetes. Diabetes is a chronic disease thathas been dangerously underrated.

I pay tribute to Janelle Colquhoun, a talented opera singer, who was diagnosed with diabeteswhen she was young. She was instrumental in the establishment of the parliamentary committee that Ichair when she had a meeting with the Premier earlier in the year. Janelle became blind 10 years agodue to complications from diabetes and for a number of years she has been waiting for a kidney andpancreas transplant. On many occasions Janelle has publicly fessed up to having neglected herdiabetes and the sad consequences for her are blindness and serious debilitating illness. I have goodnews to report to the House: Janelle underwent surgery last month for her kidney and pancreastransplant and by all accounts appears to be doing well in Sydney at the moment.

Obesity related type 2 diabetes is now the fastest growing chronic disease in Queensland.People can no longer afford to underestimate its seriousness. I am the bearer of good news today,though, in that we are doing a lot more to help people in this fight against diabetes. I certainly want topay tribute today to Diabetes Australia Queensland, which is the major NGO working in this area. It hascertainly done a lot to promote the fact that diabetes is largely preventable. It has certainly done a lot ofthe awareness raising and a lot of promotion in the community to really impress upon people theimportance of managing their diabetes well. One in five diabetes sufferers will have a heart attack by2018 and one in 12 will suffer a stroke or other complications such as amputation, blindness and renalfailure. That is the seriousness of this condition that we once thought was just a bit of sugar in the body.

Currently, diabetes costs Queenslanders in excess of $1 billion a year and this figure is set todouble in the next eight to 10 years. Each new case of kidney disease, which develops as a result ofbadly managed diabetes, is estimated to cost between $85,000 to $130,000 per patient per year. Thenumber of people in Queensland who have commenced renal dialysis has doubled in the last five years.Our health system simply cannot afford the burden of this disease. It is important to remember that it isa disease that is largely preventable. Maintaining a healthy weight, being physically active, having ahealthy diet and cutting out the cigarettes can reduce a person’s risk of developing type 2 diabetes byup to 60 per cent.

I also commend today the Premier and Minister for Health for the announcement of the new stategovernment initiative to promote healthier communities and the discussion paper to examine thefeasibility of banning junk food advertising during children’s television programs. These are importantsteps to be taken in sending a message to the community that we are serious about getting healthy. Ithink it is going to be an important opportunity for communities, councils, organisations and schools toreally have a go at trying to be the healthiest school and the healthiest community. There is significantprize money up for grabs.

As Australians, we proudly cheered our Olympians in Beijing. We are proud of the fact that wehave been a nation that is seen to be fit and healthy, bronzed and tanned. That image is one that wehave been very proud to uphold. We do not want the chubby nation status or image to take that mantlefrom us. It is important that all of us in this House and all of us in the community slim down and shapeup.

2242 Police Service Administration and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 26 Aug 2008

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Beijing Olympic Games, Queensland Medal WinnersHon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport)

(12.32 pm), by leave: This morning I tabled in the House a list of Queensland’s Beijing Olympics medalwinners. The member for Mansfield has brought to my attention that the list I tabled did not includeMatthew Mitcham, our gold medal winning, outstanding performer in the platform diving competition. Iunderstand that Matthew was a student of Mansfield State High School who subsequently went toSydney to train. But I think we are happy to claim him as a Queenslander. That, of course, adds anotherone to our gold medal tally. So I table this revised document. Tabled paper: Revised document titled ‘Beijing 2008 Medal Tally: Queensland Medal Tally’.

Mr Reeves: Hear, hear!Ms SPENCE: I thank the member for Mansfield for that. Mr Horan: You missed a gold medal, Judy.Ms SPENCE: How could we do that?

POLICE SERVICE ADMINISTRATION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

First ReadingHon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport)

(12.34 pm): I present a bill for an act to facilitate the exchange of policing information between theQueensland Police Service and the police forces or services of the Commonwealth and other states,and particular Queensland and Commonwealth public sector agencies. 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.

Second ReadingHon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport)

(12.34 pm): I move—That the bill be now read a second time.

I introduce a bill into this House today that allows the Queensland Police Service to participate inthe national sharing of criminal justice information with other Commonwealth and state police forces andservices and non-police law enforcement agencies. It also recognises the full implementation of theQueensland Police Service’s streamlined information system, QPRIME, which is a fast, high-qualityinformation technology solution. QPRIME replaces over 230 existing systems and indices with a singleaccess point, providing police with an enhanced capacity to detect, prevent and solve crime.

The information exchange with other law enforcement agencies and Queensland’s participation inthe exchange of information through the federal government information processing agency, CrimTrac,has the potential to value-add to the Queensland Government Priorities 2008 through Priority 3,‘Fostering Healthy Individuals and Communities’. The increased information available to police officerswill enhance the Queensland Police Service’s ability to rapidly respond to the apprehension of wantedpersons and the detection of crime in Queensland and other law enforcement jurisdictions.

CrimTrac administers secure, innovative information systems to support electronic governmentinitiatives and service delivery. This technology utilised by CrimTrac has already been recognised andawarded for producing the most outstanding information and communications initiatives in Australia.This government has already recognised the benefits of CrimTrac’s systems through the currentprovisions and practices supporting the disclosure of criminal history information for the purpose ofemployment screening.

This bill reaffirms the commitment of this government to extend the information-sharing regime ofthe Queensland Police Service to match that of other Australian police agencies, thereby recognisingthe increasing instances of cross-border crime, threats of terrorism and the need for coordinatednational criminal intelligence information. This government is committed to ensuring the QueenslandPolice Service has all appropriate and available resources to aid in the protection of our community. Asystem to allow the national exchange of policing information is another such resource.

26 Aug 2008 Police Service Administration and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2243

Through the removal of legislative barriers, the bill allows the Queensland Police Service toprovide information to CrimTrac through the bulk electronic transfer of information from the policedatabases. The authority of the Commissioner of Police to continue to disclose information held by thePolice Service to other state and Commonwealth police forces and services and law enforcementagencies is assured through this bill. This measure will ensure nominated law enforcement agenciesthat undertake law enforcement functions have information about whomever they are dealing with.

In facilitating the information exchange, CrimTrac will amalgamate the national policinginformation and make 26 points of information available to an officer making an enquiry about a person.This information will be an amalgamation of all nationally stored offender and person-of-interestinformation, such as the aliases of a person, a list of addresses, any bail conditions applicable to theperson and any behavioural or health warnings the person has disclosed. There are clear and obviousbenefits to police officers and community members nationally to the sharing of this information.

Closer to home, Queensland police officers will be able to use this nationally collated personalinformation when they are questioning suspects and offenders, preparing to respond to incidents andenhancing the safety of themselves and the Queensland community. This information sharingaddresses the problem of offenders moving to our great state to avoid police detection. Thejurisdictional borders of police information are removed with this legislation.

This government recognises that operational policing information may be advantageous to thefunctions and safety of Commonwealth and state non-policing law enforcement officers such as thosefrom the Australian Customs Service. The bill allows the Queensland Police Service to give thatoperational policing information to nominated law enforcement agencies when they are administering alaw. The richer data sharing between agencies encourages a more reasoned response which is likely toachieve greater results for the Queensland community.

Furthermore, this government recognises that there will be a limited number of external lawenforcement agencies which may legitimately require direct access to the QPRIME database to retrievefurther policing information. I have, therefore, introduced a twofold process of approval for direct accessto the police database. Firstly, any organisation seeking such access to policing information will berequired to justify the reasons for such access to cabinet, before being appointed by the Governor inCouncil. Secondly, the Commissioner of Police will appoint specific members in that approvedorganisation to be a person who is authorised to access a QPS database. This process effectively limitsand regulates the number of persons in that agency who might have access to the service information.When law enforcement agencies work together in Queensland it can only produce good results. Ofcourse, the access to any Police Service information will be the subject of ongoing audits.

This bill takes a practical approach to information sharing and legislates for the organisations andthe uses of the information. To safeguard against the misuse of information, an offence has beencreated to address any instance should an individual use the information outside of the purpose forwhich the information was given or contrary to a purpose authorised under the act. The offence has amaximum penalty of 100 penalty units. This offence and the accompanying penalty will act as adeterrent to persons in possession of the information gained under this legislation from using it for anypurpose other than that which is authorised under this legislation. Protection is also afforded toindividuals who provide information under these provisions against civil and criminal liability. Of course,an officer who provides information to an entity or an agency contrary to the provisions of this bill maystill be the subject of Police Service disciplinary action.

This bill enhances the Queensland Police Service’s capacity to improve the efficiency andeffectiveness of operational policing, prevent offences, apprehend criminals, locate missing persons,protect the Queensland community and contribute to state and Commonwealth security. Under thisgovernment, the current position of the Queensland Police Service is the best it has been for manyyears. This legislation works towards keeping it there. This bill is yet another initiative of the Blighgovernment in recognising the need for a continued astute approach when dealing with crime andpeople who commit those crimes. The provision to share police information is of significant and positivebenefit for the Queensland community.

In conclusion, all of the proposed amendments in the bill are essential for our police to continue todetect, investigate and combat crime in our safe state. It ensures the Queensland Police Service andother law enforcement agencies that undertake law enforcement functions are equipped with the toolsto enhance the safety of the Queensland community. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Horan, adjourned.

2244 Criminal Code and Jury and Another Act Amendment Bill 26 Aug 2008

CRIMINAL CODE AND JURY AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL

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

Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (12.45 pm): I present a bill for an act to amendthe Criminal Code, the Jury Act 1995 and the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 for particular purposes. Ipresent the explanatory notes, and I move—That the bill be now read a first time.


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

Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (12.45 pm): I move—That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill contains some of the most significant reforms to the Queensland criminal justice systemmade in recent years. The reforms will help create a more robust and equitable justice system byintroducing provision for majority verdicts in criminal trials in Queensland and also judge-alone criminaltrials.

One of the cornerstones of our legal system is the right to receive a fair trial. If at all possible thisshould be by a jury of one’s peers. Jury trials are an important part of the common law criminal justicesystem. In many cases, a jury provides a link between the community and the criminal justice system.The presence of a jury can ensure the publicly comprehensible exposition of the case and maysafeguard public confidence in the impartiality and openness of the administration of justice. However,in a small number of cases, it may be in the interests of justice to have a trial heard by a judge sittingalone. For example, a judge may be better placed to hear cases involving significant complexity ornotoriety.

While trial by jury is the preferred and entrenched method of trial for serious offences, legislationallowing judge-alone criminal trials has existed in Canada for many years and was introduced into SouthAustralia in 1984, New South Wales in 1990, the Australian Capital Territory in 1993 and in WesternAustralia in 1994. New Zealand also has provision for judge-alone criminal trials.

In recognition of the fundamental right to a trial by jury, the bill provides that a judge-alone trial willonly be available with the accused’s consent. This is consistent with the position in all other Australianjurisdictions. The amendments to the Criminal Code in this bill to allow judge-alone trials are based onthe Western Australian legislation. Western Australia is currently the only jurisdiction that gives thejudge an overriding discretion to decide whether to order a judge-alone trial. An order can only be madewhere it is considered to be in the interests of justice. This requirement in the Western Australianlegislation was introduced in 2004 following recommendations by that state’s Law Reform Commission.The WA Law Reform Commission was of the view that a trial by judge alone should be available as analternative to a trial by jury in appropriate cases but not as of right for either the accused or theprosecution.

Recognising the important role juries play in the criminal justice system, the legislation alsospecifically provides that, without limiting the matters that a court may take into account when decidingwhether to make a judge-alone order, an order may be refused if the court considers the trial will involvea factual issue that requires the application of objective community standards. This would include, forexample, the issue of reasonableness.

Judge-alone trials will be available for all offences except Commonwealth offences and Children’sCourt matters. There are already provisions allowing judge-alone trials in certain circumstances in theJuvenile Justice Act 1992. This initiative strikes a fair balance between the rights of the accused, victimsand the community, and the capacity of courts to ensure trials proceed fairly and in an appropriatemanner.

The other significant reform to Queensland’s jury system introduced in this bill is to allow majorityverdicts in some criminal trials. The introduction of majority verdicts brings Queensland into line withnearly all other Australian states and territories. Majority verdicts will, however, not be automatic. Theunderlying rationale is that a jury should endeavour to reach a unanimous verdict. On this basis,the amendments to the Jury Act 1995 provide that a judge may accept a majority verdict only if the juryhas deliberated for at least eight hours or such further period the judge considers reasonable havingregard to the complexity of the trial and the judge is satisfied that the jury is unlikely to reach aunanimous verdict after further deliberation.

26 Aug 2008 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2245

The requirement for deliberation for at least eight hours is consistent with the New South Walesmajority verdicts legislation and means that a jury will be compelled to deliberate for more than onecourt day before a majority verdict can be entertained. A majority verdict will be defined as where all butone of the jury can agree, provided the jury consists of not fewer than 11 persons. The percentage ofhung juries in Queensland has risen in recent years. Hung juries may require retrials for difficult cases,resulting in significant emotional distress to victims and witnesses. Avoiding this situation wherepossible is a desirable outcome.

This bill does not change the standard of proof in criminal trials. A jury must still be convincedbeyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of an alleged offender. Majority verdicts will not apply to the mostserious offences in Queensland. These offences are those which carry mandatory life imprisonment,including murder.

Majority verdicts will also not apply to trials for Commonwealth offences. Unanimous verdicts willbe retained for these offences. Exclusion of majority verdicts for mandatory life offences ensures thatunanimous verdicts are retained for the most serious offences in the state and is consistent with anumber of other states.

The bill also contains an amendment to the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001. On the face of it,section 192 of the Crime and Misconduct Act provides that witnesses in misconduct investigationhearings must answer questions put to them by the presiding officer and are not entitled to remain silentto answer a question, other than legal professional privilege, public interest immunity or parliamentaryprivilege. However, in the recent case of Witness D v the Crime and Misconduct Commission, it wasdecided that the definition of ‘privilege’ in the act when read with section 192 had the effect of onlyexcluding claims of privilege on the grounds of confidentiality and no other basis. On this interpretation,a witness would be able to refuse to answer a question in a misconduct hearing based on the privilegeagainst self-incrimination.

It was always intended that the CMC would have the power to compel witnesses to answerquestions except in those circumstances expressly excluded by the act. It is therefore proposedto amend section 192 of the Crime and Misconduct Act, with retrospective effect, to ensure that awitness at a Crime and Misconduct Commission misconduct hearing is not entitled to remain silent or torefuse to answer a question on a ground of privilege against self-incrimination. This is consistent withthe previous longstanding interpretation of the section, the position for crime investigation hearingsunder section 190 of the act, and the position under equivalent provisions of the previous legislationwhich the 2001 act replaced.

The reforms in this bill ensure that the Queensland criminal justice system remains dynamic andcan respond to a range of situations. I commend the bill to the House.


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2)

First ReadingHon. AI McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and

Innovation) (12.51 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1994, theDangerous Goods Safety Management Act 2001, the Environmental Protection and Other LegislationAmendment Act 2007, the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and the Nature Conservation Act 1992 forparticular purposes, and to make consequential or minor amendments of other acts as stated inschedule 2 for purposes related to those particular purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and Imove—That the bill be now read a first time.


Second ReadingHon. AI McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and

Innovation) (12.51 pm): I move—That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill provides for amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1994, the DangerousGoods Safety Management Act 2001, the Integrated Planning Act 1997, the Mineral Resources Act1989, the Nature Conservation Act 1992 and the Wild Rivers Act 2005. This bill is another step in a

2246 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 26 Aug 2008

series of integrated reforms to Queensland’s environmental protection legislation ensuring ourregulatory framework is clear and simple to use. It will improve the effectiveness of our environmentallegislation because it clarifies the roles and responsibilities of councils and my department.

The EPA has consulted extensively on the changes with local government and many of theprovisions in this bill are at their request. The EPA also consulted publicly through the release of aregulatory impact statement for the Environmental Protection Regulation earlier this year.

Many of the changes in this bill are based on a clear principle: local governments will beresponsible for managing environmental nuisance and minor water pollution while the EPA will continueto be responsible for managing more serious cases of environmental harm. Each level of governmentwill have the ability to set appropriate conditions for the developments they approve and to imposepenalties if those conditions are breached.

This bill supports the solid foundation established last year through amendments to theEnvironmental Protection Act that improved flexibility for local governments to administer theirenvironmental responsibilities. This is the next instalment of these reforms. It delivers a contemporarysystem that continues to reflect the outcomes of an independent report jointly funded by the stategovernment and the LGAQ to clarify roles and responsibilities under the Environmental Protection Act.That report highlights that councils need to be more proactive in managing environmental nuisance andminor water pollution and that the state government needs to show where the line is crossed.

The government has gone further than simply giving councils clear responsibility for managingand conditioning environmental nuisance. Last year, the government amended the act to allow councilsto recover the full cost of regulating environmentally relevant activities. Those changes allowed localgovernment to reallocate funding originally allocated for managing ERAs to their new responsibilities.

In this second wave of legislative change, this bill gives councils appropriate penalties andenforcement tools. Under this bill, councils can now access the full range of relevant enforcement toolsunder the Environmental Protection Act. As well, a new direction notice will streamline the process bymaking one notice effective for all environmental nuisance, noise standards and minor water pollutionoffences. Expanding the purpose of the direction notice to include minor water pollution will helpcouncils enforce sediment run-off and construction site management, a tremendous aid in reducingsmall-scale water pollution.

This bill also gives councils the power to tailor local environmental standards by allowing them toimplement local laws for nuisance matters which are inconsistent with default standards in the act. Thisenables local governments to respond to the specific needs and wishes of their community. It is a win forlocal communities, and illustrates the way that this bill will ensure that we have a framework which isclearer, simpler and better for everyone to use.

In accordance with this best-practice approach to environmental management, the penalties forenvironmental nuisance, air pollution and water pollution are also being increased to provide a betterdeterrent from degrading our environment and to give parity with similar provisions in Queensland andinterstate legislation. I stress, however, that I expect councils will continue to exercise their existingpowers to appropriately condition developments to prevent environmental nuisance and minor waterpollution.

This bill also introduces two other new enforcement tools: clean-up notices and cost-recoverynotices. At present, the Environmental Protection Act requires a successful prosecution for the criminaloffence of causing environmental harm before a court order can be obtained to recover clean-up costs.This is often a drawn-out process that does not deliver the immediate outcomes needed to properlyremediate and care for our environment. The new enforcement tools delivered in the bill can be issuedbefore court action and can require individuals or companies to clean up the mess they have made.Failure to comply with the cost-recovery notice does not give rise to an offence, but the costs can berecovered in court as a debt. The clean-up notice will also forewarn a person or company that the statemay take the action and recover the costs associated with those actions. Put simply, these tools willenable the state to respond far more quickly in situations where swift action is needed to safeguard theenvironment and human health.

Landowners not directly associated with a dangerous situation requiring clean-up will not beaffected by the changes in this bill. I have consulted with and listened to industry representative bodiesand I understand the issues these groups have with landowner liability. The government has respondedto their concerns. Consequently, this bill does not have the capacity to issue a clean-up notice or cost-recovery notice to a landowner not directly associated with a dangerous situation requiring clean-up.

The bill also amends the Nature Conservation Act 1992 to formalise the status of the independentscientific advisory committee established to assess the impacts of horse riding on the south-eastQueensland trail network announced by the government last December. This delivers on ourcommitment for detailed, ongoing monitoring by independent scientists of the trails themselves andadjacent areas. And it delivers on this government’s commitment to allow horse riders continued accessto their traditional trail network. The statutory review process will start immediately on proclamation, with

26 Aug 2008 Electoral Amendment Bill 2247

priority to be given to identifying and monitoring the most vulnerable sites. In addition to identifyingimpacts, the review process includes a requirement to consider how any identified significant adverseimpacts can be addressed. Ultimately, if the impacts cannot be managed, a trail could be removed fromthe horse-riding network.

The bill underpins the important role of expert and impartial advice by specifying that the requiredassessments must be carried out by a scientific advisory committee consisting of experts in relevantfields, such as conservation biology, freshwater ecology, social science, soil science, sustainablerecreation and weed management. The bill requires the committee members to be independent ofgovernment and non-government entities that may have particular interests in decisions affecting horseriding in these areas. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Horan, adjourned. Sitting suspended from 12.58 pm to 2.30 pm.

ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL

First ReadingHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (2.30 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend

the Electoral Act 1992 for particular purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and I move—That the bill be now read a first time.


Second ReadingHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (2.30 pm): I move—

That the bill be now read a second time.

On 30 April 2008 I announced that, in line with proposed reforms to the Commonwealth electorallaws, my government would amend the Queensland Electoral Act 1992 to strengthen the lawssurrounding the reporting requirements for donations to political parties and election fundingentitlements. The Queensland electoral laws relating to electoral funding and financial disclosure arebased on similar provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

The changes that this bill introduces replicate some of the changes contained in theCommonwealth bill currently before the Senate. That Commonwealth bill, which amends the electionfunding and financial disclosure part of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, was introduced by theCommonwealth Special Minister of State, Senator John Faulkner, on 15 May 2008. It was intended to bethe first of a number of staged reforms and was to be followed by a more detailed two-stage green paperprocess.

Its anticipated commencement date was 1 July 2008. However, on 18 June 2008, the thencoalition controlled Senate referred the bill to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters forconsideration as part of its inquiry into the 2007 federal election. The committee’s report is not due until30 June 2009. It was always intended that Queensland would reflect a nationally consistent approach inrelation to the receipt of political donations. However, given the delay in the passage of theCommonwealth bill and the need to maintain a high level of scrutiny of donations to political parties, mygovernment has decided to amend the Queensland act to reflect the key changes in the Commonwealthbill. This also ensures that these provisions will be in place prior to the next state election which if wewaited for the Commonwealth bill would not be guaranteed.

This bill will ensure the current reporting regime is not only maintained but enhanced to providemore transparency with respect to donations made to political parties. These enhancements will providea greater level of comfort to voting Queenslanders concerned with the maintenance of a trulytransparent democratic election process.

Currently donors of $1,500 or more to a registered political party must submit annual disclosurereturns to the Electoral Commission of Queensland. The donation disclosure threshold of $1,500 will bereduced to $1,000. This is in line with the amendments proposed by the Commonwealth bill.

Currently, the act provides that annual disclosure returns must be made to the ElectoralCommission of Queensland within 20 weeks after the end of each financial year. Those returns areavailable for public inspection from 1 February. It is proposed to increase public scrutiny of donations byreducing those disclosure time frames for donations from 12 months to six months. This will mean twiceyearly reporting.

2248 Fisheries Amendment Bill 26 Aug 2008

Further, the bill will reduce from 20 weeks to eight weeks the time allowed to prepare and lodgereturns and will mandate that the Electoral Commission must publish those returns within six weeks ofreceipt. This will substantially reduce the lag time between the end of the reporting period and publicdisclosure of returns.

The Commonwealth bill also proposes to tie election funding to reported and verified electoralexpenditure directly incurred by a candidate or a party. In other words, the amount of election funding aparty or candidate is entitled to cannot exceed the actual amount spent by them in relation to anelection. The Queensland Electoral Act already mandates this position. However, to maintainconsistency with the Commonwealth act, the bill introduces amendments in the form of the wording ofthe Commonwealth bill.

The bill also introduces a ban on donations from overseas or non-Australian companies.This amendment ensures that political donations come from a jurisdiction where Queensland laws willapply and can be enforced.

A further reporting requirement is also being introduced. In order to maintain transparency inreporting of political donations, the bill introduces a new provision requiring the reporting of donationsfrom any single donor to a registered political party within the six-month reporting period totalling$100,000 or more by both the donor and the recipient political party. The return must be furnished to theElectoral Commission of Queensland within 14 days of the making of the donation which brings the totalfrom that single donor to $100,000 or more.

These returns are in addition to, and not instead of, the twice yearly reporting returns and must bemade each time subsequent donations amounting to $100,000 or more are made by that donor in thereporting period.

To maintain consistency with the established financial reporting guidelines, all of the amendmentswill be deemed to have commenced on 1 July 2008. It is recognised that, by doing so, donations of$100,000 or more from a single donor may have been made between 1 July 2008 and the assent of theact. Therefore, a proviso is included that any such payments will be required to be reported within 28days of the date of assent.

The amendments introduced by the bill will enhance the financial reporting requirements underthe act. Once the Commonwealth bill is passed, further amendments to the act may be necessary toensure the historical consistency with the Commonwealth Electoral Act is preserved. I commend the billto the House.


FISHERIES AMENDMENT BILL

Second ReadingResumed from 3 June (see p. 1844), on motion of Mr Mulherin—


Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (2.36 pm): Fourteen years ago parliament enactedsection 14 of the Fisheries Act, which expressly recognised and protected the important rights ofAborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to fish in a traditional way. The government now proposesto amend that legislative protection for reasons that I will go into a little later in this speech.

In 2006 there was the Queensland Court of Appeal decision Stevenson v Yasso 2006, whichraised questions in relation to the scope of section 14 of the Fisheries Act. In that matter, the Court ofAppeal upheld the right of a traditional fisher to use commercial fishing nets under section 14 of theFisheries Act. The decision raised questions in relation to the scope of section 14 and prompted areview of the provisions to ascertain the correct balance between the desire to protect traditional fishingand the need to promote ecologically sustainable use of fisheries resources across Queensland.

The Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries indicated that recent events in the Fitzroy Riverprompted the move for change. While most Indigenous communities respect the laws, and their intent,associated with traditional fishing, a small number of individuals have exploited the situation forthemselves. We will be supporting this bill because we agree that the rights of Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander people to fish in a traditional way were given in a true spirit and that any attempt to fish ina commercial way is against the spirit of the special rights that have been provided and protected. Notonly is it not fair to other people who are not allowed to fish in those areas but it is just not right in termsof trying to maintain a sustainable fishing environment in those areas.

This move for change came about because of certain incidents that occurred in the Fitzroy River,where nets were used to catch fish—at times estimated to be worth up to $1,000—including bigbarramundi which were necessary for breeding purposes and so forth. We do agree with what is beingdone and we will be supporting this bill.

26 Aug 2008 Fisheries Amendment Bill 2249

The bill is intended to resolve a number of policy issues and to protect and promote the long-termsustainability of the fisheries resource by addressing the practice by Indigenous fishers of fishing withtypes of apparatus that are capable of taking large quantities of fish including juveniles, which, as I said,breaks the spirit of the rights and protection that have been provided to Indigenous fishers. The billremoves any doubt that traditional fishing exercised in accordance with section 14 should only be forpersonal, domestic and non-commercial communal use to ensure the section is not used as an avenuefor commercial fishing and the commercial sale of fish. The bill also addresses the increasing practiceby some Indigenous people of fishing in closed waters. Closed waters have particular attributes such asbeing spawning grounds. The preservation of these closed waters is essential to the long-termsustainability of fish stocks.

In conjunction with the legislative changes, the government will negotiate an Indigenous land useagreement, or ILUA, with the local Darumbal people in Rockhampton. This will ensure that they areactively involved in the decision-making process on traditional fishing.

The bill also intends to resolve a procedural matter concerning the use of management plans tofurther restrict the operation of section 14. It is considered that the more appropriate mechanism for anycapacity to regulate should be by way of regulation. As I understand it, rather than have a managementplan for the entire state—which is virtually impossible due to the variety of Indigenous groups and thevariety of the waterways and areas in which they fish—through regulation a management plan will be fora particular area and will be more practical to put into place and to maintain.

The capacity to make a regulation that expressly applies to acts done under Aboriginal tradition orisland custom would allow stronger limitations to be imposed to address any emergent resourcesustainability issues that may arise in the future. For example, bag and size limits, including restrictionson no-take species, or the addition of other areas in Queensland closed to traditional and customaryfishing may be imposed by regulation.

The bill redrafts section 14 of the act so it is clear that it is intended by parliament to operate as adefence provision. This amendment is proposed to remove all doubt as to the requisite burden of proofin a prosecution where section 14 is raised by the defendant. It is intended that the standard of proof forthe defendant would be on the balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt for theprosecution. It does not affect the opportunity for Indigenous people to apply for a general fisheriespermit to engage in a fishing activity that would be otherwise unlawful under the fisheries legislation—forexample, for the purpose of ceremonial and cultural events. It also does not affect opportunities toobtain a commercial fishing licence from the open market to undertake commercial fishing activities, nordoes it prevent them from applying for Indigenous fishing permits outside closed waters. Indigenousfishing permits are not a substitute for permanent commercial fishing licences but are used as an interimmeasure to assist Indigenous involvement in commercial fishing and to assist the development ofproperly constructed economic and business development projects.

Section 24HA of the Commonwealth’s Native Title Act 1993 provides that native title holders areentitled to compensation from the state for affecting the exercise or enjoyment of their native title. Aclaim for compensation must be made to the Federal Court, and it would be necessary for the personmaking the claim to prove they are native title holders. There have not yet been any relevant decisionsin relation to the payment of compensation for affecting native title.

With regard to equipment, traditional fishers can use the same equipment as recreationalfishers—that is, a cast net up to 3.7 metres, a scoop net with a maximum size of two metres, and aseine net up to 16 metres. They can use a maximum of four crab pots, dillies or collapsable traps; threefishing lines with no more than six hooks; a hand-held fork for taking worms; a hand pump for yabbies;and a shell dredge for molluscs. They can also use a spear or a spear gun.

There are 15 areas in Queensland where all activity including traditional fishing will be prohibited.These are Coombabah Lake and Coombabah Creek; Keppel Bay within a 150-metre radius of MiddleIsland Underwater Observatory; Swan Bay, North Stradbroke Island; Hook Island within a 100-metreradius of the observatory; Wolf Rock, east of Double Island Point; Yanks Jetty at Orpheus Island, underor within 100 metres of the jetty; the Mary River, 400 metres downstream of the barrage; CentenaryLakes, Cairns; Tinana Creek, 400 metres downstream of the barrage; the Barron River at BarronWaters, near Stony Creek and the junction of Camp Oven Creek; the Burnett River, 400 metresdownstream of the barrage; the Bizant River, Princess Charlotte Bay, including German Bar Lagoon andtwo kilometres downstream of the German Bar road crossing; the Kolan River, 400 metres downstreamof the barrage; South Mitchell River, near Surprise Creek; and the Fitzroy River, 400 metresdownstream of the barrage.

There are in total 17 areas in Queensland, including these 15, where all fishing is prohibited, butthese 15 that I have just read out will now also exclude traditional fishing. The only exceptions areYarrabah and Hammond Island in the Torres Strait. There are 226 fishing closures of various sizes andtypes around Queensland. The only ones that are totally closed are the 17 sites mentioned above, andthey are sites which are extremely important for the sustainability of fisheries, mainly because in almost


every circumstance they are breeding grounds or spawning grounds for particular fish varieties. Thereare also 210 fisheries closures—for example, the barramundi closure occurs from November toFebruary. However, Indigenous people are still able to take undersize barramundi or female mud crabs.

The briefing that we received indicated that the department would be speaking to GBRMPA aboutthe taking of dugong by Indigenous people and the method of doing this. Dugong and turtle are not fishand are covered under the Nature Conservation Act as vulnerable species. I would ask the minister inhis reply to tell us what has come out of the negotiations with GBRMPA. In talking about dugong, it isimportant to note that it is listed on the IUCM’s—the world conservation union—red list of threatenedspecies as being vulnerable to extinction. In Australia dugongs are protected under various legislation.They are not presently listed as threatened under the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection andBiodiversity Conservation Act 1989. However, they are protected because they are a ‘listed migratory’and ‘listed marine’ species. They are also protected by other Commonwealth legislation such as theGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, in which they are listed as protected species. TheQueensland government’s Nature Conservation Act 1992 lists dugongs as ‘vulnerable to extinction’.

While dugongs are threatened on a worldwide scale, Australia has a large proportion of theremaining population. This makes Australia the largest, and globally most important, refuge fordugongs. The dugong population can only cope with a human caused mortality of less than one totwo per cent per year. That is mainly because they do not breed until they are 10 to 17 years old, andwhen they do breed it is only every second or third year. Almost 1,300 dugongs are estimated to betaken by Indigenous hunters in north Queensland waters excluding the Torres Strait. From this we cansee that there are a lot of dugongs taken by Indigenous hunters. I think we need to carefully monitor thisto see just how many dugongs there are and what their survival rate is. Because of their slow birth rate,as I said, they can only cope with a human caused mortality of less than one to two per cent per year.That means that, if there are 200 dugongs in a bay, the population can only cope with a loss of two tofour dugongs per year from all human causes such as fishing, boat strikes and Indigenous hunting. Iwas interested in figures that I have seen regarding Moreton Bay which show how few dugongs are hurtor damaged by boats. I think it is a credit to the way people carefully operate their boats through certainareas of Moreton Bay that that is the case.

I want to mention how this whole matter came to light. There was the case in Rockhampton of anIndigenous fisherman who was caught by fisheries officers with an illegal 50-metre net at Zilzie nearEmu Park. In December 2004 the Rockhampton District Court ruled that that fisherman, Mr Yasso,unlawfully possessed a commercial apparatus. He claimed he was exercising his traditional rights to fishand that the catch would be distributed amongst his extended family. The District Court judge ruledthere was no evidence that nets had ever been used in the region prior to European settlement.Mr Yasso then appealed.

In November 2005 there was a protest outside the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patroloffice at Rosslyn Bay after Rockhampton Indigenous fisherman Elwyn Mann’s 48-metre net wasconfiscated. He had been fishing with the net at Moores Creek off the Fitzroy River.

In March 2006 Mr Yasso won a landmark court appeal that allowed him to fish with a 50-metrenet. The case set a precedent for Indigenous people to catch fish using traditional methods which arenot allowed for other anglers. Also in March 2006 the commercial and recreational fishing communitieswere outraged by that court decision. In February the next year Darumbal elder Lester Adamscondemned the illegal sale of fish by people abusing laws that were there for correct purposes fortraditional landowners only.

In March 2008 there was a group of four Indigenous men photographed by the Morning Bulletinnetting across one of the barrage spillways of the Fitzroy River. Fishing groups and the Darumbalspokespeople again voiced their outrage. A week later an anonymous tipster called the Morning Bulletinto report an unattended net in the same place the men were seen fishing on the previous Friday. Therewas then an investigation ordered by Minister Mulherin. The following day the Queensland Boating andFisheries Patrol officers retrieved the net, which had a number of dead fish caught in it including sixlarge barramundi.

That was basically the catalyst for this legislation coming before the parliament. We all agree thatthere was a certain spirit in the provision of the rights for Indigenous people to undertake traditionalhunting. That right has been generously extended in that they can use crab pots, fishing rods andcertain restricted size nets. What this legislation basically does is preserve that right to fish but ensure itwill be undertaken with apparatus restricted to those that have been prescribed in legislation or inregulation, to set in place management plans and to do the things that are necessary to ensure thesustainability of many of our species and the protection of those 15 restricted areas of Queenslandwhich are so important to the breeding of fish.

I wanted to mention the Alert Digest that was tabled this morning. There has not been a lot of timefor people to have a look at the Alert Digest. I understand that the Scrutiny of Legislation Committeeexamined the legislation yesterday. There are a couple of matters that will need to be addressed by the


minister. There is the issue of whether the legislation is constitutionally valid. As we debate thislegislation today it is important to make sure that it is absolutely valid and does not leave itself open inany way to be challenged. The Alert Digest states—In relation to the constitutional validity of clause 4 and, therefore, whether the bill has sufficient regard to the institution ofParliament, the committee notes ‘an element of doubt’ about the constitutional validity of clause 4.

I think it is important that that element of doubt be removed in this debate today. We should beadvised whether or not the minister believes there is that element of doubt. We really need someexplanation of this matter.

Another important point made by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee and one which I want todeal with is that prior to the introduction of the bill to the parliament only the Darumbal people ofRockhampton had been consulted. The committee asked the minister for information regarding theconsultation undertaken since the introduction of the bill and the views and information provided by theAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

I was informed in our briefing that the department intended to consult with 35 groups. The ministerhas indicated that he will provide that advice to us in the course of his reply. It is important that we knowthat those people have been consulted. They were not consulted at the time of the preparation of the billand prior to its introduction into the parliament.

Despite that, on behalf of the opposition I support this bill for the reasons that I outlined earlier inrelation to sustainability and fairness, not only to the Indigenous people but also to recreational orcommercial fishers who have to abide by the rules and regulations that are in the best interests ofsustainability, and the fact that this bill clears up how this is to be used as a defence mechanism. Icertainly hope that this bill will satisfy the recreational and traditional needs of the Indigenous people ofQueensland and at the same time ensure the sustainability of our fishing stocks.

Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (2.56 pm): I rise to support the Fisheries Amendment Bill withthe belief that this legislation will do two fundamental things: protect the long-term viability ofQueensland’s fishery resources and protect the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders tocontinue customary fishing for personal and traditional uses. This legislation is a very short piece oflegislation. It comprises only four clauses. However, this legislation has the potential to be contentiousand affect native title rights held by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, as pointed out by theshadow minister.

The legislation was prompted by a ruling in the Court of Appeal in Stevenson v Yasso. Theexplanatory notes indicate that in the matter the Court of Appeal upheld the right of traditional fishers touse commercial fishing nets under section 14 of the Fisheries Act. As mentioned by our shadowminister, the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in answering the question ‘Is the legislationconstitutionally valid?’ makes the finding at point 21—In relation to the constitutional validity of clause 4 and, therefore, whether the bill has sufficient regard to the institution ofParliament, the committee notes ‘an element of doubt’ about the constitutional validity of clause 4.

This finding concerns me. I, like the shadow minister, the member for Toowoomba South, requestthat the minister address this issue in his reply. As is pointed out in point 17 of the Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee report—Section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution eliminates conflicts of law which might arise between State and Federal lawsoperating in the same area by providing that: When a law of the State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail and the former shall, to the extentof the inconsistency, be invalid.

If this legislation has not been drafted properly or it is not given due concern and respect fornative title rights then, quite frankly, we are wasting our time today. The right to fish is a very importantissue for many Queenslanders, none more so than Indigenous and Torres Strait IslanderQueenslanders who are affected by clause 4 of this bill. That clause amends section 14, which relatesto the right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to take fishery resources. This point wasemphasised and driven home to me when I, as the former shadow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderpartnerships minister, visited the Torres Strait Islands and spoke with Thursday Island residents andtraditional Aboriginal owners from Horn Island.

Traditional owners made the point to me that because of the incredibly high cost of living beingexperienced in the Torres Strait many Indigenous people have to rely on fishing and hunting to properlyfeed themselves and their families. Average rental prices of $600 to $800 per week, fuel prices of over$2 per litre and skyrocketing grocery prices are ensuring that fishing is not just a recreational activity, asit is in most of Queensland, but a necessary activity for survival. Thankfully, there is plenty of fish andaquatic life. As the shadow minister mentioned, there are plenty of dugongs and turtles and there arealso plenty of people who know how to catch those fish and aquatic life—the queenies and the trevallyoff the end of the piers. If the waters of the Torres Strait were not so rich in aquatic resources, the levelof social and health disadvantage would be far greater. The bottom line is that there would be morechildren going to school with empty bellies.


While I was in the Torres Strait I sat down with a group of traditional owners and discussed issuesrelating to traditional fishing and hunting. I note that this bill does not specifically mention dugong orturtle, and in a briefing the minister’s advisers gave an indication that the department would be speakingto the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, GBRMPA, about the taking of dugong by Indigenouspeople and the method of doing this. As we heard from the shadow minister, dugong and turtle are notfish. They are covered under the Nature Conservation Act as vulnerable species. However, thetraditional fishing apparatus as described and regulated in a proposed amendment to this legislationmay be used to hunt turtles and dugong, and I refer to a spear or a spear gun.

I think it is important therefore for this place to hear what traditional owners have to say withreference to traditional hunting and fishing practices. As mentioned before, I spoke with traditionalowners of Horn Island. Ms Enid Tom was the spokesperson and secretary of the traditional owners ofHorn Island who made a number of important points to our discussion. Firstly, we talked abouttechnology, then the philosophy and then the management practices that she would like to see. I askedher firstly how it used to happen in the old days—how fishing and hunting happened. She replied—The dinghies that are being used these days, the resources to get these turtle and dugongs are totally advanced and in the daysbefore they used to pull, row their wooden dinghies and they’d build a platform.They’d watch the dugong at night. Wherever it stopped feeding they’d build a platform on the mud exactly in the spot where itstopped feeding the night before because the next night it would come back to that spot and start off eating the seagrass from thatspot onwards.What they used to do is build a platform ... the next day they go and sit there.The dugong would come along ... they’d spear it and the dugong used to be shared in the community, everybody would go downto the beach with their dishes, all the women from in the village and the men would share ... they’d cut the dugong on anotherisland not bring it back to the home island because of issues such as crocodiles and all that stuff.Our belief and our law is whenever you take from the sea you give it back to the sea.So whatever stuff we had to throw away that we didn’t want from the dugong we would take it back to where the tide is running,and throw it there. It would go down with the tide ... never in the dump ... lately in the last few years on Horn, the elders have beenupset, they have been crying because people bring in ... this is non traditional people that are living here ... have been bringingdugong in on a trailer on the back of their car going past the elders house and because it’s a totem as well, the elders get upset.They bring it in their front yard in their own house, put a tarp, put the dugong on it and cut it. And everybody is looking at it ... Withdugong and turtle hunting it was done in a traditional way where there was law involved in what you had to do and where you hadto do it, the way you had to do it. Nowadays we have croc infesting our waters.We used to swim down the beach and go crabbing but we can’t do that anymore because there is too much crocs here nowbecause of all the rubbish they are throwing in the water. We’ve got a Pipeline which we supply to TI and Hammond from our damon Horn Island ... where the pipe comes out on Horn Island they been cutting the dugong there on that pipe and they beenthrowing all the rubbish right there and when people go down there they see crocs down there.I mean these are issues we have to deal with to make sure the dugong and turtle—you gotta show them respect if you are goingto kill them for feed or whatever.

I asked her if one of the problems is that there are non-traditional people hunting dugong and turtles andshe replied—And doing it non-traditionally.

She talked about the issue of technology and said—As in outboard motors—little dinghies that they anchor next to their main boat and they use the little dinghies as buoys to tie on tothe dugong so they know where the dugong is. I mean, all these things were not done like that in the past.What we are trying to do to maintain and manage these dugong and turtles is that we are trying to get them to cut down on howmuch they take because like I said most of the turtle and dugong that are being gathered they are ending up in the dump whereasbefore it used to be shared in the community.Now we are finding them in the dumps. We have taken heaps and heaps of photos of dugongs lying in the dumps with flies on it. Imean that is not good practice if you are going to be using dugong and turtles. You need to maintain it for the future generationsand from extinction.

I asked Ms Tom what she would like to see from law and she said—I’d like to see more rangers being implemented with the licence to book people who are doing that. At the moment we areconcentrating on how much people can take from dugong and turtles for festivities such as weddings, tombstone openings.

Ms Tom makes a very important point that we are passing legislation today but we have to ensurethat there are enough people on the ground to enforce that legislation. Certainly, Ms Tom is calling formore rangers in the Torres Strait. She said—We think that there was a survey been done. Most people thought it should be one or two for festivities and that you should getpermission in writing from the elders saying you are gonna shoot deer on their land because we have a problem the same with thedeer maintenance that people are using it for prize and they leave the carcass and not touch them at all ...We are trying our best to maintain it but I believe government should give us back the turtle farming because we did maintain it inthe beginning by looking after the turtles until they are at a certain age and we release them back.

I suggested to her—I had heard this story before—that as a young girl she used to collect eggsand then bring them back and hatch them. She said—Yeah it cuts the issue of, you know most young turtles get eaten by sharks or whatever, it cuts out that side of it ... by us lookingafter it and then release them at a certain age.


I suggested to Ms Tom that as children they would have to maintain and change the water in theseholding tanks. She said—Yeah most of the islands did it. We had holding tanks near the beach, big long trays. We’d have salt water in it we’d have theturtles in there. And in the mornings when we got up we’d go down and get sardines off the wharf. We’d come back up and chop itup, feed them and then change their water. That way they’ve got fresh water all day, then in the afternoon we’d do the same thing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): I would ask you to deal more with the legislation. Thearea that you are talking about is controlled under Commonwealth fisheries laws.

Mr MESSENGER: Thank you for your direction, Mr Deputy Speaker. I guess it is summarised byMs Tom when she said—My belief is that all traditional owners in their own area, they are the people who know how to maintain and manage theirresources on the island just like you would manage your own resources in your own house. That’s how traditional owners are thebest people to deal with to look after their own areas.

I go back to the point about consultation that the shadow minister made in that the governmentwith all of its resources at hand should have made a greater effort to consult with Indigenous ownersbefore debating this legislation. I acknowledge that the minister made a statement on 3 June 2008which said that the amendments would simplify the current legislation and provide clarity for Indigenousfishers across Queensland. In effect, this legislation has relevance to every coastline and every river inQueensland and therefore has wide relevance to many Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities inQueensland. From my own perspective, I note that of the 15 areas where all fishing activity, includingtraditional fishing, will be prohibited there are two areas that fall within the Burnett area—the Kolan River400 metres downstream of the barrage and the Burnett River 400 metres downstream of the barrage.

Both of those rivers are popular fishing places for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. Iacknowledge that the amendments include limiting the size, type and number of fishing apparatus thatcan be used, removing references in section 14(2) to using management plans to regulate acts doneunder Aboriginal tradition or Islander custom and repealing section 14(3) to remove the requirement forcooperation with all Indigenous people. I guess the emphasis is on ‘all’ but at least there must be quitean effort made by the government before repealing and that we must make a concerted effort tocooperate with Indigenous people.

Ceremonial and cultural events may require a larger supply of fish. In such circumstancesindividuals may apply for a general fisheries permit to use fishing gear of larger dimensions than thosethat are permitted under section 14. The shadow minister also made the point that a cast net up to 3.7metres long can be used as can a scoop net, the maximum four crab pots, three fishing lines with nomore than six hooks, a hand-held fork for taking worms, a hand pump for yabbies, a shell dredge formolluscs and, as I mentioned before, a spear or spear gun.

In closing, I acknowledge that this legislation has good intent. There are a couple of bugs in it thatwe need to iron out today in this place. I also acknowledge that it is designed to close a loophole in thecurrent legislation to protect aquatic species and traditional Indigenous fishing rights. I support thelegislation.

Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (3.11 pm): I rise to speak in support of the legislation before theHouse. I was going to jump up and call relevance during the previous speaker’s contribution, especiallywhen he was talking about dugongs, turtles and the Torres Strait—none of which have anything to dowith the bill before the House. But I support his efforts to get comments from Mrs Enid Tom onto thepublic record. She is a constituent of mine. I have no doubt that the member has put an honest appraisalof his conversation with her. Her comments should be put on the public record at some stage as shespeaks a lot of truth about these matters. Unfortunately, the state of Queensland is unable to assist herin that particular jurisdiction in the Torres Strait as that jurisdiction comes under the auspices of theCommonwealth. Nevertheless, Enid Tom makes some very important points. I agree with thehonourable member that we should be consulting widely with traditional owners in regard to thesematters, particularly with elders and other people who have the proper authority to speak over country—and over sea, for that matter, as well.

I think the majority of Indigenous people will support this bill. Indigenous people want to see theproper management of fishing resources in and around their communities. They do not want to see theimproper exploitation of those resources by commercial fishermen, whether those commercialfishermen be Indigenous or non-Indigenous fishermen. Indigenous people rely on the fish in those riversand along the coast as they are an important source of their food supply and to have that resourceexploited puts them in a perilous position. There are a lot of low-income earners in these communitiesand they rely very heavily on the seafood from those areas that we are protecting to supplement theirdiet.

More importantly, fishing for Indigenous people is not just about diet; it is a way of life. It isingrained into their culture. As I said, going fishing is not just about getting food; it is a way in whichpeople work together, it is a way in which to swap stories, it is a way in which to learn about theirenvironment. There are times during the year in parts of Cape York when certain fish can be caught and


there are times when certain fish should not be caught. That knowledge and information is important forthe survival of those traditions and of those people. That information is passed down as people go abouttheir seasonal routine of fishing certain species.

I would like to talk about the Kowanyama Land and Sea Centre, which is the most advancedIndigenous land management body in Queensland—and probably in Australia. It has very sophisticatedmeasures by which it manages the land and sea in and around Kowanyama. If anybody is interested inIndigenous land management, I strongly suggest that they visit the coordinator there, Viv Sinnamon, atKowanyama. That centre has sophisticated computer mapping and it is using new technology and newtechniques to manage traditional land.

I think an important thing that needs to be realised is that culture evolves over time. What wasconsidered traditional 200 years ago evolves and changes. That does not mean it is less traditional andthat it should be valued less. So I get a bit upset when people say, ‘They are using metal-tipped spearsand that’s not traditional. They are using outboard motors and that’s not traditional.’ Culture changesover time and new techniques are used. We need to acknowledge and respect that.

That does not mean we want open slather. It does not mean that we want people fishingcommercially interfering with people’s traditional harvest of these foods. I think it needs to beacknowledged that Indigenous culture is not caught in time. It is not stagnant. It will change and evolveas new technologies present themselves to Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.

The Kowanyama Land and Sea Centre was a bit concerned about the first draft of this legislation,particularly in regard to matters relating to the south Mitchell River. I understand that the department hasconsulted quite strongly with traditional owners at the land and sea centre. I want to thank the ministerfor the additional effort that he has put into consulting with them and ensuring that the south MitchellRiver will not be closed to traditional fishing. I thank the minister for listening to my constituents outthere. They are certainly very appreciative of the steps that the minister has taken to protect their abilityto traditionally fish in the south Mitchell River.

Those people were also concerned about their ability to net in the freshwater lagoons that dry outafter the wet season, getting into the dry season. They go into those freshwater lagoons with nets andtake out red claws and cherubim, which is like a giant prawn. My understanding is that those people arestill going to be able to do that with 16-metre nets. I understand that is going to be communicated tothem as well. I would like to thank the minister for clarifying that for me. That is important information forthose people as they go about their traditional fishing in those areas. With those few words, I would liketo recommend the bill to the House. I think it certainly strikes the right balance between commercialinterests and the interests of Indigenous people exercising their traditional rights.

Hon. KW HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (3.20 pm): It is certainly a pleasure to follow on from themember for Cook in discussing this Fisheries Amendment Bill. This bill proposes a crucial balancebetween the sustainable management of Queensland fishery resources and recognition of thetraditional and customary fishing practices of Indigenous people in Queensland. As we are all awarefrom the discussion of this bill, section 14 of the Fisheries Act 1994 confers a legislative benefit onQueensland’s Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders by protecting traditional and customary fishingpractices. The government believes that it has a responsibility to more clearly define the operation ofsection 14 if its exercise conflicts with the objectives of fisheries legislation to promote economicallysustainable development. In the end that is why we are here today discussing this debate.

A Commonwealth Court of Appeal decision in Stevenson v Yasso—now known as the Yassodecision—raised questions about the wide interpretation and application of section 14 of the act. Theimplication is that under the current wording of section 14, Indigenous Queenslanders may have noboundaries for fishing in Queensland waters in accordance with their tradition or custom. This couldmean, of course, that recognition of Indigenous fishing under Queensland legislation is even broaderthan native title rights recognised under Commonwealth legislation. The Yasso decision also raiseduncertainty about the burden of proof in a prosecution where section 14 is raised by the defendant.

This bill redrafts section 14 so that it is clear that parliament intended it to operate as a defenceprovision. This should give greater certainty to fisheries enforcement processes. It will now be clear thatthe defendant must establish a defence on the balance of probabilities while the prosecution mustnegate the defence beyond reasonable doubt.

I recognise that the bill clarifies the use of section 14 as a defence in three important ways. Firstly,it clarifies that the type of fishing activity for which the defence is available is catching fish for non-commercial communal use. Secondly, it clarifies that the apparatus used under traditional customshould not give rise to the catching of commercial quantities of fish. Thirdly, it recognises that allQueenslanders have a responsibility to ensure that their fishing activities are not carried out in specificareas where fish are particularly vulnerable to human activity. Amending the act as outlined in the bill,which will apply statewide, is intended to minimise unregulated commercial exploitation of fisheriesresources by limiting traditional and customary fishing to personal, domestic and non-commercialcommunal use. This definition clearly excludes the commercial sale of fish.


There are a number of members of this House who have much more expertise in fishing than me.Just as an example, the member for Southport has great expertise in fishing. But it seems clear to methat catching fish for personal, domestic and non-commercial communal purposes does not warrant theuse of commercial apparatus and there are long-term resource sustainability implications in takingsubstantial amounts of fish using commercial fishing apparatus.

However, the government has also carefully considered ways of ensuring that Indigenous peoplecan continue to fish in a traditional or customary way. The member for Cook talked about that in hiscontribution to the debate. This bill allows for an Indigenous person to use recreational apparatusalready prescribed under the regulation when fishing under Aboriginal tradition or Islander custom.Further, I understand that the minister intends to move an amendment to establish a head of power toprescribe under the Fisheries Regulation 2008 traditional or customary fishing apparatus so thatIndigenous people can continue to use prescribed traditional apparatus that are not capable of catchingcommercial quantities of fish.

Ceremonial and cultural events may require a larger supply of fish. In these circumstances I amtold that individuals may apply for a general fisheries permit under fisheries legislation to use fishinggear of larger dimensions than would otherwise be permitted in accordance with section 14. I think, asother members of this House would also think, that that is a reasonable approach. I believe that it isimportant to recognise that Indigenous people will continue to have the same opportunities as otherQueenslanders to obtain a commercial fishing licence from the open market to undertake commercialfishing activities outside closed waters in accordance with fisheries legislation. The bill does not affectthe opportunity of Indigenous people to apply for Indigenous fishing permits, which builds the capacityfor Indigenous people’s involvement in commercial fishing enterprises. I support the bill as proposedand I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.

Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (3.23 pm): I rise this afternoon to contribute to this debate onthe Fisheries Amendment Bill which was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 3 June this year.I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House in a debate for the first time as a member ofthe Liberal National Party. No longer will members opposite be able to resort to wedge politics as anexcuse for their own government’s failings. Notably, this is also the first occasion that I rise to speak asshadow minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community development, and in doing so letme tell honourable members that I offer a strong commitment to this portfolio.

As is the case with this bill before us today, which can be described as an area of relativelyunchartered territory, I too am embarking on a new area with this portfolio and I aspire to embrace it withthe respect it so richly deserves. As members have already heard from my learned colleague, thehonourable member for Toowoomba South, the LNP will be supporting this bill. This bill as introduced bythe Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries comes as a response to breaches of native titleprovisions under the Fisheries Act, yet it ensures the protection of the inherent time-honoured customsof this state’s Indigenous people which, as we have heard from the honourable member for Cook justrecently, do change over a period of time.

Impacting chiefly on the Fisheries Act 1994, the objects of the bill are to be achieved inconjunction with the current government principles of ecologically sustainable development. Since theintroduction of this bill in June this year there has been targeted consultation undertaken to inform thegovernment of the views and attitudes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to these proposedlegislative changes. However, as the House would by this stage already be aware, the Scrutiny ofLegislation Committee has asked the minister to release details of the findings of those proposedconsultations. The committee appears to be of the view that consultation was not adequate. I ask theminister to further clarify this process.

The six chief objectives of the bill include, but are not limited to, firstly, the clarification thatIndigenous customary fishing activities are in accordance with section 14 of the Fisheries Act and willconfirm that traditional and customary fishing will exclusively be the province of personal, domestic andnon-commercial communal use. The second objective is that the amendment to the act will specify thattraditional and customary fishing can only be undertaken while using a recreational fishing apparatus asis to be defined under section 14 of the Fisheries Act and the prescribed legislation as to be legislated.The third objective is that waters as prescribed via regulation provide legislative assurance thatcustomary fishing does not take place in waters that are closed to all fishing activity, subject to adiscretion of the chief executive to issue a permit in these waters known as closed waters. There arenow 15 of these. The fourth objective of the bill aims to establish a mechanism by which the use of thewaters may be regulated. Arguably, whilst this mechanism already exists, it provides a clarification ofthat mechanism. The fifth objective of the bill removes a burdensome and vexatious requirement for ‘thecooperation of all Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in Queensland’ when developing regulationsregarding traditional fishing activity. This will be replaced in favour of the consultation requirementsmandated under the Statutory Instruments Act. The proviso concerning people affected by anyrestriction proposed under regulation would remain. The final point in these objectives was that section14 is construed unequivocally as a defence provision where section 14 pertains to the conservation ofecological and piscine systems and stocks.


Almost 15 years ago the Goss government enacted section 14 of the Fisheries Act with theexpress intention that it was to cement and found the privileges of our Indigenous people to fish in theiraccustomed manner. Since that time the power has been tested time and time again in both thejudicature and also this assembly. Contrary to the intent of this power, in 2006 in Stevenson v Yasso,which we have heard about already in this House today, a Queensland Court of Appeal decision upheldthe right of a traditional fisher to use commercial fishing nets under section 14 of the Fisheries Act.

We need only look as far as the recent occurrences on the Fitzroy River to ascertain that thelegislative rights of Indigenous fishermen have been exploited by a select view opportunists playinghavoc with the system, dispensing with traditional custom by using our rivers and estuaries for financialgain. Times have changed and fishing methods have altered and the fact is that Indigenous fishermendo not often use those traditional methods, but the custom of fishing is what is being protected in thisbill. There are 226 fishing closures of various shapes and sizes across a multitude of places inQueensland, each encompassing varying levels of restrictions. Of these, there are only 15 completelyclosed areas of fishing legislated and so consequently the encumbrance on traditional fishers isminimal.

The content of clause 4 gives rise to not ill-founded questions of constitutional validity in itsinconsistency with the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 and the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.Questions arise as to whether the bill can act concurrently with the Commonwealth acts. If it cannot—and this is not a matter over which it is fit for this Assembly to cast its eye—then we may indeed belegislating in vain. This point is a matter for the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee. However, it seems almost a certainty—and this, too, was the finding of the Scrutiny ofLegislation Committee—that the constitutional overlays as applied through section 109 of theCommonwealth Constitution may strike out this infringement on the native title rights of our Indigenous.

In essence, though, the core objectives of the bill are to further the recognition of rights in respectof fishing of Aborigines and Tories Strait Islanders, and to ensure ecologically sustainable development.Beyond shadows, smoke and mirrors, the crucial purpose of this legislation is to ensure the primacy ofour aquaculture. Depleting fish resources have manifested an urgent need for legislative protectionthrough the correction of this loophole in the system. However, of course this does not excuse poorconsultation if that is the case.

At present this protection is offered in clause 4 by attempting to extinguish doubt as to whattraditional fishing entails. In the repeal and rewriting of section 14, the stipulation is that Indigenousfishing be for exclusive, personal, domestic and non-commercial communal use, thus guarding againstthe use of this privilege as an avenue for commercial fishing and the commercial sale of fish. Theproposed closed waters addresses the escalating practice of some of the Indigenous people of fishing inareas of particular significance, such as those used as spawning grounds, the preservation of which areessential to the long-term sustainability of fish stocks.

In conjunction with the legislative changes, the government will negotiate an Indigenous land useagreement—an ILUA—with the local Darumbal people of Rockhampton. This will ensure they areactively involved in the decision-making process on traditional fishing in the region. As of theintroduction of the bill, the Darumbal people were the only group to have been consulted on the impactsof this legislation.

It must also be said that the effects of clause 4 of this bill and its exclusion of closed waters do notaffect in any respect the ability of Indigenous people to apply for a general fisheries permit to engage ina fishing activity that would otherwise be unlawful under the fisheries legislation. As has been the casein other applications, this may include an application for the purpose of ceremonial and cultural events.

Further avenues not affected include the ability of an Indigenous group to make an application fora commercial fishing licence to enable it to engage in trade and commerce within the fishing industryand the application for Indigenous fishing permits outside closed waters. Under the CommonwealthNative Title Act 1993, native title holders are entitled to compensation should the exercise or enjoymentof their native title be in any way affected. It remains to be seen whether this legislation will open up thegovernment to compensation claims. Herein lie the two major criticisms within this legislation which, Imight say, were raised in the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s latest Alert Digest. The first is thepotential of clause 4 being constitutionally invalid and the second is the fact that compensation claimsare forecast to result.

This government has attempted to legislate to strike a balance between two protections: theprotection of our fish stocks and the protection of the privileges of our Indigenous. Whilst it isunquestionable that fish stocks and other estuarine resources need the full protection this state can offerin order to maintain a sustainable future, on the other hand we have a need and an obligation to protectthe time-honoured traditions of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, whose culture is rapidlydwindling in our modern age. As a complication, we have the exploitation of this privilege for commercialgain and therein lies the purpose of this bill. I commend the bill to the House.


Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing andInformation and Communication Technology) (3.33 pm): I have listened to most of the debate on this bill,and I congratulate the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries on this legislation because it willsolve a huge problem in my local area. It need not have come to this but for a group of people who, onGood Friday this year, decided to string a net in the barrage of the river. The Morning Bulletin took aphoto and put it on the front page of the paper. It is no understatement to say that there was communityoutrage as a result. It was a totally unnecessary action that resulted in a large number of barramundibeing caught in a net in a no-go area on the barrage which amounted to a possible trespass. Thatmatter has been pursued by the Rockhampton Regional Council. It all dates back to the case ofMr Yasso, who was caught with a commercial net. He took the matter to court and the rest is history.

The people in my electorate who are involved in what is an unsustainable practice are a minorityof Indigenous people. The majority of Indigenous people who fish in the Fitzroy River do so in the sameway that everybody else does—with a hook and a lure or the usual apparatus to catch single fish. Weare talking about only a minority of people who have ruined it for everybody else. The legislation that wehave had to bring to this parliament today is as a result of people thumbing their noses at what I think isa great Aboriginal tradition, which is the notion of sustainability. Everything that I have ever read aboutAboriginal fishing tells me that they understood sustainability. However, there is certainly nothingsustainable about stringing a monofilament net across the Fitzroy River and catching everybarramundi—indeed, every fish—that one possibly can. An excuse is made that people need to do thisto feed their families. That is a load of rot. It is not the case at all. The fact of the matter is that thispractice is not sustainable. As far as I am concerned, it is not a traditional fishing practice but it has beenescalated by a minority of people for their own reasons.

I have a good relationship with the Darumbal people. I am pleased that there will be an ILUA to tryto determine where we go from here. The bottom line is that fishing with a monofilament net in theFitzroy River in areas that are set up to sustain a species cannot be accepted by any person in any partof the Queensland or Australian community. It is simply a fact of life that that is not going to be asustainable practice and, in my view, this parliament has every right to carry the legislation proposed bythe minister today.

I point out that over a period I have gone to some effort to try to talk with the elders in the FitzroyRiver area. Initially they told me that they did not condone this practice and that, as a result of theirrepresentations, we would see no more nets strung in the barrage area in the upper reaches of theFitzroy River. When Mr Cora decided that he was no longer to go down that path, there was a lot ofdisquiet amongst the Aboriginal elders. In the initial stages the Darumbal people, who are the native titleholders, were very cooperative. I understand that now they are not as pleased to cooperate, becausethey, too, will be affected by nets. In this day and age it is hard to envisage any circumstance whereby anet will be used, but the legislation does provide that a permit can be applied for for ceremonial reasons.For example, for a tombstone opening or whatever the case may be, an application can be made. Thedecision to grant or reject that application will be made on the same basis that it would be for any othersuch fishing permit.

With those few words, I applaud the minister for bringing this legislation to the House. On behalfof my constituents I say that we have made our best endeavours on this matter. It is legislation that99 per cent of my electors will be pleased about. It is legislation that gives us clarity about where wehead to from here. If people want to take it to another jurisdiction, that is up to them. However, theyshould know that to do so would fly in the face of the broader community and would do nothing toresolve the tension that has existed as a result of this matter.

Finally, there have been some suggestions that the fish that were taken were sold commercially. Ifthat is the case, the law already provides for that. The minister has told me that anybody withinformation can provide it to him directly, provide it to me and I will pass it on or provide it to the localfisheries officers. That has always been illegal and continues to be as a result of this bill. I commend thebill to the House.

Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (3.39 pm): At the outset I would like to congratulate the ministerfor this amendment. In supporting the bill, I indicate that I have had long discussions with the Darumbalpeople in relation to what people have done in our area. I believe that the amendments do support thetraditional and customary fishing within a sustainable fisheries resource management framework. Onething I would say to the member for Currumbin is that if she is going to have anything to do withAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy it might be worthwhile getting out and talking to some of thepeople to find out what their customary rights are.

I note the comment in the Alert Digest in relation to the case of Stevenson v Yasso that threejudgements provided differing views as to whether section 14 prohibited the possession of commercialfishing nets. It is pretty difficult to exercise customary rights and use a commercial fishing net. As Iunderstand it, the Darumbal people have no concept of commercial fishing—they never, ever practisedcommercial fishing. So I have always had a personal belief that the decision was not entirely correct, butnobody wanted to take it further in the court system.


There is no doubt that the bill will affect Queensland Aborigines who fish traditionally and TorresStrait Islanders who fish under custom outside the Torres Strait protected zone. The governmentrecognises the importance of Indigenous people being able to fish in accordance with their traditionsand customs. It is also acknowledged that traditional and customary fishing practices have evolved overtime and in some cases might be replaced with modern fishing methods. I note that the member forCook mentioned dinghies. We hear so many people say, ‘If Aboriginal and Islander peoples want toexercise traditional and customary fishing, they should go back to using bark nets.’ Evolution is a funnycreature. I suggest that if there were no evolution we would be standing here with candles and we wouldstill have four in hand and a cart; we would not be driving around in motorised vehicles. What we havehas also come from evolution.

From speaking to the traditional owners, I understand that there is some evidence thatcommercial apparatus is increasingly being used for the purpose of traditional fishing. I have only heardanecdotal comments, but the net strung across the barrage at the Fitzroy River was not traditionalfishing. I suppose we could use the word scuttlebutt in that the person who put the net across thebarrage was providing the fish to a commercial fisherman.

Mr Johnson: You wouldn’t have used nets at all, would you? Mr HOOLIHAN: I will take that interjection from the member for Gregory. I would not use a net to

catch fish. There are other ways of catching fish. The use of commercial apparatus is of concernbecause fishing for commercial purposes using commercial fishing apparatus is carefully regulated andmonitored through an authority system under fisheries legislation. This ensures that the commercialexploitation of fish is managed sustainably. In future should traditional fishers engage in commercialexploitation, as some of these people seem to have done, it could be a real threat to the future of fishstocks.

The proposed amendments help secure the future of sustainable fisheries by reducing the risk ofunlicensed commercial takes by traditional fishers. We have heard some comment about section 14being in conflict with the Constitution. Mention was made of section 109 of the Constitution, whichprovides for inconsistency and state laws to the extent of the inconsistency being invalid. I draw theattention of members to paragraph 18 on page 10 of the Alert Digest, which goes further and says—However, in some cases, a Federal law may demonstrate an intention not to cover the field, and may expressly allow forconcurrent State regulation. Generally, the relevant provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act and Native Title Act are of thisnature.

I suggest that these amendments are of that nature. They allow people who have or claim to havenative title rights to show as a defence to any prosecution that they are entitled to exercise those rights.The law in relation to what those rights are may still cover some grey areas, but the amendments ensurethat traditional and customary fishing for personal, domestic and non-commercial community use cancontinue. They limit the use of fishing apparatus to recreational fishing apparatus. In the case of Yasso,Yasso was found to have a 50-metre commercial net—hardly for personal, domestic or non-commercialuse but that was what the court found.

Recreational fishing apparatus is defined in fisheries legislation to ensure that commercialapparatus is not used when fishing under tradition or custom. I understand that the minister is alsoproposing an amendment to allow for certain traditional apparatus to be prescribed. The amendmentsalso recognise that vulnerable fish spawning areas should be protected from all forms of fishing. Themember for Toowoomba South mentioned a number of closed areas, particularly areas aroundbarrages. Because of the actions of this minority in the Fitzroy River and particularly the barrage whichcovers a large barramundi breeding area, the Fitzroy River Fish Stocking Association, which has beencontributing greatly to fish stocks in the Fitzroy River, has doubted the wisdom of paying to putfingerlings or reasonable sized fish into the tributaries of the Fitzroy because all they are going to do isend up in a commercial net. Hopefully this legislation will assist those people to continue their veryvaluable husbandry of fish stocks.

The bill lays down a head of power to ensure that traditional fishers do not fish in waters that arealready closed to recreational and commercial fishers. These areas are closed primarily to preventoverfishing where fish spawn or aggregate as juveniles. All Queenslanders have a responsibility toensure that their activities are not detrimental to the long-term sustainability of fish stocks.

I understand that other amendments to section 14 relate to more procedural matters for theregulation of traditional and customary fishing. Firstly, the bill clarifies the mechanism by whichtraditional fishing can be regulated. This will be done by way of regulation rather than a managementplan. I think it is instructive to question why a management plan has not been considered. But bothmechanisms are subordinate legislation and I believe that there will be no practical difference in theability of government to regulate traditional and customary fishing by using regulations only.

The second procedural matter relates to the type of consultation undertaken if traditional fishingbecomes the subject of further regulation. I know that the Darumbal people were consulted in relation tothis matter. Many other native title groups are also aware of their own procedures for traditional andcustomary fishing. I understand that consultation will still take place where the matter is dealt with byregulation rather than requiring a further amendment to the act.


The current requirement under section 14 to reach agreement through cooperation requires areasonable attempt to achieve a meeting of minds. In practical terms this is difficult to achieve throughnegotiation on a statewide basis in any timely way when taking into account the diversity of Indigenousgroups and their needs. However, appropriate consultation with people affected by any proposedrestriction on traditional or customary fishing by a regulation would continue to occur.

In that instance, I draw people’s attention to the support of the Darumbal approach. This is slightlyoff the topic of the bill, but I would ask the Deputy Speaker to bear with me. Members may not be awarethat the Darumbal people had two areas of land returned to them in 2007 because of their approach tonegotiation with the state government. They have shown themselves ready to negotiate in a whole lot ofareas where their own traditional rights could be continued.

I support this bill because it recognises that all fishing, whether traditional or not, should be donein a sustainable way, and it will ensure that future generations of Queenslanders can enjoy hopefullyabundant natural fisheries resources. At the same time the bill supports the needs of Indigenous peopleto retain traditional and customary fishing practices for satisfying personal, domestic and non-commercial communal purposes. I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (3.50 pm): I rise today to support the Fisheries AmendmentBill 2008. This bill amends section 14 of the Fisheries Act to address long-term fisheries sustainabilityissues while recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traditional and customary fishingpractices. Queensland has an Indigenous population of more than 100,000, and fishing continues to bea traditional activity for many of these people. Fishing is a connection for Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslanders to their traditional country. Continued traditional fishing activity may, however, impact on thelong-term sustainability of some fishing, especially instances where fishing equipment capable of takinglarge quantities of fish is used over an extended period.

I note that the taking of turtle and dugong is not covered in this bill. I know that others havementioned it, and I understand that it is covered by the Nature Conservation Act, but I have written to theminister for sustainability and climate change, the Hon. Andrew McNamara, to discuss the sustainabilityof catching dugong and turtle and the potential commercial sale of turtle shells.

Section 14 was enacted in 1994 with the intention of enabling Aborigines and Torres StraitIslanders to continue to fish in a traditional way. The amendment proposed by this bill is consistent withthis intention. However, it ensures that all fishing is done in a sustainable way. Essentially,the amendment seeks to prevent fishing with fishing apparatus that is commercial in nature. Thisclarifies that traditional fishing under the Fisheries Act can only be for personal, domestic and non-commercial communal use. Traditional fishing will therefore be able to be undertaken using onlyapparatus as prescribed under the regulation. This includes cast nets, scoop nets and beach seine nets,all of which have size restrictions; shell dredges; crabbing apparatus; and some hand-held spears andspear guns.

Apparatus that would enable a commercial-size catch of fish will not be allowed. It is not in theinterests of the Indigenous or wider population of Queensland to allow fishing with types of apparatusthat are capable of taking large quantities of fish, including juveniles. Such practices have the potentialto increase to unsustainable levels, which could threaten the viability of fish stocks in the future. Theproposed amendment, however, does not impact on the ability of Indigenous people to apply for apermit under the act to fish for special and infrequent purposes, such as a ceremonial event, in a waythat would otherwise be an offence under the Fisheries Act. The bill also extends the operation of 14closed waters to traditional fishing activity so that all fishing activity in these areas is prohibited. This hasbeen necessary in recognition of the vulnerability of these waters to overfishing.

It needs to be recognised that there is no overall intention by government to prevent or restrict theprospect of Indigenous commercial fishing activity. On the contrary, economic development throughfishing activity in remote areas can provide jobs and a range of community benefits. However,responsible commercial fishing requires the person to apply for a commercial fishing licence under theact. Commercial fishing is regulated and monitored through a permit system to ensure sustainability.Accordingly, the government continues to encourage Indigenous people to obtain a commercial fishinglicence from the open market to undertake commercial fishing activities under the legislation.

It should also be noted that, prior to seeking a commercial fishing licence, it is open forIndigenous persons to apply for an Indigenous fishing permit for fishing outside of the closed waters.These permits are an interim measure to encourage Indigenous involvement in commercial fishing andto assist business development. They are not a substitute for commercial fishing licences, but they doenable commercial arrangements to be brought in slowly and for Indigenous communities to conductsome internal trading and product distribution.

The government’s fisheries legislation therefore enables Indigenous people to have the sameopportunity as all Queenslanders to enter the commercial fishing market with a commercial fishinglicence. This is distinct from the legislative provisions regarding traditional fishing practices underconsideration today.


This amendment concerns traditional and customary fishing practices, and strikes a balancebetween the overarching objective of long-term sustainable management of Queensland’s fisheries andthe need to recognise the traditional fishing practices of Queensland’s Indigenous population. In doingso, it supports parliament’s ongoing intention to secure the advancement of Aboriginals and Torres StraitIslanders.

While this bill is proposed by the DPIF, its public consultation ran concurrently with the MoretonBay Marine Park review. I have spoken to and continue to speak to residents on both of these issues. Ihave sought outcomes to reflect the wishes expressed in submissions, but we all realise that noteveryone can get everything they want. Certainly all MPs with Moreton Bay in their electorates havebeen lobbying for changes, and I have copied some of their lobbying techniques and have been just asloud and just as determined, because I of course want my area to be considered first. I have been astrong advocate of relaxations of the one-line, one-hook rule and the extent to which the green zone ofTripcony Bight is proposed to be enlarged. I hope that the final plan will minimise the impact of thepeople who enjoy boating and fishing in Moreton Bay. With those few words, I support the bill. I welcomethe support of the opposition and I commend it to the House.

Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (3.56 pm): I also support the bill. The amendments proposed inthe bill are consistent with the overarching objective of the Fisheries Act 1994, which is to protect thelong-term sustainability of Queensland’s fisheries. The bill essentially provides certainty for traditionalfishing activities by Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. Traditional fishing can only be for personaland communal needs and cannot be of a commercial nature. To this end, the bill limits fishers toapparatus that does not permit a commercial-size catch of fish or the commercial sale of fish.

The amendment also introduces greater certainty by clarifying that section 14 of the act, whichenables Indigenous Queenslanders to fish in a traditional way, operates as a defence provision. Alldoubt is therefore removed as to what burden of proof applies in a prosecution under the act wheretraditional fishing practices are relied upon by the defendant.

The bill also enables the extension of the application of some of the closed waters alreadyprescribed under regulation to traditional fishing. These closed waters are vulnerable areas where allfishing activity is prohibited to prevent overfishing where fish spawn or aggregate as juveniles. The billproposes that traditional fishing activity will not be allowed in 14 of these closed waters and that this willbe done through a regulation.

The act currently provides for fisheries management plans to be established. However, there arepractical difficulties in getting a statewide agreement with Indigenous people to finalise such amanagement plan. A more practical way to regulate these matters is to put them in a regulation. This willensure consistency and certainty across the state. The bill therefore proposes to remove the referenceto management plans and replace it with a power to deal with these matters by regulation.

The bill also makes amendments to address a practical issue regarding consultation when aregulation change is proposed. The current legislation requires the department to obtain the agreementof all relevant parties before the change can proceed. This is impractical and the possibility of achievingstatewide agreement on a change is remote, particularly when considering the diverse Indigenousgroups across the state and their needs. However, it needs to be noted that this amendment does notmean that Indigenous groups will not be consulted on future changes that are proposed to occur underregulations. Appropriate consultation with people affected by any future proposed restriction willcontinue to occur. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (3.58 pm): I rise to make a brief contribution to the debate onthe Fisheries Amendment Bill 2008. The stated objective of the bill is to recognise the traditional andcustomary fishing rights of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders while balancing this with anecologically sustainable approach to the management of Queensland’s fisheries.

The bill provides for traditional fishing to be undertaken only for the purpose of personal, domesticand non-commercial communal use, specifies that traditional fishing can only be undertaken whilstusing a recreational fishing apparatus approved under the Fisheries Act and prohibits traditional fishingfrom taking place in waters that are closed to all fishing activities. I note also the amendments circulatedin the minister’s name this morning that will allow Indigenous Queenslanders to undertake traditionalfishing practices with traditional fishing apparatuses will be prescribed in the act.

The bill has come before the parliament as a result of a 2006 decision of the Queensland Court ofAppeal which upheld the right of a traditional fisher to use commercial fishing nets under section 14 ofthe Fisheries Act. The decision raised questions about the correct balance between the desire to protectAboriginal traditional and Torres Strait Islander customary fishing, how that fishing is undertaken byIndigenous Queenslanders and the need to promote ecologically sustainable use of fisheries resourcesacross Queensland.

The bill does not affect opportunities for Indigenous people to obtain a commercial fishing licenceto undertake commercial fishing activities in accordance with fisheries legislation, nor does it preventIndigenous people from applying for Indigenous fishing permits outside closed waters. While Indigenous


fishing permits are not a substitute for permanent commercial fishing licences they are used as aninterim measure to assist Indigenous involvement in commercial fishing and to assist the developmentof properly constructed economic and business development projects.

Traditional use of marine resources is the undertaking of activities as part of Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander custom or tradition for the purpose of satisfying personal, domestic or communal needs.The practice of traditional fishing describes both where fishing has traditionally been undertaken byIndigenous Queenslanders and the manner in which that fishing has been traditionally undertaken. Itdoes not and should not relate only to where the fishing was undertaken or the manner in which it wasundertaken.

While this legislation introduces amendments to make regulatory changes to avoid a situationwhere traditional fishing practices may impact negatively on the sustainable management ofQueensland fisheries, I would like today to canvass an example of where local, practical and voluntaryarrangements have already proven to be successful in establishing an environmentally friendly fisheriesmanagement framework in Queensland. In December 2005, traditional owners represented by theGirringun Aboriginal Corporation signed the first ever agreement in Australia for the management oftraditional hunting of protected marine species. The Traditional Use Marine Resources Agreement, orTUMRA, signed by the traditional owners in the Hinchinbrook area, was subsequently accredited by theGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Environmental Protection Agency and manages thetraditional take of turtles and dugongs by Indigenous fishers in the area.

Traditional use activities in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park are managed under the GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983. Theseacts provide for native title holders to undertake traditional use of marine resources in the Great BarrierReef Marine Park. TUMRAs are formal agreements developed by traditional owner groups, accreditedby the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Environmental Protection Agency, and describehow traditional owner groups intend to manage their take of marine species, particularly species such asturtle and dugong.

The Girringun TUMRA was the first to be accredited and represented the joint agreement by sixsea country tribal groups represented by the Girringun Aboriginal Corporation being the Djiru, Gulnay,Girramay, Bandjin, Warragamay and Nywaigi people. The TUMRA applies to sea country of thesetraditional owners between Balgal Beach and Mission Beach.

I am very proud of the fact that the traditional owners in my electorate of Hinchinbrookdemonstrated a very significant commitment to the sustainable use of marine resources in theirtraditional fishing groups. I am lucky to have a progressive, practical and professional organisation suchas the Girringun Aboriginal Corporation representing the interests of Indigenous Queenslanders in myelectorate and delivering the types of positive outcomes such as this TUMRA in the Hinchinbrookregion. I pay tribute to the leadership of the chairman, John Andy, the members of the board and thechief executive officer, Philip Rist, and his staff.

I canvass that issue to demonstrate that it is possible for Queensland fisheries to be managedsustainably on a regional basis by way of agreement of relevant local stakeholders, including localtraditional owners. Although today’s legislation will be supported by the opposition to see traditionalfishing undertaken in a sustainable fashion in Queensland, I encourage the minister to commit toworking with local stakeholders where possible to develop regionally based fisheries management plansto reflect the local views, needs and opportunities of commercial, recreational and Indigenous fishers asan alternative to statewide regulation.

Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (4.04 pm), inreply: The Bligh government is focused on securing the future of sustainable fisheries in Queensland.This bill proposes a crucial balance between the sustainable management of Queensland’s fisheriesand recognition of the traditional and customary fishing practices of Indigenous Queenslanders. Morethan 100,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders live in Queensland. Our state is home to Australia’ssecond largest Indigenous population. Fishing is a traditional and cultural activity for many Aboriginesand Torres Strait Islanders. In many coastal towns fishing connects Indigenous people to their traditionalcountry.

The government has moved to provide clarity following a Queensland Court of Appeal decision inStevenson v Yasso in 2006. QCA 40, known as the Yasso decision, raised questions about the wideinterpretation and application of section 14 of the act. In particular, the implication is that, under thecurrent wording of section 14, Indigenous Queenslanders may have no boundaries for fishing inQueensland waters in accordance with their tradition or custom. The Yasso decision also raiseduncertainty about the burden of proof in prosecution where section 14 is raised by a defendant. The billredrafts section 14 so that it is clear that parliament intended it to operate as a defence provision.

In short, the Bligh government is taking action to deliver greater clarity for Indigenous fishers aswell as greater certainty for fisheries enforcement. The amendment makes it clear that the prosecutionmust negate the defence beyond reasonable doubt. Any defendant must establish the defence on thebalance of probabilities.


For Indigenous fishers in Queensland, the defence is clarified in three important ways. Firstly, it ismade very clear that the type of fishing activity for which the defence is available is catching fish for non-commercial communal use. Secondly, it clarifies that the apparatus used under tradition or customshould not give rise to the catching of commercial quantities of fish. Thirdly, it recognises that allQueenslanders have a responsibility to ensure that their fishing activities are not carried out in specifiedareas where fish are particularly vulnerable to human activity.

The government needs to ensure that all fishing in Queensland is sustainable. This is vital so thatfuture generations of Queenslanders can enjoy abundant natural fishing resources. Fisheries arepublicly owned and the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries manages them on behalf of ourQueensland community. The Fisheries Act is founded on the principles of ecologically sustainabledevelopment to manage the state’s fishery resources for the benefit of all Queenslanders.

As we are well aware, section 14 of the Fisheries Act 1994 confers a legislative benefit onQueensland’s Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders by protecting their traditional and customary fishingpractices. This raises questions about the wide interpretation and application of section 14 of the act.The implication is that under the current wording of section 14 Indigenous Queenslanders may have noboundaries for fishing in Queensland waters in accordance with their tradition or custom. Thegovernment believes it has the responsibility to more clearly define the operation of section 14 to moreclosely align it with the object of fisheries legislation to promote ecological and sustainabledevelopment.

The Queensland government acknowledges that traditional and customary fishing practices haveevolved over time. The impact of fishing methods on the environment and fish stocks must beconsidered to ensure the long-term sustainability of the resource. There is no intention by thegovernment to take steps to legislate to prevent a native title defence. Legislating to prevent a native titledefence would be very controversial and potentially divisive. It would also break new ground in this areaof law and policy, potentially attracting legal challenge. Instead, an alternative approach to managing theexercise of any native title rights is now recommended through the development of Indigenous land useagreements—or ILUAs—for the Darumbal people in Rockhampton where concerns about fisheriesresources use is most evident.

The ILUA, combined with the proposed amendments that apply statewide, will provideboundaries for Indigenous fishing activities in accordance with the government’s overarching policyobjectives of ecologically sustainable fishing. The combination represents a significant step forward inresolving, either through negotiated compliance and/or prosecution, the fishing activities currently takingplace. The government has carefully considered ways of ensuring Indigenous people can continue tofish in traditional or customary ways. The bill allows for Indigenous persons to use recreationalapparatus already prescribed under the regulation when fishing under Aboriginal tradition or Islandercustom. Further, I will be moving an amendment so that a head of power will be established to prescribeunder the Fisheries Regulation 2008 certain traditional or customary fishing apparatus.

Within Indigenous communities across Queensland there is a diverse range of fishing practicesbecause of the variety of traditional and customary associations with fishing. Indigenous people cancontinue to use prescribed traditional fishing apparatus, which for many hold important cultural value. Ofcourse, it is expected that certain ceremonial and cultural events may require a larger supply of fish. Inthese circumstances individuals may apply for a general fisheries permit. In this way they will be able touse larger fishing devices that would otherwise be permitted in accordance with section 14.

The government continues to encourage Indigenous people to obtain a commercial fishinglicence from the open market to undertake commercial fishing activities under the legislation. It shouldalso be noted that, prior to seeking a commercial fishing licence, it is open for Indigenous people toapply for an Indigenous fishing permit for fishing outside of the closed waters. These permits are aninterim measure to encourage Indigenous involvement in commercial fishing and to assist businessdevelopment. They are not a substitute for commercial fishing licences, but they do enable commercialarrangements to be brought in slowly and for Indigenous communities to conduct some internal tradingand product distribution. The government’s fisheries legislation therefore enables Indigenous people tohave the same opportunities as all Queenslanders to enter the commercial fishing market with acommercial fishing licence. This is distinct from the legislative provisions regarding traditional fishingpractices under consideration today.

The bill also extends the operation of 14 closed waters to traditional fishing activity so that allfishing activity in these areas is prohibited. This recognises the vulnerability of these waters tooverfishing. The primary reason that fishing activity is prohibited in closed waters is to preventoverfishing. The closures protect fish during vulnerable stages of their life cycle, particularly closedwaters adjacent to barrages.

I note that the member for Toowoomba South mentioned South Mitchell as one of the prescribedclosed waters. In fact, for the continued long-term sustainability of fishery resources it is proposed toprevent traditional fishing in 14 of the 17 closed areas. The reason we are only applying that to 14 of the17 fully closed waters is that two areas—Mission Bay at Yarrabah and South Mitchell River at


Kowanyama—are significant waters for Aboriginal people under the Queensland government’sIndigenous partnership agreement. The third closed water, Hammond Island, is located in the TorresStrait, where customary fishing is managed under the Commonwealth’s legislation, the Torres StraitFisheries Act 1984. For these reasons, these waters remain open to Indigenous fishers.

I now want to refer specifically to the report tabled today by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committeewith regard to the bill concerning several fundamental legislative principles. I note both the member forToowoomba South and the member for Burnett have also raised the committee’s report in theiraddresses. With regard to the matter of validity vis-a-vis the Commonwealth Native Title Act and RacialDiscrimination Act, the committee has commented on the principle that a bill must have sufficient regardto the institution of parliament. In relation to whether the bill has sufficient regard to the institution ofparliament, the committee noted an element of doubt about the constitutional validity of clause 4.

In making its comments, the committee focused on the matter of validity vis-a-vis a consistencywith the Commonwealth Native Title Act and the Racial Discrimination Act. In response, it is consideredthat these amendments as worded are consistent with the Native Title Act in that section 24HA of thatact provides that a future act consisting of making amendments or repeal of legislation in relation to themanagement or regulation of living aquatic resources is valid. Further, the proposed amendmentsshould retain their status as a special measure within the meaning of section 8 of the RacialDiscrimination Act. This is because the provision continues to confer a benefit—that is, being the right,subject to a regulation, to engage in traditional fishing—on a class based on race. This is legislativelyconferred by parliament in order to secure the adequate advancement of the class.

The committee considers that it would be a breach of fundamental legislative principles forparliament to enact laws which are clearly constitutionally invalid. Such cases, however, are thoughtlikely by the committee to be comparatively rare. It should be noted that, in making its comments on thebill, the committee makes clear that there will be a much larger number of cases in which there mightsimply be an element of doubt about a bill, the term used with regard to clause 4. In the committee’sview, it would not generally be a fundamental legislative principle breach for parliament to enact bills ofthis type.

As members would rightly expect, the committee also canvasses the question of whether the billgenerally and clause 4 in particular have sufficient regard to Aboriginal tradition or Islander custom. Inresponse, I note that the proposed changes to section 14 of the act will allow certain tradition andcustom to continue while ensuring that important sustainability issues are addressed. Indigenous fisherswill be able to continue to traditionally fish apart from in closed waters. While restrictions are beingapplied to the type of fishing apparatus able to be used, there will be no restrictions placed on the typeor amount of fish that are caught. The restrictions are only intended to apply to apparatus that isconsidered capable of taking commercial quantities of fish. An Indigenous person still has theopportunity to apply for a permit to carry out cultural and ceremonial events that would otherwise beunlawful under the fisheries legislation.

With regard to removal of the requirement for cooperation in reaching agreement in developing aregulation, the bill is addressing a practical issue concerning consultation when a regulation isproposed. The current wording of section 14(3) requires agreement to be reached through cooperation.This requires a reasonable attempt to achieve a meeting of minds which, in practical terms, is unlikely tobe achieved through negotiation on a statewide basis when taking into account such diverse Indigenousgroups and their needs. However, it should be noted that the appropriate consultation with peopleaffected by any proposed restriction on traditional or customary fishing by regulation would continue tooccur.

With regard to native title and compensation, it is recognised by the common law of Australia andprotected under the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993. It is arguable that the amendment of section14 does affect native title by placing further regulation or restrictions on its exercise, but it does so in amanner that is wholly consistent with the Native Title Act. Section 24HA of the Native Title Act alsoprovides that native title holders are entitled to compensation from the state for any effect on theexercise or enjoyment of their native title in accordance with part 2, division 5 of the Native Title Act. Aclaim for compensation under that division must be made to the Federal Court, and it would benecessary for the person making the claim to prove that they are native title holders. There have not yetbeen any relevant decisions in relation to the payment of compensation for effects on native title sincethe Native Title Act was enacted in 1993.

As referred to by the member for Toowoomba South, the committee has also asked thatinformation be provided regarding consultation undertaken since the introduction of the bill and theviews and information provided by Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders. In this regard, aninformation paper outlining the proposed amendments was forwarded to 90 groups and individuals,including traditional owner groups, land councils and other relevant government bodies at state andnational levels in the week beginning 7 July 2008. I table the information paper that was sent out for theinformation of members. Tabled paper: Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Information paper titled ‘Sustainable fishing in Queensland—proposal to amend Section 14 of the Fisheries Act 1994’.


Feedback on the issue was sought from stakeholders via a response form included with theinformation paper. The closing date for feedback was 8 August 2008. Seven submissions werereceived. Two submissions supported the proposed amendments while the other five did not. Theconcerns expressed in the submissions that did not support the proposed amendments centred on theperceived potential for the diminution of traditional and customary fishing rights, particularly in relation tothe continued use of traditional apparatus and methods such as fish traps, waps—a traditional type ofharpoon—and traditional spears. However, in response to the feedback from stakeholders about theuse of certain traditional fishing methods and apparatus, I will move to amend the bill in theconsideration in detail stage to include a head of power for certain traditional fishing apparatus to beprescribed by regulation. This will enable traditional fishers to use certain non-commercial traditionalfishing apparatus and, as for recreational apparatus, this will form part of a defence against offencesunder the act. In this regard, once the bill has passed, the government intends to sit down withconcerned stakeholders to discuss these apparatus matters before considering if amendments shouldbe made to the Fisheries Regulation 2008, which is the relevant legislative instrument under whichthese matters are appropriately regulated.

The committee referred to parliament the question whether clause 4(4) of the bill allows thedelegation of legislative power in an appropriate case. As outlined in the explanatory notes to the bill, itis considered appropriate to delegate the power to prescribe regulated waters for the purpose of section14 rather than requiring parliament to exercise legislative power. Parliament will, by clause 4(2), specifythe principle regarding regulated waters within stated parameters in clause 4(4) and delegate the powerto prescribe the detail regarding that principle. Consideration at the highest executive level is consideredfitting, given that Indigenous fishing rights may be affected regarding such proposed prescribedregulated waters. Accordingly, the Governor in Council is considered to be an appropriate delegate forthe power to prescribe regulated waters for the purpose of section 14.

Finally, the committee notes that clause 4(2) of the bill may reverse the relevant onus of proof.The bill redrafts section 14 of the act so that it is clear that it is intended by parliament to operate as adefence provision. As with all defences, it is incumbent upon the defendant to establish the defence onthe balance of probabilities before the prosecution must negate the defence beyond reasonable doubt.The amendment is proposed to remove any doubt that may have been raised by the Stevenson v Yassodecision as to the requisite burdens of proof in a prosecution where section 14 is raised by thedefendant. Two of the three Court of Appeal judges in the Yasso decision believed that the defendantbore the onus of proving all the elements of section 14 on the balance of probabilities. Accordingly, it isbelieved that the amendments to section 14 do not reverse the onus of proof.

However, if the view of the remaining Court of Appeal judge is correct—that it was sufficient forthe defendant to raise only some evidence of the pertinent matters in section 14—then the existingburdens of proof will be altered by the proposed amendment. In this regard, it is considered thatthe amendment is justified on the basis that it is normal practice for a defendant, in raising a defence, tobe required to do more than simply raise some evidence of the pertinent matters and to establish thedefence on the balance of probabilities.

I note the member for Toowoomba South raised the issue of negotiations with the Great BarrierReef Marine Park Authority. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority was consulted on theproposed amendments. It is yet to provide the government with a formal response. The amendments donot affect the GBRMPA’s system of accrediting the traditional use of marine resource agreements thatare developed by traditional owners. A TUMRA is developed by traditional owners and is used tomanage traditional use activities, such as dugong and turtle hunting in specified areas of the marinepark, as the member for Hinchinbrook outlined. Some TUMRAs include the type of apparatus that maybe used to hunt dugong and turtle and often this is a large fishing net. The amendments outlined in theFisheries Amendment Bill 2008 will prevent the use of commercial fishing apparatus for traditionalfishing activity, but will not have any effect on the use of large nets for hunting dugong and turtle.

The member for Burnett mentioned the management of dugong in the Torres Strait.These amendments do not affect the hunting of dugong under Aboriginal tradition and Islander customin the Torres Strait protected zone. Dugong taken by Islanders is managed by the Torres Strait RegionalAuthority within the Torres Strait protected zone. I am advised that the management plans developed fordugong in the Torres Strait protected zone are not statutory plans but rather educational codes ofpractices that are monitored by the local communities.

This bill adds to the Bligh government’s strong record on sustainable fisheries management. Itprovides clarity for Indigenous fishers and clearly addresses the matters that flow from the 2006Queensland Court of Appeal decision. I would like to thank all members who have contributed to thisdebate and I recommend the bill to the House. I would also like to table the explanatory notes tothe amendments to be moved during the consideration in detail of the bill.Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Mr Mulherin’s amendments to the Fisheries Amendment Bill.

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—(Amendment of s 14 (Aborigines’ and Torres Strait Islanders’ rights to take fisheries

resources etc.))—Mr MULHERIN (4.27 pm): I move the following amendments—

1 Clause 4 (Amendment of s 14 (Aborigines’ and Torres Strait Islanders’ rights to take fisheries resources etc.))At page 5, lines 8 and 13, ‘recreational’—omit, insert—‘prescribed’.

2 Clause 4 (Amendment of s 14 (Aborigines’ and Torres Strait Islanders’ rights to take fisheries resources etc.))At page 5, before line 22—insert—‘prescribed fishing apparatus means—(a) fishing apparatus that is recreational fishing apparatus under a regulation under this Act; or(b) fishing apparatus that is used under Aboriginal tradition or Island custom, and prescribed specifically

under a regulation for the purpose of this section.’.3 Clause 4 (Amendment of s 14 (Aborigines’ and Torres Strait Islanders’ rights to take fisheries resources etc.))

At page 5, line 28, ‘prohibited.’—omit, insert—‘prohibited.’.’.

4 Clause 4 (Amendment of s 14 (Aborigines’ and Torres Strait Islanders’ rights to take fisheries resources etc.))At page 6, lines 1 to 3—omit.

These amendments are made in response to concerns raised by traditional fishers as to how thebill, as introduced into parliament, would impact on their ability to use traditional fishing apparatus thatare not currently prescribed under the Fisheries Regulation. Therefore, I am moving amendments to thebill to include a head of power for traditional fishing apparatus to be prescribed specifically in regulation.These amendments will enable traditional fishers to use non-commercial traditional fishing apparatusand such use can be used as a defence under section 14 of the act against offences under the act. It isintended to specifically prescribe traditional fishing apparatus to be aligned with recreational fishingapparatus as a valid means of non-commercial fishing for traditional fishers.

Mr HORAN: I have had a look through these amendments and they are all pretty self-explanatory. In terms of the prescribed fishing apparatus, is that as set out in appendix A of the bookthat the minister had for consultation to which he referred?

Mr Mulherin: Yes, it is. Mr HORAN: It lists scoop nets and all the other various apparatus. So that is basically what an

Indigenous fisher is limited to? Those pieces of equipment? Mr MULHERIN: That is correct. The amendment will give a head of power in the act to enable

other traditional fishing apparatus to be prescribed in regulation—for example, fish traps—so that we arenot contravening the cultural heritage act. We do not want a situation where we are encouraging peoplein those remote and Indigenous communities to go out and exercise their traditional and customaryrights and for them to then be fined by Fisheries. It is about correcting that anomaly.

Mr HORAN: As it stands at the moment, the only pieces of equipment that they could use are theones that are in what is called the regulated recreational fishing apparatus under appendix A, but inorder for them to use a fish trap or something like that you, as minister, would have to put a regulationinto the parliament. I presume it would come through a local management plan. They would say, ‘In thisparticular creek or river we do not want to use a fishing rod. We want to use a trap,’ and that would haveto be actually prescribed in the regulation. It could be difficult for some people. They could easily getfined if that is the traditional way they do things. They are just going to have to talk their way out of it onthe spot.

Mr MULHERIN: That is why before we prescribe it in regulation we will sit down with thosecommunities and identify the types of traditional apparatus that they use to exercise their customarypractices. That is why we have provided this head of power in the act.

Amendments agreed to.Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

2266 Summary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill 26 Aug 2008

Third ReadingHon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (4.31 pm): I

move—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time.

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

Long TitleHon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (4.31 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.

SUMMARY OFFENCES (GRAFFITI REMOVAL POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second ReadingResumed from 15 May (see p. 1723), on motion of Ms Spence—


Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (4.33 pm): In rising to speak to the Summary Offences (GraffitiRemoval Powers) Amendment Bill 2008 I state from the outset that whilst the opposition members havenot been in a position to have a briefing on this piece of legislation due to the winter break we will besupporting it in its entirety.

Ms Spence: Hear, hear!Mr JOHNSON: While the minister applauds our support, I think some of the penalties could be a

bit harsher. The opposition has a private member’s bill on the Notice Paper in relation to the removal ofgraffiti from private and public property. I attended a function today at which we were talking aboutyoung people and chaplains in schools. One of the issues that arose was of young people findingthemselves with nothing to do and getting themselves into trouble. There is no doubt that this is one ofthe ways people do get themselves into trouble—purposefully defacing other people’s property withoutany thought for whose property it may be. I do not think it would worry some of these kids if it was theirgrandmother’s place; they would still do it. I applaud the minister for this legislation, but I wish we couldimpose some penalty that would make these little hooers take a bit more responsibility for their actions.I note that in her second reading speech the minister said—The number of reported graffiti offences from 1 July 2006 to 31 December 2006 was 9,202 with a clear-up rate of 35 per cent.After the introduction of legislation restricting the sale of spray paint cans to minors, this number reduced to 5,546 reported graffitioffences and a clear-up rate of 44 per cent was achieved for the same period in 2007.

This is a problem right across the state, regardless of where we live. I remember that when I wasminister for transport and main roads the disfigurement and defacing of rolling stock was a real slur onQueensland Rail. The cost of graffiti then, for railway property alone, was between $4 million and$6 million per annum. That money is taxpayers’ money. If people want to go out and blatantly defacepeople’s property, whether it is public or private property, I believe that penalties must be adjusted tomake certain there is no continuation of this behaviour. Some countries in the world do not condone thisbehaviour at all. Then again, I would not like to live in some of those countries and I do not think some ofthese people in question would like to live there, either.

As I said, today I attended a luncheon for chaplaincy in schools. Afterwards, I thought to myselfthat maybe we have to get some of these basic understandings of life back into our schools so that wecan teach young people that this sort of business is not on. I remember when I was a child my fatheralways told me, ‘Son, you must be held accountable for your actions.’ That does not seem to applytoday.

I think graffiti is one of the worst things in our communities. Many members here represent lovelyurban streets in Brisbane, on the Gold Coast or in other parts of Queensland. Seeing graffiti on a niceconcrete wall or on the side of a house makes me feel sorry for the owners. The culprit has to be mademore accountable. We have to look at how we can get the culprits to work with those who removegraffiti. Maybe in time we can paint buildings with paint that cannot take graffiti. I know there are certaintypes of paint and cement on the market now that do not take it but it is very expensive. This is all a partof trying to beautify our towns and communities, and we should not have to cop this sort of behaviour.

26 Aug 2008 Summary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill 2267

I was going to move amendments to this legislation, but there is a private member’s bill on theNotice Paper and it would be improper to move amendments that apply to legislation that may bedebated tomorrow evening. There is no doubt in the world that the government wants to get thislegislation through before our private member’s bill is debated in this House. The real issue is that someaspects of the opposition’s private member’s bill, if they worked in parallel with some of the material inthe Summary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill, would form part of a good piece oflegislation. Our legislation was an amendment bill which would require graffiti offenders, as part of theirpunishment, to undertake a period of community service cleaning up graffiti. I think that would be one ofthe real deterrents.

I say in my capacity as shadow minister for police and corrective services—and no doubt theminister would have concerns about this, too—that there are far too many people in Queensland prisonstoday who are there for very minor issues. Many of these minor issues could be dealt with by way ofcommunity service, which would free up our prison system. It would make these people aware of theiractions, make them aware that violating and disfiguring people’s property will not be condoned anymoreand make them feel heels in their own community, embarrassed in their own community, and to go outand do something about it.

Those kids are an embarrassment to their mums and dads, they are an embarrassment to theschools they go to and they are an embarrassment to the communities that they live in. At the end of theday, I believe that in this case a penalty that acts as a deterrent is better than incarceration.Incarceration has to be used for some crimes, but many times kids get into the prison system and learnsomething a bit heavier which they practice when they are released. Before we know where we are, wehave a lifestyle criminal trying to make his or her mark in society through a life of crime.

This is a very difficult part of the portfolio of the minister for police and corrective services. A greatdeterrent is provided through the installation of cameras at railway stations, in malls and in many otherparts of our cities and larger communities as they detect this crime. A few years ago in Longreach acouple of young kids smashed the windows of the Australian Stockman’s Hall of Fame and OutbackHeritage Centre. Those kids would have been idle, but our communities do not need that sort of thing.The mums and dads are hurt. The kids might get hurt, too, but the mums and dads really get hurt. Youcannot always blame the parents. If you trust your kids to do the right thing at home, you would think thatthey would do the right thing when they go out, but kids do urge each other on. This legislation has toensure that they are held accountable and the minister has to ensure that, if the legislation is not toughenough, we can toughen it up.

As the minister said, graffiti offences nearly always involve considerable damage being done tothe property of innocent people. While specialist people will clean up the graffiti, there will still be a costto or an impost on the taxpayer of the state. Regardless of who the people are who will tidy up this blighton our communities, graffiti will still occur and there will always be a cost involved in cleaning it up. Inaddition, the people who have to remove the graffiti could be more productively engaged doingsomething else.

In the Summary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill explanatory notes on page5, the fifth paragraph states—The graffiti removal officer may only use minimal force to access the public graffiti, and is not authorised to cause any damage tothe public in gaining entry.

In her summing-up could the minister please inform the House of what is meant by ‘may only useminimal force to access the public graffiti’? If that graffiti is on a person’s private property, which in a lotof cases it is, and the officer has to come into a yard or whatever, I wonder what that force may mean. Itconcerns the opposition that we may not have understood something there and I would like the ministerto elaborate on that.

The legislation grants powers to remove graffiti from publicly accessible places, places that arereadily accessible from a public place and residential private premises. Unfortunately, in Brisbane andright across the state we see graffiti in places where it is hard to imagine how they gain access, such asthe noise barriers on the road to the coast. The kids seem to reach extreme heights to deface publicproperty. That must be at great risk to themselves. Whilst we do not want to see kids cause themselvesgrief, at the end of the day they are certainly causing grief to a lot of other people.

As the minister said in her second reading speech, it must be stressed that these powers do notallow graffiti removal officers to enter a yard, dwelling or residence to remove graffiti without the owner’sexpress consent. We understand that, but the opposition believes that some of the people who defaceproperty with graffiti should be made to help the officers clean it up, and that that should be made a partof the penalty. I do not know how far the justice system will go. The wilful destruction of people’sproperty is of real concern across Queensland. When it comes to youths who will not curb theirmisbehaviour and the daring attitudes that enable them to violate private property or damagesomebody’s property, there may be only one place for them—a youth detention centre. Perhaps thenthey would learn that it is better to be at home than in one of those places.


The opposition supports any moves by the minister to make this legislation as strong as possible.It needs to be strong and it needs to have deterrents built into it. I think the best deterrent is a biggerpolice presence in our communities. Our police need to be seen to be effective in controlling these kids,whoever they may be—both girls and boys—and ensuring that they are at home at a decent hour ratherthan cowering around corners, defacing public property.

Time is precious and a lot of people want to speak to this legislation. In closing, I say to theminister that if this legislation proves not to be tough enough, I hope we will see it returned to the Houseto ensure that powers are put in place to further strengthen it and to give the law a stronger arm, therebydeterring the young people in question.

Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (4.47 pm): I rise to support the Summary Offences(Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill and to speak about the great achievements of the antigraffitigroup over the past nine years in the electorate of Mount Ommaney. After a year in the job as the statemember of parliament, I had a visit from local resident Anthony Lanza who was armed with a plan toclean up and deter graffiti vandals in the western suburbs. His strategy of cleaning off graffiti as soon asit appeared made a lot of sense to me and there was a lot of graffiti around the suburbs at the time.

We had several meetings and set up the Anti-Graffiti Group Incorporated and, with the smallamount of financial assistance I gave them to pay incorporation fees, the work against graffiti began.Local residents, the local Neighbourhood Watch group and the Jindalee Rotary Club climbed on boardto assist Ann and Anthony Lanza with their massive task. On Sunday mornings Anthony would take hissmall antigraffiti army out to paint over the previous night’s latest hits. During the intervening periodsAnthony would mostly go out alone and sometimes witness vandalism as it happened, reporting it onthe spot to local police.

Ann Lanza coordinated the group, arranged meetings, contacted the authorities, wrotesubmissions and got the community involved. The group was successful in obtaining a grant from theGaming Machine Community Benefit Fund and was able to purchase a heavy-duty pump and trailer.Jindalee Rotary and I partnered to obtain a vehicle for the group. Donations of paint were forthcomingthrough my office and, with the help of the community, the area was transformed. The Centenarysuburbs and the Centenary Highway became completely graffiti free, so Anthony expanded his area ofoperation further towards Brisbane city. At one time the group asked me to table a petition of 866petitioners requesting changes to laws dealing with graffiti vandals and were always makingsuggestions about how those perpetrators could be deterred.

Unfortunately, the Lanzas have moved to one of Queensland’s rural areas, hopefully for somemuch-deserved rest and recreation in their retirement. The Rotary Club of Jindalee has made acommitment to continue their good work in fighting graffiti in the area, and I commend them for theirgreat efforts.

Graffiti still remains a chronic problem across the built-up areas, particularly along the railwaylines, and will continue to be if we sit on our hands. It cannot be ignored because it is there whereveryou look—on Energex boxes, on people’s paling fences, on shop buildings, on noise barriers, onpedestrian tunnels, everywhere that is an alluring canvass for graffiti vandals. The tags devalue suburbsand properties, so much so that it is like having a street full of litter and garbage waste. It detracts fromthe amenity of the area and is expensive to clean up.

Mural art walls were commissioned and sponsored by the Department of Main Roads, the theorybeing that real art will detract vandals from the area. This has proven so true that graffiti vandals areunlikely to deface the work of a fellow vandal. The Lanzas made several submissions to me about waysto stop the problem. Banning spray cans was just one of them. I am happy to say that the governmenthas introduced legislation as a result of this.

Graffiti is a community problem whether we like it or not. There are not many resources at eitherstate or local government level to eliminate the problem. The pressure must come from the communitybase, but it is important that the government looks at the issue with an open mind and provides all thehelp it can muster. I commend the minister for police for introducing the Summary Offences (GraffitiRemoval Powers) Amendment Bill, which will allow authorities to remove graffiti that is in a public placeor readily visible from a public place.

After working with and supporting my local group for over nine years, I recognise how important itis to remove the barriers which prevent us from dealing effectively with graffiti. Authorities have raisedconcerns about their inability to contact property owners of premises to obtain consent for entry.Therefore, the minister has extended the graffiti removal powers to any graffiti that is readily accessiblefrom a public place including graffiti at non-residential private premises. I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (4.51 pm): I rise to support the Summary Offences (GraffitiRemoval Powers) Amendment Bill 2008. I note the dictionary definition of graffiti being used. Graffiti isdetermined as being a mark on a person’s property that any reasonable owner would find unwelcomehaving regard to the nature of the marking or the damage or destruction it caused. I think that is adefinition that will find resonance within the community.


This bill empowers officers of local councils and QR to enter premises where contact with theowners is difficult to allow the graffiti to be removed. I remember being on a graffiti task force with themember for Kurwongbah. One of the issues that was determined at the end of that investigation wasthat the faster the graffiti is removed the less opportunity for taggers to be recognised and to get a thrillfrom having their tagging remain in the public space for any period of time.

I do acknowledge that there has been a reduction in the amount of graffiti in some areas with thesale of spray cans being banned to 17-year-olds and under. At the time that that legislation wasintroduced I supported it but made mention of the fact that, with the banning of the sale of spray cans toa small percentage of young people who might misuse paint, a lot of responsible young people will nowhave to go through a more convoluted process to get paint for legitimate reasons. That is one of thethings we have to balance in this chamber. We introduce laws often for a minority of persons and it canat times have a detrimental effect on the majority of very responsible and law-abiding citizens, whetherthey are young people or older people.

The statistics that the minister presents in relation to this piece of legislation indicate that theincidence of graffiti has almost halved from July 2006 to December 2006 when the number of reportedincidents was 9,202, with a clear-up rate of 35 per cent. Since the introduction of the legislation banningthe supply of spray cans to people under the age of 17, the number of notified incidents of graffiti hasreduced to 5,546, with a 44 per cent clear-up rate. That is a significant improvement.

I think there also needs to be a differentiation given to street art—legitimate art that is carried outin public art spaces. I just want to put on the record my appreciation for the skills and talents of peoplewho legitimately improve open spaces that can be targets for graffiti because street art takes its place. InBrisbane the street art I see the most is on the noise attenuation barriers on the way to the airport. I amalways in awe of the skills and the talent of the artists. There are a number of noise attenuation barriersin the greater Brisbane area that have been treated similarly.

Mr Lawlor interjected.Mrs CUNNINGHAM: We have very talented people in Gladstone. I know that one of the most

popular areas for graffiti was given over to a couple of schools to paint. It was a pedestrian underpass.Groups from various schools got together—it is a number of years ago now—and painted panels on theunderpass. It only attracted tagging after that piece of art got some age on it and perhaps was not quiteas vibrant as it was when it was first done.

The minister’s second reading speech also mentions the attractiveness to vandals of dilapidatedbuildings in isolated areas. That will remain a challenge for local governments in Brisbane and in ruraland regional areas and also for police because those areas do attract people who are bored and at aloose end. As my mum used to say, idle hands are mischievous hands.

I commend the bill to the House. I have no problem supporting the legislation. I would expect thatthose officers so empowered will act responsibly in entering people’s premises to remove the graffiti.Again, I would like to put on the public record that we have a huge number of responsible and law-abiding young people who do the right thing, who act appropriately according to the law. I would hopethat, in spite of the fact that legislation has to be brought to this parliament to deal with the actions ofperhaps five or 10 per cent of young people across this state, the vast majority of our young people arewonderful examples of youth. They are young people whom I certainly have no problems in handing ourfuture to. I commend them and their very positive efforts to this House.

Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (4.57 pm): As a member of the graffiti task force, it is pleasing tosee this amendment come before the House today. Within Logan City, the volunteers in our communitywho, for many years worked with our council to keep our city attractive and free of the scourge of graffiti,all need to be congratulated for the impact that they have had in reducing crime and in helping ourcommunity members feel safe and secure.

My own electorate of Woodridge looks clean and graffiti is not prominent. However, it could simplybe through the vigilance of our graffiti-busting teams. I remember having a conversation with themember for Kurwongbah when she was heading up the review on graffiti. We discovered that we had amirror image amongst our volunteers. I had Eric, who was married to June and who was always out onthe job, clearing away graffiti, cleaning up local parks, running his Neighbourhood Watch Group andholding a host of other voluntary positions. Linda Lavarch had Beric, who was married to Joan and whowas similarly a pillar in his community. What heroes they are, along with their teams of volunteers. Butthere has always been the vexed issue of places that are out of bounds to volunteers, such as the railcorridor, private property, industrial sites and deserted properties.

Mrs Lavarch: And Energex poles. Mrs SCOTT: And Energex poles, indeed. This legislation will redress those difficulties, thus giving

council officers and Queensland Rail officers consent to enter properties to remove publicly visiblegraffiti.


We have many beautiful murals on noise barriers, fences, large expanses of concrete on thesides of buildings and on our Energex poles. They are created by many talented artists such as JuneHintz and her team from Phantast, along with many of our Aboriginal artists such as Uncle Reg Knoxand his daughter Missie, who have done so much work in the schools in the area. I must also commendmany of our school students who have been very active, with some wonderful depictions of art aroundthe city. These are very special works of art, and they often depict certain aspects of community life thatare unique to the area. In contrast to these works of art, we have the ugly, repetitive tags, subversivemessages and ugly images that graffiti vandals often like to plaster over our buildings. Their actionsdeserve condemnation and harsh punishment.

The previous amendment, making it illegal to sell spray cans of paint to minors, has been quitesuccessful. Many retailers now keep spray cans under lock and key, making them inaccessible toyoungsters. I am pleased to support this bill before the House because it will allow a further assault onwhat is an ugly blight on our society. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr DICKSON (Kawana—Lib) (5.00 pm): I rise to speak to the Summary Offences (GraffitiRemoval Powers) Amendment Bill 2008. I think no-one in this chamber would disagree when I say thatgraffiti is one of those nasty elements in society which we are probably all faced with in difficult areas.On the Sunshine Coast, particularly along the Sunshine Motorway, we have kilometres of it. I rememberon numerous occasions sending letters to Main Roads. They do not get enough funding to get rid of thisgraffiti, and I continue to get letters from constituents about what is going to be done about it. This graffitihas been there for years. A lot of local residents in the area want to set up an antigraffiti group and startpainting over it themselves, but it comes down to their legal rights to be in a position to be able to dothat. I call upon the government to give these people the right to get out there and maybe cover themwith insurance, because that is going to be another issue that they are going to face. We have residentswho want to help the government and help legal authorities, but legally they do not have the right to helpremove this graffiti.

Alternatively, I think Main Roads should be given adequate funding in their budget each year forthe removal of graffiti. Maybe they have it there; maybe they do not. I am regularly told that they do nothave the funding to remove this graffiti. It is ugly, it is unsightly and it is a blemish on society because welet people get away with it. In the United States Mayor Giuliani did a fabulous job of putting in place apolicy where graffiti would be removed immediately. That stamped out the little tags that they would puton the walls. They get a benefit from it by expressing that to the rest of society. Their mates see it,people talk about it and that makes them big people in the community—or they think it does.

I endorse the government in pushing this issue. I know that our side of politics is doing exactly thesame thing. I think we are all united on this. It is just a matter of what outcome we derive for the benefitof the people of Queensland. We want to stop this occurring. Written into this document that I have readhere is that the government wants local government authorities to have a graffiti removal officer. Iwonder where the money will come from to pay for that officer. Is the state government going to fundthat? I have not seen that in the documentation. If the state government is going to do another cost shiftto local government, it will just be another piece of cutlery in their back.

People may think the amalgamation is great, but it has cost a lot of money, particularly on theSunshine Coast. The installation of their computer programs alone is costing $15 million. They have lostrevenue due to the government taking over their water assets, and so they need assistance. Thegovernment cannot cost shift something else onto local government because they cannot afford it. Thatwill get passed onto ratepayers again. Ratepayers in this society at this point in time are buckling. Theycannot afford to eat, they cannot afford to buy fuel, and this is going to be just another cost shift.

I ask the government to think about it clearly. If it is going to make local government take this onas another cost shift, give them the money. Pay for the officer. What does it cost to employ a person? Isit $45,000 or $70,000? I do not know how much this particular officer will be paid each year. Will there beone officer or half a dozen on the Sunshine Coast? I have no idea. I would like to understand moreabout the document which the government has released. I think a bit more thought should have goneinto it. I am supportive of it in principle, but I do not think there are enough bones to it and I do not thinkthere is enough certainty.

The state government needs to let local government know what is going on. There is aconvention in Cairns not too far down the track. It might be a good idea if the minister had a talk to thelocal government authority up there and asked what they think about it. This bill will probably be passedthrough the parliament. The government has the numbers to make it happen. But why not deliver apolicy that is workable for everybody? These things are great ideas but there is a cost attached, and Ithink the government needs to pick up the tab. Do not flick it onto the local government authority again.I think I have covered most of the issues. I think most members have spoken to the bill reasonably well.In principle, I support it but the cost should not be flicked onto local government.


Mr GRAY (Gaven—ALP) (5.04 pm): I, like many others in this House, rise to make a shortcontribution to the bill. The social and criminal concerns raised by graffiti and tagging are ones thattouch the lives of all Queenslanders. Those of us who take pride in our homes, suburbs, schools, publicbuildings and infrastructure are offended by those who express their warped sense of self by drawing orspraying their offensive rubbish on our fences, homes, buildings and public transport.

Quick removal of tags and graffiti is our greatest defence against this insidious criminal activity.This government is now on the front foot in its legal framework to counter the activities of thosecriminals. I have heard those sentiments expressed here today and supported. This amendment to theSummary Offences Act adds to the raft of legislation already in place to strengthen the hand of thoseagencies in our communities which are charged with the removal of graffiti.

We need to be reminded that the objectives of the amendments are to clarify those provisionsunder section 45 that allow the minister to delegate the minister’s functions to chief executive officers ofa government owned corporation and to clarify that the chief executive officer of the government ownedcorporation can delegate those functions to another officer in the government owned corporation or asubsidiary of such a corporation. These amendments amend the section 45 titled ‘Delegation byMinister’ of the Summary Offences Act.

Graffiti removal officers will have increased powers. We know about the legislative base inrespect of dealing with graffiti. People have spoken about the government’s intent in regard to removingspray cans from sale for those 17 years and under. What a good result that has been. Graffiti removalofficers will have greater powers to enter private land associated with a graffiti offence to make contactwith the owner or give a graffiti removal notice to the owner. The act allows the owner of the property toretain the right to object to the removal of the graffiti. Why somebody would want to do that I do notknow, and I do not think it will be a major issue. If no objection is registered, then officers can remove theoffending publicly visible graffiti. That is graffiti that may be on the front wall of a building which is verynoticeable to the public, but it may not be graffiti on a back wall of a building which is not. This will resultin faster removal of the offending graffiti, and strategic safeguards will apply. These amendments addfurther to the strong legislative base that this government has put in place to eradicate this insidiouscrime from our community, and I support the bill.

Mr ELMES (Noosa—Lib) (5.08 pm): I rise to speak to the Summary Offences (Graffiti RemovalPowers) Amendment Bill 2008. As we all know, and as everyone has so far spoken about during thedebate tonight, graffiti is one of those things we cannot get away from. It is there wherever we go.Although the opposition is supporting the bill, one of the things that concerns me is that I for one believewe are not doing enough in this bill to bring the perpetrators, particularly the ones out there with the tagsand so forth, to a greater degree of justice than what is currently the case.

One of the things that seems to happen is that as soon as graffiti appears on a wall, on a block ofunits or whatever it happens to be in an area it is like a cancer, it attracts more and more graffiti. The selfworth that the people who live in the area have goes down. As time goes on, the property values of theplace where this is happening go down. The quicker we as a society remove the graffiti from the wall,the post or the building the better off we are. That is certainly the case for the people who live in thatparticular area. If we can catch the perpetrators and provide a penalty for their actions the better offsociety will be.

Research done as far back as 1987 shows that if we are going to get on top of this problem weneed to remove graffiti within 48 to 72 hours of it being put on the wall, the building or whatever. One ofthe things that concerns me about this bill is that the graffiti removal officers, as they will be called, willhave to wait 14 days before they can get onto private property to remove the graffiti. I know that is onlyone aspect of the bill but waiting for 14 days to get onto private property to remove graffiti is, in myopinion, only going to serve as a bit of a welcome mat for these vandals who like to get around and puttags on buildings, posts and so forth.

One of the things that occurred to me as I was going through the legislation is that we will havestate employees and subcontractors deputised as graffiti removal officers. The bill provides for stategraffiti removal officers. In a separate section it provides for local government graffiti removal officers.Nowhere in the bill does it say how many graffiti removal officers there are going to be. It does not saywhether the state is going to employ a certain number or, as I suspect will probably happen, whetherthere will be a hospital pass to local government and the responsibility for fixing up graffiti in our societywill be theirs. The bill does not say how many graffiti removal officers there will be and where the state orthe local government graffiti removal officers are going to be stationed. It is absolutely vague on thewhole subject. The explanatory notes state that the whole bill comes at zero cost. If the government isnot providing any money to actually employ some of these people then I wonder where the bill in itsentirety is going.

One of the other things that we need to deal with is the sale of spray cans to minors. I know thatthere were some reports and that the minister said back in May this year that the number of reportedgraffiti offences had reduced by 40 per cent. That may very well be the case; I am not doubting thefigures. One of the things that we still see if we walk into a hardware store or into what I refer to as $2


shops is cans of spray paint sitting up on shelves with a note underneath saying that they are notavailable for sale to people under the age of 18. The day has to come when spray paint is locked awayand it is not easily accessible. Proving one’s age is relatively easy. A person can buy it and go outsideand pass it to a minor. It is a bit like providing alcohol to minors. A person can buy it and go outside andpass it on.

We had an instance on the Sunshine Coast in the middle of this year where a major hardwarestore was broken into. Did they go after the power tools or the garden furniture or anything else? Nothey did not. What they went after was somewhere between 500 and 600 cans of spray paint with aretail value of $7,000. Those spray cans are obviously out there in the marketplace and being used forthe purposes that we are talking about today.

One of the other concerns I have relates to these graffiti removal officers moving around society.If someone puts a sign or a tag on a wall there is no real compulsion for the same paint to be used toremove the graffiti. I understand that they are not going to go wandering around looking for particularcolours of the rainbow to make sure that the colour suits. I understand the intent of the legislation.

This is where I think this legislation has some flaws. We are employing or appointing people toremove the graffiti when indeed the people who should be removing the graffiti are the ones who put itthere. That way we could make sure they have the right colour paint in their hand and they paint thewhole wall or the whole building. I would hope they put a tag at the bottom end of the Story Bridge andwe could give them some grey paint and they could paint the whole Story Bridge. That would give themsomething worthwhile to do.

I wanted to refer to some statistics. In 2003 Queensland spent $100 million on graffiti removal.The same amount was spent in 2005-06. In terms of vandals, there were 600 caught in the first year and743 caught in the second year but we only recorded convictions of 190 and 244 across those two years.Again, it is an example of society letting people get away with things. There is little or no consequencefor their actions. I am very much one of those people who believes that it should not be graffiti removalofficers who are employed by the state or local government to remove these tags from walls but theperpetrators themselves.

The other thing I would like to mention and which the minister might like to comment on as we goalong is the fact that in its 2006-07 annual report the Brisbane City Council notes that it has alreadytaken specific action to clean up graffiti within its area and is providing graffiti clean-up kits free toresidents and community groups to undertake that work. I understand that Townsville and the GoldCoast and probably other areas have followed Brisbane’s lead.

If Brisbane, the Gold Coast and Townsville are at least out there doing that sort of thing will thelegislation apply to them? There is memoranda of understanding between the Brisbane City Council andthe Department of Main Roads, Queensland Rail, other government departments and GOCs. Whateffect will this legislation have on those memoranda of understanding?

This is a good bill. Any piece of legislation that goes some way towards helping to control orremove graffiti from our society is a good thing. I certainly wish the minister and government well inputting the legislation into play. I look forward to debating this issue in the parliament at another time.

Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (5.18 pm): I am pleased to rise to speak in support of theSummary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill. As we all know, graffiti is not a newphenomenon and nor is it unique to our communities or to our country. But that does not mean that it isacceptable or should be tolerated. It is ugly. It is destructive. It is at best annoying and at worst can spoilthe amenity of a whole community if left unchecked. It certainly adds to the fear of crime and theperception that there is more crime in an area than there may actually be.

Mudgeeraba is relatively lucky to enjoy low levels of crime, particularly serious crime, comparedto other divisions. However, we are certainly not immune to the types of social misbehaviour suffered byevery other area such as hooning, speeding by local drivers, the occasional loud party and,unfortunately, graffiti which seems to have increased around our beautiful town over the last couple ofyears. Local residents, including me, have been dismayed and disgusted at what we see as notsuddenly appearing but certainly appearing in greater numbers.

There has always been a little bit of graffiti around—the odd tag—but in the last couple of years ithas started to appear on bus stops, road signs, power poles and boxes, on the walls of residential andcommercial buildings, on schools and even on church doors and walls. The community has been askingwhat it can do to stop this and how it can do it. The Queensland Police Crime Prevention Unit haschosen the township and the surrounding suburbs of Mudgeeraba—this is interestingly the case for theGold Coast—for a six-month community based crime prevention project largely because of our low-crime statistics and also because of the emergence of this antisocial activity that has to be stamped outquickly, and that is graffiti.

The first step in this project was a graffiti audit undertaken by volunteers made up of residentsand members of community groups such as Neighbourhood Watch and the Police CommunityConsultative Committee. Some 40 people turned up on a Saturday morning in March to be armed withclipboards and cameras and hit the streets to register graffiti tags. The audit identified 270 tags in that


one day. Many were just small individual scrawls, but many more were easily linked to indicate thatthere was a handful of prolific offenders around who had been rather busy in the wee small hours. Thisaudit provided police with very important information, because of course nowhere near 270 complaintshad been made. That is very important, because many property owners had not even made a complaintand they had to be encouraged to do so. Police have since made about 10 arrests in relation to graffiticrimes, with the alleged offenders ranging—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Palaszczuk): If people want to have conversations, they can gooutside. It is very hard to actually hear the member for Mudgeeraba.

Mrs REILLY: That is quite unusual, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may say so myself. Police havemade 10 arrests in relation to graffiti crimes, with the alleged offenders ranging in age from 15 to 25. Sothere are juveniles and adults involved in these activities. They have all been to court. Some have beenmoved to other areas and some are awaiting sentencing. Police are continuing their investigations toidentify two prolific and persistent taggers that we still do not have information on. The audit alsoprovided clean-up agencies with a detailed map and made it much easier to run a coordinated removalprogram. Rapid removal is important. It is vital to deter additional tags and also to reduce thesatisfaction that the graffiti vandal gets from seeing his or her work on display.

Gold Coast City Council officers have been very quick and very cooperative to work with localagencies and with the police and the PCCC. They have already removed over 160 tags. Other agenciessuch as schools, Energex, the Department of Main Roads and Queensland Rail have also worked onareas in their jurisdiction. There are memorandums of understanding between the Gold Coast CityCouncil and the other agencies to try to remove graffiti from everywhere where we can see it, but thereare many instances where it stays where it is because the owners of the building are absent, they liveoverseas or interstate or they are commercial buildings or private property where it is just too hard tofind an owner to seek permission to go on to the property to remove the graffiti.

That is the purpose of this bill—to make it possible for authorised officers to clean graffiti fromdeserted buildings or industrial sites or commercial or residential properties where it may be difficult tomake contact with the landowners. Graffiti is often done on industrial sites and at deserted properties, somaking contact can be very difficult. The bill extends the application of graffiti removal powers to anygraffiti that is readily accessible from a public place, including graffiti at non-residential private premises.We would certainly prefer rapid removal, but this removal with a decent period of notice to thelandowner is preferred to having no removal at all.

I want to commend the members of the Mudgeeraba Police Community Consultative Committeefor first raising with me the need for this legislation. They had seen that Victoria had introduced similarlegislation and they asked me to raise the issue with the minister for police. I want to thank PCCCmembers Robert Hitchon, Earle Hinchen, Richard Lennon, John Down, Ian Bolton, Eunice Simpson,Brian Parsons, Gerard Landy, John Rastell, Brian Jacobson, George Tetley, Wendy Flett and manyothers who helped and have been really active on this and other local community safety issues. Theyare a great bunch of volunteers, and I was delighted to recognise their efforts with a Queensland Dayaward for volunteers.

In terms of further progress on our clean-up of Mudgeeraba’s graffiti, I recently convened ameeting with the school principals of my local schools, the senior sergeant at Mudgeeraba station andthe police Crime Prevention Unit and the Gold Coast City Council graffiti clean-up unit, and of course thechair of the PCCC was there as well ready to lend a hand. All of the participants, particularly the schools,found this a very useful exercise and opportunity to share information and raise issues, and I will bebringing the group together again regularly to progress issues around the schools.

Schools tell me that they can spend up to $20,000 a year cleaning graffiti off school walls andproperty and repairing vandalism, and they have to do it straightaway because the last thing we want tosee is school buildings or property with graffiti, particularly when offensive language or signs have beenused by graffiti vandals over the weekend or overnight. Police are working very closely with schools toincrease patrols and address security issues, but it is really important that nearby residents—manyhouses back on to all of our schools—keep their eyes open and report suspicious behaviour on schoolproperty out of hours.

Schools are also making better use of their facilities on weekends and during school holidays,ensuring that there are authorised adults on site. The key to protecting our schools is to use them, not tolock them up and leave them vacant. Issues were also raised about lighting, which can attracttrespassers and vandals at night. Some of that lighting is in council car parks. It might be the school carpark, but it is land that is annexed to the Gold Coast City Council. If there is a bright light on, that iswhere the skateboarders tend to hang around—not that skateboarders are necessarily graffiti vandals.But if they are there, then one can imagine that perhaps someone else would take the opportunity tojump a fence to get into that lit-up area and start to misbehave on school property. We also talked aboutpainting walls darker colours or putting murals in where possible, because that also deters taggers.


Mudgeeraba today is far from graffiti-free. There has been retaliation from some who have beenarrested and there are a couple of really persistent taggers out there who remain at large. But to helpthe community and to help police get on top of this problem, I have also sponsored signs promoting theCrimestoppers freecall anonymous number that will be placed in all of the schools in my electorate, andwe hope to get them through all of the schools around the Gold Coast. What these signs will do—andthis is another initiative of the police Crime Prevention Unit, and I have to thank it for coming up with theidea and I was delighted to help pay for some of these signs—is tell young people and children at schoolthat it is okay to make a call if they know something, because kids hate this, too.

Kids in our community take a lot of pride in their environment. They are all involved in Clean UpAustralia Day and they are planting trees, and if they see graffiti on their school walls it upsets them.Often they do not know who to call or they are afraid that they will be found out if they dob in a peer. SoCrimestoppers has that anonymous number, and my electorate is an area where it has not been usedeffectively in the past. We hope that promoting Crimestoppers in school grounds will give young peopleand children in particular another option—another way of making those complaints and providinginformation to police, because it is really hard to catch people in the smallest hours of the night, at threeo’clock or four o’clock in the morning, in dark areas.

We cannot have police in every single place, and that is when these people are out there tagging.They will leave clues behind and often it is friends, family or peers who will know that they are involved.We encourage them to continue to report. I commend the Mudgeeraba community because it has beenso on top of this and we are going to keep working at it until we get Mudgeeraba back to the clean andbeautiful place that it has been. I thank the minister for bringing the legislation to the House as quickly asshe did and for listening to the issues raised by the Mudgeeraba PCCC. I thank the department as welland its staff, and I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GIBSON (Gympie—NPA) (5.27 pm): I rise to speak to the Summary Offences (GraffitiRemoval Powers) Amendment Bill. It is interesting to listen to the contributions that have been made bymembers from all areas across this great state and the bipartisan support that exists for this bill. It isclear that graffiti is unfortunately a problem that continues in our state and it is one that has certainlygalvanized many communities in order to be addressed. That is essential, because if we are going tobring about real change we need to ensure that the communities are part of that change. It is also quiterefreshing to see a bill that has such positive bipartisan support because, again, we recognise that it isimportant for this great state to address this antisocial behaviour.

The cost of graffiti crime is huge and is passed on to our community through a whole range ofareas—whether it is service costs, whether it is insurance, whether it is the council having to put uprates—and then of course there is the actual clean-up cost itself. Many groups will bear that cost, but itis particularly hard when it is borne by not-for-profit groups. I want to speak briefly about one, and that isthe Mary Valley Heritage Railway in the Gympie electorate.

The Mary Valley Heritage Railway is a fantastic group, but it operates on a shoestring budget. Itdoes great work providing the railway carriages for tourism operation, but unfortunately those carriagesthemselves have become targets of graffiti—and not just in a minor tagging way. Often, because of thelocation of the carriages, some major graffiti has been done. Indeed, there have been four mainincidences of graffiti on the rail carriages and the rail motor since 2005. All those clean-up costs havefallen back on to the Mary Valley Heritage Railway and that has been in the vicinity of about $18,000. AsI said, it is a community group that provides such a fantastic service and that amount of $18,000 isdrained from a budget that cannot afford it.

In one major incident in 2005 the culprit was apprehended and charged. He was issued with afine for $6,200, which was the cost of the clean-up. However, the Mary Valley Heritage Railway is yet tosee a cent of that in compensation. It just goes to show the costs that our communities face when theyare dealing with graffiti. Those costs make it quite prohibitive for many organisations and groups to beinvolved in proper clean-ups.

I will acknowledge that there are some graffiti artists out there who are indeed that: they areartists. I have seen some graffiti work that will make me stop, look at it and think, ‘Wow! That is great.’ Itis unfortunate that they have chosen to do that on the side of a building or a fence rather than in aclearly defined place for display. I note that there are many programs not only in Queensland but aroundthe world where they address fighting graffiti with graffiti. They do that by providing legalised graffiti wallswhere neighbourhood graffiti artists can direct their talents. That is a large part of what we need to do.We need to understand that there is an important element here and that is about changing the attitudes.

One of the things that concerns me with regard to this bill is that legislating for the appointment ofgraffiti removal officers to clean up the graffiti work is not the solution to the problem. The problem is theoffenders’ attitudes and that is what we have to change. If we really want to see a change with regard tograffiti we have to address the attitude of those who engage in that illegal activity.

When we address the issue simply as a crackdown on graffiti we find—and we are dealing with avery creative group—that they work harder not to get caught. I am often amazed when I drive up theBruce Highway. There are some tags on various signs on the overpasses. I think to myself that they


must have had repelling gear on to get to those. We can clean that up but we are not addressing theattitudinal issue there. That attitude actually puts at risk the lives of those individuals who engage inthose illegal activities. I can give a very personal example of this.

Many members know that I catch the tilt train to and from Gympie. Returning home one Fridayfrom a sitting of parliament, the tilt train slowed down and some kids ran out of the bushes on to thetrack area to tag the tilt train. It was just ridiculous. The tilt train then came to a stop because there werekids so close to the railway tracks. Then the Queensland Rail staff tried to identify those kids. They werequite good. They got out a camera and took some photographs. I noticed from my window that one ofthe kids had a balaclava on. This was clearly a planned activity. It was not something that they thoughtsuddenly, ‘Let’s go and tag the tilt train’; they had actually gone to a lot of effort to do that.

Whilst their actions in themselves were illegal, it concerns me that they were putting their ownlives at risk, and for what? To tag a tilt train that runs up and down the coast so someone else can see it.Again, we come back to the issue of their attitude. One of the earlier speakers made a very good point:it is about self-policing—the youth dobbing in other people—taking pride in what we have in ourcommunity and ensuring that those buildings, whether they be public or private, and those facilities,whether they be rail stock belonging to QR or to the Mary Valley Heritage Railway, remain free of graffiti.We take pride in that as a community and we need to address that.

There has been a fair bit of talk with regard to how essential is the rapid removal of graffiti. It hasbeen clearly shown to be one of the key drivers in removing or reducing the impacts of graffiti oncommunities. We have to do more than that. I believe we need to understand the reasons for graffiti inthe first place. We have to look at why those individuals who engage in this activity are putting theirenergies and efforts into that. Once we understand that, then I believe we can properly address thewhole issue.

We need to have some clear deterrents. I am not sure that the appointment of graffiti removalofficers will do that. I am firmly of the view that the individuals, where they are identified, should becleaning up that work. I do acknowledge that, where they have not been identified or where graffiti hasremained on a building for a period of time, the works of the graffiti removal officers could be invaluablein changing the perception or the views of the community.

Often we will hear from groups in our society that graffiti is simply an expression for our youth. Indoing some research for this speech I came across this quote. You could take the view that this is whatthe do-gooders are saying. The comment was made that these young people are expressing their innerstruggle and identity through graffiti. I am of the view that they can do that in a creative way that is notillegal. In our society what we need to do is encourage that creativity. We need to allow them to continueto develop those creative talents because they are so valuable in our community. What we need them tounderstand is that those talents cannot be employed in an illegal activity. We need them to understandthat they can direct and channel their energies into opportunities that will continue to ensure that ourstate and our artistic community grows and develops in that way.

The approach that we have seen in the past, in my view, has limited success. We need to domore. This bill is about doing that. I commend the government for bringing it forward. However, I dobelieve there is still much more yet to come. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (5.36 pm): On 18 March 2004 I stood in this House forthe first time to speak to Queenslanders about the issues that were important to me and my communityas the newly elected member for Surfers Paradise. Graffiti was one of those issues.

Graffiti is a curse on our communities. It offends the very fabric of our society, as the honourablemember for Gympie has just pointed out. The seemingly innocuous tags that plague our parks, publictoilet blocks and street signs are usually far more sinister. Graffiti is a hallmark of contempt for the socialwellbeing of the collective and an insidious symbol of the anti-Establishment. Graffiti and other pettycrime is recognised by leading criminologists as a launching pad for more serious offences. When itcomes to graffiti, every member of this parliament and indeed every Queenslander is a stakeholder. Weshould all be concerned about graffiti because the experts tell us that graffiti is a slippery slope tohardened crime.

Over the past six months I have witnessed a massive spike in the amount of graffiti on the GoldCoast. In my electorate of Surfers Paradise bus stops, residential homes and even street lights havebecome targets for vandals. The damage is unsightly and expensive to remove. Ratepayers get sluggedwith the expense of removing the graffiti or, as is too often the case, it is the homeowners who end upbearing the cost. A couple of weeks ago my wife and I came back from a trip and in our local area ofClear Island Waters there had been a massive amount of tagging done all over fences. It was like beingphysically assaulted in terms of the visual assault that we felt.

I notice that in Estimates Committee B, which we are going to be talking about tomorrow, thehonourable police minister, who brought in this bill, repeated something that she said in a press releasein May.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Perhaps we could deal with the bill.


Mr LANGBROEK: It is to do with the bill. It is referring to the bill, as you will hear. It is in referenceto—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are debating estimates tomorrow, member for Surfers Paradise. Mr LANGBROEK: This is about graffiti. She stated—

After the introduction of the paint sale ban legislation, which we passed in parliament, from July to December 2007 there were5,546 reported graffiti offences and a clear-up rate of 44 per cent. This is a reduction from the period before where there were9,202 reported graffiti offences and a clear-up rate of only 35 per cent. What we have seen since the introduction of the paint saleban is a reduction in the number of reported graffiti offences statewide and an improvement in the clear-up rate for those offences.

I note what the honourable police minister said; I just do not agree with her. I do not believe thatmost Queenslanders would believe that there has been a reduction in graffiti offences, especially such asizeable decrease: from 9,202 graffiti offences to 5,546. Maybe in the honourable member’s electorateof Mount Gravatt that is happening, but it clearly is not happening on the Gold Coast.

As we have heard from mayors around the state, the cost of cleaning up graffiti is significant forthem. Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman put a cost of $10 million per year on the removal ofgraffiti. That is $10 million of ratepayers’ money, obviously, that is wasted on cleaning up after criminals.Queensland Rail, the primary target of graffiti in this state, invests a huge amount of taxpayers’ moneyaddressing the problem of graffiti. That is clearly outlined in the Queensland Parliamentary Libraryresearch brief that contains an excellent summary of the issues. Geoff Chambers wrote in the GoldCoast Bulletin a couple of weeks ago—The council has also expressed its dismay at the record spike of graffiti across the Coast.

Councillor Ron Clarke said—I just don’t know how we’re going to stop it. It’s getting worse and these people are getting more resourceful.

The statistics that were contained in that article showed that from 2004-05 there were 6,000 call-outs on the coast for graffiti; in 2005-06, 5,600 call-outs; in 2006-07, 7,200 call-outs; and in 2007-08,11,000 call-outs—up from 6,000 call-outs in 2004-05. The article in the Bulletin stated—Compared with the previous year, graffiti removal requests have increased by 51 per cent for council assets, 71 per cent forprivate property and 14 per cent for Energex assets. This equates to a total increase in graffiti removal requests by 51 per cent.Expenditure for graffiti removal compared with 2006-07 increased by 15.7 per cent.

Clearly that is at odds with the honourable police minister’s words that the notification of graffiti isdecreasing. Maybe there are just not enough police to find the people who are committing theseoffences. Obviously we need to look at what that money could be spent on if we did not have to spend iton removing graffiti—how many computers we could put into our schools, how many playgrounds wecould build. I note that we will be debating another bill tomorrow night about the same issue.

Far more important than the aesthetic assault and expense of cleaning up graffiti, graffitithreatens our sense of safety and wellbeing in the community. This mindless vandalism raises questionsabout whether we are safe in our neighbourhoods when people can seemingly get away with wilfullydestroying public and sometimes private property. In recent times, particularly in south-eastQueensland, we have witnessed the increasing numbers of people in youth gangs who modelthemselves on notorious US gangs like the Bloods and the Crips. They leave their virulent tags inprominent public places in a bid to incite fear in the community. Mindless graffiti not only destroyspublic amenities but also disenfranchises the community. People no longer feel safe in a communitywhere graffiti is rife.

As a long-term member of the Surfers Paradise Community Consultative Committee I can reportthat graffiti is one of the biggest concerns of residents. Apart from the obvious safety aspect, the oftenunspoken effect of graffiti is that which it has on property value. Once vandals target a bus stop or train,it does not take long for them to pervade the whole area. Wilson and Kelling examined this propositionin their broken windows theory. An article in the March 1982 edition of the Atlantic Monthly states—Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few morewindows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it’s unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside.

The solution is to fix the windows before it becomes free game for vandals. It is a simplisticsolution but one that has been proven on a number of occasions. When the broken windows theory wasfirst floated in the 1980s, one of its authors was hired by the New York City Transit Authority toundertake the task of stamping out graffiti. When I was a child and visited New York a number of timesthrough the seventies, it was frightening to go onto the subway. In fact, many Australians I travelled withrefused to travel on the subway, partly because of the air of unease one felt when one saw how muchgraffiti was on the trains.

As is the case with Queensland Rail, which spends in excess of $1 million per year getting rid ofgraffiti on trains, vandals were targeting trains in subway networks and there was a great prevalence ofgraffiti. For many years the tendency had been to wait until graffiti had accumulated sufficiently beforethe authorities cleaned it off in order to save on costs. However, whilst it might have seemedeconomically prudent to get rid of it in the one go, it had the unintended effect of indirectly encouragingmore graffiti as per Kelling’s theory. When the transit authority changed its approach and adopted the


principles of the ‘broken windows’ theory, within five years the system was relatively devoid ofvandalism. This approach remains in practice today and is credited for the significant improvement inpublic amenity and safety.

The most remarkable recent example of this was the renaissance of New York which, of course,has come to be much safer since those times that I spoke about in the seventies and eighties. Peoplewho go there now speak about the fact that the zero tolerance of petty crime such as fare evasion,drinking in public and graffiti has led to a significant drop in crime rates. The idea is to fix the windows, orin this case graffiti, before it becomes a magnet for criminal activity.

That is what the perpetrators of graffiti are—criminals. Queensland legislation is filled withprovisions designed to tackle graffiti. Section 469 subsection (9) of the Queensland Criminal Code 1899makes it an offence to cause destruction or damage to property by spraying, writing, drawing, markingor otherwise applying paint or another marking substance. The penalties contained therein are notinsignificant: up to seven years imprisonment for aggravated offences. The Summary Offences Act,which is the subject of the amendments currently before the House, and the Transport Infrastructure Actalso contain provisions which make graffiti a crime. Yet we continue to see graffiti occur, often performedby kids not yet old enough to form the necessary criminal intent. We know that petty offences can leadto more serious crimes. That is why it is vital that we tackle graffiti and rehabilitate the perpetratorsbefore they do end up in our jails.

As I said in my maiden speech, if we can deal with the issues leading to graffiti rather thanconcentrating on punishment after the fact, graffiti is less likely to occur and the problem will be easier tocontrol. However, we do need to consider that as a last option.

We are committed to cracking down on vandals. I note that there is bipartisan support for the bill.I note that the bill allows state government and local council officers to enter premises to remove graffiti.What it does not make clear, however, is who will be responsible for the clean-up of graffiti. This willcause the same confusion that already exists in the community about who will clean up after vandals—the council, the state or individual homeowners. I have noticed when I have been driving around the Isleof Capri and I have dropped in a council ‘clean up graffiti’ card that many homeowners are not aware ofthe services that are offered by the council, are not sure who will do it and obviously end up sometimesdoing it themselves.

The LNP proposes that the person who should be responsible for the clean-up is the graffiti artist.I use that term very loosely. We do not think that individual homeowners and businesses should have tocop the cost of graffiti, particularly when there are laws in place banning such behaviour. Clearly thelaws are not being enforced. I have mentioned before that perhaps we could have more police to give usthe best chance of stamping out crime, not just graffiti, in our communities. If members opposite areserious about doing something to address the problem of graffiti I look forward to their support fortomorrow night’s initiative. I look forward to hearing their thoughts. I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (5.47pm): I cringe when people speak of ‘graffiti artists’. They arevandals. I agree that some work shows a certain amount of talent but graffiti remains illegal. It is uglyand expensive to remove. It is a crime that affects us all. Graffiti can lower property values and makepeople feel unsafe as it is usually done under the cover of darkness. Residents feel it can lead to othertypes of crime. Graffiti vandals have no respect for people’s property, either private or commercial. Itseems they set out to impress their peers. The most effective way to prevent further graffiti is to clean itup quickly.

Members of the community are seeking legislative changes to protect their property from graffitivandals. They recognise that the swift removal of graffiti denies the offender the pleasure of showing offto his peers. I acknowledge the Gold Coast City Council’s role in graffiti removal. This council actuallyasked the minister for legislation to address the issue. Due to the number of absentee landlords on theGold Coast, graffiti has been able to flourish on private property. In the meantime, the Gold Coast CityCouncil offers a free service to residents to remove graffiti and also provides free kits to enable ownersto clean up their property easily and quickly. However, entering private property has always been anissue. This has meant that ugly, sometimes offensive graffiti has been allowed to remain in view ofpassers-by. Much of this was old vandalism that has been oversprayed with newer graffiti.

The Summary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill proposes to allow graffitiremoval officers to enter private property to remove graffiti. A requirement is that the owner first beadvised and he will have 14 days to lodge an objection to this entry. When an objection is received,officers will not be able to enter onto the land. Otherwise, an implied consent will be recorded. Graffitiremoval will be undertaken without the property owner incurring any expense unless an agreement isreached with the owner for specific products or methods to be used in the removal.

As a project of the Palm Beach community consultative committee, we recently conducted anaudit of graffiti from Miami to Palm Beach along the Gold Coast Highway. When one goes lookingspecifically for graffiti, it is amazing how much can be found. I want to acknowledge the role of the PalmBeach community consultative committee, under the guidance of officers from the Palm Beach PoliceStation and its officer in charge, Senior Sergeant Chris Ahearn. The CCC is active in the localcommunity and well supported by both residents and traders. I commend this bill to the House.


Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (5.50 pm): I am very happy to offer a small contribution to thisparticular bill, the Summary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill 2008. The stain ofgraffiti costs hardworking Queenslanders a great deal of money. It is an ugly eyesore on the urbanlandscape and, sadly, it is not diminishing. Just about everywhere in Queensland that has public andprivate property exposed to the elements seems to be a target for these vandals.

The Summary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill being put to the House todayis a copy of one from Victoria that gives powers to authorised personnel, including local councils andgovernment departments such as Queensland Rail, to remove graffiti from private property that is visiblefrom public areas. A 2005 crime and safety survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics found 25 percent of Australians believed graffiti was a major problem in their local neighbourhoods. That is anappalling indictment on our society today.

Estimating the true cost of graffiti is difficult because, as we have heard today from quite a fewspeakers, many people simply do not report it and there is no central record keeping of incidents. But togive some idea of the cost, in the 2005-06 financial year the City of Sydney council removed 242,797incidents of graffiti vandalism and currently spends about $3 million each year on clean-up costs. Itreally makes you angry to think of vulnerable people, education and other areas on which $3 millioncould be spent.

In 2003 former Queensland police minister Tony McGrady said that the cost of cleaning up graffitiwas at least $100 million each year Queensland-wide. While there is little quantitative data to supportthe claim, the Victorian graffiti management web site claims that in 2003 the cost of cleaning up graffitiacross Australia was $300 million. What we are looking at here really is a significant amount of moneyand any legislation that is aimed at this crime is positive. More recently, in 2005 Queensland Rail paid$1 million to remove graffiti from its rail network.

The real problem is that the cost of the crime is passed onto the community. It is passed onthrough higher service costs, higher insurance premiums and, of course, higher council rates. The costof cleaning, resurfacing and repainting becomes very significant. Every dollar spent on graffiti removal isa dollar that could have been used on so many other badly needed programs. In addition to themonetary costs of graffiti, vandalism removal and prevention, there are also environmental and physicalharms to consider. Graffiti vandalism and its removal involve chemicals that may be harmful to thecommunity.

It is rather interesting to analyse the type of person who commits this crime. We often hear themreferred to as ‘graffiti artists’. They are offenders and they are criminals. It is as simple as that. It isvandalism, because it is impacting on other people’s property; it is destroying other people’s property. Itis an interesting crime because often it is a compulsive crime. Psychologists have analysed in detail thetype of person who becomes a graffiti artist. We hear a lot of suggestions that they have a latent talentand that this talent should be encouraged and put to better use. I am sorry, but at the end of the day it isantisocial behaviour, it is a criminal act, it impacts on other people’s property and it has to be stopped. Icannot feel sympathy for those people.

Regardless of the good intent of the Summary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers) AmendmentBill, we do not believe that it goes far enough. The LNP’s position is clear: those who commit graffiticrimes should clean them up. Labor’s view is that ratepayers should foot the bill. If not immediatelyremoved, graffiti sends out a message that nobody cares about the area. It also causes the area to lookunsafe and makes people concerned about their personal safety. Elderly people who suddenly find theirwalls covered with graffiti feel absolutely terrified. The graffiti sends a terrible signal that I know terrifiesthem. It creates an open invitation for more littering, loitering and other graffiti. Unfortunately, it probablyleads to an increase in crimes, including acts of violence, in the area. Areas filled with graffiti are lessappealing to those who may be looking to buy or rent property. Therefore, property becomes much moredifficult to sell and values are reduced. There is a huge hidden cost with graffiti.

To try to cut the costs involved with removing graffiti in Mackay, a pilot program was established in2001. According to former police minister Tony McGrady, that program saved the town’s council $40,000in graffiti removal costs. Certainly the LNP believes that criminals should clean up their graffiti, ratherthan make the innocent people of Queensland foot the cleaning bill. That is the intent of the CriminalCode and Other Acts (Graffiti Clean-up) Amendment Bill 2008, introduced by the opposition. We are yetto see if the government will support this measure, but as it stands the government’s bill is silent on whowill be responsible for the cleaning up of graffiti.

Certainly this is good legislation as far as it goes and I am very happy to support it. Tomorrownight I will be looking forward to the government’s support of the private member’s bill introduced by theLNP.

Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (5.58 pm): The Summary Offences (Graffiti RemovalPowers) Amendment Bill is a copy of Victorian legislation that gives powers to local councils andgovernment departments such as Queensland Rail to remove graffiti from private property that is visiblefrom public areas. According to the minister in her second reading speech, from 1 July 2006 to 31December 2006 the number of reported graffiti offences was 9,202, dropping to 5,546 reported graffiti


offences for the same period in 2007 following the introduction of legislation restricting the sale of spray-paint cans to minors. However, despite a percentage increase the clean-up rate is actually less innumbers. A clean-up rate of 35 per cent in the 2006 period compares to a clean-up rate of more than44 per cent in 2007. There may have been fewer incidents but there were also less clean-ups. Perhapsthat is because graffiti offences nearly always involve considerable repair bills.

I bring to the attention of the House incidents of vandalism and graffiti that have causedconsiderable financial burden to local residents and organisations in my electorate. The Moranbah StateSchool P&C Association is continually frustrated at ongoing break-ins occurring in the school. Since thebeginning of this year they have experienced numerous break-ins and arson attempts in theirclassrooms and sports sheds. They feel that their school will be burnt down and/or seriously damagedbefore they have the opportunity to make the necessary security arrangements.

Since the beginning of this year they have had to replace tyres on the school utility, replace shadecloth torn down from shaded areas, replace a roller door on the tuckshop, replace numerous louvresand clean up graffiti around the school. They have had their main power switch turned off. They havehad fires lit inside the school building. They have had fire extinguisher foam sprayed in toilets andclassrooms, broken alcohol bottles throughout the school grounds and keys stolen from theadministration building resulting in the replacement of locks throughout the school. Teachers andcleaners are fearful of working late because of the continued destruction. They are currently seekingquotes for motion detectors and the replacement of security screens for the tuckshop and administrationbuilding, but these will be expensive and their funds have been drained repairing damage and replacinglocks. This money should be spent on the children but it is being spent on cleaning up and preventingfurther damage.

In the meantime, I have written to the police minister and the education minister requestingassistance. I understand that the department will undertake a security audit in mid-September,identifying areas that can be more suitably secured. The P&C are not flush with funds, and theirattempts to clean up after the vandals attack have exhausted their limited funds. It would be appropriatefor the government to be assisting schools with their costs associated with the clean-up, especiallywhen safety and security in schools is the government’s responsibility. It would also be appropriate thatwhen the vandals are caught they participate in assisting the school and other vandalised areas in theclean-up.

Moranbah State High School has become another target for vandals, with smashed car windows,giant slogans and sexual graffiti smeared across the school. Distinctive tags have been left by theperpetrators. Moranbah is a wonderful community filled with hardworking people who give their free timereadily to the community and educational organisations. They are devastated at the mess these vandalshave caused to their schools and park areas.

Clermont skate park is another apparent hot spot for vandals and graffiti. Isaac Regional Councilrecently had to replace an electrical box with a stainless steel tamper-proof electrical box. In the past 18months the council has spent in excess of $4,000 to repair and clean up after vandals had attacked theskate park. Since the skate park was built over six years ago, the repair bill has exceeded $10,000,which is an added burden on the local ratepayers. People are tired of having to foot the bill becausesome louts have no respect for the property of others.

If a pilot program involving using low-risk offenders to clean up graffiti established in Mackay in2001 has saved the Mackay council $40,000 in graffiti removal costs, why has the program not beenextended to all areas? We need to be conscious of the financial burden graffiti places on organisationsthat clean up. We need to be harder on the perpetrators and make them responsible for the clean-up.The cost of the clean-up should not be borne by the taxpayer and local residents but by the vandalsthemselves. If they can afford to purchase equipment needed to wreck the buildings and facilities thenthey can be responsible for cleaning up their own mess. I wanted to bring that issue to the attention ofthe House.

Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (6.03 pm): I am pleased to rise to support the bill before theHouse. The Summary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill 2008 amends the SummaryOffences Act 2005 to allow authorised government and council officers to enter onto private land toremove graffiti which is visible from a public place. This is something that I know the public and councilsall around the state welcome. Rapid removal is still one of the best methods in the deterrence of graffitiin our suburbs, and this legislation is supporting the rapid removal of graffiti.

The state government is committed to ridding our communities of unsightly graffiti. This billcomplements the previous legislation that has been brought before the House to tackle graffiti. I was amember of the state government’s all-party graffiti task force. In short, the task force was set up toreduce and prevent graffiti. The task force recommended that the government consider rejecting thesale of spray-paint cans to minors. We can tick that one off, as that was done last year with theintroduction of new laws to ban the sale of spray-paint cans to persons aged 17 years and under.


The task force also recommended a review of powers which local councils currently have inrelation to removing graffiti from private property and this is what this bill before the House today isdoing. This bill will allow authorised government and council officers to enter onto private land to removegraffiti which is visible from a public place. The safeguards provided in this legislation strike a balancebetween the fundamental rights of private landowners and the community expectations for thegovernment to address the perception of crime.

This legislation also supports the rapid removal of visible graffiti, which is critical to deterringgraffiti vandals. In fact, I was recently told by one of our local police officers that a young person caughtspraying a skate park bowl thought it was okay because there was so much graffiti there that it implied itwas okay to graffiti that area. So that demonstrates why it is so necessary to have rapid removal ofgraffiti.

While graffiti removal officers are required to gain consent from owners of all private places, I ampleased that the legislation has been extended to allow graffiti removal officers to serve a graffiti removalnotice where the owner of a private place—that is, not a dwelling—cannot be contacted. The noticemust be in the approved form but will include the officer’s department, contact details for the departmentand a description of the graffiti to be removed. The notice will indicate that the owner may lodge anobjection to the removal of the graffiti within 14 days of the notice being left at the place. If the ownerdoes not raise an objection, the owner is taken to have given consent and a graffiti officer may exerciseremoval powers. In other words, there is a 14-day protection period for the owner but there is alsoopportunity for the consent to be given well within this time frame and therefore the graffiti can becleared up earlier.

If the owner raises an objection before the graffiti is removed but after the 14 days, the graffitiremoval officer must not remove the graffiti until the owner’s consent is secured. Where graffiti isremoved from a place, the graffiti removal officer must take reasonable steps to leave the property in acondition it would be in if the graffiti had not been placed on the property. Where that is not practicable,it is sufficient to leave the property in an acceptable condition in all the circumstances.

Graffiti is unsightly and costs local communities across Queensland millions of dollars in damageevery year. One of the most interesting aspects of being on the graffiti task force was hearing commentsfrom a range of people. One of the most interesting comments was from a young person who was verysurprised to hear—quite astonished, I must say—that people viewed graffiti as a security risk, assomething to fear and as a symbol of crime in the area. In other words, they were surprised to think thatmany people associated graffiti with an unsafe place. To the young person, it was just something thatyoung people did for a range of reasons, including sometimes out of boredom or sometimes it was anartform and to others it was a way of getting recognition. There are such very differing views betweenyoung and old.

I also noted that there is a range of views out there in the community as to what is graffiti. Peoplenoted that some of the graffiti was artistic and wanted places for these people to be able to do theirwork, especially in areas where graffiti was a problem, and they believed that having legitimate placesfor artwork would be a deterrent to ugly graffiti. Legitimate street art, as described by the member forWoodridge, is throughout Logan and is certainly appearing all throughout our suburbs. I am pleased tosay that it is having a positive effect on reducing graffiti in those particular places. The majority of viewsin the community is that graffiti is unsightly, very costly to the community in respect of the clean-up andis a crime that can lead to the person committing further criminal acts.

I want to congratulate our local police and Neighbourhood Watch groups in the community forworking together in partnership to protect the Springwood community from graffiti. I know that during theschool holidays the police in the Springwood electorate step up patrols of local schools. Schools areoften a prime target for graffiti over the school holidays, and local police certainly put in a lot of effort toprotect our schools during that time. At a recent meeting of the Brentwood Downs NeighbourhoodWatch group I discussed this bill with them. At this meeting was a Logan City Council officer who wasalso able to provide information on how this bill will assist the council to do more to clean up graffiti inour community. So I also want to pass on the support of Neighbourhood Watch for this bill.

I want to thank the Logan City Council for their rapid removal of graffiti program. I believe theyperform this duty very well. I believe that the major reason this service works so well is that thecommunity is willing to get in there and assist the council in identifying the graffiti and reporting it. It is anhonour to represent a community that gets involved in achieving positive outcomes that will benefit thecommunity as a whole.

I also want to thank our local police who are performing duties to ensure that graffiti is minimised.In particular, I want to acknowledge the work being done by Springwood Police Beat Senior ConstableTom Mackinnon. Senior Constable Mackinnon has recently undertaken an audit of spray-paint sellers inthe area with regard to the new legislation that was passed last year banning the sale of spray-paints tominors. He is very keen to ensure that our local businesses are well aware of their obligations and toensure that the law is being enforced. I thank him for his work.


I congratulate the minister for bringing this bill before the House, as all the communitiesthroughout our state welcome laws that strengthen the deterrence of graffiti. I commend the bill to theHouse.

Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (6.09 pm): I rise to speak in support of the changes to theSummary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill that will allow for government andcouncil officers to remove graffiti that is in a public place or in a place that is visible from a public place.Graffiti, in my view, is an ugly display of disrespect for property. Whether on public property such as abus shelter or on private property such as a brick fence, graffiti is indeed a form of vandalism that cancost a lot of money to remove.

I know from speaking with many residents and community group representatives such asNeighbourhood Watch that graffiti attacks on someone’s car or home can also be a frighteningexperience, making people feel that there has been an invasive attack on one’s private property andspace. The Queensland government is committed to ensuring that people feel safe, and a number ofsteps have already been taken to progress this commitment. Last year the government banned the saleof spray-paint cans to persons aged 17 years and under, resulting in a significant reduction in thenumber of reported graffiti offences. In addition, police have been given powers to prosecute thoseresponsible for graffiti related offences. The police have been working closely with other governmentagencies such as Queensland Rail to research the graffiti and track down those responsible.

Another aspect of the graffiti problem is that research has found that graffiti offenders are oftenenticed to commit further graffiti crimes and other crimes, and that residents living in areas where graffitiis prolific are also frightened and perceive that crime in general in their area is high. This legislationaddresses the problem identified by local councils where graffiti that is visible by the public is on privateproperty and the owners of that property cannot be contacted or located.

With the passing of this bill, graffiti removal officers will have the power to remove graffiti readilyaccessible from a public place including graffiti at non-residential private premises such as industrialestates. It has been identified that graffiti offenders are discouraged by the fast removal of tags andother graffiti. By ensuring local councils are able to efficiently and effectively remote graffiti from privateproperties, it is expected that the number of reported graffiti offences will continue to decrease asoffenders are often put off by the fact that their perceived art is not up for people to see for a long periodof time.

I take this opportunity to commend the Gold Coast City Council’s efforts to address the issue ofgraffiti. The Gold Coast City Council’s rapid removal policy is excellent, and the council has anestablished hotline for residents to report graffiti and arrange for its removal. The Gold Coast CityCouncil also provides free graffiti removal kits, and advice is offered to residents on what solvents to useto remove graffiti from a variety of surfaces.

The council has also been very proactive in ensuring our city remains the neat and beautiful placeit is. I congratulate those officers and the local police who have worked so closely with communitygroups such as Neighbourhood Watch to prevent and remove graffiti. A number of other agencies alsohave contact numbers for people to report graffiti including Main Roads, Australia Post, Telstra andQueensland Rail.

I know that local councils have been waiting for this legislation to be passed to enable their graffitiofficers to continue these efforts, extending their powers to include private property. The legislationprovides for a reasonable approach to concerns that may arise from these powers, such as the safety ofan officer on private property and in cases where permission is not received from the property owner. Icongratulate the minister and her staff for introducing this legislation, and I commend the bill to theHouse.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Before calling the member for Chatsworth, I acknowledgein the public gallery the parliamentary interns for 2008 who include students from UQ, QUT, Griffith andJames Cook universities. I have been asked to especially acknowledge Casey Sullivan.

Mr BOMBOLAS (Chatsworth—ALP) (6.14 pm): I rise to make a small contribution to theSummary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill 2008, which amends the SummaryOffences Act 2005. The bill responds to calls from both local and state government authorities and thecommunity who seek positive legislative changes to protect property owners from damage caused bygraffiti related offences. Without the bill, the individual councils would be required to formalise separatearrangements with owners, undertaking a time-consuming approach to graffiti removal that does notsupport the theory that the rapid removal of graffiti increases the perception of community safety.

Visible graffiti can be removed from any place where a graffiti removal officer can remove thegraffiti while remaining in a public place and entry to the private place, including a dwelling, is by leaningor reaching into the property. In removing the graffiti, the removal powers may only be exercised at areasonable time having regard to the circumstances. This will allow Queensland Rail staff to remove thegraffiti located in the rail corridors at 2 am, and hence without the need to disrupt train scheduling, butwill not allow a local government contractor to remove graffiti from a fence in a residential area at thevery same time.


The legislation gives the minister for police and the chief executive officer of a local governmentpower to appoint graffiti removal officers. The provisions are voluntary. Therefore, where a localgovernment does not have a graffiti problem in its area, the CEO may choose not to appoint councilworkers to a graffiti removal position and utilise the staff elsewhere. Each appointed graffiti removalofficer must be issued with an identity card. Should a community member seek verification of identity,the officer must produce the issued identity card upon request. Conditions may be attached to a graffitiremoval officer. The conditions may be used to limit the powers of the graffiti removal officer. Forexample, a Queensland Rail graffiti removal officer may be limited to removing graffiti from rail corridors.

As the parliamentary secretary to the minister for police, I have one request. While I applaud thepush to clean up and stamp out graffiti—and I agree with the member for Burleigh that they are notartists by any stretch of the imagination but vandals—I hope we do not go overboard and start acampaign against street art. Often there is a fine line between one man’s Picasso and another’s‘messterpiece’, which then borders on graffiti. While there is no place for graffiti, there is certainly aplace for street art, particularly on some of those bland-looking noise barriers along the Gateway arterialin Chatsworth.

Mr Johnson: Oh, come on! Mr BOMBOLAS: I am looking after my own electorate, member for Gregory. As a person who

detests unsightly and mostly unsavoury graffiti, I commend the bill to the House. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (6.16 pm): I rise to make a brief contribution to the debate on

the Summary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill. In doing so, I make the observationthat the state government has brought forward this bill on the Notice Paper to allow it to be debated bythe parliament before the opposition’s private member’s bill, the Criminal Code and Other Acts (GraffitiClean-up) Amendment Bill, which was introduced by the member for Caloundra in late February thisyear.

The Summary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill was introduced in early Junethis year and was, until last night, listed as the eighth item of government business to be debated on theNotice Paper. The state Labor government is clearly embarrassed that it has failed to recognise theissue of graffiti as one of concern in the community and that the opposition has acted to address thoseconcerns before the government. Opportunistic political manoeuvring will see the government’s billdebated before the opposition’s bill, but Queenslanders know that this government is increasingly lazyand slow to respond to issues which are of importance to the wider community.

Government members interjected.Mr CRIPPS: Honourable members can complain, but they know that I am right. The Summary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill 2008 proposes to create a

legislative framework to allow state government and local government officers to be given theresponsibility and authority to remove public graffiti from public and private property. The bill proposes tosupport efforts to ensure the swift removal of publicly visible graffiti where it occurs.

The explanatory notes accompanying the bill state that this proposed legislation responds torequests from the community for legislative change to give property owners recourse from graffitiinflicted by these vandals. As I pointed out earlier, the government acted on this issue and introducedthis bill only after it had been canvassed by the opposition in its own private member’s bill, which is dueto be debated tomorrow night. I am pleased that the opposition’s efforts have prompted the stategovernment to do something about graffiti.

The bill defines ‘public graffiti’ as graffiti which has occurred in a public place or that is readilyseen from a public place. The bill indicates that efforts to remove graffiti under this bill could be satisfiedby concealing or covering the graffiti as opposed to actually removing it.

I hope these provisions are only in place to address circumstances where the safety of graffitiremoval officers in undertaking the full removal of graffiti is compromised or the cost to taxpayers of thefull removal of graffiti is prohibitive rather than allowing this program to fall into the practice of certainjobs being put in the too-hard basket for the full removal of graffiti. The bill asserts that the graffitiremoval officer must take reasonable steps and care to restore the surface from which the graffiti wasremoved to its pre graffiti condition or, if it is not possible, to an appropriate condition relative to thesurrounding environment. Graffiti removal officers will certainly face a range of different circumstanceswhen they move to satisfy this option. So it is reasonable for there to be a degree of flexibility providedfor in the legislation outlining how this can be achieved.

The shadow minister for police and corrections, the member for Gregory, indicated that theopposition feels that the provisions of this bill could certainly be tougher as far as requiring those caughtfor graffiti to undertake the actual removal of the graffiti on the public or private property that they havedefaced. I certainly support that point of view very strongly and ask that the minister seriously considerenhancing the provisions of this bill to provide for stronger penalties and sanctions on perpetrators tothat end whilst we have this legislation before the House.


There has been a curious debate in the community about the relative merits of categorising graffitias a legitimate artistic medium. To my mind, this is a simple matter to resolve. If a person defaces publicor private property by way of graffiti without the express permission of the private property owner or thepublic authority that owns the relevant public property then this is clearly an act of vandalism which is acriminal act and the penalty should reflect that fact.

In no way can that type of graffiti be considered a legitimate artistic medium. In contrast, if aperson has the express permission of the private property owner or the public authority that owns therelevant public property to undertake an activity on that property that would otherwise be described asgraffiti, that is clearly what has long been referred to as street art and that certainly has a place in ourcommunity. This distinction should settle the curious debate where some have tried to act as apologistfor the perpetrators of graffiti by peddling a ridiculous proposition that graffiti is a legitimate artisticmedium.

In view of these observations, surely this bill ought to be more explicit in its provisions to ensurethese vandals are held to account and required to remove graffiti from the public eye on private andpublic property. The opposition has indicated its support for this legislation because it takes some stepsto address the serious problem of graffiti that affects a number of communities across Queensland.Certainly the opposition believes that the sanctions on and ramifications for perpetrators should be moreserious to be an effective deterrent to these common vandals.

Ms JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (6.22 pm): I am not going to talk for very long on this legislation butI want to raise a couple of issues. I wholeheartedly support the Summary Offences (Graffiti RemovalPowers) Amendment Bill. I am one of the members who has in the past spoken to the minister about theneed for changes—in particular, changes that allow authorised government and council officers toremove graffiti that is in a public place and readily visible from a public place. This bill is designed toactually improve the feeling of public safety by removing graffiti from public places.

This is an issue that I have spoken to the police minister about. There is a particular business inmy electorate on one of the main roads in The Gap. They have had ongoing issues with graffiti on theirproperty. It is private land and the council has not had the power until now to do anything about it. Iwholeheartedly welcome the changes in this legislation. This legislation is going to make a bigdifference in my community.

The Gap Community Association has been campaigning about this for some time to the BrisbaneCity Council. Up until now the council obviously has not had the ability to trespass onto the property toremove that graffiti. These changes will enable them to do that in the future. I am willing to get thegloves on and help with the removal of the graffiti at that site. It will lift public confidence in thecommunity when it is gone.

I want to respond to some of the points made by the member for Hinchinbrook. He said that thisgovernment has turned a blind eye to graffiti. I do not know how he can possibly make that assertionafter listening to the debate as it has unfolded this afternoon. The government has already introducedmany tough laws with regard to the restriction on the sale of spray cans. Young people can no longer getthem. This has already had results.

I refer to previous comments about that made in this chamber. The number of reported graffitioffences from 1 July 2006 to 31 December 2006 was 9,202. After the laws were introduced we saw thisnumber fall by almost half. That is a direct result of legislation that this government and this policeminister have put in place. I once again commend the police minister for this.

I also acknowledge the efforts of Queensland Transport and the graffiti management committee inensuring that the government works more collaboratively across portfolios to ensure that we tackle thisproblem head-on. We have seen some great changes at the train stations in my electorate, particularlythe Enoggera interchange, as a consequence of this collaboration. Once again, this is an example of theBligh government getting on with the job.

I constantly hear those opposite whingeing and whining. I remember when I first started workingfor the Beattie government the tag was ‘we work, you whinge’. Fast-forward 10 years and it is still ‘wework, you whinge’. Nothing has changed. Today’s effort from the opposition demonstrates this.

I will finish by saying thank you to the minister. I think she has been one of the best policeministers this state has ever had. She has done a great job. I support the legislation before the House.

Mr WEIGHTMAN (Cleveland—ALP) (6.25 pm): I rise to speak in support of the SummaryOffences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill 2008 and congratulate the minister on her forward-thinking initiative. In response to the lobbying of various state and local authorities that have approachedthis government seeking greater powers in the fight against the damage caused by graffiti relatedactivities, the Summary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill 2008 amends theSummary Offences Act 2005.

2284 Airport Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill 26 Aug 2008

A lot has been said about graffiti. It is something that people in my electorate have approachedme about. Last week we had a morning tea for our seniors and we spoke to them about identity theft.The minister attended this morning tea. I thank the minister for her attendance. One of my constituentsspoke passionately about graffiti and said how he vehemently detested the graffiti that he saw in andaround railway stations as he travelled from Cleveland to Brisbane. He clearly enunciated that it getsworse as he gets closer to Brisbane. Graffiti is an eyesore and something that people detest. It issomething that this state government has been working to reduce over a number of years.

In supporting this policy I draw the attention of the House to the criminology theory described byprofessors George Kelling and Catherine Coles of Harvard University in the early 1980s and 1990s.Kelling and Coles’s theory centred around the concept of fixing broken windows. I think this was alludedto by the member for Surfers Paradise. The professors argue that if one window of a building is brokenand not repaired the tendency for vandals to break the other windows and commit further vandalism isgreatly increased. The professors go on to suggest that the best way to reduce vandalism is to fix theproblems when they are small. Repairing windows quickly, for example, reduces the tendency for otherwindows in the building to be broken and for the state of the building to further decline.

In my experience as a police officer I often found that crimes of vandalism and graffiti increasedmost rapidly when minor incidents were not rectified. I am sure that many members of the House willknow of situations in their electorates where if minor incidents go uncorrected the incidence ofvandalism and petty crime flourish rapidly.

How many times have we seen a car abandoned on the side of a road? In the morning when wedrive past there is nothing wrong with the car. The next day we see one window broken. The next daythe window wipers are broken. The next day the tyres are gone and so on. It soon becomes an eyesoreand eventually it is taken away by local government. The same applies to houses in a suburb that aremarked for removal. Over a period of time windows are broken, fittings are wrecked and graffitigradually takes over the paintwork.

Kelling and Coles make two major claims about their theory. Firstly, fixing small problems likebroken windows will deter further crime. Secondly, such actions will reduce or prevent major crimes. Theprofessors have been criticised mostly in relation to the second of those arguments. The first point hasstood up remarkably over a period of time. If we are quick to act it is much easier to maintain thestandard that Queenslanders should be able to enjoy in our communities.

The legislation being debated today is an excellent example of this theory and will serve toprovide our state with a greater ability to fix this crime quickly, efficiently and effectively and reduce thetendency for this behaviour to occur. The legislation allows agreements to be made between anappointing authority and the property owners in addition to graffiti removal services. Under sucharrangements a fee may be charged. This type of arrangement could extend to the use of a particulartype of paint and it may include the costs of the paint in the agreement. Where a graffiti removal officeraccesses a private place that is a dwelling, the owner’s consent will dictate the terms of entry for visiblegraffiti removal. The consent might include the time of day the removal officer may enter the privateplace. Where the graffiti removal requires access to a private place that is not a dwelling, the graffitiremoval officer is restricted to a time of day that is appropriate to the circumstances. I commend thelegislation to the House.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 pm to 7.30 pm.

Debate, on motion of Mr Dempsey, adjourned.

AIRPORT ASSETS (RESTRUCTURING AND DISPOSAL) BILL

First Reading

Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (7.30 pm): I present a bill for an act tofacilitate disposal of particular airport businesses, including by facilitating the restructure or disposal ofairport entities, and to make provision about land use planning for, and control of, particular airports afterthe disposal. 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.

26 Aug 2008 Airport Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill 2285

Second ReadingHon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (7.31 pm): I move—


On 15 April 2008 the government announced the proposed divestment of its interests in Cairnsand Mackay airports, together with its shareholding in Brisbane Airport. The government intends toapply the funds realised from the divestment of these airports towards new health infrastructure in northQueensland. This is a bill that provides for a new hospital for Mackay, the Cairns Hospitalredevelopment and a redeveloped hospital at Mount Isa.

The airport businesses of each of Mackay and Cairns will be moved out of the ports corporationsinto two subsidiaries—namely, an airport lessor owning the airport land and an airport lessee/operatorwho takes a 99-year lease over the airport land. The airport leases for Mackay and Cairns airports willbe sold. The airport lessors will remain as state owned companies.

Special legislation is required to facilitate the full implementation of the divestment of thegovernment’s interest in Cairns and Mackay airports and its shareholding in Brisbane Airport. This billwill enable the state to complete the divestment process by the end of 2008. The bill empowers theTreasurer to facilitate the restructure of the businesses, assets and liabilities of the ports corporations bythe use of transfer notices and project directions. This is consistent with the approach adopted in theenergy asset sales and the sale of wind farms and the Enertrade gas business under the Energy Assets(Restructuring and Disposal) Act 2006. I seek leave to have the remainder of my second readingspeech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.The Bill also adopts other provisions of the EARDA to facilitate due diligence and sale processes, which affect third parties’commercial rights, such as excluding judicial review or obtaining the consent of third parties to the release of confidentialinformation or to the transfer of contracts. Given the State’s proposed timeframe and the need for certainty and speed in whichthings need to be done for this project, any unreasonable delay or legal proceedings could adversely affect the sale process. Thisis a significant commercial project and the purchasers of the airport entities and their stakeholders require certainty.

Given the need to balance the public interest in appropriate airport development, the strategic interests of the State in the airports,and the interests of bidders in maximizing the use of the airport land, a new planning regime for the airport land is established inthe Bill. Key features of that planning scheme are:

• To modify the current position under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 (TIA) including the base planningdocumentation and the land use plans (LUPs) only as much as necessary to ensure suitability for the new ownership ofthe airports and to use the processes and procedures of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA) where appropriate;

• The Chief Executive Officer of the Department administering IPA, the Department of Infrastructure and Planning (DIP) isspecified to be the assessment manager.

• The initial LUPs (as adapted), will be adopted by gazettal notice by the Treasurer, to commence on completion of theairports transaction.

• The airport land the subject of the LUPs will continue to be exempt from local planning schemes, the same as the currentstatus under the TIA. However, local government will benefit from receiving infrastructure charges in respect ofdevelopment on airport land together with a new role as an advice agency. Thus, on any development application requiredto be assessed by the chief executive of DIP, local government will be notified and consulted through the advice agencyprocess under IPA.

• Local government will also have a greater role in the regular replacement or amendment of LUPs as there will be theopportunity for local government to make submissions as part of the consultation process and a mandatory requirementfor the State to consider their submissions before any approval is given.

Given the need to control the behaviour of people and the movement of vehicles on airport land, provisions have been adopted tothe extent considered necessary to ensure the operation of the airport and safety and security of users. The Bill adopts the currentcontrol powers used by Ports Corporations under the TIA. The control powers will be vested in the State owned lessors (which willcontinue to hold the land) rather than the airport lessees or the ultimate operators of the airport. The relevant airport lessor willhave powers of delegation to the airport lessees, to ensure that day to day operations of the airport can be handled by the airportoperators and their staff and contractors. But the airport lessor (and through that means, the State) will continue to be able toensure that the powers that are made available under the Bill are exercised within appropriate guidelines.

The Bill also deals with the land tax and rates position of the airport lessees. Ordinarily the liability for payment of land tax underthe Land Tax Act 1915 and the payment of rates under the Local Government Act 1993 is imposed upon the owner of the land. Ifthis principle was adhered to, the government owned lessor companies would be liable to land tax and rates. Airport lesseesrather than the lessor companies will be liable for the payment of rates and land tax over commercial areas. Other areas such asland used for runways, taxiways, aprons, road, vacant land, buffer zones and grass verges, land identified in the land use plan forthese purposes, land occupied by or Commonwealth or State entity, and land below the high water mark will not be liable for ratesand land tax. The Bill largely replicates the current position of the port authorities responsibility to pay these charges, and assistslocal government in that liability for the payment of rates will now be clearly specified in the Local Government Act itself rather thanimposed through a Government guideline.

This Bill is necessary to meet the Government’s announced policy of the divestment of its interest in Cairns and Mackay Airportsand the Port of Brisbane’s Corporation’s, shareholding in Brisbane Airport.

Last year, the Government conducted a process for the sale of Government Owned Corporations wind farms and the Enertradegas business to provide for a Climate Change funding stream. The sale of Stanwell Corporation’s half share in the Emu DownsWind Farm in Western Australia (and another related development project) remains on foot.

2286 Liquor and Other Acts Amendment Bill 26 Aug 2008

The sale of Emu Downs Wind Farm to Transfield Services for $127 million has not reached financial close because the jointventure partner Griffin Energy has refused to consent to the change in control to facilitate the disposal of Stanwell’s interest. TheState believes that the consent has been unreasonably withheld and litigation is being vigorously pursued in the WesternAustralian Supreme Court for an appropriate declaration to permit completion.

The powers of the Treasurer in Part 3 of Energy Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Act 2006 will be required to be extended forextra time to efficiently attend to completion of the transaction, any necessary restructuring and the repatriation of sale proceeds.

Mr Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Johnson, adjourned.

LIQUOR AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

First ReadingHon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (7.33 pm): I present a bill for an act

to amend the Liquor Act 1992 and the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 for particularpurposes, and to make consequential amendments of other acts as stated in schedule 1 for purposesrelated to those particular purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and I move—That the bill be now read a first time.


Second ReadingHon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (7.33 pm): I move—


As members of the House are well aware, alcohol is widely available in Queensland and for themost part is responsibly consumed. However, when alcohol is consumed irresponsibly, the financial andsocial costs on both industry and our community can be very high. Minimising harm from the misuse andabuse of alcohol remains a high priority of the Bligh government.

On 17 April 2008 the government announced a package of harm minimisation initiatives withregard to liquor that will significantly impact on licensed premises across Queensland. Comments fromthe public and industry in response to the review have guided the government in developing theresulting liquor reforms. Over 8,400 submissions were received from the public in response to thegovernment’s regulatory impact/draft public benefit test that was released in February this year.

This bill that I am introducing tonight is to amend the Liquor Act 1992 which regulates the saleand supply of alcohol to implement the government’s liquor reforms. These reforms will encourageresponsible supply and responsible consumption of alcohol while at the same time ensure that industrycan continue to develop and innovate. The extensive consultation process conducted during the reviewof the Liquor Act and feedback from stakeholders has identified that this is what both industry and thecommunity want.

The Bligh government’s liquor reform proposals will see Queensland lead the way with the mostsignificant alcohol reform program in Australia. I seek leave to have the remainder of my second readingspeech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.For some years the Government has been actively working to reduce alcohol abuse via a range of strategies, such as theQueensland Alcohol Action Plan and the Brisbane City Safety Action Plan. These plans have seen the implementation of anumber of alcohol management initiatives such as the 3 am lockout, State-wide advertising bans and tougher licence conditions.

By continuing to build on these strategies, the current liquor reforms will reflect our rapidly changing state and address the crucialissue of harm minimisation. Queensland’s liquor legislation will now prioritise harm minimisation as the first object of the LiquorAct. Further, the Bill before the House legislates proactive strategies to minimise harm from the sale and supply of alcohol.

One of the most important strategies will deal with the problems associated with underage and youth drinking. The supply ofalcohol to minors, particularly by their parents, will be addressed through the introduction of a provision focused on limitingsecondary supply—the creation of an irresponsible supply offence. This provision, in conjunction with a strong marketingcampaign, will send a clear message to parents, older friends and siblings about the inherent risks of irresponsibly supplyingalcohol to minors. Police will have the ability to seize liquor from minors in private places if the consumption of the liquor is notbeing responsibly supervised. This is the first time such an offence will be recognised in Queensland law.

Additionally, the provision of a new Ministerial banning power will enable urgent action to be taken to prevent the sale ofundesirable liquor products which inappropriately target young people or encourage rapid and excessive consumption. Thisbanning power will not be directed at restricting innovation in the industry, but as a harm minimisation measure to stop themarketing of products specifically designed to appeal to one of the most vulnerable groups in our society.

26 Aug 2008 Liquor and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2287

Further, mandatory Responsible Service of Alcohol (RSA) training for employees of licensed premises and ResponsibleManagement of Licensed Venues (RMLV) and RSA training for licensees and managers will be introduced. This measure willguide responsible industry practices by increasing the awareness of the liquor laws and the application of those laws to ensure thesafety of patrons in and around licensed premises. The only exemption from mandatory RSA training will be for small communityclubs run by volunteers, where there is an individual with RSA training available to supervise alcohol service.

To further reduce the risks associated with the sale and supply of alcohol from licensed premises, this Bill will make it mandatoryfor all medium and high risk new applications for a liquor licence, and application to change the operation of a licensed premises,to complete a risk assessment management plan and a community impact statement. These documents will be thoroughlyassessed by the Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing and must be approved by the chief executive prior to the licence or changeto the licence coming into effect.

Another new provision will acknowledge the important role played by liquor accords in addressing problems associated withalcohol misuse and abuse in and around licensed premises. The Queensland Government is committed to having an effective andsustainable approach to dealing with the misuse of alcohol through a network of voluntary liquor accords, forming a co-operativeapproach to local liquor-related issues. In this regard, liquor accords have now been recognised in the Act.

A further initiative of the Bill is the re-structure of the current licensing regime to a more streamlined system of licences andpermits. The streamlining of the system will provide for two major categories of licences—namely, commercial licences andcommunity licences—down from the current 7 major categories. The overhaul will also provide for industry innovation byintroducing flexibility into businesses permitted to apply for a liquor licence and reducing red tape by making the licensing systemsimpler and easier to administer. One example of the increased flexibility will be the development of a boutique bar or wine barmarket in Queensland. The ability to open these unique themed and diverse establishments will allow the growth of live music andcultural venues across the state.

Annual liquor licence fees will be introduced, and will be based on the risk that each licensed premises presents to the community.Alcohol abuse and misuse requires significant expenditure by the Queensland Government. In Queensland, taxpayers arerequired to meet the costs associated with policing, health treatment, prevention and emergency responses, transport and othercosts. The new fees will ensure that licensees contribute appropriately to the direct on-going costs to Government ofadministering, managing and regulating the sale, supply and consumption of liquor at the premises; to harm minimisationinitiatives aimed at changing social and cultural attitudes towards alcohol consumption, particularly among young Queenslanders;and backed-up with additional inspectors to ensure licensees are under no doubt as to the Government’s commitment to ensuringthe safety and amenity in and around licensed premises.

The proposed fee model uses a self-assessment process for applicants and licensees to calculate their annual licence fee basedon how they operate. A base fee will apply to each licensed premises. This base fee varies according to the licence type andreflects the level of risk that is posed by the principal activity of the premises. In addition to the base fee, specific risk criteriaincluding the specified trading hours, the availability of meals in conjunction with the consumption of liquor and the licensee’scompliance history, will determine the total on-going costs to Government of regulating the licensed premises. Another example ofthe increased flexibility available to licensees will be the option of a proportional annual fee for weekend-only trading outside ofstandard hours.

The Bill will also restrict the trading hours of licensed premises in Queensland. Under the liquor reforms, ordinary trading hours willbe 10 am to midnight for all venues with the limited exceptions for special facilities such as casinos and some airports which willbe able to operate outside of these hours. Approval to trade past midnight will be available but will be subject to more stringentrequirements to ensure harm is minimised and appropriate levels of safety are maintained.

While it will be possible to trade after midnight, application to the Chief Executive to do so will be required, and each licensedpremises will be examined against stricter criteria to ensure appropriate levels of safety and amenity. An extended hours tradingapproval, to trade after midnight, will also incur increased financial cost for the prospective licensee.

The Government will also restrict trading hours prior to 10 am. Community clubs may apply to trade from 7 am to 9 am wherethere is a demonstrated need in the community, such as to accommodate shift workers, or where a club’s opening hours areassociated with the club’s main purpose such as the promotion of golf or bowls. Trading from 9 am to 10 am for all venues may beapproved only if need for trading during this period has been demonstrated.

Early morning trading for bona fide functions, such as weddings and corporate breakfasts, will also be permitted where it can bedemonstrated that the venue has a market for such functions. An extended hours trading approval, to trade prior to 10 am, willalso incur increased financial cost for the prospective licensee. These early morning approvals are only required for the sale ofliquor. If liquor is not being supplied, the venue facilities may continue to be used by patrons for activities such as breakfast orplaying a sport or game.

While approval may be obtained to sell liquor prior to 10 am, no machine gaming will be permitted prior to this hour.

All of these reforms will be supported by a social marketing community education campaign aimed at changing the drinking culturein Queensland. Too many of our young people are becoming victims of the misuse and abuse of alcohol. It is our responsibility toprotect the vulnerable from alcohol-related harm.

This Bill has been the result of extensive consultation with the liquor and hospitality industry, tourism operators, health and welfareworkers, the community and other interested stakeholders. I would like to take this opportunity to thank stakeholders for theirnoteworthy contributions and support for the liquor reforms.

Liquor reforms such as these involve substantial change, which has of course, received some opposition. However, the BlighGovernment’s commitment to reducing alcohol-related violence remains unchanged. Improving the safety and amenity for allQueenslanders cannot be sacrificed for the economic benefit of a minority.

The input from industry and the community was taken into consideration in drafting this final Bill, and the resulting changesstrengthened its workability. I am proud to say that these reforms are the collaborative result of a committed and concernedindustry, government and community.

I am pleased to introduce this Bill as its measures will benefit all Queenslanders.

Mr Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Johnson, adjourned.


SUMMARY OFFENCES (GRAFFITI REMOVAL POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second ReadingResumed from p. 2284, on motion of Ms Spence—


Mr DEMPSEY (Bundaberg—NPA) (7.35 pm): I rise to speak in support of cleaning up graffitiunder the Summary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill 2008. The reason for this bill isthat it allows state government and local council officials to enter premises and remove graffiti. Theobjectives of the Bill are to provide a legislative scheme to allow the appointment of state governmentand local council officials to remove public graffiti in any place, to support the swift removal of publiclyvisible graffiti and to increase the perception of community safety.

The stain of illegal graffiti costs hardworking Queenslanders millions of dollars and is an uglyeyesore on the urban landscape across this great state. The Summary Offences (Graffiti RemovalPowers) Amendment Bill is a mirror of Victorian state legislation that gives power to authorised localcouncils and government departments such as Queensland Rail to remove graffiti from private propertythat is visible from public areas. A 2005 crime and safety survey by the Australian Bureau of Statisticsfound that 25 per cent of Australians believed that graffiti was a major problem in their localneighbourhood. The costs to our communities for graffiti clean-up are enormous—at least $100 millionevery year Queensland-wide according to the previous police minister in 2003. That shows thesignificance of this burdening cost on our community.

Victoria’s graffiti management web site claims that the cost of graffiti clean-up across Australia in2003 was approximately $300 million a year. The cost of graffiti crime is passed on to the communitythrough higher service costs, insurance premiums and council rates, not to mention the costs ofcleaning up the surfaces themselves and paint to repaint where the graffiti was. This cost is anunnecessary burden on communities and those who commit illegal graffiti should be encouraged toclean it up. A pilot program using low-risk offenders to clean up graffiti was established in Mackay in2001 which reportedly saved the then Mackay City Council $400,000 in graffiti removal costs. Thegovernment’s bill before the House is very vague on who will actually be responsible for the clean-up ofgraffiti and does not provide any safeguards for homeowners if those who will be included in the clean-up operation are graffiti offenders themselves undertaking a period of community service or other moreserious offenders.

Illegal graffiti should not be mistaken for street art, as it is one of the major contributors toenhancing the perception of fear within our community. It is awful and negative to say, but from littlethings big things grow. The quicker we can remove graffiti, the better the chance to reduce overall crime.Graffiti can be premeditated and involve one or a number of perpetrators. Graffiti can also be a simple,senseless act that has a long-term effect on those it is committed against.

Illegal graffiti and tagging is a constant expense to the community and very unsettling tohomeowners and community organisations that have a great deal of pride in the presentation of theirproperties and homes. Illegal graffiti also projects a negative perception of our youth and society andmust be dealt with in such a way that offenders realise the impact that their actions have had on othermembers of the community. The majority of these illegal graffiti offenders are juveniles and because ofmindless acts they are presented before our courts, thus increasing the burden on our already short-staffed court system. These young offenders do not need criminal convictions to decrease their futureemployment prospects but they do need a community service program so that they can right the wrongsthat they have committed against their community, as well as increase the community perception ofsafety and re-establish confidence in our youth and ensure that they are responsible for their actions.

While I support this bill before the House which provides for the clean-up of graffiti and previouslegislation in relation to the sale and purchase of spray paint, this bill does not go far enough in solvingthe issue of why offenders commit the offences in the first place, addressing the repercussions of theoffenders’ behaviour in the community or addressing the much-needed increase in educational funds totake the so-called ‘cool’ factor out of committing these senseless offences. This bill does not address thesafety of these young offenders who are sometimes putting themselves and others’ lives at risk bycommitting these senseless offences. Once again, we see legislation that is soft on crime and is typicalof the current government focusing on a higher balance of ideological rights over responsibilities.

The Hon. Judy Spence, MP commented in her second reading speech that the bill was the nextstep that the government was taking to reduce graffiti following the recent passage of laws to prohibitthe sale of spray-paint cans to minors. It is good to see there is another step, but how many more stepsare we going to have to take before we finally get it right when an estimated cost of $100 million is beingspent on cleaning up graffiti every year?

In closing, I support this bill. I look forward to much-needed further amendments by futuregovernments to strengthen community expectations in reducing illegal graffiti offences and increasingcommunity safety.


Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (7.41 pm): I take this opportunity to make a short contribution to theSummary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill. The objective of this legislation is toprovide a legislative framework to allow state government and local council officers to remove publicgraffiti from any place. It is very important legislation. The impetus behind this bill is a need to recognisethat graffiti is an eyesore, it renders an area immediately vulnerable to vandalism and it makes an areaa target for further attacks. The state government recognises the anxiety and concern of localcommunities all over Queensland where graffiti has defaced property and property owners have beenfaced with the double job of cleaning up and preventing a recurrence. The bill confirms that the stategovernment is taking responsible action to stamp out and deter such antisocial behaviour.

Graffiti and defacing other people’s property is illegal and, as a community that strives to worktogether for positive outcomes, it is not acceptable for the people whom I represent. This bill willcontinue to support the hard work that is carried out by the officers of the Queensland Police Service intheir efforts to implement the existing penalty provisions as outlined by the honourable minister in hersecond reading speech. This bill will also enhance the effective work of the principles already in place inthe initial act of 2005.

As with all pieces of legislation, this bill will promote more effective interdepartmental work byensuring that, where applicable and appropriate, other government departments and agencies are ableto take a significant role in graffiti prevention as well. As many of us know from talking to constituentsand business owners in our electorates, graffiti is an ongoing problem and is one of the most frustratingsources of expense that face small business and property owners. It is well documented and a fact thatthe rapid removal of graffiti increases the perception of community safety and also minimises theopportunity for reoffence to take place.

This bill allows for provision of a notice of the proposed clean-up of an identified site that hasbeen smeared with graffiti to be given to the owners. No response to this notice will be regarded asdeemed consent for officers to enter the property and clean up the offending graffiti. In such cases, nofurther consent is required, which will enable a speedier clean-up process. Access to property isrestricted to the place where the graffiti has been carried out.

An officer’s access to a private dwelling of a resident is dealt with a little differently by this act.Officers can only enter with the owner’s express consent. Without this permission, the clean-up simplycannot take place. In fact, if the owners do not want the clean-up to happen, it will not happen at all. Ithink this is a good balance between the state government taking the initiative to improve currentlegislation and at the same time acknowledging the rights of the owners to decide under thosecircumstances. The act simply will not overstep the mark by forcing owners to allow officers onto theirproperty for the sole purpose of cleaning up graffiti. The only clean-up that is possible would then be thatpart of the property—perhaps a fence adjoining a public footpath—that can be accessed withouttrespassing onto the property.

I would like to conclude by making a few remarks about urban arts—street arts, as they arecalled. Not all aerosol spray art is graffiti. What is the difference? If permission has been given by way ofexpress consent of the owner and if the art form is appropriate then I think it is an acceptable form. Thehonourable minister for police in fact launched one of my community engagement vehicles. Ideliberately engaged one of my local urban artists to paint the vehicle with what I regard to beappropriate artwork. I did so because I want to give the young people a chance to acknowledge theirwork. I do acknowledge urban art forms in appropriate places in appropriate forms that are acceptableto the community. Certainly consent has to be given. I would like to once again congratulate the ministeron introducing this very important piece of legislation into this House.

Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (7.46 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the SummaryOffences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill 2008. When I reflect on my time in parliament Ithink one of the most important decisions that the government has made was the decision to legislate torestrict the supply of aerosol cans to children. Certainly in my electorate I saw a significant reduction inthe amount of graffiti. Can I say thank you, Minister, for that significant decision. We certainly did see areal effect.

The other significant decision that produced a reduction in graffiti in my electorate was inNambour when the minister supported our calls for a police beat for Nambour town. Again, that wasanother significant step as the police were regularly around and their presence certainly deterred idlehands getting into mischief.

I do have a couple of questions in relation to the possible ambit of this proposed legislation. I goto the definition of ‘graffiti’. I suppose the minister, in her reply or during consideration in detail, might beable to clarify it. A short time ago when the government announced the Traveston Dam, we saw manysigns appearing on the roadside. Some might refer to them as graffiti; others in the community certainlyhad a different view about the purpose of those signs. I would hope that this may not be used as ameans to remove signage for a legitimate public protest against a decision by a council or a stategovernment in the future where that protest is reasonable. I know there was tolerance allowed for some


time and eventually the minister for transport made a decision that action was going to be taken toremove quite a few of the signs. I am after some clarification that this provision may not be used as asledgehammer.

Mr Hayward interjected. Mr WELLINGTON: There were many signs in the community of the hinterland of the Sunshine

Coast. Some journalists were actually going around and doing stories about the variation of the signsand the imagination that many people used.

Mr Finn: What were some of them? Mr WELLINGTON: Perhaps if you would like to travel and visit the hinterland of the Sunshine

Coast we could go for a tour to Traveston.Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Palaszczuk): Order! Member for Nicklin, direct your comments

through the chair. Mr WELLINGTON: I come back to the point. The minister has my support on the intent, but I

would hate to see this legislation provide an opportunity for some very enthusiastic enforcement officersof a government or a council in the future to curtail public comment about decisions that governments orcouncils might make which are very controversial in their community. I commend the bill to the House. Ilook forward to the minister’s clarification so that some of those officers may not get overly excited bytheir new powers.

Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport)(7.50 pm), in reply: I thank all members for their contribution. I think all members are agreed that graffitiis distasteful and we collectively want to do everything that we can to stop these graffiti idiots in oursociety. It is certainly an issue that stirs up huge concern within the community. I appreciate that manymembers of parliament who have spoken on this issue this afternoon and this evening are really verymuch in touch with this problem in their own electorates and have given us lots of good examples of howtheir own community initiatives have resulted in the reduction in graffiti. At the end of the day, theseproblems will be solved by communities not by law enforcement agencies or politicians alone. It isterrific to hear about those initiatives.

As police minister I receive about 80 letters a week. One would think that they wouldpredominantly be about violent crimes et cetera, but they are not. Those letters are about graffiti,hooning and traffic related offences. I know that in our community things like graffiti are certainly whatannoys people and gives the appearance that crime is more serious than it really is.

I would particularly like to acknowledge the member for Mudgeeraba, Di Reilly, for her tenacityand also that of her local police community consultative committee that has consistently raised thisissue with me. In particular I thank Mr Robert Hitchon, the secretary of the Mudgeeraba PoliceCommunity Consultative Committee, and all the members of that committee. Their recentrepresentations did not go unnoticed. Another strong group that made representations to get this kind oflegislation to parliament were the Gold Coast City Council. The Gold Coast council probably has alarger number of absentee landowners than other areas of the state. So it will be particularly useful forthat city council. I have also had some recent representations from the Lord Mayor of Brisbane aboutgraffiti which I will go into a bit later.

This bill is really about one thing: giving the council and our state government officers the powerto rapidly remove graffiti. The opposition have talked a lot tonight about penalties, but it is inappropriatein this piece of legislation to toughen penalties. That is not what this bill is about. If members want toconsider going down the path of toughening graffiti penalties, that has to be done through the Penaltiesand Sentences Act rather than through this bill.

The reason that this bill is before us is because it has been of concern to graffiti teams in councilsand government, particularly in Queensland Rail, that they have been powerless to remove ghastlygraffiti markings from industrial sites and deserted properties because of the difficulty of contactingowners. The new provisions will allow council and government graffiti teams to give these absenteelandlords or owners 14 days notice before the council or state government officers can go and removethe graffiti from these premises. That is really what we are debating tonight.

I acknowledge the member for Nicklin and his acknowledgement that the ban on spray paintbeing sold to persons under 18 years of age has really made a difference. We have seen the reductionin graffiti offences since we introduced these bans. In fact, we have seen a 40 per cent reduction ingraffiti offences. They have dropped from 9,202 offences in July 2006 to December 2007, to 5,546 from1 July 2007 to 31 December 2007. The clear-up rates for police between these two periods improved bynine per cent from 35 per cent to 44 per cent. Some members of the opposition, particularly the memberfor Surfers Paradise, do not like to believe my statistics. I do not make up these figures. They areprovided to me by the Queensland Police Service. There is no ministerial pressure on them to make upfigures for me. They are the figures that have been provided to me. Certainly anecdotally police tell methat that has made a real difference.


A number of speakers, particularly those in the opposition, have said tonight that the people whoare doing the graffiti should be the ones who remove it; that we should be requiring people to removegraffiti on property that they have defaced. On the face of it that sounds a very reasonable suggestion,but think about this: one of the main ways we will reduce graffiti is if we remove it immediately. If we areasking the graffiti vandals to remove their own graffiti we will have to wait until the court process iscompleted and that will be six months down the track. Meanwhile that graffiti will stay on that building orfence until that court case is completed. It is a ridiculous mantra to suggest that we can get the graffitivandals to remove their own graffiti. That is simply not logical when one considers the court timeinvolved.

What we do do though is have people who are on community corrections orders remove graffiti.Last year Queensland Corrective Services, with offenders 17 years and over, spent 336,000 hoursremoving graffiti. We put a value on that to the community of about $5 million last year. We are workingtowards making this happen more often. I think that we can do better with our community correctionspeople. That is why, as part of the consultation on this bill and following a review into community service,Queensland Corrective Services has established a community service local government engagementstrategy. Graffiti removal will be the focus of that strategy.

We have recently appointed a statewide community service coordinator to rejuvenate ourcommunity service and make it a stronger sentencing option for the courts. I can promise members thata cornerstone of this strategy will be working with local governments creating local community advisorycommittees and those committees can advise us about how we can best use these people in graffitiremoval.

As I said before, I have had a number of discussions with Campbell Newman over the last coupleof months about this matter. He has put additional money in this year’s budget and for forward years andhe wants to work with our police to create greater graffiti teams throughout Brisbane. Hopefully in thenext couple of weeks we will have a major announcement to make on how we can tackle the graffitiproblem in Brisbane. I publicly acknowledge the work that the Brisbane City Council is already doing toremove graffiti. We will continue that partnership.

The Lord Mayor, Campbell Newman, did ask me to introduce as part of this legislation tonight alaw which would allow local councils to charge for this graffiti removal. He is a bit cranky that we havenot given the council the power to charge for graffiti removal. What we have given in this bill is the powerfor councils to negotiate with landlords for graffiti removal. If an owner wishes, for example, a uniquecolour to be used by a council officer to obscure the graffiti or wishes the council to paint the entire wallrather than just a section of the wall, the council can enter into an agreement with the owner to pay theadditional costs. We have given them that power in this bill tonight, but we have not given them thepower to charge owners without their consent.

We did look at the creation of that kind of fee structure. I told Campbell Newman I would have agood look at it. But there are many problems with creating that kind of fee structure in this kind oflegislation. We believe it would lead to an expectation from building owners that the paint job would beof a professional standard and that is not necessarily going to be the case. The charging system willrequire council to match the existing paint or agree on a new colour scheme with the owner. It may alsorequire more work being undertaken by the council—that is, forcing council into painting full walls ratherthan painting just the section containing the graffiti. Further, owners would need to be contactedpersonally for the negotiations which would not necessarily assist the very issue that council workersare concerned with, and that is getting the graffiti off the walls as quickly as possible.

Of course some state government organisations such as Queensland Rail are already busy withthe task of graffiti removal. Queensland Rail is very keen to see this legislation passed as quickly aspossible so that it can clean up industrial buildings along the railway tracks that it has not been able toclean up in the past.

Under our legislation, if no response has been received from an owner after 14 days of leavingthe notice for the owner, authorised officers can go onto the non-residential property and remove thegraffiti that is visible from a public place. However, if the owner does not want the graffiti removed, weare not going to remove it. Ultimately, the choice is that of the building owner.

The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee raised a number of issues around the civil liberties andrights of property owners, the immunity provided to graffiti removal officers and helpers, and whether thedelegation of ministerial powers is appropriate. Graffiti removal powers do not allow a graffiti removalofficer to enter the land around premises associated with the graffiti unless seeking consent or leaving anotice. An officer can never enter a person’s home or business premises unless the owner invites theofficer inside. The notice will inform the owner of any proposed action prior to the removal of the graffiti.

The owner will have the opportunity to raise an objection in the following 14 days. Should noobjection be raised within that time, the owner is taken to have provided consent and the graffiti removalofficer may then enter the private land and remove the graffiti. The officer may enter only to the extent


reasonably necessary to remove the graffiti. However, if the owner attends while the graffiti removalprocess is being undertaken and indicates that he or she wants the graffiti to remain, the officer will notremove the graffiti.

Where the public graffiti is on a person’s home or inside their property line, a graffiti removalofficer will be able to remove it if it can be reached from a public place. This means the officer can paintthe outside of a fence or lean over the fence to remove graffiti from an object just inside the fence. Theonly time a graffiti removal officer can enter the yard surrounding a person’s home is for the purpose ofseeking the owner’s consent to remove graffiti. This is no different and extends no further than the rightany member of the public has to knock on a homeowner’s front door. The owner of the property has thefinal say as to whether the graffiti is removed.

In conclusion, the member for Nicklin asked whether I could give a commitment that signs wouldnever be regarded as graffiti. I cannot give that commitment because tonight we are giving the power tolocal councils to determine what is graffiti. At the end of the day, local councils involve elected people. Ifthey start removing signs in an unpopular fashion, they will have to answer to their electorates for that.

There is no such thing as victimless crime and graffiti is not a victimless crime; it affects us all.This bill is the next practical step the government is taking to ensure the safety and wellbeing of allQueenslanders. Every member of our community has the right to feel safe. Graffiti is unsightly and itmakes our neighbourhoods, which we cherish, look like slums and hives of criminal activity. Our greatstate is better than that. In recent years the police have done an excellent job in forcing crime ratesdown. However, we must continue to work on reducing the fear of crime. The ability for authorisedpeople to remove graffiti from private places is another step towards achieving that goal. The Blighgovernment is committed to bringing in laws that will secure tomorrow’s future today.

Finally, I offer my sincere thanks to my staff, Simon Tutt and Fred Gwin, Senior Sergeant TroySchmidt and Sergeant Rachel Chan from the Queensland Police Service for their work on the summaryoffences (Graffiti Removal Powers) Amendment Bill 2008. I commend the bill to the House.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Palaszczuk): Are there any explanatory notes tothe amendments already tabled?

Ms SPENCE: I am happy to table the explanatory notes. Tabled paper: Explanatory notes for Minister Spence’s amendments to the Summary Offences (Graffiti Removal Powers)Amendment Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Consideration in DetailClauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6 (Insertion of new pt 3)—Ms SPENCE (8.05 pm): I move the following amendments—

1 Clause 6 (Insertion of new pt 3), proposed section 45 (Delegation by Minister)—At page 15, line 20, after ‘a department’—

insert—

‘or the chief executive officer (however described) of a government owned corporation’.

2 Clause 6 (Insertion of new pt 3), proposed section 45 (Delegation by Minister)—At page 15, lines 24 to 27—

omit, insert—

‘(3) The chief executive officer of a government owned corporation may subdelegate the delegated functions to anappropriately qualified employee in—

(a) the government owned corporation; or

(b) a subsidiary of the government owned corporation.

‘(4) In this section—

appropriately qualified, for an officer or employee to whom a function may be subdelegated, includes having thequalifications, experience or standing appropriate for the function.’.

Amendments agreed to. Clause 6, as amended, agreed to. Clause 7, as read, agreed to.

26 Aug 2008 Mining and Other Legislation (Safety and Health Fee) Amendment Bill 2293

Third ReadingHon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport)

(8.08 pm): I move—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time.

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

Long TitleHon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport)

(8.08 pm): I move—That the long title of the bill be agreed to.


MINING AND OTHER LEGISLATION (SAFETY AND HEALTH FEE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second ReadingResumed from 3 June (see p. 1845), on motion of Mr Wilson—

That the bill be now read a second time. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (8.09 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the consideration of the

Mining and Other Legislation (Safety and Health Fee) Amendment Bill. It will come as no surprise toanyone in the House that the opposition will not be supporting this bill and the reason for that is veryclear. At the very beginning of the explanatory notes that accompany the bill, the third paragraph states,‘The objective of the bill is to obtain funding from coal mining, mining and quarrying and explosivesindustries for State... ’

Those of us who were in this House when we considered the state budget not so very long agoshould remember only too well that the coalmining, mining and quarrying industries provided $3 billionto this year’s state budget. That is almost three times what they provided in the very recent past, yet thegovernment is still not happy. The government is still not happy with industries that provide $3 billion,underwrite the state’s budget and provide the Treasurer with the wherewithal to ensure that the budgethas some respectability. In the week after the budget the government introduced a bill to seek another$26 million from the same industry.

In the years that I have been here I have seen the mining industry treated very badly by the stateLabor government. In fact in the late 1990s members in this state used to refer to the mining industry asa sunset industry. They thought that Queensland had to move away from a dependence on the miningindustry. They said that we had to develop a new industry to support the state. It was part of the rhetoricused to justify the Smart State slogan. Somehow, biotechnology and all of those emerging industrieswould take over from the mining industry, which would fade away into history as some sort of a mildembarrassment that we no longer needed.

That was the attitude that was quite openly put forward in this House by members of thegovernment. They have not been quite so forward in putting those views in recent years as the miningindustry has been able to take advantage of the worldwide demand for Queensland resources toprovide the state budget with $3 billion in direct income from royalties, quite apart from what the statemakes out of the rail freight and all of the other indirect contributions that the industry makes to everyQueenslander.

I often remind this House that every Queenslander should appreciate the contribution that themining industry makes. Every Queenslander should appreciate the extent to which public infrastructureand the public funding of this state are underwritten by the mining industry. It is an industry that is madeup of people and companies who are prepared to put up their money, to take the risk and to make hugeinvestments to ensure that the mining projects that provide employment to so many Queenslandersbecome a reality. The significance of that industry should be appreciated not just by every individualQueenslander but by every member who sits in this House and represents those Queenslanders.

So it is that every member in this House should be concerned about this legislation before theHouse tonight because it is a piece of legislation that is simply designed to obtain more funding fromcoalmining and associated industries. The explanatory notes should be amended because this bill isabout obtaining even more money from an industry that makes a huge contribution to the state ofQueensland and indeed to every Queenslander.

2294 Mining and Other Legislation (Safety and Health Fee) Amendment Bill 26 Aug 2008

There is an attempt in the minister’s second reading speech and in the explanatory notes tosuggest that this bill is necessary to maintain a high standard of safety and health for mining andassociated industries. Of course everybody supports the maintenance of a high standard of safety andhealth for those people who work in that industry and who are directly involved in ensuring that thatindustry provides the benefits that it does to all Queenslanders. Of course everybody supports that.

No doubt there will be an attempt to misconstrue our opposition to the bill as some sort of lack ofsupport for health and safety. There will be the normal puerile, juvenile attempts to misconstrue what weare saying in defence of the industry as some sort of lack of support for the concepts of workplacehealth and safety. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. Our regard and our respect for thepeople who work in the mining industry, who go to work every day to provide that enormous benefit toevery Queenslander, is so much greater than that which is shown by members on the other side of theHouse. While they talk the talk when it suits them, their actions do not support the mining industry. Theydo not provide the sound base that the industry needs to ensure it can continue to provide thosebenefits to Queensland.

It is worth putting on record some of the statistics from the government’s own publication thatclearly indicate just how great that contribution is. This document is produced by the Department ofMines and Energy, so there can be no contestation of these particular figures because they are thegovernment’s own figures. They serve to illustrate the point that I am making and the point that needs tobe continually made.

Mr Wilson: What is the reference to the document?

Mr SEENEY: The document is the Review of Queensland mining legislation: discussion paper.The figures, as the minister would know, are repeated a number of times on the department’s web site.

The department itself claims that in 2004–05 the mining industry contributed 8.2 per cent of grossstate product, or $11.7 billion, to Queensland’s economy. It clearly points out that trends in mineralproduction show that the value of total mineral production in Queensland increased from about$7.4 billion in 1999-2000 to about $15.3 billion in 2004-05. It makes the point that exports of mineralsand processed minerals from Queensland increased from $8.426 billion in 1999-2000 to $13.797 billionin 2004-05, equivalent to 52.3 per cent of Queensland’s total merchandise exports. As I indicated,mineral royalty payments to the Queensland government increased from about $427 million in 1999-2000 to about $907 million in 2004-05. And we saw in the budget this year that incredible figure ofalmost $3 billion in royalties alone.

In terms of jobs, in 2004-05 the mining sector employed over 24,800 people in Queensland. In2005-06 the mining sector employed over 37,200 people in Queensland in direct employment, anincrease of 12,400 jobs or 50 per cent over that period. Members would know that the mining industrygenerates significant numbers of indirect jobs in downstream processing and support industries, and allof the service industries that depend on the mining industry, not just in the mining communities but in allof the regional centres right through to the capital city of Brisbane, depend on the continued success ofthe mining industry.

In terms of investment, in 2004-05 capital investment in Queensland’s mining sector was$2,162 million—that is an incredible amount of money—representing 20.9 per cent, over 20 per cent, oftotal capital investment in Queensland. That is the sort of commitment that people in the mining industryare prepared to make to their industry and to the state of Queensland.

But what is often forgotten by the socialists who sit on the other side of the House is that thesecompanies do not have to invest in Queensland. Increasingly, the investment market is a competitiveone. Increasingly, there are countries around the world competing for that investment dollar. While thosecompanies continue to make that enormous investment as in 2004-05 of $2,162 million, allQueenslanders will continue to reap the benefits. But, unless that sort of commitment and investment isrecognised not just with words but with actions and policies, then those companies have everyopportunity to go elsewhere because it is a competitive investment market. There are any number ofcountries across the world who are competing for that type of investment.

The department itself recognises that in its own document. I will quote from that documentbecause it is very pertinent that the department recognises that but it is not reflected in what thegovernment does. In this document the department, in looking at Australia and the global market,states—Industry’s influence is global. Foreign mining companies continue to diversify their mineral property portfolios into developed anddeveloping countries ... Demand incorporates not just the traditional big users ... but also new major players, such as China andIndia.

... Yet Australia’s share of global mineral exploration continues to decline. Given the global business nature of mining, Australia hasto compete for exploration funds with other countries that also have a high mineral endowment. Over recent years, brownfieldsexploration has been the main contributor of new resources in Australia; however, this is not sustainable in the long term.


The department makes the point very clearly that Australia, and more particularly Queensland,has to compete for those exploration dollars and for those investment dollars. Unless the investmentclimate here in Queensland is of a nature that provides an advantage or at least an equal footing tothose companies, then they will go elsewhere.

Future generations of Queenslanders will be denied what so many people today take for granted,and that is the enormous contribution that the mining industry makes to public infrastructure in everyelectorate that is represented in this parliament. The money to pay for schools, hospitals, roads and allof those things that all of us want to see in our electorates will not be available to the same extent if wehave a series of government policies which ensures that Queensland is not competitive in theinternational investment market.

That is what this legislation does. I would go so far as to say that the actual quantum of moneythat is being taken from the industry is not as significant as the message that it sends, or the impact thatit will have. This is an industry that, as I said, contributes $3 billion in direct royalty payments. A veryshort period of time after that becomes evident to all Queenslanders in the state budget, the governmentcomes into the parliament and slugs the industry for another $26 million. Rather than using the forumthat is available here to ensure that every Queenslander understands and appreciates the contributionthat the mining industry makes and, more importantly, to ensure that the industry understands weappreciate that, the government slugs the industry for another $26 million. For what? To pay for theservices that the department has previously paid for. It is not to provide something new. It is not to makethings better. It is not to ensure that the industry can conduct its business in a better way. It is not toensure that the Queensland investment climate is more competitive in the global investment climatewhich I spoke about before.

The $26 million slug is simply to ensure that the industry pays for what was the department’sbudget. That is what the $26 million is about. Rather than pay for the activities of the department out ofthe $3 billion that the government already gets from the industry, it is going to say, ‘$3 billion is notenough. We cannot get the $26 million that we need out of that. We are going to slug you again foranother $26 million,’ to provide the services that traditionally have been provided by the department andshould be provided by the department.

It is not hard to understand how the industry feels about that. It is not hard to understand how anyindustry would feel about that. It is not hard to understand the effect that decisions such as this, whenthey accumulate over time, will have on investment decisions that companies will take about investing inQueensland. There has been a series of such decisions. You cannot see this legislation and theproposal that it puts forward in isolation. There has been a series of decisions made by this governmentover a period of time which sends a completely wrong signal to the mining industry. I would venture tosay there is none more so than the decision to ban the mining of shale oil—a decision apparently takenon Saturday afternoon so it could be announced in time for the Sunday morning papers to gain somecheap publicity. That decision taken in such an arbitrary way, without any proper consideration or dueprocess, also sends an incredibly bad signal to the investment community—to all of those companieswhich have the option of investing anywhere in the world. That decision taken last weekend regardingthe shale oil proposal is the latest in a long series of such signals that have been sent to the miningindustry.

Whether or not the company that was involved could have developed that project to a point whereit could have legitimately proceeded is something that we will now never know, because the project hasbeen arbitrarily ruled out for cheap political purposes. For the sake of a cheap Sunday morning headlinethe government has destroyed the confidence which mining companies and investment proponentsshould have in the processes of a viable and dependable state government. There should be aprocess—

Mr Wilson: Are you opposed to the moratorium on shale oil? Mr SEENEY: Minister, that is a cheap response. That is the sort of cheap response that does not

do you as minister any credit. What I am opposed to, quite clearly, is the arbitrary decision making thatis evident in what happened last weekend. Whether or not shale oil or any other project gets the greenlight or gets the approvals that it requires is something that can only be determined when you have acreditable process that evaluates all of the issues that are involved.

What we need in Queensland, and what is incredibly important for Queensland’s future, is thatinvestment companies and proponents of any project can have confidence in that process. They need tohave confidence in the process that the government has in place to properly evaluate the project thatthey are spending money on. In this particular case the company is purported to have spent $200 milliondeveloping that project to this very early stage. Yet it was arbitrarily ruled out without any semblance ofcredibility in regard to the process that was involved.

Mr Wilson: So you support the moratorium at Proserpine? Mr SEENEY: And for what? For the sort of cheap politics that the minister is demonstrating here

tonight. Whether or not that project could have satisfied the very necessary environmental requirementsthat would have been required of it is something that should have been determined by a proper process,


not by a cheap political decision so the minister could come in here and display the cheapest politicalstrategy of asking, ‘Do you, or do you not, support it?’ What I support is a process that is credible. WhatI support is a process that ensures the worldwide investment community can have confidence in thestate of Queensland in spending money on exploration and spending money on developing projects inthe sure knowledge that they will get a fair hearing, not have their projects arbitrarily dismissed on aSaturday afternoon so the government can get a cheap headline on Sunday morning.

That is the reality of what happened last weekend. It is another very strong signal to theinvestment community right around the world that there is no creditable process here in Queensland.There is no creditable approach by this state government to the mining industry. It is more interested incheap politics and cheap headlines, and that is going to be to the detriment of every Queenslander intime. That will ensure that we do not get the sort of investment that we need—the sort of investmentwhich the department itself recognised in this document is necessary to ensure the industry cancontinue to provide the great benefit that it has done to the state budget.

I return more specifically to the legislation. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in its reporttabled in the parliament this morning had some disturbing observations to make about the bill,particularly regarding the regulation-making powers inherent in the legislation. The legislation gives thepower to the minister to make regulations to determine not just the quantum of the fee that is going to becharged but also how that fee is going to be collected and how the information is going to be obtained inrelation to the information required to be provided by the companies involved.

It could be taken from the comments the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee made that the powersthat are being granted to the minister in these regulations are somewhat draconian and certainly raisequestions about the rights of the employees and the rights of the companies that are involved. Why is itnecessary to go to these lengths to ensure that the minister can get his $26 million? It is almost aningrained assumption that somehow or other the mining companies are going to try to avoid this and theminister needs extraordinary powers to access the information and ensure that they pay their last dollar.

The fee proposed in this legislation will be imposed per worker. There is a fee of dollars perworker. It is dependent on the company filling in a quarterly return and telling the minister and thegovernment how many workers they have. It is interesting to note from the briefing that was provided tous this afternoon that anyone on a mine site for more than 14 days becomes a number on which thecompany has to pay the fee. Anyone who is there for more than 14 days costs the company $600 or$800 or whatever the minister decides the fee is going to be under the power granted by this regulation.

It is not hard to see that it is going to be an impost on mining operations. It is going to be animpost on those who have to keep those records and those who have to be subject to the types ofinvestigations that this legislation makes possible. It is certainly going to be something that will annoycompanies for some time to come. It will annoy the people who really need to be able to get on with thejob of providing the employment opportunities, the royalties and all of the other benefits to the state ofQueensland.

Rather than the government using the parliament this week to demonstrate its appreciation of theindustry and to demonstrate its appreciation of the people who work in the industry and provide the$3 billion in royalties that underwrite the state budget, we have this piece of legislation that is going toensure that those people are going to be annoyed and hassled for every last dollar for years to come.The minister tries to make the justification in his second reading speech and in the explanatory notesthat the industry is going through a boom period so there is no question about whether they can pay.This is an argument we have heard before from the government when it arbitrarily increased the royaltylevels in the lead-up to the state budget. It said that the industry is going through a boom so it can pay.

The mining industry by its very nature is cyclical. Everybody knows that the mining industry goesthrough booms and busts. I take it, without any shadow of doubt in my mind, that there is nocommitment from the minister to reduce these charges when the cycle reaches its inevitable end. Whilehe uses the fact that the industry is enjoying a cyclical high to justify these continuous financial impostson the industry there is no commitment, there is no suggestion from him that when that cycle inevitablyends these financial imposts will be removed. Of course they will not. No-one is naive enough to expectthat they will. That makes a mockery of the argument that somehow or other they can be justifiedbecause of the cyclical boom that the industry is enjoying.

As I said earlier in my contribution and I will say again in conclusion, this legislation will seek torecover some $26 million from an industry that already provides $3 billion in royalties alone. Some$3 billion in royalties alone was somehow not enough for a greedy state Labor government to fund theservices that have been provided by the mines department for many years. Some $3 billion was notenough so it had to slug the industry another $26 million to pay for the activities of the department.

While the industry will pay that $26 million, I have no doubt that it will be an ongoing source ofannoyance and anger, and so it should be. It sends a message to the industry over and above what it isworth in financial terms. It sends the wrong message to the industry. It compounds the messages thatthe government has sent to the industry in the past—in the very recent past in the case of the decisionthat was taken last Saturday afternoon in time for a Sunday morning headline.


It compounds the message that to this state Labor government the mining industry is anopportunistic cash cow. It is something that the government does not really have any respect for but it issomething that it is happy to rip the money out of every time. The government has no respect at all forthe industry.

Year after year we see legislation come into this House that clearly indicates that there is norespect by the Labor government for the men and women who work in the industry, for the men andwomen who make up the companies that invest their own money in projects that provide employmentopportunities, that provide an economic base to the communities that members in this House represent.Yet those members come into this House and support legislation that makes it harder for that industry toprovide the benefits to all Queenslanders.

Ms Jarratt interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! The member for Whitsunday. I would remind the

member for Callide that he is not having a debate with the member for Whitsunday. Mr SEENEY: I was very careful not to, but thank you anyway. The member for Whitsunday has

identified herself and she can answer to her own constituents. She should answer to everyQueenslander because it is every Queenslander who benefits from the mining industry. It is everyQueenslander who benefits from the financial resources that the mining industry provides.

Every Queenslander should appreciate that. Every Queenslander should thank a miner everyday. This state budget is underwritten by the mining industry to the point of $3 billion. Each memberopposite should stand up in this debate and thank the people who work in the mining industry. Mychallenge to those opposite is to stand up and thank the miners, thank the men and women who go outin their orange shirts and their hard hats and make those projects viable so that the members in thisHouse can enjoy the benefits in their electorates of all that publicly funded infrastructure.

Rather than doing that, those opposite bring in a piece of legislation which sends the exactopposite message. It says that as a government it is not prepared to do anything for the industry. It isgoing to slug the industry another $26 million even though it provides $3 billion in this year’s budget indirect royalties alone.

Those opposite are going to slug the industry another $26 million to pay for the activities that thedepartment has carried out for many years. There is no other way to view this legislation. Quite apartfrom that, the legislation adds on some draconian regulation-making powers for the minister so he cansomehow treat the industry as though they are defaulters already. The assumption is inherent in thislegislation that the industry is going to default so the minister needs these draconian powers to recoverthe $26 million as though the very future of the government depended on it.

There is no recognition—no appreciation—of the contribution that the mining industry as a wholemakes and there is no attempt to ensure that there is an investment climate in Queensland that isfavourable to investors who face competition from a worldwide investment market. That is the reality ofthis legislation before the House tonight and that is the reason we will oppose it. We will oppose thislegislation just as we have opposed every other attempt by the state Labor government to restrict orimpugn the activities of the mining industry.

We will continue to support the mining industry and we will continue to trumpet the debt ofgratitude that every Queenslander owes to the mining industry for the financial wellbeing of this state.While the government and especially the minister like to stand up at times and mouth empty words andempty rhetoric, the introduction of this sort of legislation very clearly brands the state Labor governmentas a government that does not appreciate the mining industry and does not appreciate the contributionthat that industry and the men and women who work in that industry make. We do. We will oppose thislegislation and we will continue to support the mining industry.

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (8.40 pm): After listening to his contribution this evening I echothe sentiments of the shadow minister and member for Callide in relation to this legislation. As themember for Callide has rightfully identified and illustrated, some $3 billion has been pulled out of themining industry to prop up some of the major capital works programs here in south-east Queensland.We do not deny them to south-east Queensland; however, I heard the interjection of the member forWhitsundsay with regard to miners who go back to the coast—whether it is to Mackay, Rockhampton orany other part of the coast—and the roads that they travel on. I refer in particular to the road betweenEmerald and Rockhampton, and no-one would know better than you, Mr Deputy Speaker, of thefatalities on that road this year. There have been some eight or nine fatalities plus other serious injuriesas a result of heavy traffic and inadequate road infrastructure. As the member for Callide very clearlyidentified and illustrated earlier, there will be an extra $26 million on top of the $3 billion that has alreadybeen raked out of the mining industry. This is a culture that has to change.

Whilst the mining industry has been a good milch cow, it is a cow—an industry—that might notstay there forever. We have seen the issues confronting the agricultural industry and what is going tohappen with it in terms of emissions trading. Will we see these two great industries virtually wiped outbecause somebody says that they are destroying the atmosphere and destroying everything else?


One thing that those of us on this side of the House have always done is stand up for the worker,and we certainly do stand up for these workers. It was the minister himself who met with concernedmembers of the CFMEU in Middlemount last year. A series of issues were canvassed with him inrelation to mining injuries that have resulted in a miner not clocking on the next day and that have notbeen accurately recorded, according to Queensland mine safety statistics. Miners have known the factsof the incidents for years. Now that there is a 65-page report put together by health and safety experts atthe request of the minister—for which I give him credit—that has exposed many contentious issues thatminers themselves have known for years.

Recording only lost-time injuries paints a false picture of this very important industry, becausethere are lost-time injuries, disability injuries and restricted work injuries. There seems to be some sortof a cover-up in terms of these injuries, as the minister himself clearly recognises, in the Department ofMines and Energy’s annual report. This is an indictment on an industry that proudly boasts itsimpeccable record, but at the same time the miners at the coalface have known the problems and it isparamount that there are changes so that these people can go about working in a safe environment. AsI said earlier, the culture that exists is not in the best interests of the personnel who work in thisdangerous workplace, and it is made more dangerous if the figures are bodgied.

With regard to taking another $26 million off these mining companies, I would have thought itwould be the responsibility of the Department of Mines and Energy to make absolutely certain thatworkplace conditions are safe for these people to work in this environment. I do not know why thislegislation is even on the table of the House, because the minister said after his meeting at Middlemountlast year that he is going to now look at the 36 recommendations that have been put on the table byconcerned miners and concerned industry people, spearheaded by the CFMEU. The 36recommendations to be worked through in the best interests of these personnel relate to, first andforemost, their safety and, secondly, the productivity of these mining operations, as the shadow ministerclearly identified this evening.

There is a whole host of issues in relation to this great industry—an industry that we boast as oneof the safest mining industries in the world. We can compare our industry’s records with those of someof our counterparts in China and Russia and look at fatalities that happen there. If there is a problem inthis industry, the minister should stand up and tell this House if there are inadequacies or irregularitiesthat are creating dangerous workplace situations.

Again as the member for Callide said earlier tonight, this is no time to be putting a further imposton the mining industry, because the money should be coming from the state government to makeabsolutely certain that these key findings are put in place and that we do see outcomes that will reflecton the safety of these miners. I quote the key findings from the Shift Miner Magazine dated 14 July2008. It states—More than 50 per cent of injuries that result in workers not being able to carry out their normal work on their next shift are notcollected in any detailLimited analysis of severity or duration of injuries and illnessesCollection of permanent disability injuries and illnesses inadequateCurrent method of reporting individual mine performance may encourage under-reporting of incidents—

this is a sad one—Perception that mines will be penalised by the DME for reporting too many incidents—

this is a good one—Form for reporting injuries is too long and complexLittle data checking or validation carried out by DME

If the form is too long, that is typical of the red tape and regulation that seems to be stranglingmany industries in Queensland and right across Australia and creating jobs for people with no purposewhatsoever. When the former member for Mount Isa was the minister for mines and energy, we createdmore positions for mine deputies and safety officers in mines. At this point in time these are the peoplewho should be coming to the fore, not ripping into the coalmining companies for an extra $26 million sothat we can create this new regime so that the Mining and Other Legislation (Safety and Health Fee)Amendment Bill can be made possible.

I do not say this lightly. We in central Queensland and all other parts of Queensland are veryproud of what the mining industry does for our great state. We have logjams at the ports. We haveissues with not being able to get coal onto enough trains to get it to the ports. There are a whole host ofissues that this industry has had to face. I ask this government to look at the state budget. When we seethat only four per cent of the state capital works program will be spent north of Mackay, what does thattell us about that part of Queensland where the real wealth generation comes from? There is the greatindustrial boom of cities such as Mount Isa, Townsville and further south into the Bowen Basin, wherewe see mine after mine wanting to start up but because of the lack of infrastructure and the lack of waterand other associated infrastructure we cannot get those mines operational.


The real issue is that we are losing good men and women from the trades right across this stateto the great mining industry because, yes, they are being looked after there and they are earning gooddollars. Who is going to deprive them of that? They deserve every bent cent they get because they areworking in a difficult situation and, in many cases, in difficult environments. I know the minister forindustrial relations is not in the House, but we in this state have to look at how we are going to furtherencourage people to follow the trades and work in the trade industry, whether it be carpenters,boilermakers, diesel fitters, chefs, nurses, teachers or whatever. I know in my own electorate of Gregory,where we have the Western Exporters goat abattoir in Charleville, we have been trying to get thosesection 457 workplace agreements in place so we can keep that abattoir operational. Some 140 peoplework there—men and women—and those section 457 workplace agreements have not come into effect.The former federal government dragged its feet on it. Now the current federal government is doing thesame.

I say to the minister tonight that we have a serious problem on our hands in relation to skilledpeople not only in the mining industry but also every other industry in this state. If we are going to goforward as one of the industrial developing states in this country, we have to do it by making absolutelycertain that we have the trained personnel to go with it. At the other end of the equation, we cannotfurther penalise the people who are providing the dollars—in this case, the contractors, the miningcompanies and the other operators who work within this great industry.

I say to the minister tonight that we have a serious situation on our hands. If that $26 million wasspent on creating better roads for our men and women to drive to and from work or on the interfacingroads between mines or on creating better airports in those mining regions, the opposition wouldcertainly welcome that with open arms and support it. I say to the minister tonight that we certainly dohave problems out there. In the interests of safety, viability and productivity, we have to make absolutelycertain that we see all of those anomalies removed from this industry and let those irregularities becomesomething of the past. If there is a situation of unsafe environment, it has to be rectified for the men andwomen in this industry.

I say to the minister that he and his department have to lead from the front on this. It is not aboutpenalising companies, the mines or whomever else; they have to work hand in hand to make sure weget this genuine outcome. As the great American industrialist the late Harvey Firestone said when heinvented the pneumatic tyre, ‘You don’t fix a problem by throwing money at it; you’ve got to throw brainsat it first.’ That is what is not happening here. The minister is one person I do sincerely have a lot ofrespect for. I hope and trust that he will see ways and means of making absolutely certain this industry issafe, that our men and women who work in this industry are working in the safest possible environmentin the mining industry anywhere in the world and that the productivity continues to go up by way ofassociated infrastructure—rail and port infrastructure. If we do not have that, I can only guess whatmight happen with our trading partners such as Russia, India and China. At this point we need to makehay while the sun shines. If we do not, somebody else will.

Mrs KIERNAN (Mount Isa—ALP) (8.53 pm): I rise in support of the Mining and Other Legislation(Safety and Health Fee) Amendment Bill 2008. A review of the Queensland mines and quarries annualsafety performance and health report was conducted by Associate Professor David Cliff from theUniversity of Queensland’s Minerals Industry Safety and Health Centre and Professor Tony Parker fromthe Queensland University of Technology following feedback received from industry. The professorshave advised that Queensland has one of the best mining industry safety and health records in thenation. However, that does not mean that this record cannot be improved. The government is committedto continuing to look for ways to improve the safety standards and processes of every mining, quarryingand explosives operation in the state.

My electorate, Mount Isa, is the home of the North-West Queensland Minerals Province. There islittle doubt that our part of Queensland pays its way and does it handsomely. The opposition speakerstonight have highlighted the wealth that is generated. Yes, indeed; that is correct. They say that they arestanding up for the workers. Don’t we all, especially those of us who have families in this industry. Let usnot forget that, first and foremost, we stand up for our workers’ health and safety.

Our community has taken some hard hits from all over of late, but let me assure the House thatour community, its workers and families are acutely aware of our workers’ health and safety and wecollectively work for the health of our communities. The professors’ report included 36 recommendationsfor ways to improve the Queensland safety and health reports. The recommendations involved changesin how some information is collected or reported on, information that should be included and informationthat should not be included in the report. The Queensland government consulted with the QueenslandResources Council representing the mines and with the mining unions and other key stakeholdersregarding the recommendations. Overall, the Queensland Resources Council and mining unions aresupportive of implementing the recommendations. Indeed, I had a number of conversations with boththe miners and the union representatives.


There are some concerns about a few recommendations and the Queensland government willhave further consultation with all interested parties where those concerns will be worked through andresolutions made before progressing. The review is a great opportunity for the government, unions andindustry to work together to ensure that all Queensland mines and quarries annual safety performanceand health report recommendations are implemented. These recommendations also reflected thegovernment’s, industries’ and unions’ commitment to ensuring a zero harm principle.

This bill will provide funding for the introduction of these important recommendations, withimplementation to be completed in three stages. The first stage will see that six of the recommendationsare included in the 2008 Queensland mines and quarries annual safety performance and health reportto be released later this year. The levy will ensure that important safety and health initiatives areaddressed proactively while providing that industry is held accountable financially for the servicesprovided by government to ensure safety and health compliance.

This bill goes some way to further ensure that the safety, particularly of our workers in our mines,is kept to the highest standard. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (8.58 pm): I rise to speak briefly in support of the Mining and OtherLegislation (Safety and Health Fee) Amendment Bill brought to the House by the Minister for Mines andEnergy, Mr Wilson. The bill introduces a safety and health levy which provides safety and healthservices to the mines, quarrying and explosives industries. The levy is part of the government’scommitment to ensuring safe and healthy working conditions in these industries. I think the Houseshould note that this has been something that the minister, given his industrial background, has verystrongly prioritised.

The Queensland government has funded the safety and health service to the mining, quarryingand explosives industry since the inspectorates were first established over 100 years ago. This serviceis currently costing the Safety and Health Division of the Department of Mines and Energy in excess of$26 million a year. This is a multibillion-dollar industry that can afford, if anyone can, to pay its own way.

This fee is estimated to be less than one per cent of the mining industry salaries. Queenslandtaxpayers should not have to continue dipping into their pockets to provide safety and health servicescommensurate with the extraordinary growth of these industries, particularly the mining industry.

Managing the risks or hazards in the mining industry is an essential role for industry and thegovernment. The proposed levy will allow the cost of safety and health activities to be recovered fromthe mining, quarrying and explosive industries which directly benefit from the state’s safety and healthregulatory and compliance activities. The mining, quarrying and explosive industries are not the onlyindustries that will have to pay a levy for safety and health services. Currently the petroleum and gasindustries in Queensland already pay fees and licences to fund inspections and audits.

New South Wales introduced a mine safety levy in 2005. The New South Wales levy is based onthe wages of employees in the mining and extractive industries, whereas Queensland’s is based on thenumber of employees in the industry. It equates to one per cent of the annual salary bill for the miningindustry in that state or approximately $1,100 per employee. The proposed Queensland levy is less thanhalf of its southern counterpart per employee and as such there can be no argument that this is in anyway a disincentive to trade or investment in Queensland. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (9.01 pm): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise toparticipate in the debate on the Mining and Other Legislation (Safety and Health Fee) Amendment Bill2008. I would like to take members to the minister’s concluding paragraph in his second reading speechwhere he says—The legislation that has been placed before the House for its consideration today will allow the cost of essential safety and healthservices to be recovered from the mining, quarrying and explosives industries. These industries benefit directly from the state’sprovision of these safety and health regulatory and compliance services.

The minister has my support on this bill. I would like to reflect on a letter I received from theminister today in relation to a mine in the hinterland of the Sunshine Coast. I listened intently to thecomments made by the shadow minister for mines and I would like to make this contribution. Thank you,Minister, for making the decision not to exercise your power to assign mining lease 50124 to GoldenSurprise Pty Ltd and for making the decision to refuse the application for renewal of mining lease 50124pursuant to section 286A(5) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989. That relates to the Golden Surprisemine at North Arm. On behalf of my constituents I thank the minister for taking that very decisivedecision to close this mining lease and to ensure that it will no longer be a significant cost and burden onour community.

I reflect on the dispute involving this mine also known as Papillon Mining and Exploration Pty Ltdheard in the Land and Resources Tribunal back in April and May of 2003. I understand that at the timethe community raised almost $40,000 to fight the continuation of this mine. I understand that during thedispute over the operation of this mine a representative from the Environmental Protection Agencymade the comment that the mine had no net benefit to the community because of the enormous cost theEPA and Queensland government departments were investing in disputes and issues involved with it.


On behalf of my constituents and the residents of the North Arm community, I thank the ministerfor his decisive action in ensuring that this lease will not continue and the assignment will not happen. Ihave conveyed that advice to the chairman of the North Arm Community Action Committee. Itsmembers are over the moon. They are ecstatic tonight. Phones have been ringing in the community.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nicklin.Mr WELLINGTON: If I can come back to the matter before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That would be appreciated. Thank you very much. I have given you

enough latitude.Mr WELLINGTON: This bill is about ensuring that there is appropriate capacity to ensure safety

and health services and that there is funding recovered from the mining industry. The minister has mysupport. I congratulate the minister on bringing this bill before the House and I look forward to itproceeding to its conclusion.

Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (9.04 pm): I am pleased tonight to speak to the Mining and OtherLegislation (Safety and Health Fee) Amendment Bill. The mining industry is certainly one of the veryimportant industries in Queensland. It certainly has been a wonderful industry for Queensland. We needto ensure that we look after the industry. By the same token, we have to ensure that where miningoccurs there is consensus on how mining is done in cooperation with landholders and the community ingeneral.

In the minister’s second reading speech he talks about the mining and quarrying sector being oneof the most important industries in the state, especially as an employer in rural and regional areas. Itcertainly is. There is no doubt that it is a major industry. Even in my area, the Surat Basin, there are anenormous number of employees in the mining industry and probably another 16,000 people will beemployed in the region in the next few years. We are talking about an enormous resources boom that isgoing on. Having extra staff in those regions is an enormous responsibility not just for the miningcompanies themselves but also for the state government to ensure that those people can operate in areasonably safe environment.

Councils in areas where there are those industries have to ensure that they have the resources tokeep roads and airports open and keep the industry functioning properly. That is not happening at themoment. There needs to be better consultation between industry and councils in those regions. Much ofthe industry in my area is gas exploration, which is not necessarily covered by this bill, but there ismining as well. What we are finding is that suddenly those communities are not able to keep up with thedemands, demands such as airports. Even in my home town of Roma where I am based the councilneeds to spend about $5 million on the airport. It cannot find that money. The reason we need that extramoney spent on the airport is that the mining and petroleum industry is growing so fast that we have tohave the planes come in. The council cannot afford to pay for the upgrade of the airport. If there are16,000 extra people in the next few years operating in those areas there have to be good roads,sewerage systems, water infrastructure and social facilities in those towns to be able to cope with thatinflux of people. That is particularly important. When one looks at places like Quilpie, planes are flying inand out of there now.

Mr Johnson: A good place.Mr HOBBS: A good place, as the member for Gregory mentioned, his old home town. There

used to be a lot of sheep and cattle run in that area. There are pretty wild men out there in those places.We trained one of them who sits here tonight.

Mr Malone: Wild women, actually. Mr HOBBS: I am sure of that, too. But at the end of the day we have wild, beautiful country, which

is full of lovely people, that is basically very much pastoral but could very soon be mining. Suddenly wewill have an influx of people as a result of a mine of some description. It is the same in relation toBlackall. I was talking to a fellow who owns a pastoral property there and he has to negotiate in the nextcouple of days with a coalmining company. He is wondering what it is all about and what he has to do. Itis new. Those people need to be informed about what their responsibilities are, what their entitlementsare and how far they can go in relation to demanding some sort of assistance for their areas. Certainly inthe case of Roma—and Blackall will be in the same boat—if a big mine opens up there the council willneed assistance to improve the airport and other facilities.

In his second reading speech the minister said that the mining industry will pay for safety andservices under a user-pays principle. We have had a user-pays system for quite a long time and, to acertain degree, there are not many problems with it. However, I think this goes a little over the top. Theshadow minister covered this very well. The question could be asked: what will the government do withthe money that it will save? If $20-odd million comes in from these new fees, we would like to ensurethat that money will be well spent.

I wonder why there was no consultation with industry. It appears as if there was not any. I wouldhave thought that would have occurred, particularly under this minister. I suppose there is some reasonfor that. Maybe the minister will explain why the industry was not consulted. Maybe it was in some


manner or form, but I understand that it was not. It would be good to hear why that was the case. If onlyTreasury and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet were consulted, one wonders why the rush orwhy that occurred.

Obviously the mining industry is a very important one and we must look after it. PresentlyAustralia is very much reliant on the mining industry. We have seen enormous development throughoutthe whole of Queensland and there is more to come. Queensland is leading the nation in a lot of ways inthis type of development and we need to ensure that we do it right. We need to ensure that we have thebest practices. We want to ensure that we provide resources back to the people.

The royalties that have been paid by the mining companies are significant. They are headingback to Treasury, but they are not heading back out to the regions. We need resources sent back to theregions. That is very important. In my area that is not happening. That issue needs to be considered. Iendorse the words of the shadow minister who said that we have some concerns with this legislation. Ihope that the government takes on board those concerns, which are genuinely held in relation to thismagnificent industry.

Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (9.11 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Mining andOther Legislation (Safety and Health Fee) Amendment Bill 2008. The objectives of this bill are to obtainfunding from coal and other mining, quarrying and explosives industries to pay for their own health andsafety measures. This is just another tax—a user-pays tax—that is being imposed on these industrieson top of the proposed carbon taxes that are expected to be introduced by 2010. Might I say that thosecarbon taxes are of great concern to mining companies, both large and small, as are the skills shortagesthat this government has ignored for nearly two decades. These new state health and safety chargesare in line with similar taxes imposed on the gas and petroleum industries in 2004. It is no wonder thatthe costs of fuel and gas have risen substantially over recent years and the 2004 impositions have alsocontributed to those rises.

Mining has returned as a major industry after the big blows of the native title period of the 1990sin Queensland, including in my electorate of Tablelands where zinc, gold and other minerals arecurrently being mined. Coal and even hot rock energy resources are also being explored or developed.Mining was the first industry that opened up the Tablelands in the latter half of the 1800s. The area isnow opening up again to a number of new ventures.

Certainly the need for a working environment that is safe and healthy is a reasonablerequirement. However, in Queensland each year these amendments are expected to rip some$26 million out of those industries. What is being proposed is that mines employing 10 staff and underwill be charged $75 per employee for the first part year and then $100 per employee for a full yearthereafter. For those operations with 11 or more employees it will be approximately $603 per employeefor the first part year and then $804 per employee for a full year thereafter. In a full year that willgenerate $26 million to help fill the government coffers.

This will be a huge impost on industries that are already paying massive royalties into thegovernment treasure chest and, together with other primary industries, are producing the income beingconsumed so greedily in the south-east. I understand that last year alone the Queensland governmentcollected some $80 million in royalties from the Peak Downs coalmine alone. That figure comes fromthe minister’s press release of 15 April 2008. Other sources put the total mining royalty figures at around$3 billion annually. Surely if there is a government function or service necessary to the safe operation ofan industry then it should be provided, but when an industry is already contributing more than $3 billiona year in royalties surely it is already well and truly paying its way.

It is also grossly insulting to see a government that strips services and democratic representationaway from rural and regional taxpayers now trying to use amendments such as these as an excuse foranother grubby money-grabbing raid on this section of our primary industries. The mining industry iscurrently the single largest earner for the state of Queensland, with other primary industries coming insecond only to mining. We should not be pulling the heart out of this industry as the ALP has done to somany industries over recent decades.

The explanatory notes say that there is no alternative method other than changing the legislationto achieve these objectives. I would say that depends on the objectives. If it is to ensure adequate safetyand health provisions in the mining and quarrying sectors, in fact there is an alternative. It is to use someof those massive royalty windfalls the government already receives from the affected industries to payfor these things. If the Bligh government is simply determined to introduce a new user-pays tax, as it isdoing in so many other areas, perhaps this is the only way, but do not mistake it for anything more thananother rip-off tax.

There are already a raft of different requirements on the mining and quarrying industries, as thereare on so many others. There are workplace health and safety requirements, regulations andinspectors; there are environmental requirements and inspectors; there are mining-specific inspectorsand activities, and the Bligh government is trying to double dip for funding. The mining industry and theminers themselves will not gain a thing. They already have inspectors for this service. Simply put, the


Bligh government has suddenly decided to charge for something that has, until now, been fundedthrough its existing taxes, fees, levies and charges, and its massive royalties. The Bligh government isproposing to increase the number of mines officers who will police those industries more closely. Thisexpansion will include seven new inspectors, an occupational hygienist, two investigators, a statistician,a manager and five additional scientific staff, and also auditors who will ensure that employmentnumbers are correctly reported. Employees who work for more than a fortnight will have to be includedin those numbers.

There will be an additional cost to this industry of meeting the new demands for quarterlyreporting, and more frequent audits and inspections. Carbon taxes are still to come. I believe manysmall and intermediate mines and quarries will not be able to sustain those additional costs and impostsand will close up shop. Here we have yet another industry being king hit by the Bligh government, andthis one has only just begun to recover from the king hits of the 1990s when the ALP imposed native titleon it. Those were dreadful times, especially for small miners who could not turn a sod for some 10 yearsor more.

Regarding consultation, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Queensland Treasuryare all that are listed. That is it. That is the extensive consultation list that was addressed in drawing upfees and charges of millions of dollars a year. Mine operators are not listed, mining lobby groups are notlisted, industry investors are not listed. Once again this government is guilty of asking only itself whetheror not it has come up with a good plan. In the future, it will be able to change so much simply byregulation. Puppets on a stick could do as good a job of nodding their heads. I do not support this bill.

Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (9.18 pm): Mining is one of the most important industries inQueensland today. To that extent, the purpose of this bill is to establish a framework to levy a fee torecover costs of safety and health activities provided by the state government to coalmining, mining,quarrying and explosive activities. This levy is a new set of fees that will be applied to these sectors torecover the cost of safety and health activities that are currently carried out by the Department of Minesand Energy. As we have been told, these costs are currently more than $26 million per year.

The activities that these fees are to cover include inspection and audits, investigations, research,education, communication and the collection and reporting of statistics. From a practical point of view,the introduction of this levy is being done by amending several acts—the Coal Mining Safety and HealthAct 1999, the Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999 and the Explosives Act 1999. It is beingdone by proposing a regulation-making power for a health and safety fee to be levied on coalmining,mining, quarrying and explosives operations. The cynical side of me cannot help but think that this bill isan attempt by a failing Labor government to grab cash from wherever it can find a source. This is a cost-shifting exercise to fund the processes that have been put in place by the government itself.

Health and safety in these industries is of the highest priority. Nobody will ever argue with that.Health and safety across these industries is vitally important. Let us compare the safety standards thatare in place today with, say, over 50 years ago. Across these industries there has been an enormousimprovement. The accident history across many of these companies is highly commendable.

Nowadays is a much more enlightened era. There are much higher expectations. As a result,companies have to spend enormous sums of money on safety processes and procedures and, as I say,they must be commended for their efforts. However, I believe one would have to be in this businessoneself to fully comprehend the amount that is spent by companies in an attempt to ensure very safeareas of work. Companies set safety targets, and their safety record is one of the most importantperformance measures that most companies use. It is the role of governments right across Australia toset the standards and to enforce those standards. To that extent, I understand that this is achievedrelatively well. It is a government responsibility. But I question that the costs should be borne solely bythe companies involved in the industry.

Most companies have already set up huge safety systems and safety nets within theirprocedures, and the acknowledgement from government seemingly is now to impose extra costs onthem for ensuring compliance. I really question at what stage this government actually takes itsresponsibility seriously to support and assist primary industries. Mining, quarrying and the like areprimary industries—and currently these are the industries that are the backbone of Queensland’swealth. The mining and petroleum industry returned royalties of $1.329 billion to the Queenslandgovernment in 2006-07. The combined total royalties and land rents in the previous fiscal yearamounted to $1.43 billion. There are no doubt similar figures for this current financial year, but as thosefigures are currently in a bill before this House I do not intend to discuss them.

The Queensland government currently receives over $1.5 billion in royalties and other costs frommining and associated industries. Here we see the government again dipping its sticky fingers into whatit construes as being a cash cow for it. The explanatory notes state that the policy rationale is that thegovernment is committed to maintaining a high standard of safety and health for mining, quarrying andexplosives employees. It then goes on to state that the community and industry look to the state for awell-resourced, expert and independent inspectorate to regulate safety and health standards to ensureaccepted standards are met.


These industries are potentially hazardous industries. And, yes, of course the government has aresponsibility to maintain those standards. Nobody will argue with that. It must be the government’shighest priority for these industries to maintain those standards. But to think that this government issimply too lousy to fund its own monitoring standards is simply over the top. It is simply too lousy to fundthe most essential element of government responsibility. It has to put this further impost of more than$26 million onto these companies that are actually keeping Queensland afloat because this governmentis simply too useless to balance its own budget and it is broke.

According to the legislation, the funds raised by the levy—which will be $19.5 million in the firstpart year and $26 million for a full year—are to cover the existing cost of operations as well as anexpansion of services, including employment of extra inspectorate staff and Safety in Mines Testing andResearch Station, colloquially known as SIMTARS, scientists and improvements to health and safetyreporting. The $26 million is going to cover all of those areas. But it is interesting to note that this fee willbe based on the previous year’s employee numbers.

I have been involved in running a business. I know what it is like to run primary industries. Thereare huge variations from year to year. I note that operations with fewer than 10 employees will pay areduced fee. To a bureaucrat this may seem a fair system, but at the coalface, out in the real world, thiscould be extremely difficult and could be a major cost to some companies. Differing production costs—there are variations in production costs—the world mineral price and market availability vary by themonth, as do the weather and potential natural disasters. All of these things can have a huge impactfrom year to year. It is highly likely that there would be companies out there that had a tremendous yearlast year but have been faced with one or many of those imposts this year and are having a low year.What are the fees going to be? They are going to be based on last year’s figures. There is a seriouspossibility that these fees could have a most adverse effect on some companies, particularly the smallor medium companies that may experience huge fluctuations in their yearly incomes. These are thepeople who could be really impacted by this legislation.

But, most importantly, have these companies been consulted? No, certainly not according to theexplanatory notes. Only the Queensland Treasury and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet havebeen consulted prior to the introduction of this legislation. That sounds serious alarm bells. We haveseen no stakeholders being consulted. I see this as a complete slap in the face for these professional,independent companies that are the backbone of this state’s wealth. Mining companies are alreadysupporting the Queensland government in a massive way, coming on top of the huge increases inroyalty expectations—the huge opportunistic increase in royalties. I think this is the last straw.

My electorate of Burdekin has many mining companies working right across it. I am very proud ofthe mines in my electorate. There are some large and very successful coalmines operating inCollinsville and Newlands, as well as many exploratory companies that are doing major work in the lineof other minerals as well as coal. Amongst the companies involved are Xstrata; Thiess; QCoal andLeighton Holdings, which is running a new mine at Sonoma; Conquest; and many other companiesinvolved in mineral exploration. The Bowen Basin is a very rich area of Queensland and it certainlydeserves the full support of government.

Sure, some of these companies are doing very well, but it is at the expense and hard work ofmany, many good people. Working as a miner is a tough call. It is not an easy street, and I think theminister would attest to that because I believe he has had a fair bit of experience in the mining field. Butthe improvements in company compliance and standards over the years by these major companies arevery commendable, and I question why this government is making it harder by putting further financialimposts on it.

It is also very interesting to note that the reviews and appeals process for the persons orcompanies required to pay these fees will be included in regulations, not in the legislation. In otherwords, it is going to be by regulations. These fees will be subject to change at any time. Bearing in mindthat there has been no consultation with stakeholders, this legislation is justifiably causing a great dealof anxiety with mining and quarrying groups because they do not know what it contains or what thechanges are going to be.

Mining has had a huge number of imposts put on it. Most mining companies now faceenvironmental concerns. They have to face the environmental lobby, often with huge court costs. Theyhave to look at land tenure issues, land rights and a large number of government regulatory processesthat have to be undertaken before they can even start mining. As well, mining is now having to run thegauntlet of social acceptance, which in this day and age is ridiculous bearing in mind the number ofpeople who are living off the success of our mining companies.

I would also like to make a comment about the generosity of mining companies, particularly in mylocal area. Mining companies give extremely generous assistance to local communities. They providesponsorships right across the communities. I think this is something that has become accepted bypeople living in these areas. I do not really believe they fully understand that no other companies give asgenerously within their local communities as I believe mining companies do.


It seems that the government has suddenly wanted to jump on the bandwagon again and it islooking for some of these handouts as well. I believe this is disappointing legislation and a governmentshould be above this. I, along with other members of the LNP, cannot support this legislation.

Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (9.31 pm): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on behalf of the LNP tothe Mining and Other Legislation (Safety and Health Fee) Amendment Bill. It is important to realise thatQueensland is substantially reliant on the welfare and the role of the mining industry in Queensland. Wehave seen some fairly interesting decisions by the current Labor government in respect of the miningindustry in Queensland over the last few days. My electorate in particular, being a rural electorate, ismore and more reliant on the fortunes of the mining industry. This is so right throughout the centralBowen Basin. Quite frankly, the mining industry is a great support to our communities right throughoutthat central region. I believe there is an opportunity for more than 20 new mines to be started in thecentral region of the Bowen Basin. The cost of setting up those mining sites is in the vicinity of halfa billion dollars. That is half a billion dollars that has to be expended before a mine can be started.

Speakers on this side of the House have indicated the competition that is involved in starting up amine. There is a regulatory framework that they have to go through in terms of environmental outcomes.There is also the process of putting in place a mining operation.

The area between Mackay and Rockhampton, as I said, is substantially reliant on a healthymining industry. The mining industry has supported that region tremendously over the last few years. Mygood colleague the member for Burdekin indicated that many communities right throughout centralQueensland are supported by the mining industry. It is quite unbelievable that part of the regulatoryframework that a government has to uphold is the safety of the mining operations. We have a situationwhere the government is now asking the mining industry to substantially support that regulatoryframework.

I really wonder where this is all going. Are we going to be calling on citizens to pay for the policeforce? Where does the government gain its responsibility? Where does the responsibility of governmentstop? As we move into the future we have a government that is drawing on industry to support its ownregulatory framework. The straw that will break the camel’s back must be getting fairly close. There aremining opportunities throughout the rest of the world and I am sure that—

Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr MALONE: We seem to be getting a fair bit of noise from up the back, Mr Deputy Speaker. I

wonder if you might protect me in this situation. We have a situation in Queensland where the economy is very reliant on the mining industry. It is

about time that the government realised where it is that the goose lays the golden egg. Quite frankly, it isin Queensland. Unless the government is supportive and it is actually taking the ball forward insupporting the mining industry, it will find to its detriment that the mining industry can move offshore.

Mr Lawlor interjected.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wettenhall): Order! Member for Southport! Mr MALONE: I do not intend to speak at any great length on this matter. I believe members on

this side of the House have put their case quite strongly in terms of where the government’sresponsibility lays. Quite frankly, I think the time has come that it realises the almost $3 billion it gains inroyalties from the mining industry is in jeopardy if it keeps pushing the envelope. With those few words,I will close my case.

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (9.36 pm): In the minister’s second reading speech hestated—The mining and quarrying sector is one of the most important industries in this state, especially as an employer in rural andregional areas. This is an industry in boom. It is an industry experiencing high coal and mineral prices and strong market demand.

The reason that I quote that is that the port of Gladstone carries quite a lot of coal exports out ofQueensland and is a significant contributor in terms of the state’s income. Since the last state budget anumber of coalmining companies have expressed concern not only at the new royalty charges imposedbut also at the manner in which they were imposed and the absence of consultation altogether. Certainlythey felt the impact of that new royalty charge.

I know that both the Treasurer and the Premier at various times justified the increase in royaltiesby rightly saying that there was a threshold per tonne of coal. I think it was $100 per tonne under whichthe royalty would remain at the old level, but once the price of coal exceeded that threshold—which italready has—then the additional royalty would have to be paid. If my memory serves me correctly, itwas something like $3 billion that was realised from that increased royalty.

Bearing in mind what the coalmining industry has said, to my mind they will be asking—and it is areasonable question—why the government, having just received additional royalties from the statebudget, could not allocate a small portion to the cost of these services. If you say it quickly enough,$26 million is only a small portion of $3 billion. Why could the cost of these services, or at least thecoalmining industry’s portion of that cost, not come from that increased royalty received after thebudget?


I note that this piece of legislation covers not just coalmining but also quarrying and explosivesemployees. A number of those businesses, particularly the quarrying businesses, are very smallenterprises. I note that the legislation allows for a reduction per employee where the number ofemployees in a business is fewer than 10.

I think that additional cost will be a significant impost on the very small quarrying companies.Whilst most mining in this state is experiencing a boom, it is not a bottomless pit in terms of the ability toextract funding from it. Many of the large industries in my electorate do not contribute to my communityin terms of infrastructure allocations, much to the annoyance of my community. When a large industrywas established, in the main it was responsible when it came to contributing to the small communityinfrastructure. Major infrastructure and much of the work done locally used to be funded by agreementbetween an incoming industry and the local council. That is now decided by the Coordinator-General.The vast majority of that money is never seen locally and is dissipated into larger state projects andresponsibilities.

My concern about this additional charge on the mining companies is that the allocation they domake to the local communities will disappear. Rio Tinto has the Rio Tinto Aluminium Community Fund—a $2 million fund for community investment. My concern is that this continual drain by the stategovernment from these mining industries will mean that their ability to provide the smaller industryinfrastructure that they have been doing and doing very well will evaporate because they will be lookingat ways of recovering their costs.

I am very concerned that when companies read this legislation they still will not know what coststhey will actually face. As is often said, the devil is in the detail. The actual cost to the mining companieswill be drawn up by regulation. Clause 5 in the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act authorises theregulation to provide for a significant list of things: the type of activities for which fees may be chargedand recovered; the fees to be charged; the way the fees are calculated, including for the first time thatthe fees are charged using criteria in place before the commencement of the regulation; the personswho must pay the fees; how, when, where and to whom the fees must be paid; the calculation of intereston unpaid fees; information to be provided to the chief executive by the persons who must pay the fees;how, when, where and to whom the information is to be provided; investigations by authorised officers toobtain and check the information; and reviews and appeals by persons required to pay the fees. Thosesame regulation-making powers are included in the Explosives Act and also in the Mining and QuarryingSafety and Health Act. Industries that will be covered by these new fees have absolutely no idea fromthis legislation the quantum and the structure of the fees that they are going to be required to pay oncethis bill comes into force, which it obviously will.

I reiterate that I believe 1,000 per cent in the right of an employee to come to work in the morningor at night, depending on what shift they are on, and to return home safely. Health and safety in aworkplace is incredibly important not just to the employee and not just to the history of the company butto an employee’s family and dependants.

I am not standing here expressing concern about this legislation because in any way, shape orform I undervalue safety in the workplace. Mines are unforgiving places and underground mines inparticular are unforgiving places where accidents can happen. In the last couple of weeks there hasbeen the fatality of a young man in a quarry in central Queensland. His family and his community aremourning his loss. Nobody could ever underestimate the importance of workplace health and safety.

However, this is a debate on who should be paying for the auditing and policing of those safetystandards. I believe that that responsibility remains with the government. I believe that if I polled themining companies represented in my electorate on the structure of this piece of legislation and the lackof clarity in the actual impact of the legislation on their bottom line and what their obligations are going tobe both financially and administratively then they would be expressing in the greatest and strongestterms concern about the manner in which this legislation is structured. As I said, they would expressconcern about the lack of clarity in terms of their financial and administrative obligation.

I will be interested to hear how the minister responds to the concerns raised by the opposition andthe issues I have raised. I know for a fact that the mining, quarrying and explosive industries in myelectorate are great employers not necessarily of equal size. Again I put on the record my absolutesupport for safety and health in the workplace. But the mining, quarrying and explosive industries arenot bottomless pits and they cannot constantly be approached and required—

Mr Lawlor interjected. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: No, I did not. But their overheads are significant too.Mr Lawlor interjected. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I take that interjection. I am not saying that they are penniless and poor. But

there is a point in time when the ability of these companies to be able to constantly respond togovernment demands for additional money reaches a point of no return. Had the government notincreased its take in royalties from the coalmining industry I probably would be less concerned about


this legislation. There was a significant take in terms of royalties after the last budget. One couldreasonably ask why the cost of administering this legislation should not come out of that increased takein royalties by the government. I look forward to the minister’s response.

Mr FINN (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (9.46 pm): I rise to support the Mining and Other Legislation(Safety and Health Fee) Amendment Bill.

Mr Elmes interjected.Mr FINN: I stand in this House as a proud member of the CFMEU mining and energy division.

I am quite proud of the contribution the union has made to the mining industry. Mr Elmes interjected. Mr FINN: I take the interjection. I am from the Labor Party. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wettenhall): Order! The member for Yeerongpilly has the call. Mr FINN: On this side of the House we are not confused about which party we are in. I am not a

pending member of the Labor Party. We stand here today debating this legislation on a day when RioTinto announced a 52 per cent increase in its profits.

Mr Seeney interjected. Mr FINN: An old history but a young hat actually. Rio announced a doubling of their earnings

today. This legislation is health and safety legislation. It introduces a fee to mining companies to make acontribution to the provision of health and safety in the industry. Why do we need to be concerned abouthealth and safety in the industry?

Let us just have a look at the environment that industry is in. We have a booming coal price. Wehave exports expected to double by 2030. We have a growing employment base that is now over33,000 people. If those opposite do not think all that adds up to a need to maintain and be on top of thegame when it comes to health and safety then they cannot read the environment very well.

We have a safe mining industry in Queensland but accidents do happen. I note the contribution ofthe member for Gladstone who talked about accidents that she was aware of in the mining industry.They do happen notwithstanding our safe record. We need to make sure that industry provides acontribution to the provision of safety. With a booming coal price and with a growing employment basethe fact is that companies have to have their eye on the health and safety of their workforce.

This bill enables the industry to contribute to that. We have heard members opposite talking aboutthis massive impost on the coal industry. What it adds up to is $800 per employee per year. What it addsup to is $26 million per year. Queensland’s coal exports are worth $14.14 billion, so what does$26 million equate to? It is about our exports in one month to Spain, our ninth biggest trading partner—one month of exports to Spain. What about our biggest trading partner?

Mr Rickuss interjected.Mr FINN: That is the export revenue from coal.Mr Seeney interjected.Mr FINN: It is quite simple. Is the member trying to work this out?Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wettenhall): Order! Member for Callide, if you wish to interject

resume your seat.Mr FINN: And I did get through uni.Mr Weightman interjected.Mr FINN: Slow enough, member for Cleveland. It equates to six per cent of our monthly export

income to Japan, our biggest trading partner. This is not a bill that requires anybody in this House to crypoor for the mining companies—$26 million a year.

Mr Lawlor: A button off their fly.Mr FINN: I take that interjection from the member for Southport. The member for Warrego made a

contribution in this House where he eloquently referred to the minister’s second reading speech. Hequoted from it. He quoted from page 2—and then he said what the minister needs to do is stand up inthis House and say what the money will buy. He should have turned the page. It is quite simple—page 3.Let us see what the money will buy: the appointment of seven new specialist mine inspectors, twoinvestigators, an occupational hygienist, a statistician and a health surveillance manager, improvementsto the safety and health performance reporting as recommended by a recent independent review, andfive additional scientific staff for the Safety in Mines Testing and Research Station which allows thisimportant safety unit to maintain and extend its world-class efforts in improving mine safety and health.We are in an environment where they can afford to pay. We are in an environment where they can affordto contribute to this government’s efforts in health and safety. They can afford to pay to ensure that ourbodies have the best safety for our mine workers anywhere in the world. I support the bill and commendit to the House.


Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Mines and Energy) (9.52 pm), in reply: Ithank all honourable members who have participated in this debate. The bill is a major component of theQueensland government’s commitment to maintain a high standard of safety and health for workers inQueensland’s mining, quarrying and explosives industries. The bill promises to implement a levy on themining, quarrying and explosives industries to maintain a high standard of safety and health services.Safety and health services for these industries are in excess of $26 million and are currently paid for byQueensland taxpayers. The mining, quarrying and explosives industries are multimillion-dollar concernsthat have significantly grown over the last five years. This recent and expected continued growth hasplaced increased pressure on the state government to deliver and maintain the standard of safety andhealth services.

The petroleum and gas industry currently makes a financial contribution to government providedsafety and health services through audit and inspection fees, and so it should. The proposed levy forservices provided to the mining, quarrying and explosives industries will align these industries moreclosely with the regime of charges associated with safety and health in the petroleum and gasindustries, thus providing consistency across Queensland’s mining, explosives and energy industries.The safety and health levy will be calculated on the annual cost of safety and health services for thecoming financial year divided by the number of employees in the regulated industry for the previousyear. The levy will depend upon the size of an operator’s workforce, with the government recognisingthat small operators have limited ability to absorb new costs compared to larger organisations. It is forthis reason that small operators—that is, those with 10 or fewer employees—will be subject to asignificantly smaller annual levy per employee.

A major function of the mines and explosives inspectorates is to enforce compliance with thesafety and health acts and ensure that workers, management, companies and individuals meet theobligations that they have under the legislation. The levy will fund existing safety and health services tothe mining, quarrying and explosives industries including inspections, audits and investigations. Thelevy will enable services to be expanded, as has been just now reported, with the recruitment ofadditional specialists including mining inspectors, researchers, an occupational hygienist and astatistician. Additional mining inspectors will enable more unannounced audits and inspections to becarried out wherever in the state mining, quarrying and explosives activities are occurring.

Queensland enjoys its reputation as a world leader in its safety and health performance in theseindustries. It is imperative that safety and health standards be maintained in this era of immenseresources growth. These standards must continue and this levy will ensure they do. Revenue generatedfrom the levy will also be used to act upon recommendations from the recent review of the annualQueensland mines and quarries safety performance and health report. I requested a review of theannual safety performance and health report last year because I wanted an accurate and reliable reportthat helps industry to improve its safety performance.

The review was done by independent academic experts. They made 36 recommendations toimprove the effectiveness of current reporting arrangements and, importantly, what they noted was thatthis report already is the best health and safety statistical review of any industry anywhere in Australia—the best health and safety statistical report of any industry anywhere in Australia. They were also able toidentify where there were some gaps in reporting and some overlaps in reporting—in other words,where improvements could be made. One was to do with the lost time incident injury rate which themember for Gregory spoke about earlier and the fact that disabling injuries are not accurately picked up,with the result that only 50 per cent of injuries that exclude a worker from the workplace the followingshift are actually reported. That is not to say that people are hiding anything; it is to say that the statisticsgathered around that dimension of health and safety reporting were not complete, whereas if they werecomplete we would have a more exhaustive representation of what is actually happening with minesafety so as to guide improved health and safety actions on site and health and safety services providedby the inspectorate.

Accordingly, these 36 recommendations from the review have been accepted by the industryparties to be implemented through a three-stage process. The process recognises the importance of thereport findings and the need to further consult with industry on some of the recommendations prior toimplementation. Six recommendations will be included in the 2008 annual safety performance andhealth report, with the remaining agreed recommendations to be implemented prior to the 2009 report.I am pleased to advise that funding to enable the implementation of these recommendations form part ofthe government’s 2008-09 budget for the Department of Mines and Energy. Recruitment has alreadycommenced to fill the requirements of the recommendations, with positions expected to be filled in thecoming months.

Before I close, I want to address a number of issues that were raised individually by a number ofspeakers. Considerable effort and energy was directed by the opposition particularly to opposing thelegislation and opposing the fact that this legislation, amounting to $26 million in the first financial year,will actually be drawn from the industry by way of a levy rather than being paid by Queenslandtaxpayers. By contrast, it was said that it ought to be drawn out of the $3.2 billion worth of extra royaltiesthat will come into being in this first financial year of the new royalty regime.


I would like to remind members of a couple of things. Firstly, the royalty regime operates at therate of seven per cent that has applied since 1994 with a top-up of three per cent where the internationalprice for coal is in excess of $100. So where there is supernormal revenue coming in—and presently itis about $300 or $320 a tonne—the three per cent on top of the seven per cent kicks in. When the pricedrops below $100 then the royalty goes back to the standard seven per cent that has been operatingsince 1994. Any reasonable person would say that supernormal revenue ought to be shared on a fairbasis with all Queenslanders—between all Queenslanders and the mining companies. It amounts tobetween 30c and $6 extra per tonne of coal sold. Who in their right mind in the streets of our suburbsand in regional Queensland is going to say that that ought not come to Queensland taxpayers by way ofa supplementary three per cent royalty regime?

Secondly, let us look at the $26 million that was said ought to be paid out of the $3.2 billion ofroyalties because it is too much of an additional impost on the industry. It amounts to 0.8 per cent of theroyalties that will come in during this first financial year. Such is the heavy burden of the $26 million forthe safety levy it amounts to 0.8 per cent! I do not think it is a credible argument, with respect to thosewho have put it.

Thirdly, the reason it is appropriate that the levy be drawn directly from the industry rather thanfrom the royalties is that the royalties are an expression of the fair return to Queenslanders on theresources that are owned by all Queenslanders. Queenslanders are in a perpetual joint venture with themining industry—and it is a very positive and beneficial joint venture with the mining industry and one ofwhich all Queenslanders are rightly proud. But it is a joint venture whereby the mining companies andQueenslanders work together to materialise the wealth that these resources are to all of Queensland.

If we start from the position that royalties represent a fair return to Queenslanders on what is ofvalue to them, then for the safety levy to be paid out of the royalties would be for Queensland taxpayersto continue to pay for the provision of mine safety services that are provided directly to the industry oneffectively a de facto consultancy basis. That is the third reason it is inappropriate for the safety levy tobe drawn out of the royalties.

Furthermore, this regime in Queensland has taken some guidance from the regime that applies inNew South Wales that was introduced about two years ago, as mentioned by the member for Ipswich.So it is not as if it is something new. New South Wales does not have the booming industry thatQueensland has and yet it is said that this safety levy may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back forthe mining industry here in Queensland.

It has been widely reported that one of the initiatives being considered in Tasmania resulting fromthe royal commission into the Beaconsfield tragedy is that the Mines Inspectorate in Tasmania beindustry funded by a safety levy drawn from the mining industry in Tasmania. Why? Because they wantto make sure that they have a fully funded, independent, expert, fully qualified Mines Inspectorate to bethe effective watchdog of mine safety in Tasmania. That is why they are looking at that. Why shouldthose policy reasons not also underpin this policy initiative here in Queensland?

It was also said that this safety levy of $26 million sends absolutely the wrong message to themining industry. How can this be sending the wrong message when the purposes for which this levy isgoing to be put are understood? How could this be sending the wrong message? How could this say toany reasonable mining company that safety does not come first? If there is one thing that there isunanimity on across the industry it is that everyone we talk to, from the top of organisations to thebottom, says that mine safety comes first. Everyone we talk to says that they are fair dinkum about minesafety and, indeed, I believe they are. That is why I do not believe any fair-minded, reasonable miningcompany will say that this $26 million mine safety levy in a $26 billion industry sends the wrongmessage. Indeed, it is the very opposite.

This sends absolutely the right message. It says that this Mines Inspectorate will now be in aposition over time to be able to continue with an effective, independent watchdog role with expertcapability, being able to attract, in a highly competitive industry, the sort of personnel with thequalifications and experience needed to have an effective watchdog. When we have a mining industrythat is paying three times and sometimes four times what the mining inspectors get in the MinesInspectorate, no wonder it can be a challenge sometimes to recruit the best, the most experienced andthe most deeply qualified people to be in the watchdog so that it can be an effective watchdog.

The peer review of the safety and statistical report did show up some problems, but that is exactlywhy the ruler was run over it—to see whether there were any gaps, to identify the gaps and then tomove to fill the gaps. I commend the industry, the unions, the QRC and the mining companies forworking very well on introducing a new statistical report that will gather more effective information overthe next two to three years.

This government does respect the mining industry and does regard the mining industry with greatpride on behalf of all Queenslanders. That is why in the last two years with mine safety initiatives, savefor one occasion—and that is to do with Cloncurry and the refusal of the mining company there and thecontractor to allow the mines inspectors to go underground to investigate a fatality. They took 30 hoursbefore they would allow the inspectors to do that. So we changed the law so that cannot happen again.Save for that one occasion there has never been a naming and shaming exercise in relation to mine


safety in the last two years—nor before, I should say as well. The objective is to improve mine safety,not to nail someone to the floorboards or to the wall and produce public discredit or ridicule. Theobjective is to have everyone focused on mine safety. That is the right objective to have.

I have just a couple of remaining issues. The member for Tablelands expressed vigorousopposition to the safety levy and then went on to complain about the fact that there are great difficultiesfaced by small miners. The reality is that, of those seven, three new inspectors will go into coal, two willgo into metalliferous and two will be targeted to small mine operations. That is how the levy will be put towork. I have explained to the member for Gladstone why the levy should not come out of the royalties.

I will finish on one final point: not once on the opposition side—I do not talk about thecrossbenches—was it recognised that there is a tripartite responsibility for mine safety: miningcompanies, employers and operators, mining workers and the Mines Inspectorate. The law says that anemployer must provide a safe working place. That is what the law says on mine safety. But it also saysthat workers have responsibilities for mine safety. It is those two sets of responsibilities that the MinesInspectorate is the watchdog of. The primary responsibility is with those on site and that is where itought to be. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Wilson, adjourned.

ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.10 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 to meetpast 10 pm to consider government business until the adjournment is moved to be followed by the 30-minute adjournment debate.


MINING AND OTHER LEGISLATION (SAFETY AND HEALTH FEE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second ReadingResumed from p. 2309. Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time.

AYES, 54—Attwood, Barry, Bombolas, Choi, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, Fenlon, Fraser, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe,Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien,Palaszczuk, Pitt, Pratt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers,Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Nolan, FinnNOES, 23—Cripps, Dempsey, Dickson, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, McArdle, Malone,Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Rickuss, Elmes

Resolved in the affirmative.

Consideration in DetailClauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to.Clause 4—Mr SEENEY (10.19 pm): I just very quickly want to make the point in the consideration of this

individual clause, as I did in my second reading contribution, that the messages that are inherent in theway that this legislation is drafted must strike fear into the hearts of the mining industry. Clause 4 setsout in detail how the minister will have the power to make regulations to do just about anything he wantsin regard to setting fees, collecting fees, who must pay the fees, how, when and why they must pay thefees and what investigations the authorised officers are able to undertake. It gives the minister quiteextraordinary powers to recover $26 million from the mining industry, on top of the $3 billion that it paysto keep the Treasurer’s budget in line. It is clearly indicative, if any further indication is needed, of theattitude of the state Labor government to the mining industry in Queensland. This whole legislationsends the message loud and clear, just as this debate in this parliament has tonight.

There have been a couple of memorable interjections which I think sum up the attitude of thepolitics of envy that this is all about. The member for Southport said, and I quote, that this $26 millionwould be a button off the fly of the mining industry. The member acknowledges that that is his attitude.That is the attitude of the whole Labor government: the politics of envy. It is a button off the fly of themining industry.

An opposition member interjected. Mr SEENEY: I am coming to the comments of the member for Bundamba. Give me time. I can

only do them one at a time.


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! The member will resume his seat. Mr Lawlor interjected.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Southport! Mr Hopper interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Darling Downs! I call the member for Callide. Mr SEENEY: Continuing the illustrations of the politics of envy that have dominated this debate

tonight—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Callide will direct his comments through the

chair and not to the member. Mr SEENEY:—the member for Bundamba said, ‘The company would spill more grog than that on

the corporate table.’ That is their attitude. $26 million is an opportunistic slug that the government hasimposed on an industry that underwrites the Treasurer’s budget and underwrites the capital expenditurein every electorate represented by every member in this House. Every member should stand in thisHouse to thank and express appreciation to the mining industry and the men and women who every daygo to work in hard hats and orange shirts to build schools, hospitals and roads. Instead we get thispolitics of envy from members such as the member for Bundamba, who thinks it is smart to say thatmining companies spill more than that in grog on the corporate table.

Mrs Miller: It is true. Mr SEENEY: It is an absolute outrage that that is the attitude that dominates the government that

makes the legislation within which this industry has to continue to work to provide the $3 billion that theTreasurer needs every year to underwrite his budget.

Mr WILSON: I rise to a point of order. We are actually debating the clauses. This is a debate onclause 4. Clause 4 is quite specific in its terms. I respectfully suggest that the member is not relevant tothe debate on clause 4.

Mr Hopper interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Darling Downs, I get the job to rule and not you. I am

giving the member some latitude, as I give many members some latitude, to make a circular argument.However, the minister is right.

Mr SEENEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will conclude my contribution where I began, bymaking it very clear that clause 4 reinforces the message that has been sent by this legislation generallyand by the contributions of various members on the other side of the House specifically. Because of thedetailed powers that clause 4 gives the minister to do just about anything he or she likes to set the levy,recover the levy, investigate the companies—to do whatever he or she likes to milk the last dollar out ofthe mining industry—it is a clear indication of the attitude of the state Labor government, just as theinterjections from the members for Bundamba and Southport and the contributions of so many others onthe Labor side indicate the attitude that the government has to the mining industry that pays its bills.

Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I have a question for the minister. In the debate I expressed concern aboutthe open-ended nature of the regulation-making powers. What confidence can the mining companieshave that the amount recovered from mining, quarrying and explosives will be the amount needed tocover the costs of the inspectorate, rather than becoming an open-ended contribution, through this act,to the government’s coffers?

Mr WILSON: I thank the member for the question. We have heard two speakers but only onequestion. The answer to the question of the honourable member for Gladstone is that it is proposed thatthe budget for each forthcoming financial year will be tabled at the meetings of the tripartite mine safetycommittees, of which there are two: one for the metalliferous and quarrying industry and one for the coalindustry. They are tripartite committees that have been set up under statute and operate entirely on aconsensus basis. In the last 12 months they have been reinvigorated through new appointments and anew chair arrangement so that they work far more effectively than they may have done in the past. Thatis the answer to that question.

The more general answer, and this may go to some momentary element of the member forCallide’s contribution of a moment ago, is that this is a regulation-making power that is confined by ahigh level of specificity about the matters to which the regulation must be directed when crafted. Theyare matters to do with the simple administration of the fee arrangement. Like all regulations, they firstlyhave to go through Executive Council, but more importantly and relevantly to this place they must belaid on the table of the parliament and be subject to disallowance. There is every opportunity for scrutinyof the practical administrative components, elements or details of the regulation made to give effect tothe levy that is embodied within this legislation. That is, indeed, the substance of the response given tothe Scrutiny of Legislation Committee which directed its mind to that issue.

Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clauses 5 to 10, as read, agreed to.

2312 Adjournment 26 Aug 2008

Third ReadingHon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Mines and Energy) (10.28 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. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Mines and Energy) (10.28 pm): I move—

That the long title of the bill be agreed to.


ADJOURNMENTHon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (10.29 pm): I move—

That the House do now adjourn.

Gatton, Flying FoxesMr RICKUSS (Lockyer—NPA) (10.29 pm): Tonight I wish to raise my concerns about the flying

foxes that are disturbing the Amaroo Churches of Christ Care facility at Gatton. Unfortunately, flyingfoxes have been roosting in large gum trees in the creek just on the outskirts of the Gatton township.Over a period of time they have slowly moved further in towards town and now they are roosting besidethe Churches of Christ Amaroo facility, which is a care facility for aged people.

Mr Lawlor interjected.Mr RICKUSS: As much as the member for Southport thinks this is humorous, the aged people

being cared for at the Churches of Christ facility are quite scared and frustrated by this colony of flyingfoxes. They have a tendency to hit the buildings at night. Dead flying foxes have been found in thegrounds of the facility. Therefore, the old people unfortunately will not walk outside now during the day.

I must congratulate the Churches of Christ, particularly people like Ray Poole and others whohave worked extremely hard to make sure that this is a great facility for the Gatton area. I must alsocongratulate people like Aub and Val Kilah, who first brought this issue to my attention, and Mel Englerand Sharon Woodall, Col and Gwen Friske and Glenda and Russell Qualischefski who have put up withthe annoyance of these flying foxes for a number of months now.

The flying foxes turned up in the area about six to 12 months ago. It is not a permanent roost. Wehave thousands of acres of state forest in the nearby vicinity. It is time that the EPA took some action tomove these flying foxes on. I know that the EPA has had complaints from the council and from privatecitizens. I was at the Gatton show where the EPA had a stand and people were continually complainingto the EPA about the flying foxes. The stench is terrible. The quality of life of the surrounding neighboursis virtually ruined because of these flying foxes, and as the weather warms up the stench will increase.The faeces on people’s roofs and in their yards has made them cautious about whether children canplay outside. There is a child-care facility near this colony of bats. I am also concerned about the faecesthat are dropped in the grounds of the child-care facility. The Hendra virus in the Redlands area hashighlighted this issue in the last few weeks. The Lockyer Valley also produces a lot of hay that is used ashorse feed.

Mr Hopper: They won’t let kids do cartwheels, but they’ll let them play in flying fox dung. Mr RICKUSS: That is right. They will not let kids do cartwheels, but they will let them play in flying

fox dung. That is really intelligent, isn’t it? There is real concern that there were dead flying foxes foundin the Amaroo care facility grounds.

Time expired.

Labrador, Community RenewalMs CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (10.32 pm): The Queensland government’s Community Renewal

Program aims to create strong, well-connected communities where people want to live. This whole-of-government program, coordinated by the Department of Housing, brings together government and non-government partners to develop sustainable solutions to local issues.

26 Aug 2008 Adjournment 2313

Community Renewal has already made great progress in Labrador, an area in which 6.4 per centof all occupied private dwellings are social rental housing. Since Community Renewal began inLabrador in 2004, the state government has invested more than $2.806 million delivering 25 projects inthis area alone. A further $4 million has been provided in partner contributions to further enhance theseprojects. Consultation with local residents has shown that priorities for the Labrador community were toimprove family support and health; support and services for young people; the physical environmentand transport; and community safety and housing.

In Labrador, the projects delivered have directly benefited the community and already achievedsome positive results. Some of the projects delivered through this program since 2004 include: theLabrador Heritage Walk, which documents the rich local history of the area through a series of markersaround the suburb of Labrador that form a walking track for locals and visitors to enjoy; the ‘MakingPlaces’ project, which engaged over 400 young people within the community to create innovative publicartwork through the school curriculum and community based workshops; the ‘Housing Options’ project,which funded a part-time project worker to assist people to access long-term housing options in theprivate rental market and through other forms of assistance. In its first nine months, the project hasassisted 68 households, or 149 people, to find accommodation.

Another project that was delivered was the ‘Healthy Family Relationship’ project, which adopted amultiagency approach to address the issue of family violence in culturally and linguistically diversecommunities. Since it began in mid-2007, the project has assisted over 300 people through training,education, information and referrals.

These examples of projects delivered illustrate the program’s work on key issues and some of thepositive results achieved for the community. They demonstrate that the Community Renewal Programcontinues to bring real and tangible benefits to Labrador residents. I would like to congratulate theminister and his department on the wonderful work that they have done and in particular the staff of theGold Coast Community Renewal for the work that they have done with local residents and communityorganisations to establish these programs and to make sure that they are working well in the Labradorarea.

Agnes Water, Desalination PlantMr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (10.35 pm): On behalf of the member for Lockyer, I table a

letter from the Churches of Christ Care regarding flying foxes. Tabled paper: Copy of letter, dated 22 August 2008, to the member for Lockyer from the Acting Executive Director, Churches ofChrist Care concerning aged constituents in Gatton.

On Saturday, 9 August 2008, a large crowd consisting of adults and children marched the streetsof Agnes Water to protest the Gladstone Regional Council’s decision to originally construct a $40 millioncombined desalination and sewage plant on a pristine beach on the Discovery Coast. Despite beingshown credible and compelling evidence that this project will be a financial, social and environmentaldisaster, the Gladstone Regional Council, with the assistance of $27 million from this government, willproceed with a project that is bitterly opposed by the overwhelming majority of Agnes Water and Town of1770 residents.

Put simply, $40 million of public funds is being spent to supply desalinated fresh water to 700ratepayers. It is an insanely overengineered solution to a nonexistent problem. It is insane to spend$40 million for such a small ratepayer base while there are two very important facts to consider (1) anunderground aquifer which is able to secure water supplies for the next 10 to 20 years; and (2) credible,sustainable water solutions including greater use of rainwater tanks and recycling, which are available athalf the cost.

The proposed desalination and sewage treatment plants will destroy one of Agnes Water’s mainecotourism selling points of a ‘pristine’ coastline. It will threaten turtle nesting sites and endanger otherGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park life. I have written to the Ombudsman asking for an immediateinvestigation into the process which brought about the decision to proceed with this absurd proposal,because ample evidence has presented itself which indicates that the project has been plagued andcharacterised by secrecy and shady deals, poor decision making, appalling administrative practices anda complete lack of community consultation prior to the signing of the project’s contract. The decision tobuild a sewerage and desalination plant on a beach at Agnes Water has been unlawful, unreasonable orunjust; taken on irrelevant grounds or having regard to irrelevant considerations; based wholly or partlyon a mistake of law or fact; or just plain wrong.

The federal member for Flynn, Chris Trevor, has shown that his election promise to be achampion for his people and that he would not let them down was merely empty words and hollowpolitical rhetoric. Mr Trevor in his public statements supporting the desal and sewerage project hasshown that he could not care less for his constituents’ opinions or the environment and has failed to


support the Agnes Water community which placed their trust in him at the last federal election. It is timefor Mr Trevor to prove that he has not been captured by the big end of town and will fight against thisunsustainable project which will burden my constituents and their children with a water project that willend up costing millions of dollars each year to run.

Time expired.

Brisbane City Council, Rate Increases

Ms GRACE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (10.38 pm): Since the Brisbane City Council’s budget waspassed this year, I have been inundated with constituents—namely unit and townhouse owners—expressing grave concern and disbelief over what can only be described as massive rate increases forratepayers on community title schemes. A brief history to this story is that in the recent BCC budget theLord Mayor announced that he would be removing the rate cap of 10 per cent for unit dwellings andintroducing a new scheme incorporating a ‘parity factor’ for general rates from 1 January 2009. Whatthis means is that for all apartment blocks in Brisbane with a land value of over $1 million, together withthe convoluted system for assessing the general rates for units, annual general rates for many units willincrease by thousands of dollars.

Many constituents who have visited my office or whom I have spoken to at several communityprotest meetings on this issue have documentation to prove that rates are to rise for over 5,000 unitsand townhouses by between 50 per cent and 1,000 per cent. No wonder they are deeply concerned. Nowonder they are in disbelief at what is happening, and no wonder they are outraged at the fact that therewas no mention of this during this year’s BCC election, and these massive increases were announcedjust weeks later without warning, information or consultation.

As an example, I have one constituent who has written to me advising that his general rates fromJanuary 2009 will increase from $400 to $2,800 per annum—a 700 per cent increase. As he and hiswife are ordinary workers, they will find it extremely difficult to find the extra cash to meet this unfair andunjust increase. He asks a legitimate question: ‘Why did the LNP Lord Mayor not announce at the recentelection that he would remove the 10 per cent rate cap for those on CTS, thus discriminating againstone section of our community?’

No wonder unit owners believe that they are being discriminated against when they have beenreferred to as ‘millionaire unit owners’ who should pay more and who can presumably easily afford theseunjustified increases. I can assure this House that not all unit owners are wealthy millionaires. Many areordinary workers, older people or retirees on fixed incomes, pensioners and single people who havemoved into apartments for security, proximity to amenities and to be part of inner-city community living.They can ill afford these astronomical increases in one hit. I strongly support and commend thosepeople protesting hard against this grab-for-cash policy that will put all the good work in attractingpeople back into the inner city in jeopardy. Buying a unit is now less attractive.

I firmly believe that the BCC should reverse this unfair, unjust and questionable budget scheme,and consider the hardship and distress that these exorbitant rate increases will cause many current unitowners who as ratepayers are sending a loud message to the Lord Mayor: ‘No can do, Campbell’.

Queensland Alumina Ltd

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (10.41 pm): Queensland Alumina Ltd recently made anapplication for a $1.5 million funding subsidy to the Queensland Department of Local Government, Sportand Recreation under the Business Water Efficiency Program. The aims of the BWEP are to providefunding to Queensland businesses so as to reduce the consumption of reticulated water across regionalQueensland, save money, minimise the environmental footprint and build a community profile as awater-efficient community.

The project that QAL sought funding for involves a design procurement and construction of pipework pumps and instrumentation so as to allow the receipt of up to two megalitres a day of treatedeffluent from the Tannum Sands and Boyne Island effluent treatment plants. The effluent received wouldbe treated and used within the QAL refinery, resulting in a long-term two-megalitre per day reduction inQAL’s consumption of Awoonga Dam water.

QAL has received preliminary verbal advice from SEQWater that it is ineligible for the subsidy onthe basis that QAL’s reduction in water consumption is actually a savings in raw water consumption asopposed to a savings in reticulated or drinking water consumption. Such a distinction is, I believe,artificial in that the source of QAL’s raw water, Awoonga Dam, is the same as the source for the region’sreticulated water. Therefore, the net result will be a reduction in the consumption of water usage, whichis the aim of the BWEP.


In a ministerial media statement dated May 2007, advice was given that the Brisbane City Counciland Caltex’s Lytton oil refinery received funding of $11.78 million from the state government for a similarproject, and I quote—Caltex’s Lytton oil refinery will be the first major industrial operation in Queensland to commence large-scale use of recycledwater, thanks to an $11.78 million State Government incentive. Deputy Premier Anna Bligh today announced the funding package for Brisbane City Council to upgrade its Wynnum WastewaterPlant so treated recycled water can be piped to the Caltex refinery.

...This project will enable Caltex to reduce consumption of Wivenhoe Dam water at the refinery by 4.5 megalitres a day by replacingit with recycled water from the Wynnum plant ...

The project to re-use the Boyne-Tannum effluent is the second effluent recycling project QAL hasentered into, and it funded fully the previous project at $550,000 per annum over a 20-year period. Iwould ask the minister to reconsider the proposed refusal of QAL’s application. The application hasgreat merit. It will reduce the actual consumption of water from Awoonga Dam. It is a wise use of water.It is a wise, very efficient and conservative action by QAL, and it deserves the support of the state.

Coomera Police DistrictMr GRAY (Gaven—ALP) (10.44 pm): No-one in this House would be surprised to learn about the

growth of Gold Coast city, which is now the sixth largest city in Australia and the second largest city inQueensland. This is reflected in the current redistribution, with Gold Coast city now having 10 seats inthis parliament out of 89.

The need for increased policing in this growing city is vital, and I am pleased that this governmentand the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport have responded, with many needed policestations and police beats being constructed and staffed during this term of the government. Thatcommitment is reflected in the establishment of the Coomera police district. Planning and preparationfor this new district is well underway. The new district will take in areas of Beenleigh, Yatala, Stapylton,Ormeau, Ormeau Hills, Pimpama, Runaway Bay, Coomera, Jacobs Well, Hope Island and BiggeraWaters.

The M1 runs right through the area, and senior police are already expecting the new Coomeradistrict to result in an increased local presence on the M1 and faster response times to traffic matters onthe motorway. The new district will cost approximately $12 million, will operate 24 hours a day and willbe allocated 194 police officers which will include the existing strengths of the Beenleigh, Runaway Bayand Coomera areas. Included in these 194 officers will be an initial 22 new police positions attached tothe Coomera headquarters. In total, 52 officers will be allocated to the new headquarters and willperform district and specialist functions such as general duties, Criminal Investigation Branch, JuvenileAid Bureau, scenes of crime, intelligence and traffic branch.

The new police district will serve Gold Coast city suburbs within the Albert, Broadwater, Gavenand new Coomera electorates. It is greatly needed and the government’s commitment to ensuring thesafety of our growing population is much appreciated. The current Coomera police communityconsultative committee functions well and will be strengthened with the establishment of the new district.I acknowledge the good work of Senior Sergeant Wally Siganto, Doc Newman, Terry Parker and manyother officers based at the Coomera station. Their sound relationships with community groups and theirlocal community members strengthens the effectiveness of policing in the area. The building of the newdistrict headquarters at the rear of the current police station is imminent, and I look forward to attendingits opening with the minister.

Olympic Medallist, Mr Ken WallaceMrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (10.47 pm): Tonight I pay tribute to the Australian Olympic team

for their remarkable effort at the Beijing Olympics and, in particular, kayaker and Gold Coast lifeguardKen Wallace, who thrilled us all by winning both gold and bronze medals in the K1 1000 and K1 500kayaking events at the Beijing Olympics last weekend.

I am very proud to say that Ken is a member of the Tugun Surf Club and the Currumbin CreekCanoe Club, and his parents, Trevor and Margaret, live at Elanora in the electorate of Currumbin. Rightfrom his childhood years, Ken displayed incredible talent on the water. When he was 11, his parentstook him down to the beach at Tallebudgera, where the local nippers happened to be having theirchampionships. As history tells it, Ken won a number of events that day and wanted to continue in thesport. We are glad that he did.

In 1998 he moved to Tugun Surf Club, where he has competed ever since. A competitor at theAustralian Surf Life Saving Championships in the Iron Man, Ken was keen to improve his surf ski leg,and in 2000 started kayaking as a means of getting better. At the age of 16 he began with Olympic gold


medallist Mario von Appen and spent many gruelling hours on Currumbin Creek to help his surf ski leg.In his first year of kayaking he competed at the 2000 Australian championships in the under-16s,winning three national titles and then went on to junior world cup events in Europe. The following year atthe Australian junior championships he won nine out of nine events before going on to win the juniorworld K1 1000 title.

While Ken was kayaking, he was also still competing in surf-lifesaving and was competing eachweekend. He has won 15 national titles, including five straight Aussie titles with the Tugun taplin team insurf-lifesaving, which puts him amongst the most successful 15 of all time.

Leading up to the Olympics, Ken based himself at Budapest in Hungary to train for these events.His achievements are too numerous to list, but needless to say his friends and members of the TugunSurf Club have been celebrating his wins since last weekend. This weekend I hope to join them in anofficial celebration where I am sure there will be many a story to tell about the amazing record of theclub’s most famous kayaker, Ken Wallace. Well done, Ken. We are all so very proud of you.

Perhaps now this stingy government that likes to claim status through its medal-winningOlympians will see fit to fund Surf Life Saving Queensland adequately instead of the meagre handout itexpects this iconic volunteer organisation to survive on. It is worth remembering that many of ourrecord-breaking swimmers start out as nippers yet this Labor government also angered thousands ofQueenslanders when the Courier-Mail revealed the minister would not maintain the little funding thatswimming receives and would in fact cut it. It certainly put a dampener on the high spirits around ourgreat state to think that our state Labor government would be so mean.

Pacific Motorway Upgrade

Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (10.49 pm): The state government is getting on with the jobwhen it comes to upgrading the Pacific Motorway south of Nerang. Some $900 million in joint state andfederal government funding is being spent on planning and design for the upgrade of the highway andthe associated east-west interchanges, with work currently underway at the Nerang South-NielsensRoad overpass.

Tenders will be called this year for the Mudgeeraba interchange, with work to begin early nextyear. Work will also start shortly after that on the Reedy Creek-Varsity Lakes interchange to ensurecompletion of this project in time to coincide with the new Varsity Lakes Railway Station and transitoriented development. We have just announced the preferred route and mode of transport for the GoldCoast’s rapid transport system. We have recently completed the duplication of the rail line fromCoomera to Robina and increased the capacity and frequency of this busy line.

So the Bligh government is committing record funds to fighting congestion on the Gold Coast, butwith our rapidly expanding population more is needed. It took years to drag money out of the formerfederal government for the Pacific Highway, the major artery linking Brisbane and Sydney. We only gotthem to the table, kicking and screaming, just before the last election. Now that we have entered a newera of Commonwealth-state cooperation with the election of the Rudd government, I am lobbying formore federal funds for the completion of the Pacific Motorway upgrade.

Last week I hosted a free community forum with my local federal government counterparts—therecently elected member for Forde, Brett Raguse, and newly elected Senator Mark Furner. With theirsupport I have launched a petition to the federal parliament calling for the allocation of funds under theInfrastructure Australia Building Australia Fund. This $20 billion fund, announced by the Ruddgovernment in the budget, is aimed at fighting inflation by spending on key infrastructure projectsthroughout the country. I know there will be many locations lobbying for a share of this pie. I want tomake sure the Gold Coast’s voice is heard above the rest. The fund is a new opportunity to secureadditional money for projects just like the Pacific Motorway upgrade. My view is that we won’t get if wedon’t ask.

The petition is available from my office, and I am encouraging businesses and traders to put oneon their front counters. The Hinterland Medical Centre at Nerang was the first to come on board, andword is spreading very quickly. Some 60 community members attended the community forum and hadthe opportunity to ask questions of me and the federal members and to talk to public servants from thedepartments of main roads, transport, police and communities as well as the Commonwealth agencyCentrelink. I want to thank the officers who gave up their evening to meet with local residents to provideadvice and information on services, programs, grants and support available as well as major projects. Ithank the Mudgeeraba Girl Guides for their fine catering on the evening. I encourage everyone to get intouch with my office and get a copy of the petition. Let us get the message through to the federalgovernment that we want to see more funding for the Pacific Motorway upgrade.


Wilful NegligenceMr ELMES (Noosa—Lib) (10.52 pm): On Friday, 15 August I was honoured to be asked to

colaunch a book with the member for Nicklin, Peter Wellington. The book is a teenage autobiographyentitled Wilful Negligence. It was written under the pseudonym of Thadeus Hunt, who is now betterknown to everyone on the Sunshine Coast as Tony Herman.

I was given the book to read because of my interest in youth issues. On first glance at the cover Icould see by the cut of the clothes and the appearance of the young boy in the picture that Tony Hermanand I were of a similar vintage and out of the same era. However, the fact that we are of similar age isthe only similarity between us. I grew up in Brisbane; Tony grew up in Sydney. My upbringing wasthrough a close, caring family; Tony’s was anything but. It just goes to show how easily a young person’slife can go off the rails.

The book is a frightening journey of a young boy who gets up to a couple of pranks to shoplifting,theft on a larger scale and gang fights all the way through to drug use and heroin addiction. There is apowerful part of the book which describes how Tony’s mother came upon him in the kitchen of theirhouse just after he had injected himself with heroin. The frightening and realistic way in which that partof the book, indeed all of the book, is written will be a great wake-up call to anyone who reads WilfulNegligence.

The book is an important message and shows clearly the dangers to young people as they growup, whether it is in the 1960s or in the early part of the 21st century. I suggest that it is compulsoryreading, particularly for teenage boys. I have read it cover to cover. I am going to make sure that my 17-year-old son reads Tony’s book as well. It showed me how lucky I am not to be facing the sameproblems with him that Tony’s mother and sister had to live through.

Luckily, Tony was one of the few who had the intestinal fortitude to dig himself out of the gravethat could have been his. He and his wife and children have moved to Queensland. Tony now advisesand is a role model for disadvantaged young people who attend Namtec in Nambour. I can well and trulyrecommend the organisation.

I am one of those who firmly believes that young people should understand that there is a directconsequence of their actions. The current system, where endless warnings are given or incircumstances where a fine is imposed knowing that neither the young person nor the family has thecapacity to pay, only leads to young people believing that they are 10-feet tall and bulletproof and canget away with anything. I am of the opinion that a month in youth detention is a far better course ofaction than 12 months or longer in an adult prison.

However, society must do everything possible to provide every assistance and encouragement toyoung people and their families to ensure that as few as possible have to travel the road to losing theirfreedom. I have taken the liberty of presenting a copy of Tony Herman’s book, which was published inQueensland, to the Parliamentary Library and hope that some members of this House take the time toread it and recommend the book to young people in their electorates.

Barron River Electorate, SchoolsMr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (10.55 pm): Tonight I recognise two very important

milestones in the history of two schools in the Barron River electorate. On 30 July 2008 I representedthe education and training minister, Rod Welford, at the official opening of stages 7 and 8 of the StAndrews Catholic College at Redlynch. The opening ceremony was an opportunity for the school toreflect and to rally following a recent fire at the school which destroyed an entire learning block. But, as Isaid at the time, the strength and cohesion of the school community has enabled it to bounce back.

The Bligh government contributed $6.4 million towards the new facilities which include 13classrooms, a learning support area, a computer room, administration area, two science rooms, twomanual arts rooms, two arts rooms, rooms for economics and music, a physical education area andmultipurpose courts. Over the last five years our government has provided $12.3 million for capitalworks at this growing school.

I acknowledge the guidance of Bishop James Foley and Father Neil Muir, the leadership of theprincipal, Lauretta Graham, the support of the local Catholic education office and the hard work andvision of the P&F, led by president Matthew Bermingham. I congratulate the school community forcontributing $3.36 million to the project. The buildings at St Andrews are designed to take advantage ofthe beautiful location of the campus, reflecting the college’s strong environmental focus. It has gained areputation for excellence in academic, sporting and musical education and for fostering the emotionaland spiritual development of the students.

On Sunday, 24 August 2008 I represented the education and training minister at the officialopening of the Kuranda District State College. Formed by the construction of a new $4.7 million P-6campus on the spectacular 27-hectare Kuranda High School site, the new P-l2 college has gone fromstrength to strength since it opened at the start of 2007. In fact, at the same time that I officially opened

2318 Attendance 26 Aug 2008

the college I also announced that two additional learning areas will be provided in time for the 2009 yearon the P-6 campus. The announcement fulfilled understandings reached during discussions about theclosure of the old primary school and was warmly welcomed. I thank Minister Welford for acting on myrepresentations and for his support for this young college.

The P-6 campus consists of a new prep building, resource centre, canteen, two four-spacelearning blocks, play area and a multipurpose covered area. The official opening coincided with theschool fete organised by the school P&C, ably led by P&C president Chris Bullen. In typical Kurandastyle, the fete showcased the enormous performing arts talent of the Kuranda and school communityand included performances by the Bama Dayal dance group, the Kassowary Circus and local heroesZennith, fresh from their performances at major festivals and boasting a line-up of former collegestudents.

The young college has gained a reputation for innovation and has recorded an impressive list ofawards in its first year of operation. I am very proud of the achievements of these schools and of theBligh government’s strong commitment to providing first-class school facilities in the Cairns region.

The House adjourned at 10.58 pm.

ATTENDANCEAttwood, Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, 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, Knuth, 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, Pitt, Pratt,Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, Rickuss, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine,Simpson, Smith, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg,Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson