hansard home page: e-mail: phone: (07) 3406 7314 fax: (07) … · 2007-03-20 · geothermal energy...

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

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

FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT Page

PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

Subject

Wednesday, 14 March 2007PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................................................................................... 965

Speaker’s Statement—Register of Members’ Interests ....................................................................................................... 965PETITIONS ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 966TABLED PAPER .............................................................................................................................................................................. 966MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 966

Water Infrastructure .............................................................................................................................................................. 966South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan ......................................................................................................................... 967Gold Coast Desalination Plant ............................................................................................................................................. 967Griffith University Film School .............................................................................................................................................. 968

Tabled paper: Griffith University Film School brochure titled ‘A Starring Role’. ....................................................... 968National Rugby League Season ........................................................................................................................................... 969Cyclone Larry ....................................................................................................................................................................... 969

Tabled paper: Queensland Government document titled ‘Cyclone Larry Anniversary 20 March 2007—1 year on—Milestones and Achievements’. ........................................................................................................................ 970

Geothermal Energy .............................................................................................................................................................. 970Tabled paper: Brochure by Geodynamics titled ‘SourceOne Lightning Rig’............................................................. 970

Trade Mission, South Africa, Kenya and Britain ................................................................................................................... 970African Refugees .................................................................................................................................................................. 972Community Cabinet .............................................................................................................................................................. 972

Tabled paper: Queensland Government document, dated February 2007, titled ‘Community Cabinet News—Issue 64—Atherton’. ................................................................................................................................................ 972

North Bank ........................................................................................................................................................................... 972Electricity Supply .................................................................................................................................................................. 973TJ Ryan Medal ..................................................................................................................................................................... 973

Tabled paper: List of 2007 T J Ryan Awards recipients. .......................................................................................... 974Murray-Darling Basin ............................................................................................................................................................ 974Neighbourhood Watch .......................................................................................................................................................... 975

Tabled paper: Queensland Police Service document, dated December 2005, titled ‘Neighbourhood Watch—State-wide Evaluation’. ............................................................................................................................................. 975

Biosecurity Queensland; Sea World ..................................................................................................................................... 975Homelink .............................................................................................................................................................................. 976

L J OSMOND N J LAURIE CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT

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

Table of Contents — Wednesday, 14 March 2007

Inner Northern Busway .........................................................................................................................................................976Indigenous Children in Care .................................................................................................................................................977Incident Management System Trial ......................................................................................................................................977Queensland Labour Market Programs ..................................................................................................................................978Queensland Tourism ............................................................................................................................................................978

MOTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................979Amendments to Standing Orders .........................................................................................................................................979

Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to. ............................................................................................980Resolved in the affirmative........................................................................................................................................980

NOTICE OF MOTION ........................................................................................................................................................................981Local Authorities, Water Supply ............................................................................................................................................981

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE .....................................................................................................................................................981Beattie Labor Government ....................................................................................................................................................981Water Infrastructure ..............................................................................................................................................................981Water-Saving Initiatives ........................................................................................................................................................982Water Prices .........................................................................................................................................................................983Ethics in Government ...........................................................................................................................................................984Water Infrastructure ..............................................................................................................................................................984Water Infrastructure ..............................................................................................................................................................985

MOTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................986Extension of Time .................................................................................................................................................................986

Division: Question put—That the Premier be further heard. .....................................................................................986Resolved in the affirmative........................................................................................................................................986

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE .....................................................................................................................................................986Tabled paper: Extracts from Votes and Proceedings of 9 August 2006. ..................................................................986Tabled paper: Extracts from Votes and Proceedings of 22 February 2007. .............................................................986

Member for Greenslopes ......................................................................................................................................................987Gold Coast, Water Supply ....................................................................................................................................................988Water Management ..............................................................................................................................................................988Water Restrictions, Level 5 ...................................................................................................................................................989Asbestos in Schools .............................................................................................................................................................990Queensland Rail, Graffiti Offences .......................................................................................................................................991

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT .............................................................................................................................................................991Amendment to Standing Orders ...........................................................................................................................................991

PRIVILEGE .......................................................................................................................................................................................992Alleged Misleading of the House ..........................................................................................................................................992

Tabled paper: Copy of report, dated August 2006, by KPMG titled ‘Local Government Association of Queensland Analysis of Financial Performance of Council Owned Water Businesses in South East Queensland Interim Findings’. ..................................................................................................................................992

COMMUNITY AMBULANCE COVER AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL ............................................................................993First Reading ........................................................................................................................................................................993Second Reading ...................................................................................................................................................................993

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY .......................................................................................................................................................................994SECURITY PROVIDERS AMENDMENT BILL ...............................................................................................................................1002

Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................................1002MOTION ..........................................................................................................................................................................................1032

Local Authorities, Water Supply ..........................................................................................................................................1032Tabled paper: Document, dated August 2006, and titled ‘Local Government Association of Queensland Analysis of Financial Performance of Council Owned Water Businesses in South East Queensland’...................1032Tabled paper: Copy of the Aquagen Annual report 04/05.......................................................................................1038Tabled paper: Copy of the Aquagen Water & Renewable Energy Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2005. ..............................................................................................................................................1038Tabled paper: Copy of documents downloaded on 14 March 2007 concerning the Caloundra-Maroochy water supply. ...........................................................................................................................................................1038Tabled paper: Correspondence, dated 14 March 2007, from Mr Bob Abbot, Mayor, Noosa Council.....................1038Tabled paper: Copy of Local Government news release, dated 14 March 2007, titled ‘Survey supports Councils’ maintaining Control of Water’..............................................................................1038Tabled paper: Details of investments by the Maroochydore Shire Council in water services.................................1038Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to. ..................................................................................1042Resolved in the affirmative......................................................................................................................................1042

MOTION ..........................................................................................................................................................................................1042Disallowance of Statutory Instrument .................................................................................................................................1042

Tabled paper: Correspondence dated 12 February 2007, from Mr Joshua Morris, Training and Fatigue Management, Martins Group of Companies to Hon. Paul Lucas MP, Minister for Transport and Main Roads regarding demerit points and fines for heavy vehicle drivers. .................................................................................1057Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Summary comparison of heavy vehicle fatigue offences, old and new fines, and demerit points from 1 March 2007’...................................................................................................................1059Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to. ..........................................................................................1061Resolved in the negative.........................................................................................................................................1061

Table of Contents — Wednesday, 14 March 2007

ADJOURNMENT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1062Parliamentary Dress Code ................................................................................................................................................. 1062Liberal Party ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1062Eventide Nursing Home ..................................................................................................................................................... 1063Bruce Highway Upgrade .................................................................................................................................................... 1064Water Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................................................ 1064Parliamentary Dress Code; QPILCH .................................................................................................................................. 1065Fishing Industry .................................................................................................................................................................. 1065State Emergency Services, Volunteers .............................................................................................................................. 1065Government Owned Corporations ...................................................................................................................................... 1066Bundamba Electorate, Water Pipeline Construction .......................................................................................................... 1067

ATTENDANCE ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1067

14 Mar 2007 Legislative Assembly 965

WEDNESDAY, 14 MARCH 2007

Legislative Assembly

Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr J English, Redlands) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 am.

PROCEDURE

Speaker’s Statement—Register of Members’ Interests

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, a member has written to me seeking guidance asto the application of standing order 269 and whether it allows honourable members to refer to thecontents of the register of members’ interests during debate provided they do not raise issues ofcontempt. I commence my statement providing general guidance on this issue by referring to astatement by Mr Speaker on 1 November 2006 wherein Mr Speaker stated—

Standing order 269 provides the procedure for raising a matter of privilege and states that with the exception of matters suddenlyarising a member must write to the Speaker.

Later Mr Speaker stated—

... sessional orders provide a time for matters of privilege to be raised. The standing orders also provide that once a matter isreferred it cannot be referred to in debate in the House. I take a very dim view of members not complying with the spirit of standingand sessional orders by not raising a matter of privilege but using another time on the business program, such as matters of publicinterest, private members’ statements or the adjournment debate, to raise and air matters of privilege.

Less than a month later, on 28 November 2006, Mr Speaker, in response to various allegationsbeing made in the House regarding the registration of interests, stated—

Standing orders make it clear that once a matter is referred to the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, itshould not be referred to in debate in the House.

I made a number of rulings in relation to a particular matter both in private members’ statements and question time this morning.Despite my rulings honourable members on both sides of the House have transgressed standing orders to refer in more thangeneral terms to a particular matter and make prejudicial statements in relation to that matter. I add that on at least one occasionthis action was done in response to another member’s reflections upon the character of past and current members and allegationswithout any proffered evidence about the declarations of interests. The standing orders provide for a process in the event ofevidence of nondisclosure. Where there is evidence of nondisclosure those processes should be used, not simply baseless orformless allegations or innuendo raised in the House.

To summarise the position, therefore I advise: firstly, the privileges enjoyed by this House and itsmembers allow members a general right to debate any matter relevant to the question before the chairor in items of business such as adjournment, matters of public interest or private members’ statementsdebate any subject matter they desire. They also have the privilege and right, unusual in Westminsterparliaments, to table any document they desire at any time during debate when they have the call.Secondly, the general privileges and rights of members to speak and table documents are onlytempered by rules introduced and approved by this House, either through legislation, standing orders,sessional orders or rulings of the chair relying on practice and procedure where available.

In reality, there are few such restrictions, but the restrictions include: the requirement forparliamentary language; to refrain from personal reflections; to avoid discussion on matters of subjudice; to not anticipate the debate on a question; and to follow the procedures and processes laid downby standing orders for matters of privilege or an alleged breach of standing orders, such as a complaintof a breach of the requirements to register interests as required. Thirdly, Mr Speaker has made it quiteclear that matters of privilege and complaints or allegations of a breach of the requirements should bemade in accordance with the procedure laid down in standing orders—either standing order 269 for amatter of privilege or alleged contempt or section 14 of schedule 2 of standing orders for an allegedfailure to comply with the requirements to register interests.

Fourthly, Mr Speaker has indicated that he takes a dim view of members failing to make acomplaint in accordance with standing orders but standing in the House on other business and makingunsubstantiated allegations or innuendo. I think that in such a circumstance the chair has the right or theobligation to draw the member’s attention to standing orders and suggest that they adhere to the properprocedure and even sit them down if they insist on ignoring those procedures. In conclusion, there isgenerally no restriction on a member referring to the contents of the register of members’ interests if thatis all they are really doing. But if they are making allegations or complaint, then they should adhere tothe procedures in standing orders.

966 Ministerial Statements 14 Mar 2007

PETITIONSThe following honourable members have lodged paper petitions for presentation—

Kulangoor, LandfillMr Wellington, two petitions, from 238 petitioners in total, requesting the House to reject the application by Maroochy ShireCouncil for a proposed landfill site at Ferntree Creek Road Kulangoor.

Land ValuationsMrs Stuckey from 95 petitioners requesting the House to rescind new land valuations, review the land valuation process andensure each new valuation is accompanied by a detailed description of the process involved to reach the new amount.

TABLED PAPERThe following ministerial paper was tabled by the Clerk—

Premier and Minister for Trade (Mr Beattie)—

• Email on behalf of the Premier and Minister for Trade to the Clerk of Parliament with a replacement attachment containinga whole of Government response to questions on notice No. 43, 49, 50, 51, 58, 61, 62, 64, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 77 and 78of 2007 that now includes information relating to question on notice No. 96.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Water InfrastructureHon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.36 am): Whether

we take over water from councils or establish one coordinating authority, our goal remains the same: wewant to help deliver secure supplies of water to the people of the south-east corner of Queensland at themost reasonable price possible. I have been encouraged by the response from the local governmentsector to our proposal and its indication that it will work cooperatively with my government on theupcoming audit. In particular, I thank the Lord Mayor of Brisbane for saying so. Darryl Somerville willprovide a preliminary report on the audit to the Queensland Water Commission in four weeks. TheWater Commission report entitled Cost recovery and pricing issues relating to urban water supply insouth east Queensland suggested residents could pay as much as an extra $70 a year—that is, eachyear—for the next five years. So that is $70 and then another $70 and then another $70. It was acomprehensive and well-researched report, but unfortunately it had to base its draft pricing advice onthe recovery of the full cost of the infrastructure over five years on a commercial basis. This was inaccordance with National Water Initiative principles of the Commonwealth government. In other words,Elizabeth Nosworthy and her team had no choice.

However, the Howard government could hardly be accused of responding quickly to the droughtor climate change in Queensland particularly and the rest of Australia. The unprecedented level of waterinfrastructure under development by my government is part of the largest urban drought response in thenation’s history. It is bigger than anything envisaged. In other words, the water grid that we are buildingworth $7 billion to $9 billion is a level of development in terms of water infrastructure that has neverbeen delivered ever before. Preliminary Treasury analysis, as the Deputy Premier indicated to theHouse yesterday, shows that lowering the rate of return on water assets from seven per cent to four percent and extending the price path from five years to 10 years would halve the price increase for SEQhouseholds. It would mean that the average bill would increase from $350 to $525 in real terms,excluding normal inflation, over five years rather than the $733 under the commission’srecommendations. That is a rise of less than 50c a day at a time when the government is delivering$7 billion to $9 billion worth of water infrastructure. That is the total package to drought-proof the south-east corner of Queensland.

I think that we have the balance right. I understand that no-one likes increases in water chargesbut we have kept it to an absolute minimum, yet we are also delivering infrastructure that has neverbefore been delivered to this extent. The price could drop even further if the Howard governmentaddresses its neglect of water infrastructure in Queensland. We have the worst drought on record, yetthe federal government has not made an investment in our water infrastructure, which would mean thatthis price could come down even further. Therefore, the ball is fairly and squarely in the court of thefederal government, which also needs to make a contribution.

We have forgone revenue of $1.5 billion and we are asking the Commonwealth to make a similarcontribution. At a bare minimum, it could follow the lead of the federal opposition leader, Kevin Rudd,and contribute $408 million towards the $1.7 billion western corridor recycled water pipeline. More pricereductions can take place if the federal government plays a constructive role. As I said, the ball is in thefederal government’s court.

14 Mar 2007 Ministerial Statements 967

South East Queensland Infrastructure PlanHon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.41 am): I wish to

provide an update on the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan, on which I am working closelywith the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure. Less than nine months have passedsince my government released the second edition of our landmark South East QueenslandInfrastructure Plan, and I am pleased to update the House on recent developments.

The South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan involves more than 350 projects to improvetransport, water, health, energy and education services for people living in the region. Those projectswill ensure our state remains the most liveable in the nation. Families will be provided with high-qualitysocial and physical infrastructure, which means better roads, hospitals, schools and, of course, thewater grid. The projects expand out to 479 subprojects and I am pleased to advise the House that 92 ofthose subprojects are already completed at a cost of $814 million. We are delivering. This is happeningright now.

Although the majority of the projects are in the energy sector, we have also delivered a number ofkey projects in roads, rail and schools. These include the duplication of the Gold Coast railway fromOrmeau to Coomera, delivered; the Royal Children’s Hospital and Normanby bus stations on the InnerNorthern Busway, delivered; the Warrego Highway-Plainlands Interchange, delivered; additional laneson Nicklin Way, Nerang-Broadbeach Road and Hope Island Road, delivered; and the LinkfieldConnection Road at Carseldine, delivered. In addition, upgrades of major transmission, subtransmissionand distribution networks have taken place across the region.

New schools have come on line. Burpengary Meadows State School, the Stretton State Collegeand the first stage of Springfield Lakes State School have all been completed and opened for this schoolyear. In other words, the projects have been delivered. By the end of December, we will have spentmore than $3.25 billion on projects in the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan.

Other projects are being delivered including the Gateway Bridge duplication. Last Friday theDeputy Premier and I attended a sod-turning ceremony, if I could call it that, to mark the beginning ofwork on that duplication project which will include the upgrade of the existing bridge and massiveroadworks in connection with it. The $543 million Tugun Bypass project is six months ahead ofschedule. Everyone on the Gold Coast knows that it is being delivered right now. The Springfield roadand rail projects are being delivered. Just over a week ago we called for expressions of interest forAirport Link, combined with part of the northern busway project.

On the Sunshine Coast, we have more than 20 major road and public transport projects plannedor underway, totalling nearly $6 billion. In Brisbane, the Prince Charles Hospital upgrade is wellunderway and due for completion later this year. There are 11 projects worth over $1 billion each in theplan. We are working to ensure those vital projects are delivered on time and on budget by keeping allprojects under review. The plan will be updated later this year to include a range of new projects andsome projects have been expanded in their scope, such as the Sunshine and Gold Coast hospitals.

In total, we are looking at an investment figure of around $80 billion. Final costs will bedetermined when the 2007 plan is released in the middle of the year. We are implementing the biggestinfrastructure plan in this nation since Federation and we are delivering it. That is one of the reasons wecreated a separate department for infrastructure, which is headed by the Deputy Premier.

Gold Coast Desalination PlantHon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.44 am): I notice

that the Leader of the Opposition has made some derisive comments about this project, but I think thatpeople understand that is just politics. The other day, the Deputy Premier and I visited the desalinationbarge. This 50-metre barge is a key part of the construction of the $1.2 billion Gold Coast desalinationplant. The $6 million barge is the largest of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere. On Saturday it arrivedin Brisbane from Korea.

This vital piece of equipment will be used in building the out-of-sea components of thedesalination plant to help supply drinking water to the state’s south-east. The barge is 50 metres longand 25 metres wide, the size of an Olympic swimming pool, and is large enough to support the 80-metrecrane needed to lift the ocean intake and outfall pipes. The crane will be fitted while the barge is dockedin Brisbane. In early May it will be moved to its base two kilometres out to sea off Tugun. A helipad willbe attached to the barge to take tunnelling engineers on and off the site.

The Gold Coast desalination project is a vital part of the state’s all-of-region response to thedrought in the south-east. Every day the new plant will deliver 125 megalitres of fresh water to south-east Queensland’s residents and businesses. The tunnels will be completed by July next year. ByNovember 2008 water will flow from the plant and it will reach optimum capacity by January 2009. Manymembers would have seen footage of the Deputy Premier going down the lift into the tunnel area of theplant. We are delivering water infrastructure.


Other key water projects include the western corridor recycled water project stage 1A toSwanbank Power Station, which will be delivered by 31 August 2007; stage 1B to Tarong Power Station,which will be delivered by 30 June 2008; and stage 2 from Luggage Point on Gibson Island, which willbe delivered by 31 December 2008. The southern regional pipeline will be delivered by 30 November2008, the northern pipeline interconnector will be delivered by 31 December 2008, Traveston Crossingstage 1 will be delivered by the end of 2011 and Wyaralong will be delivered by the end of 2011.

We are delivering this water infrastructure. It is not easy. It has never been delivered before andthe government is fully committed to delivering those projects. I will be working very closely with theDeputy Premier to ensure that every one of those projects is delivered. I congratulate the DeputyPremier on the work being done to date. Members opposite can make all the smart remarks that theylike, but the fact is that water infrastructure on this scale has never been delivered before and we willdeliver it.

Griffith University Film SchoolHon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.45 am): I pay

tribute to the Griffith University Film School. Yesterday, the Deputy Premier and I were delighted to openAustralia’s largest and most modern film school right here in Brisbane. This $12 million state-of-the-artcomplex at Griffith University, South Bank is a significant addition to the Smart State, which alreadyleads the nation in creative industries policy and practice. Not only are we the only state with adedicated creative industries strategy focused on economic growth and developing global markets; wenow have the Griffith Film School to give us an even bigger competitive edge. It is the largest one of itskind in Australia.

The Queensland government provided $5 million to develop the Film School’s resourcesincluding high-definition and motion capture technologies, as well as the latest audiovisual equipment. Itable a brochure from yesterday’s launch for the information of the House.Tabled paper: Griffith University Film School brochure titled ‘A Starring Role’.

I seek leave to have the remainder of my ministerial statement and the news release in relation tothe Griffith University Film School incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted. The Griffith Film School boasts the best technology, but it’s also a learning environment giving Queenslanders the very best increative arts education for jobs in film and related industries.Queensland’s creative industries are worth $3.4 billion a year, Mr Speaker, and they generate $1.1 billion in exports and employsome 67,000 people.During the five year period from 2000, Queensland’s creative industries’ businesses grew at a rate of 4.6% compared to a nationalgrowth rate of 3.7%.Mr Speaker, because of our Smart State strategy and assets like the Griffith Film School, Queensland is well positioned tocontinue leading the way for decades to come.

DISTANCE FROM QUEENSLAND TO HOLLYWOOD SHORTENED BY NEW GRIFFITH FILM SCHOOLBrisbane is now home to Australia’s largest and most modern film school after Premier Peter Beattie today officially opened thenew $12 million Griffith Film School at South Bank.“The distance from Queensland to Hollywood has been shortened considerably because we now have a world-class film schoolwith state-of-the-art facilities,” Mr Beattie said.“We also have the wherewithal to prepare the next generation of film-makers, animators and digital producers to take on theworld.”Mr Beattie said a $5 million grant from the Queensland Government had allowed the school to broaden its resources into HighDefinition and Motion Capture technologies while also expanding its existing audio-visual equipment.“Of the $5 million grant, $3.4 million was spent on equipment while $1.6 million has gone directly towards this refurbishment,” MrBeattie said. “The Griffith Film School boasts leading-edge technologies with a fully HDV (High Definition Video) multi-camera studio, separatesound stage, generous editing and sound facilities and a media lab with the latest in software technologies.” Mr Beattie said Griffith Film School’s 350 students—115 animation, 205 film and screen media and 30 post graduate—were in agreat position to be part of Queensland’s exciting future in creative industries.“The World Bank predicts that creative industries will be the next big boom globally and here in Queensland, because of our SmartState strategy, we are well positioned to take advantage of that boom,” Mr Beattie said.“Queensland leads the nation in creative industries policy and practice and is the only state with a dedicated Creative Industriesstrategy focused on economic growth and developing global markets,” Mr Beattie said.Mr Beattie said Queensland’s creative industries are worth $3.4 billion a year and generate $1.1 billion in exports and employ67,000 people.“During the five year period from 2000 Queensland businesses in the creative industries grew at a rate of 4.6 per cent comparedto a national growth rate of 3.7 per cent,” Mr Beattie said.


“There are now some 25,000 creative industries businesses in Queensland and the future looks very bright for continued growth.” The Griffith Film School occupies a building with a rich past. In 1881 it was the South Brisbane Post Office and in 1889 it wasexpanded to become the South Brisbane Mechanics Institute and Library while in 1902, famous architect Alexander B. Wilsonadded a concert hall to the building.“In a nice footnote to history, Alexander Wilson’s great grandson Hamilton Wilson has been the architect responsible for the latestrefurbishment,” Mr Beattie said.Between 1973 and 1987, the building was neglected but was then refurbished as a convention centre for World Expo 88 and inmore recent years was used by the Queensland Academy of Sport before the Queensland Government sold the building to GriffithUniversity in December 2005 for $2.675 million.

National Rugby League SeasonHon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.47 am): Tonight I

will travel to the Gold Coast to attend the official launch of the 2007 national Rugby League season. Thisis the first time that the launch has been held outside of the Sydney area, and about time too. It is a signof the strength of the game in Queensland. It is no wonder that next year we want the worldchampionships to be held here.

All three Queensland Rugby League teams have agreed to be part of this special event. Theirentire squads will be making a special appearance at Q1 in Surfers Paradise. It is great to be able to say‘three’ teams. We have been cheering on the Brisbane Broncos and the North Queensland Cowboys forquite a while. We will have even more to cheer when the Gold Coast Titans take to the field. MichaelSearle and John Cartwright have assembled a strong and talented team of players and staff. I predictthat they will be a force right from the first kick this season. They have strong trial form and, hopefully, onSunday they can get their first official win under their belt against the Dragons.

In the past those opposite have attacked the government for building infrastructure for sport.Sport is about keeping the community healthy. I make it very clear that I make no apology for mygovernment building Suncorp Stadium.

Mr Schwarten: It was opposed by them.Mr BEATTIE: Absolutely. Ms Bligh: Upgrading the Gabba.Mr BEATTIE: I make no apology for upgrading the Gabba. I make no apology for upgrading Dairy

Farmers Stadium in Townsville and I make no apology for my government getting behind theconstruction of Skilled Park on the Gold Coast. If we had not done that, no major events would be heldhere. We would have no chance of getting the World Cup next year. We are delivering, and the result isa healthier community. I seek leave to have more details incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted. Following on from the local derby between the Brisbane Broncos and the North Queensland Cowboys this historic weekend offootball will be a coup for Queensland fans.

Fresh from last year’s State of Origin series win, the Brisbane Broncos premiership win and record crowds to the two RugbyLeague Test matches, Queensland has been assigned the two biggest games of the opening round of the new NRL season.

Ticket sales are very strong for both events with the Broncos expecting a bumper crowd of more than 50,000 while the Titans areon track to for a 45,000 plus crowd.

In addition to their first game, the Titans will play their round five home game against the Brisbane Broncos at Suncorp Stadium onFriday, 13 April, which will no doubt be another full-house event.

Even NSW teams realise Suncorp is a great place to play with the Bulldogs bringing a home game against the Cowboys toSuncorp Stadium on May 27.

Mr Speaker,

This simply goes to show that even interstate clubs have come to recognise what we already that Suncorp Stadium is the bestrectangular sports venue in the country.

Cyclone LarryHon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.49 am): Today I

announce $5.6 million in funding to assist far-north Queensland councils recoup the costs of replacingroads and other infrastructure damaged by Cyclone Larry. This includes $1.7 million for Cardwell shire,$1.88 million for Eacham, $132,950 for Herberton and $1.9 million for Johnstone. This funding is beingprovided under the Natural Disaster Relief program.

On top of this, I am also pleased to announce that four projects will take a share of $427,787 torepair heritage listed properties also damaged by the cyclone that wreaked such havoc on the region.The projects are the State Hotel in Cairns, the former St Andrews Church, the McCowat’s Farmhouse inJohnstone Shire and the Great Northern Mine in Herberton.


As we approach the first anniversary of Cyclone Larry on 20 March, it is timely to look back at thedisaster that struck a region two-thirds the size of Tasmania. Cyclone Larry caused such destruction tohomes, schools, businesses and livelihoods that, one year on, our communities continue the massivetask of rebuilding. As members would recall, the state government mounted a disaster relief, recoveryand reconstruction effort unprecedented in Queensland’s history. I would like to table key milestonesand achievements since 20 March 2006, as well as the future directions the recovery will take. I indicatethat I will be providing copies to all members. I seek leave to have more details incorporated in Hansard.Tabled paper: Queensland Government document titled ‘Cyclone Larry Anniversary 20 March 2007—1 year on—Milestones andAchievements’.

Leave granted.A key to success in this massive task has been the collaboration of the Queensland Government, the Commonwealth, localindustries, the private sector, aid organisations and thousands of individuals.While the Operation Recovery Task Force will dissolve on March 20, services will continue to be provided by my Government andothers to ensure the recovery process continues. My Government recognised very early on the extent of the damage Larry caused and I established the Task Force led by GeneralPeter Cosgrove who was on the ground in Innisfail four days after the cyclone hit. Much work has been done by the Task Force since then and I pay tribute to its members General Cosgrove, Sandy Hollway, theHonourable Terry Mackenroth, Ross Rolfe from my Department, and John Mulcahy.The Tropical Cyclone Larry Relief Appeal will continue to help those doing it tough. It has already allocated $18 million of the$21.8 million generously donated by the Australian public and business community.Appeal Committee Chairperson Terry Mackenroth advises me that late applications will continue to be assessed and paid throughthe Continuing Hardship funding round, before determining the Appeal’s final disbursements.At the conclusion of the Committee’s work, I will table its report in Parliament. Mr Speaker, I assure the people of far north Queensland that my Government will be there for the long haul and will continue tosupport them in the recovery process.

Geothermal EnergyHon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.51 am): As

members know, my government is a strong supporter of renewable geothermal energy. I am pleased toannounce to the House today that the Brisbane based Geodynamics Ltd, one of Australia’s leadinggeothermal explorers, will bring its first commercial scale drill rig, worth $32 million, into Australia inJune. The rig is currently being built in the USA and is expected to be operational by July. It will allow thecompletion of trials in central Australia to improve the effectiveness of geothermal energy to producecommercial quantities of electricity. I table a brochure about the new Geodynamics drilling rig for theinformation of members.Tabled paper: Brochure by Geodynamics titled ‘SourceOne Lightning Rig’.

Geothermal energy is fully renewable and virtually emissions free. At a time when we haveclimate change problems, this is an energy source that we have to evaluate fully and hopefully takeadvantage of. In time it may provide much of the state’s energy and make a key contribution to meetingthe challenges of greenhouse emissions and climate change. Indeed, Queensland has some of the bestgeothermal resources in the nation. My government is working closely with industry and otherstakeholders to optimise Queensland’s opportunity for this exciting low emissions energy technology. Iseek leave to have more details incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.Queensland was the first state to introduce specific legislation enabling exploration for geothermal resources. The time has nowcome to review this legislation so that industry develops to its full potential. The Government is aiming to introduce amending legislation by early 2008 that updates the geothermal exploration provisions,and sets in place production provisions that will provide long term certainty to this important new industry.This legislation will be guided in part by the results of a stakeholder workshop the Minister for Mines and Energy will open on 12April.Workshop attendees will include scientists and potential investors, as well as those companies that have already applied forgeothermal exploration permits in Queensland. My Government is determined to ensure the long term prosperity of Queenslanders by meeting challenges such as thosepresented by climate change and providing national leadership now and into the future.

Trade Mission, South Africa, Kenya and BritainHon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.52 am): On

Monday I will lead a large trade delegation to South Africa before travelling on to Kenya for the finalpresentation of Brisbane’s bid to host the 2011 World Championships in Athletics. I will be accompaniedin Kenya for the bid by the Brisbane lord mayor, Campbell Newman, and the Deputy Mayor, DavidHinchliffe, who will be joining me in Mombasa, along with a large number of athletes. This is a tough bidto win. Korea is probably the favourite at the moment. But we are catching up and we intend to doeverything we can.


I seek leave to have the details incorporated in Hansard, along with information about thebusiness delegation accompanying me and a news release in relation to one of the young women, TaniaMajor, who will be joining me in South Africa.

Leave granted.The initial reason for the trip was to participate in the final bid presentation in Mombasa on 27 March for the rights to host theWorld athletics’ championships.But the opportunity to boost our trade links with South Africa was too good to miss. In recent years there has been strong growthin trade and investment between Queensland and South Africa. In the ten years to June 30, 2006, Queensland’s merchandise exports to South Africa rose by a massive 838 per cent, from$33.1 million to $310.6 million. The business community is right behind our mission. By close of business yesterday 27 official delegates had confirmed theywould join us–mostly for the South African leg—and we expect more confirmations prior to departure on Monday.In 2002, during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting on the Sunshine Coast, South African President, Mr Mbekiinvited me to visit South Africa. I am delighted to now accept his invitation and will hold formal talks with him and other senior ministers during my visit.I am also pleased that Young Australian of the Year Tania Major will join the Johannesburg-Cape Town leg of our trade mission.The Queensland Government is sponsoring her trip to help build contact and partnerships between the Cape York Institute forPolicy and Leadership and similar organisations in South Africa.Tania Major, 25, is an Indigenous youth advocate from Cape York.Ms Major is a former board member of the Institute and is now a member of staff working on youth development.In Africa my trade delegation will be visiting Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban where we will talk business and trade,infrastructure, mining, energy, water and climate change.We will then journey on to Mombasa where the focus will be on the final bid presentation to host the 2011 world athletics’championships. Our bid enjoys bipartisan support with Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman and Deputy Mayor David Hinchliffe joining me inMombasa.We have put together an excellent bid and would provide outstanding facilities and accommodation for the athletes, officials andvisitors.There is enormous international competition for the rights to stage events of this size and status. The choice has come down toBrisbane, Moscow or Daegu in Korea, so we eagerly await the decision on March 27.On leaving Kenya we will be transiting through London on the final legs of the trade mission.In London I will receive expert briefings on water management and climate change, as well as conducting business meetings.I am flying out of Brisbane on Monday March 19 and return on March 31. As always, I will provide a comprehensive report toParliament on my return.

Premier and Minister for TradeThe Honourable Peter Beattie Wednesday, March 14, 2007 TANIA REPRESENTS QUEENSLAND IN SOUTH AFRICA The 2007 Young Australian of the Year Tania Major will join Queensland Premier Peter Beattie on a Queensland trade mission toSouth Africa next week.Mr Beattie said Ms Major was a wonderful ambassador for Australia and for Queensland and her visit would help buildcooperation and understanding between the next generation of young Australian and South African leaders.“Trade between South Africa and Queensland has expanded rapidly in recent years and it is important that we develop social andcultural ties to complement this economic expansion,” Mr Beattie said.“Tania Major, 25, is an Indigenous Australian youth advocate from Cape York.”“The Queensland Government is sponsoring her trip for the three-day Johannesburg-Cape Town leg of the trade mission to helpbuild contact and partnerships between the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership and similar organisations in SouthAfrica.”The Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership is a public policy organisation that champions reform in Indigenous economicand social policies. It is focussed on issues in Cape York, but aims to have a national influence.Ms Major is a former board member of the Institute and is now a member of staff working on youth development.“The Institute is a partnership between the people of Cape York, Federal and Queensland Government and Griffith University,” MrBeattie said.“Indigenous South Africans and Indigenous Australians have many experiences in common, including the need to boosteducational opportunities and develop youth leadership—two areas where Tania has special skills and interest.“I’m delighted Tania agreed to accompany our trade mission and believe she will help build new bridges of cooperation andunderstanding between Queensland and South Africa.”During her visit Ms Major will participate in several official events with the Queensland Government delegation and will hold talkswith representatives from South Africa’s National Youth Commission and the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls.Ms Major said she was looking forward to talking to South African youth leaders about the issues they face.


“I see a lot of common concerns and want to see if there are opportunities for us to work together on a human rights agenda,” MsMajor said.

“I’m interested in a broad range of issues that effect Indigenous people and I’m very keen to share my experiences about life as ayoung Indigenous woman from Cape York with my counterparts in South Africa.

“Indigenous Australians are a minority in their own country. I’m really looking forward to the visit to South Africa where theIndigenous people are in the majority.

“During the visit I will be making initial contact with many youth leaders in South Africa and will work with them to explore ways tobuild closer cooperation in the future,” Ms Major said.

Ms Major was named 2006 Queensland Young Australian of the Year in recognition of her leadership efforts and community workwith young people in Cape York. In 2004, she represented the Australian Government as a delegate at the United NationsPermanent Forum on Indigenous issues.

African RefugeesHon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.53 am): I want to

highlight to the House that today we will be holding a reception for a significant number of Africans whohave migrated to Queensland as skilled and business migrants. We have also welcomed many Africanrefugees under the Commonwealth’s humanitarian program. For example, since 2000 a total of 2,796refugees have arrived in Queensland from Sudan, Sierra Leone and Liberia. They are a small, vibrantand valued community within Queensland’s multicultural society. So it is fitting that today I will behosting a government reception for African Queenslanders. This will dovetail with my trade mission toSouth Africa. I seek leave to have the details incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.As the House is aware I am leading a trade mission to South Africa and Kenya next week. As part of my program in Cape Town I’llbe celebrating Human Rights Day, or Harmony Day as it is known and celebrated in Australia.

I believe we have a genuinely warm and welcoming community in Queensland. But just last week news of a hateful publicationbeing distributed in Toowoomba titled Becoming a Klansman or Klanswoman Today showed us we cannot take harmony forgranted.

Clearly there are still some bigoted Queenslanders who prefer the failed and discredited old ways of hate and vilification, to asociety based on dignity and respect for all.

Well those ideas aren’t welcome in modern Queensland. Our African refugees and friends are—and we will be extending thathand of friendship and welcome again at today’s reception.

Community CabinetHon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.54 am): As we

know, the community cabinets are working very well. I table for the information of members—and theywill receive a copy—the latest community cabinet news from the community cabinet held at Atherton.Tabled paper: Queensland Government document, dated February 2007, titled ‘Community Cabinet News—Issue 64—Atherton’.

North BankHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for

Infrastructure) (9.54 am): One month ago the government asked the people of Queensland to have theirsay on the proposed redevelopment at North Bank. The Premier and I announced that Multiplex hadbeen chosen as the preferred bidder for stage 1 of our revitalisation project. The proposed project takesin riverfront land from the William Jolly Bridge to the Goodwill Bridge on the city side of the BrisbaneRiver. Stage 1 is the stretch from Victoria Bridge to Alice Street.

I want to thank the more than 4,270 respondents who have so far taken the opportunity to havetheir say. But I also want to advise that the clock is ticking on the North Bank consultation. Today is thelast day for people to have a say. As at close of business today, Wednesday, we will have the finalnumbers and then a report will be developed for the government to further consider. It is, however, clearfrom feedback to date that opinion is evenly divided. The latest figures from various sources indicate asfollows: of the 3,004 respondents to the ABC feedback web site, 47 per cent like it and hope that it goesahead while 38 per cent loathe it and hope that it is scrapped; of the 381 respondents to the Courier-Mail’s web site, roughly 25 per cent are supportive and in favour while 48 per cent are opposed. In termsof stakeholder responses that have come from sources such as the feedback forms that were in theExecutive Building, or via the post, or just letters into the department, there were 887 respondents. Theytrend roughly 24 per cent in favour and 44 per cent against.

These numbers have offered us an ideal opportunity to hear what the community has to say. Thefinal decision will, of course, be made by the government. But this feedback will put us in a betterposition to enter further negotiations with the preferred developer. As we have said all along, this wasnot a referendum, but just a means to gauge community reaction and opinions. There is a stand-out


from the stakeholder responses and that is that overwhelmingly they want the north bank improved. It isclear that respondents do not like what is there now. The area is not being used in its current form andlocals want it improved. Overall, as I said, the figures show that opinions are evenly divided, but until wesee the final responses I am not going to pre-empt any position.

There is a clear position on the height of the proposed development, with a significant majority ofstakeholder respondents having a negative view on the proposed heights. But 61 per cent of them havea favourable view on the public open spaces and the notion of a swimming pool. On the question ofvisual amenity, key negative issues raised by the Courier-Mail respondents include that it will spoil theview of and from the heritage listed buildings in George Street or that it will spoil the look of Brisbane’sskyline. Conversely, those on the positive side of the visual amenity aspects of the project approve ofthe fact that the development will hide the Riverside Expressway, which is seen by many as an eyesore,and will enhance Brisbane’s skyline.

When we launched this process I said that this month of seeking public responses did not replacea full public consultation process as required through the development approval process. That will beconducted in line with all requirements when any final design is developed. We will consider all thecomments and suggestions that have been put forward. They will inform our future discussions with thepreferred developer and the government’s final decision on the site. However, we will not allow thisproject to drop off the agenda for months. We will keep the public fully informed as we make decisionsabout this very significant part of our city’s riverfront.

Electricity SupplyHon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Mines and Energy) (9.58 am): The

worsening drought has changed the way we lead our everyday lives. We are all conscious of the needto preserve water and we are also taking steps and making sacrifices; some big, some small.Importantly, we are all working together to meet those challenges.

Last week, I advised the House of the proposed restrictions by the Queensland WaterCommission and their impacts on water used by the Tarong North Power Station and the Swanbankpower stations from Wivenhoe Dam. Separate from this, since January, the big one—Tarong PowerStation—has reduced its electricity generation by 25 per cent to save water. Today, Tarong PowerStation is taking further action to meet the twin objectives of conserving water and securing a reliablebulk supply of electricity.

Tarong Power Station has advised this morning of an announcement to the market that it willreduce generation from 30 March by a further 45 per cent. This announcement complements therestrictions accepted by Tarong North and Swanbank power stations last week. Accordingly, TarongPower Station has advised its intention to continue to operate two units at part load and temporarily taketwo units offline from the end of March. The part loaded units can increase output if required, and one ofthe offline units can be restarted within 36 hours. In that way extreme hot weather demands can bemanaged. Tarong Power Station is looking long term and has advised me that no jobs will be lost—jobswill be secure.

Tarong Power Station will closely monitor the new generating profile, and projections will beupgraded in light of actual water consumption, rainfall and inflows. It has advised that furtheradjustments may be made on that basis. Advice from the government task force, which includesPowerlink, is that these actions will provide sufficient supply options from southern Queensland powerstations, central Queensland and the national grid to reliably meet the bulk power requirements ofcustomers in south-east Queensland. We have also consulted with NEMMCO, the National ElectricityMarket Management Co., which is the national organisation that oversees power system security. Thisis all about striking the right balance between providing a secure and reliable electricity supply andmeeting the water needs of the people of south-east Queensland—they are both vital. This means that,despite the drought, the bulk electricity supply to homes and businesses in south-east Queensland willremain secure.

TJ Ryan MedalHon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training and Minister for the

Arts) (10.01 am): The future of our state relies on our ability to produce young people with the leadershipskills to drive the Smart State. In a state where knowledge, creativity and innovation are valued, it isfitting that we provide assistance to school leavers who have excelled academically and as leaders.Later today I will present scholarships valued at up to $10,000 each to 10 outstanding youngQueenslanders who graduated from school last year.

The TJ Ryan Medal is a prestigious award which helps these high-achieving students pursue theirdream careers. It is appropriate the medals are named after Thomas Joseph Ryan, a former Premier ofQueensland who valued education and was renowned for his intellect. He was an inspirational leader ofthe Labor Party in Queensland and as Premier from 1915 to 1919. Tragically, his life was cut short at the


age of 45 in 1921. However, in honour of his memory, the TJ Ryan Medal was established in 1927. Itwas given to candidates who obtained the highest pass in the annual state scholarship examination andcontinued until 1970. Reintroduced in 1993, it continues the tradition of recognising academicexcellence and student leadership.

Each of the students who will be awarded a TJ Ryan Medal today exemplify the attributes of ourfuture leaders of tomorrow. I table and seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of the students whowill receive the TJ Ryan Medal, highly commended awards and merit certificates.

Leave granted.2007 T.J. Ryan Medallists

Daniel Bryan-Curnow, Noosa District State High SchoolMelissa Cox, Loreto College, BrisbaneZemma Holmes-Story, Rockhampton Grammar SchoolHolly Manley, Aldridge State High School, MaryboroughBryce Nicol, Isis District State High School, ChildersSteffanie Pernase, Innisfail State High SchoolDaniel Pitt, Anglican Church Grammar School, East BrisbaneThomas Power, Park Ridge State High SchoolDamien Rua, Kelvin Grove State CollegePatrick Sullivan, Padua College, Brisbane

Highly Commended RecipientsRuth Fuhrman-Luck, Caloundra Christian CollegeSamantha Jones, Kirwan State High School, TownsvilleTravis King, All Saints Anglican School, MerrimacKylah McCarthy, Proserpine State High SchoolLuke Pembleton, Nambour State High School

Merit Certificate RecipientsHannah Bennet, Clayfield College, BrisbaneBen Brimblecombe, St George State High SchoolBrioni Brooker, Western Cape College, WeipaElanor Carey, Stanthorpe State High SchoolChristopher Coey, Whitsunday Anglican School, MackayJohn Fox, The Southport Independent SchoolLaura Handley, Bundaberg State High SchoolMadeleine Kelso, Mount St Bernard College, HerbertonNathan Klose, Redlands College, ClevelandMinitha Manivasagan, Tannum Sands State High School, GladstoneKathryn McClelland, Holland Park State High SchoolRohani Oorloff, St John’s College, NambourGlen Rolley, Trinity Bay State High School, CairnsPatrick Saunders, Marist College AshgroveAndrea Schaul, Mareeba State High SchoolDennis Sullivan, Villanova College, South BrisbaneAnnie Tong, Brisbane Girls Grammar School

Tabled paper: List of 2007 T J Ryan Awards recipients. Mr WELFORD: Not only have each of these students excelled academically, but they have also

found time to help others in their communities. They have triumphed in areas such as sport, charity andchurch work, and in representing youth on local councils and other organisations. They come from allover Queensland, from both state and non-state schools and their career interests are just as diverse—they are aspiring musicians, doctors and surgeons, scientists, lawyers and engineers. When I meetyoung people such as this group of outstanding achievers, I am heartened to know that the future of ourstate is in very good hands.

Murray-Darling BasinHon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister

Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (10.03 am): Queensland has one of the best records inAustralia when it comes to water planning. That claim is backed up by the National Water Commission,which said that Queensland’s planning processes and practices are of a high standard.

Water resource planning is occurring in 22 plan areas covering over 91 per cent of this state. Thisincludes resource operations plans for the border rivers and the Condamine-Balonne river system,which are on hold as part of discussions with the Commonwealth over the Murray-Darling Basin. Theseare complex plans which were prepared over a long period of time. There has been close andconstructive involvement with stakeholders. Irrigators in the Condamine-Balonne and border rivers arejustifiably anxious for the plans to be finalised. A meeting of Murray-Darling Basin states on 23 Februaryagreed that the CSIRO would study the Condamine-Balonne and border rivers ROPs to ensure thatthey do not result in any overallocation.


Today, on behalf of the affected irrigators, I am calling on the Howard government to progress theCSIRO study as quickly as possible. I believe the CSIRO should and could complete the study beforethe end of April. It is important that the study be done quickly to maintain support by Queenslandirrigators for the basin-wide planning under the Commonwealth plan. The Beattie government issupporting Queensland irrigators who want certainty on this issue. Unfortunately, irrigators have not hadthe same backing from the state National Party members who represent these areas. They have goneto water. Although some federal Nationals have been supportive, their state colleagues have soldQueensland irrigators down the river. State National MPs are scared to rock the boat in a federalelection year. This would not have happened with the National Party members of old.

Mr Hopper interjected.Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Darling Downs.Mr Rickuss interjected.Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Lockyer.Mr WALLACE: Don’t they hate it, Mr Acting Speaker? They just will not stand up for Queensland

irrigators. Where have they been in this debate? They have been missing in action. The following states take the following percentages of water from the Murray-Darling Basin: New

South Wales, 55 per cent; Victoria, 34 per cent; South Australia, six per cent; and Queensland last onfive per cent. Queensland irrigators have done the right thing by participating in good faith in detailedwater planning. They have a right to know where they stand as quickly as possible. I challenge thoseopposite to get off their backsides and stand up for Queensland irrigators.

Neighbourhood WatchHon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services)

(10.05 am): Today I am tabling a statewide evaluation of the Neighbourhood Watch program, conductedby the Queensland Police Service. For 20 years the Neighbourhood Watch program has givenQueenslanders an opportunity to play their part in improving personal safety, household security, andreducing crime and the fear of crime in their own communities. This review is the first step to ensuringthat all 638 Neighbourhood Watch areas across Queensland keep pace with our changing society andremain relevant and contemporary. Tabled paper: Queensland Police Service document, dated December 2005, titled ‘Neighbourhood Watch—State-wideEvaluation’.

Our police have a long and proud association with Neighbourhood Watch. They want to maximisethe effectiveness of the program, because it helps develop good community-policing partnerships whichlead to greater information sharing and better crime reduction and resolving. Key recommendationsfrom the police evaluation include ensuring new Neighbourhood Watch areas are supported by a strongprogram; regular reviews of the program in local areas; identifying and engaging areas that may benefitfrom the Neighbourhood Watch program, such as areas with high crime rates; investigating new ways toshare information, such as an online program; and looking at ways to increase police participation.

Neighbourhood Watch works well because it is a community-policing program. That is why all ofus are being given a chance to add our thoughts on the future for Neighbourhood Watch. Last August Iannounced a community review of the program. This will tap into Neighbourhood Watch groups and thepublic on how they see the program should move forward to remain contemporary and relevant. Thisreview will be completed later this year. Any members who want to know about the review should talk tothe member for Springwood, Ms Stone, and the member for Keppel, Mr Hoolihan, about how that reviewis proceeding. It will be considered in conjunction with the police evaluation to ensure NeighbourhoodWatch remains an effective crime prevention partnership.

This government recognises the importance of the Neighbourhood Watch program as a means ofengaging the community in public safety issues. In February of this year the Minister for EmergencyServices and I launched the Watch Out! program, which is known as the junior neighbourhood watch. Ilook forward to updating the House on the findings of the Neighbourhood Watch review once completed.

Biosecurity Queensland; Sea WorldHon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (10.09 am):

Biosecurity Queensland, the new unit in the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries responsiblefor guarding Queensland against plant and animal pests and diseases, passed its first important testyesterday. On Monday, Sea World presented Biosecurity Queensland with samples from a number ofdead penguins and, by turning around test results in 24 hours showing that the cause of death was notavian influenza, we have diffused what might have been a very serious situation.

Biosecurity Queensland’s chief veterinary officer, Dr Ron Glanville, advises that 25 of Sea World’s37 penguins have died since Thursday, 8 March 2007. The veterinary surgeon at the facility originallysent samples to a private veterinary pathology service for testing. Samples were subsequently sent to


the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries biosecurity science laboratory on Monday, 12March. Laboratory testing was undertaken to exclude avian influenza, as is a normal precaution for allcases where there are a large number of unexplained bird deaths. Further testing is continuing toidentify the cause of the deaths of the 25 birds and we are continuing to work in close consultation withSea World.

Biosecurity Queensland has brought together in a new, single agency the experience andexpertise of more than 500 staff from the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries and around180 staff from the Department of Natural Resources and Water. Biosecurity Queensland brings togetherland protection capabilities, plant, animal and marine biosecurity, chemical use and food safety, andanimal welfare. It will shortly include some key areas of the Environmental Protection Agency. Our aim isto operate a more coordinated, efficient service that makes the best possible use of the available talentand resources. In fact, we aim to lead Australia and the world in some of our biosecurity work. Thismeans a better service for Queensland primary producers, property owners, the environment and thegeneral public. The new unit, launched just two weeks ago on 1 March, has already proven its worth bydealing with the Sea World incident quickly, efficiently and professionally.

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

Information and Communication Technology) (10.10 am): The Housing Industry Association is nowsaying what I have been saying for months: that record low vacancy rates in private rentalaccommodation and the resulting rent auctions are crushing low-income earners. New research by theHousing Industry Association shows that soaring rents and mortgage stress are placing unprecedentedpressure on lower income families, with 500,000 people paying more than 30 per cent of their incomefor accommodation.

The pressure in the private market is pushing people onto public housing waiting lists and theDepartment of Housing is now seeing 1,500 households a month knocking on its door seekingassistance. The Housing Industry Association is therefore absolutely correct to point out that theimplications for public housing are alarming. After the years of cutting of funding for public housing fromthe federal government we need more funding for public housing, but also new and innovative solutions.The solution to the housing crisis is not rent subsidies as suggested by the Prime Minister, which wouldjust fatten the pockets of landlords, but to increase the supply of affordable homes to rent.

The federal government must urgently consider our government’s Homelink proposal—which Iput to it nearly 12 months ago—to boost the supply of affordable housing in Australia by linkinggovernment housing assistance and private property investors. We developed Homelink in March lastyear and I proposed it to the federal government, but since then have heard little. If it had taken this ideaup back then we would already be bringing affordable private housing stock on line. Under Homelink,1,000 private rental units would be provided for $31 million compared to the $370 million capitalinvestment if government was to provide it alone.

The Homelink model is based on the idea that the federal government pays 10 year’s rentassistance up front to the investor and this up-front payment is not subject to income tax. In addition, thestate government would provide a grant of $6,000 tax free to the investor, as well as free tenancymanagement services, and local governments would provide a 25 per cent discount on general rates. Itis a fully costed proposal and an idea whose time has come.

Inner Northern BuswayHon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (10.12 am): I apologise

in this era of new dress standards if I have a hard hat here. I have it here because I have just inspectedthe construction of another important piece of Queensland government transport infrastructure and I ampleased to announce it is ahead of schedule. This morning I have inspected progress on the$333 million inner city extension to Brisbane’s Inner Northern Busway. The good news is that it is sixmonths ahead of the construction timetable and could be removing buses from city streets by the middleof next year.

I apologise for the temporary inconvenience the construction of the busway has causedbusinesses, pedestrians and motorists, but once complete the INB inner city extension will be thecatalyst for a lifestyle makeover. With buses off the streets, it will slash road congestion and create apedestrian-friendly precinct where people will want to come to shop. Innovative construction andcontracting, as well as drier weather, have combined to accelerate works. That means thatimprovements to Albert Street can be delivered sooner with new paving work to begin within weeks. Theroof will soon be finished over the crucial underground section from the Queen Street Bus Station toKing George Square. The busway tunnel is being excavated from Queen Street through to King GeorgeSquare and the tunnel floor construction is underway as I speak. Digging on the remaining tunnelsection through to Turbot Street should be completed by late April.


The INB heralds a new era of connectivity for public transport in Brisbane. Buses will link directlywith the Roma Street Transit Centre, Airtrain, Citytrain and Traveltrain networks as well as long distancecoaches—760 trains and 2,00 buses a day. It also will slash travel times for bus commuters by up to 20minutes in peak times. We are giving commuters real alternatives to using their cars. That means lessroad congestion and a reduction in greenhouse gases. The INB inner city extension is concreteevidence that the Beattie government is delivering an accessible and user-friendly public transportsystem for Brisbane and the south-east.

Indigenous Children in CareHon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (10.14 am): In Queensland 20 per cent

of children in care are Indigenous and that is, of course, too many. We have improved services forIndigenous children, but we can do more and we can do it better. I am pleased to announce that I haveapproved increased funding and a restructure of the department’s Indigenous Services andDevelopment Branch. The new set-up will cost an extra $246,000 a year, bringing the total to$1.48 million. This will fund more staff and place them where we need them most: on the ground in theregions and at a senior level in central office making sure Indigenous children are a focus in everythingwe do.

The new initiative includes seven Indigenous support officers based in each of the department’szones. These officers will work with Indigenous communities to help them recruit and train Indigenousfoster carers. They will also support existing Indigenous carers and provide cultural advice on allIndigenous children in care. These support officers will work closely with existing organisations toincrease their capacity. We have funding available for more of these organisations; we just need morepeople with the skills to run them.

As we all know, there are more Indigenous children in the cape and the gulf and so we will have aspecial focus there. Recruitment will start soon for a senior person each in Cairns and Townsville towork on specific initiatives for communities in those regions. These resource officers will work with thecommunities to identify what they need and will liaise with other government departments to get thingshappening on the ground.

There will also be new senior staff in each of the department’s five divisions, including anIndigenous champion in the director-general’s office. They will ensure that Indigenous expertise andcultural knowledge is incorporated into every area of the Department of Child Safety’s services.

Finally, I take this opportunity to appeal to Indigenous people to become foster carers. We willprovide training and support. The sad news is that there are too many vulnerable and abusedIndigenous children and they really need help.

Incident Management System TrialHon. PD PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (10.16 am): Local

governments are a key part of Queensland’s Disaster Management System so a close workingrelationship between them and state agencies is essential. An example of this collaboration is a triallater this month of a customised Australasian Inter-Agency Incident Management System, colloquiallyknown as AIIMS, specifically tailored to local government requirements.

Emergency Management Queensland has worked with the Gold Coast City Council to adapt thesystem for local government use. This system allows for a quick and easy response to any disaster andis flexible in scale so that it can be readily adapted to any size operation, which is obviously a strongadvantage when dealing with disasters. The trial will be run on the Gold Coast and when it is done EMQwill look at rolling it out to other councils.

This month’s experience with an unpredictable Cyclone Odette showed the importance ofplanning and training for large scale disasters across multiple districts. Our Emergency Servicesdisaster management team is always working to help make sure that communities are fully preparedand resilient and that the statewide disaster response is a consistent model. This ensures communitiesaffected by a disaster are well placed to respond locally, that their response is the best for thatcommunity and if outside personnel are required they can easily fit into any local arrangements.

Once trained with an incident management system, emergency response staff can effectivelywork in any similar set-up in any part of Australia and New Zealand during a range of emergencysituations. This means that any community or region that requires outside assistance can call on trainedpersonnel who can be readily deployed and, of course, vice versa, with Queensland trained personnelbeing able to assist in any region or state in Australia and New Zealand.

This sort of collaborative approach to disaster management training is all about improving counciloperations at a local level and will help ensure a well-coordinated and effective community response inthe event of any disaster.


Queensland Labour Market Programs

Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for State Development, Employment and IndustrialRelations) (10.19 am): When the Beattie government came to office in 1998, we recognised that one ofthe greatest problems facing the state was unemployment and, in particular, difficulties facing thosemost disadvantaged in the labour force. These included the long-term unemployed and young peoplewithout experience or qualifications, in particular early school leavers. They also included the matureaged who had become innocent victims of corporate downsizing, women, Indigenous people, peoplewith a disability and people from a non-English-speaking background. That is why in October 1998 weintroduced an innovative range of programs under the Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative. Theinitiative broke new ground in Australia, and this financial year the Queensland government’sinvestment in labour market programs exceeded $100 million. To put that in context, $24 million wasspent this financial year in Victoria and even less was spent in other states.

I am pleased to bring honourable members up to date on the latest analysis of job and trainingoutcomes in Queensland government programs. The results are outstanding across the board. Threemonths after the completion of the Community Jobs Plan program in 2005, 68 per cent of participantswere either in employment or training. This is five per cent higher than the previous year and is awhopping 16 per cent higher than 2001. Under this program, participants—and, remember, we aretalking about long-term unemployed people here; some of the most disadvantaged people in theworkforce—build and improve infrastructure in their local communities. Every one of us here todaywould be well aware of the terrific work that has been done around the state for local communities. Thesuccess of these programs is in stark contrast to the results recorded by the Commonwealthgovernment’s unfortunately named Work for the Dole program over the years.

As I have previously advised the House, the Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative ismaking way for the new Skilling Queenslanders for Work initiative to provide more flexibility to assistindividual job seekers. Between them, since 1998 they have helped create more than 118,000 jobs forQueenslanders. I look forward to reporting future successes for the Skilling Queenslanders for Workinitiative.

Queensland Tourism

Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading, Wine Industry Developmentand Women) (10.21 am): Queensland continues to be a must-see destination for international visitors.I am pleased to inform honourable members that figures from the latest international visitor survey showthat more and more international tourists are coming here, staying longer and spending more.Queensland proved its popularity on the world stage by recording double the national average growthrate. There was a two per cent increase in the number of international visitors here last year, with almost2.2 million making the trip. Even more exciting was the massive increase in the length of time touristsare spending here. The number of visitor nights increased dramatically—jumping 15 per cent to morethan 34.4 million nights.

Some of the top-performing regions were Queensland’s outback, with a 31 per cent increase invisitor nights; Mackay, with a 22 per cent increase; and the Sunshine Coast, with a 20 per cent increase.Brisbane was the state’s top destination for international tourists, with a four per cent increase in visitornumbers and length of stay up 23 per cent. The Whitsundays, the Gold Coast and tropical northQueensland also performed well, recording visitor night increases of between five and 13 per cent.

More tourists staying longer and spending more money means more tourism jobs forQueenslanders. These fantastic results are proof that the Beattie government’s commitment to thetourism industry is delivering real economic returns for the people of Queensland. Tourism isQueensland’s third biggest export industry. Last year, international tourism contributed $3.19 billion tothe state’s economy. Our Queensland Tourism Strategy sets out the formula for future prosperity. I amconfident that this figure will continue to grow as we attract more visitors from emerging markets such asIndia, China and Korea. Indian visitor numbers and visitor nights increased by a staggering 40 per centand 42 per cent respectively, according to the IVS figures. Other markets to show strong internationalvisitor growth included Canada, which increased by up to 33 per cent, and the USA, which grewseven per cent. These great results are a testament to the hard work being done by the Beattiegovernment and the tourism industry in these markets.

14 Mar 2007 Motion 979

MOTION

Amendments to Standing OrdersHon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.24 am), by leave,

without notice: I move—That standing orders be amended by the insertion of a new standing order 233A and Schedule 5 to standing orders, regarding theprotection of whistleblowers, to commence on proclamation of the Whistleblower (Disclosure to Member of Parliament)Amendment Act 2007, circulated in my name.233A—Protection of Whistleblowers(1) Members should exercise care to avoid saying anything inside the House about a public interest disclosure which would

lead to the identification of persons who have made public interest disclosures (‘whistleblowers’), which may interfere inan investigation of a public interest disclosure, or cause unnecessary damage to the reputation of persons before theinvestigation of the allegations has been completed.

(2) Schedule 5 contains guidelines for members about when and how public interest disclosures should be revealed in aparliamentary proceeding.

Schedule 5—Guidelines for the Protection of Whistleblowers(1) These guidelines apply when there is a public interest disclosure to a member pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection

Act 1994.(2) These guidelines seek to provide guidance to a member who receives and acts upon a public interest disclosure about

whether a member should or should not reveal the disclosure in a parliamentary proceeding.(3) Compliance with these guidelines is not mandatory, and a breach of these guidelines is not a breach of privilege or a

contempt, but members are called upon to adhere to these guidelines so as to ensure public interest disclosures areproperly investigated, that those making disclosures are protected and that no person’s reputation is unnecessarilydamaged before the investigation of the allegations has been finalised.

(4) In general, members should exercise care to avoid saying anything inside the House about a public interest disclosure toa member which:(a) could lead to the unnecessary identification of persons who have made public interest disclosures (unless such

persons have consented to the disclosure of their identity); (b) could cause unnecessary damage to any person’s reputation before allegations have been appropriately

investigated; and(c) may jeopardise the investigation of a public interest disclosure by the appropriate entities.

(5) If a public interest disclosure is received by any member of the Legislative Assembly and the member refers thatdisclosure to an appropriate entity to investigate the disclosure in accordance with section 28A of the WhistleblowerProtection Act 1994, members should avoid disclosing the substance of the disclosure or the referral in any publicparliamentary proceedings, unless:(d) after inquiry with an appropriate entity in accordance with section 32 of the Whistleblower Protection Act 1994, a

member is not satisfied that the matter is being investigated or otherwise resolved; or(e) the disclosure has referred to an appropriate entity, but a member has a reasonable belief that further disclosure

in a parliamentary proceeding is justified to prevent harm to any person; or(f) the disclosure has been referred to an appropriate entity, but a member decides to also bring the disclosure to the

attention of a committee of the House that has responsibility for the area about which the matter relates.(6) In these guidelines ‘appropriate entity’ and ‘public interest disclosure’ have the same meaning as in the Whistleblower

Protection Act 1994.

Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services)(10.24 am): I second the motion.

Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (10.24 am): The opposition will be opposing this motion for thevery simple reason that this is clearly an attempt to gag debate in this parliament and gag members ofparliament who have an obligation and a right to bring to this chamber issues that affect Queenslandersand the good governance of this state. It is nothing more than that. The government may try to couchthe proposal with such words as ‘mandatory’, but the proposal also contains phrases such as ‘avoidsaying anything inside the House’ and ‘avoid disclosing the substance of the disclosure’.

Dr Flegg interjected.Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, a member of your team is on his feet.Mr McARDLE: It is clearly an attempt to have this House gagged so the people of Queensland

do not have a chamber within which to debate the issues that are important, and we will not tolerate it.The opposition will not stand for that. This House is to be open, it is to be forthright and it is to be honest.This is a deliberate attempt to gag us from raising issues that we should raise, and we will not supportthis motion.

Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.25 am): Talk about anoverreaction and an attempt to politicise what is a very reasonable debate. I have heard it all.

Mr Messenger interjected.

980 Motion 14 Mar 2007

Mr SCHWARTEN: I draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that this is a guideline;it is not intended to bind any member or trammel over any member’s right to raise any subjectwhatsoever. It is merely—

Opposition members interjected.Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!Mr SCHWARTEN: This is not an attempt to gag any member from saying anything. There are no

repercussions whatsoever for anybody raising anything.Mr Horan: Well, why do it?Mr SCHWARTEN: Mr Acting Speaker, I am trying to have a sensible debate here.Mr Horan: He’ll run the show himself. He doesn’t need you to do it.Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Toowoomba South, I am well aware of that.Mr SCHWARTEN: I am speaking through you, Mr Acting Speaker. I am trying to have a sensible

debate here. It is not enhanced by the stupid remarks by ill-informed people over there who have noteven read this. The reality is—

An opposition member: We’ve read it.Mr SCHWARTEN: Most of you are incapable of reading it. The fact of the matter is that this is a

set of guidelines to advise members on how they should conduct themselves on matters of sensitivity inthis parliament. There is nothing in this document which bans anybody from saying anything. They aresimply a set of guidelines.

Dr Flegg interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Liberal Party, I warn you under standing order 253.Mr SCHWARTEN: You ought to be in One Nation, you people—and carrying a striped shopping

bag around with you.Ms LEE LONG: On a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. I find what the minister said offensive and

I ask that it be withdrawn.Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I ask the minister to withdraw.Mr SCHWARTEN: I withdraw. The member for Tablelands is not as bad as them, that is for sure.Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Could the Leader of the House please give an unqualified

withdrawal. Mr SCHWARTEN: I totally and unqualifiedly withdraw. The fact is I can go back to where I

started. There is nothing sinister. There is no conspiracy. This is simply a set of guidelines on howmembers ought to behave when they wish to raise matters that might compromise some investigationthat is happening. That is all it is. Members can read into it what they like and try to pre-empt what aSpeaker may rule and all the rest of the nonsense that goes with it, but the fact is that this is just a set ofguidelines for which there is no sanction whatsoever by this parliament. No-one is gagged, no-one isprevented from raising any matter they like. This is simply a set of guidelines that are noted in thestanding orders.

Mr BEATTIE: Mr Acting Speaker, can I just make a point.Mr LINGARD: I rise to a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker.Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The debate is now closed. Does the member for Beaudesert wish

to raise a point of order?Mr LINGARD: That was my point of order. The minister has closed the debate. Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to.

AYES, 52—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Croft, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe,Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien,Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reilly, Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, vanLitsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan

NOES, 29—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek,Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey,Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Elmes

Resolved in the affirmative.

14 Mar 2007 Questions Without Notice 981

NOTICE OF MOTION

Local Authorities, Water SupplyMrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (10.34 am): I give notice that I will move—

That this House acknowledges the work done by Queensland Local Authorities over many years to provide a safe and reliablereticulated water supply to their communities and calls on the Premier to work co-operatively with Councils in the South East andacross Queensland to continue these positive relationships and arrangements.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Question time will now go from 10.35 am to 11.35 am.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Beattie Labor GovernmentMr SEENEY (10.35 am): My first question without notice is to the Premier. The Premier spent

considerable time this morning telling the House how proud he was of his government’s achievements.The fact remains though that he failed to do anything about our water supply until there was a crisis, hefailed to do anything about the health system until there was a crisis and he failed to do anything aboutthe electricity distribution system until there was a crisis. The Premier has achieved a trifecta of failure inwater, health and electricity. Can the Premier tell the House how proud he is of that trifecta of failure?

Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable Leader of the Opposition for the question. I spelt out inministerial statements this morning a long list of achievements the government has quite proudlyachieved in terms of delivering for the south-east corner of this state because of the growth factors here.I am quite happy to spell them out on a statewide basis.

If we look at the achievements of my government we find that they are significant. I thank theLeader of the Opposition for giving me a chance to raise them. The first and most significantachievement is that we have four per cent unemployment and the national average is 4.7 per cent. Ouremployment rate is higher than the national average. When the National Party and Liberal Party werelast in office the level of unemployment at one point reached 9.5 per cent. A figure of 9.5 per centunemployment was the legacy of those opposite. We have four per cent unemployment.

Opposition members interjected.Mr BEATTIE: They do not like that. As I indicated, we have delivered for Queensland in a way

that has never happened before—four per cent unemployment. Under the coalition the unemploymentrate was 9.5 per cent and the national average was 4.7 per cent. Let us be really clear about this: whenthose opposite were in office we had more unemployed here than the national average. We have turnedthat around. We have given Queenslanders who had no hope of a job under the National-Liberal Partyboth hope and employment.

Joan Sheldon and Rob Borbidge said, ‘We can’t do anything about unemployment.’ They actuallysaid it was too hard. We did it. The coalition put capital into recurrent expenditure. It took us almost threeyears to save the budget of Queensland from the incompetence of the coalition. That is what happened.Can members imagine any government in the Western world that puts capital into recurrentexpenditure.

Honourable members interjected.Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Members on both sides! Mr BEATTIE: Yes, we have had growth pressures when it comes to electricity. We set up a

review and we fixed it up. Yes, we had growth problems in health. We have injected more money intothat than ever before and the reforms are working. Yes, there have been some problems as a result ofthe worst drought on record and because the councils did not deliver. We have taken this over. We arebuilding the water grid and we are fixing the problems. What we see in every one of those problemareas that have arisen because of rapid growth is us fixing them up.

Water InfrastructureMr SEENEY: My second question without notice is to the Deputy Premier and Minister for

Infrastructure. On 6 February I asked the minister a question on notice. I asked her to outline theprogress that had been made on the four pipeline projects and specifically how much pipeline had beenlaid in her world record-breaking attempt to lay the pipeline for these projects. In the minister’s answershe refused to tell me. She refused to tell the parliament how much pipeline had been laid. Instead shedirected me to the monthly reports. I will table these if the minister likes. The only figure that ismentioned in this report is a figure of 8.4 kilometres being laid for the southern regional pipeline out of

982 Questions Without Notice 14 Mar 2007

the 100 kilometres for that project. Can the minister confirm that only 8.4 kilometres of pipeline has beenlaid out of the nearly 350 kilometres that needs to be laid to complete these projects and confirm the factthat her trying to keep that a secret stems from the embarrassment it causes her?

Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. I am happy to advise the House that themember did indeed ask me this question, as did a number of other members of the coalition, on arepeated basis. I think I get a question a week on how many kilometres of pipeline have been laid. I amnot going to ask the workers on this project to go out with a tape measure every time one of thesepeople put their hand up. What I am going to do—

Opposition members interjected.Ms BLIGH: I am happy to wait, Mr Acting Speaker.Honourable members interjected.Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet!Mr Johnson interjected.Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Gregory, I warn you under standing order 253.Ms BLIGH: What I am going to do is make sure that every month when I table the reports to the

Water Commission on every single project all progress, including the amount of pipe laid for that month,will be reported and it will be tabled in this House. It will be provided on the web site and provided to themedia. I do not know of any other project by any other government anywhere in the country whereprogress is being reported every four weeks in such a publicly accountable way. I ask myself again: whydoes the member for Callide care how many kilometres of pipe have been laid? He voted against it! Thisis the pipeline he did not want to have! He did not want this pipeline. He voted against this pipeline. Hevoted against the western corridor pipeline. He voted against the southern regional pipeline. He votedagainst the eastern pipeline. He voted against the northern interconnector. In fact, I do not know onepipeline he has ever supported. He has never found a pipe he liked!

Government members interjected.Ms BLIGH: That is right; I have never known a pipe that the member for Callide met that he liked.

But even if he did like the pipe, what goes through the pipe? Recycled water! How did he vote on that?He voted against the water. So he votes against the pipe, he votes against the water in the pipe andthen he worries about how far the pipe is progressing. Your credibility on this issue is nonexistent—nonexistent.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Please direct your comments through the chair.Ms BLIGH: I repeat what I said yesterday: this project is on track. This project is being built by

great Australian workers who are going to deliver it on time.Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Before calling the honourable member for Murrumba, I welcome to the

public gallery students, staff and parents from Aspley East State School in the electorate of Aspley,which is represented in the chamber by the honourable Bonny Barry.

Water-Saving InitiativesMr WELLS: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier. The government has

announced numerous initiatives and projects to tackle the worst drought we have ever experienced. Willthe Premier advise of the impact of some of these initiatives?

Mr BEATTIE: I can. As the Minister for Mines and Energy indicated earlier, Tarong Power Stationwill continue to operate two units at part load and temporarily take two units offline from the end ofMarch. These measures are expected to conserve about 22,000 megalitres over 15 months. Thissaving, which is about 65 per cent of historical annual water usage at the power station, will enableTarong Power Station to continue operating well into 2008, even in a zero rainfall scenario. We aredealing with the drought. We are planning for the drought. We are adapting to deal with this drought. Ihave also been advised that there will be no Tarong Energy job losses as a result of the reducedgeneration, which is a good outcome—a balanced outcome, which is what we wanted.

This is just one of the ways we are working together to tackle the worst drought on record. Majorresponse projects remain on track and I outlined building time frames earlier today as part of the biggestinfrastructure building program in this state’s history. It is an ambitious construction program and it issupported by numerous conservation and education measures. For example, last year, based on ratenotices provided by the Brisbane City Council, the top 30 water-user buildings owned by the Departmentof Public Works saved enough water to fill 286 Olympic standard swimming pools. So we areconserving. At police headquarters in the three months to November 2006 a retrofit achieved watersavings of more than 40 per cent. It is a building in use 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In thatsingle building we have reduced consumption by 42,579 kilolitres a year. It is a great demonstration ofwhat can be achieved when we apply Smart State thinking to a challenge, and the challenge is thedrought.


We have cut the consumption in the top 30 water-user buildings by 38 per cent. We are fightingthe drought. Funding of $5.3 million has been allocated to the department’s Water Smart Buildingsprogram, which is designed to save water in commercial buildings, facilities and parks owned by PublicWorks on behalf on the Queensland government. In addition, contracts have been let for four waterretrofits in seven major high-rise buildings in the Brisbane CBD focusing on taps, showers, urinaladjustments and replacing single-flush toilets with dual-flush models. Audit and retrofit works have beencompleted in a total of nine out of 10 regional buildings in Rockhampton and Toowoomba, includinggovernment offices, schools and police stations. We are not God. We cannot make it rain, but we canadapt to the reduced amount of water we have, and that is what we are doing.

I just say to the Leader of the Opposition, who seems to be against everything: for once in yourlife just support one positive thing. I tell members this: if whingeing was a gold medal at the Olympics,the Leader of the Opposition would be a gold medal winner every time.

Mr Seeney interjected.Mr BEATTIE: Why does he not support something positive just once?Time expired.

Water PricesDr FLEGG: My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier. According to the Water

Commission, Queensland cities already pay the second highest water prices in Australia. Given thedramatic increases the minister detailed here yesterday and the inevitable cost blow-outs of waterprojects due to her lack of action, is it not a fact that now tens of thousands of jobs are at risk?

Ms BLIGH: Again, these are more wild, unsubstantiated allegations dragged out of the air—thelate-night thoughts of the member for Moggill! There is absolutely—

Mr Seeney interjected.Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, order!Mr Beattie: Stop being rude.Mr Seeney interjected.Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition!Ms BLIGH: I can only draw the attention of the member for Moggill to the fact that Queensland is

experiencing the lowest levels of unemployment that we have ever experienced in the recorded historyof the data. Our economy is doing extremely well. We are thriving. We are seeing growth across allsectors. We have seen the growth forecasts this year upgraded to more than double the nationalaverage, and that is because of the level of economic activity not just here in the south east but acrossthe state.

I am very pleased that the member has given me an opportunity to remind the House again of thestatement I made yesterday. We have made a decision that we will be doing everything in our power ata state level to reduce the cost of water to consumers—whether they are households, whether they arebusinesses or whether they are large industry—because every single part of that matters to thecontinuing health of our economy. What is clear—and I am very pleased to see the lord mayor’scomments last night to this effect—is that, if this can have the effect on our water pricing, it could have asimilar effect if councils applied the same formula. So I am happy to advise the House that I understandfrom the lord mayor’s public comments last night that he will be looking at adopting a very similar rate ofreturn in relation to this matter.

From where I sit, there is something implausible and incredible about coalition members cominginto this place and whingeing about water. We are building; they are knocking. We are building the watergrid that they opposed. They have opposed every single component of it. They have voted againstevery single aspect of it.

There is something particularly hypocritical about the member for Moggill coming into this placeand talking about the cost of water and the profits that might be made from it. The member for Moggillholds 100,000 shares in Cubbie Station. Those shares are worth something like $16 million. CubbieStation is one of the largest water users in the country.

Opposition members interjected.Ms BLIGH: They do not want to hear this, but I can tell them that it has an allocation of 537,000

megalitres of water. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition under standing order 253.

I am listening to the debate and no-one has breached standing order 269 at this point. I am controllingthis debate. The time of the Hon. Deputy Premier has expired.


Ethics in GovernmentMs MALE: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. The Beattie government has

always ensured that it adheres to high standards of accountability and transparency. Can the Premieradvise of similar standards practised by members of the Howard government?

Mr BEATTIE: I thank the whip for the question because, like me, she has a keen interest inissues of accountability. Every day new facets of the murky inner workings of the Queensland LiberalParty are being exposed. We now have the ridiculous situation where a senior minister in the Howardgovernment claims that he simply forgot that he owned a major parcel of shares. Santo Santoro has a$12,000 investment that slipped his mind.

I ask Queenslanders if they believe that their senator, or any senator, would be in a positionwhere $12,000 could slip their mind? I do not think that the average Queenslander would forget about$12,000. With my Scottish ancestry, I certainly would not.

Opposition members interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: The members opposite who are baying are the Santo Santoro supporters! They allbelieve that it is fine to be corrupt about these things. They do not care.

Now that the media and the federal opposition have reminded him, Mr Santoro remembers theshares. He also remembers that he gave $6,000 of the profit that he made from those shares to a not-for-profit association. However, he has failed to reveal whether that donation was tax deductible. Adonation sent to the Family Council of Queensland could be receipted by one or more of its constitutedcharities, which would mean the donation would be deductible. Mr Santoro needs to come clean. Did hegive with one hand and take back with the other? Did he get a tax advantage out of this? Mr Santoromust come clean.

Let us see what the Prime Minister thinks about this. Today’s Australian newspaper highlightsanother activity that Senator Santoro has been engaged in since his election to the federal parliament inOctober 2002. He has been very busy. Senator Santoro said that he served his contract with the agedcare industry through his trust company, Santo Consulting, when he took over the portfolio last year. Inother words, he has confirmed that he was consulting to the aged care industry, presumably for a fee,from the time of his appointment to the Senate in October 2002 until he was appointed to the ministry inJanuary 2007—a period of three years and four months. Perhaps he forgot that as well.

Senator Santoro needs to explain to the people of Queensland, who pay his substantial salariesand allowances, including his $150,000 printing allowance, whether he used his taxpayer fundedresources and his privileged access to operate Santo Consulting for more than three years prior tobecoming a minister. He also needs to explain what other companies he was consulting to while asenator. He needs to explain whether he declared his interest not only in the register of interests butalso in debates and votes in the party room and the Senate chamber. It is no surprise that SantoSantoro has not been an effective advocate for Queensland. He has been too busy making money.

Water InfrastructureMiss SIMPSON: My question is directed to the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for

Infrastructure. On 29 January, Sunshine Coast members of parliament were briefed by the DeputyPremier’s department. We were told about the government’s just-in-time policy, a policy whereinfrastructure was ‘not built too far ahead of need because it is expensive to do that.’ I ask: given that thegovernment has failed to build water infrastructure in south-east Queensland in a timely way, causingthe current blow-outs in costs, does the Deputy Premier still believe that it is more cost-effective to leavethe building of infrastructure to the last minute?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Before calling the Hon. Deputy Premier, I acknowledge in the publicgallery former member for Cook, Bob Scott, and his wife, Jenny. Welcome.

Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. I was not at the meeting that she refers to, so Icannot attest to the veracity of anything that she alleges may or may not have been said. However, Iwould say that her reports of other meetings she has attended and been briefed on have been a littledistant from other people’s recollections.

In relation to her question, I would say here we go again! It appears that the member forMaroochydore is accusing us of failing to think far enough ahead in relation to infrastructure. I believethat it is still the case that we are the only government at any level anywhere in the country that has a20-year infrastructure plan. The 20-year infrastructure program for the south-east corner was put inplace two years ago. It is a landmark in planning for infrastructure development. Members of the


business community and governments in other parts of the country, including the federal government,acknowledge that this foresight puts us in a position to better plan, better sequence and better delivervalue for the taxpayer. That is the way we will continue to do it. It is very disappointing to see thecoalition trying to take away from what is a very good achievement for Queensland in that regard.

As an example, I take the member’s own electorate. For this financial year, on the SunshineCoast alone the road spend will involve some $360 million worth of infrastructure. What was the spendunder the previous coalition government? The last time they had control of the Treasury benches, whatdid they spend in the member’s electorate? What was the road spend on the Sunshine Coast? About$60 million! We are spending six times that amount on the Sunshine Coast alone. This government isproviding six times the investment in road infrastructure.

I concur with the statement made by the Premier earlier this morning: everybody in this Houseshould stand up and be proud of what has been achieved not only by this government but by the peoplewho are building and planning the projects and by the communities that are being very patient whilemuch of this activity goes on around them. The member accuses us of a lack of planning but, as I said,we have the most far-sighted plan in the country and, as the Premier outlined this morning, we arebuilding. Not only are we building projects but we are building major projects like the Tugun bypassahead of schedule. They will be delivered ahead of time. That is a credit to the people involved.

Water Infrastructure

Ms DARLING: My question is directed to the Premier. I ask the Premier to name one waterinfrastructure project, or anything at all, that the Leader of the Opposition has supported.

Mr BEATTIE: The answer is no! The Leader of the Opposition has not supported one project.There has not been one positive vote for any proposal dealing with water.

Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. Mr Acting Speaker, I am aware of your ruling aboutfrivolous points of order but I really take offence at the Premier, who stole my water policy at theelection. He took my water policy! I would not mind, so long as he builds the darn things. Build the dams,and I won’t mind.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr BEATTIE: If I stole his policy, why did he vote against it in parliament? Not once has he votedfor a positive proposal. He has not positively supported one proposal.

Let us look at what the members opposite voted against. They are not going to get away with this.The people of Queensland are going to know that the opposition voted against us. We are the builders;the members opposite are the knockers. They are the wreckers. We work; they smirk. We see thatevery day. That is exactly what happens. We work; they whinge.

Let there be no doubt about this. On 9 August last year I moved a motion that the parliamentsupport the regulation to the Water Act. What was that to do? To direct service providers to undertakemeasures to ensure the security of essential water supplies in the region. The motion also noted theagreement of the mayors in south-east Queensland to work cooperatively. As members can see by theextracts of Votes and Proceedings of 9 August that I am going to table, the opposition did what? It votedagainst this motion to support the regulation to secure the supply of water. The members opposite votedagainst water security.

More recently, on 22 February this year I moved a motion to recognise the drought and endorsethe addition of purified water into the water storages in south-east Queensland. The members oppositevoted against that. Let us look at their record. Not once did they vote for anything good. The membersopposite voted against desalination. They voted against the dams. They voted against the southernpipeline. They voted against the western pipeline. They voted against the northern connector. Theyvoted against the eastern connector. They even voted against stopping leaking pipes.

Mr HOBBS: I rise to a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. This is ridiculous. My waterinfrastructure task force identified the pipeline. The Premier knows that.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Warrego, please resume yourseat. I remind all honourable members about frivolous points of order.

Mr BEATTIE: The members opposite do not like to hear the truth.

Interruption.


MOTION

Extension of TimeHon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (11.01 am): I move—

That the Premier be further heard.

Division: Question put—That the Premier be further heard. AYES, 53—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Croft, Darling, Fenlon, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan,Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, Male, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk,Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg,Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Nolan, FinnNOES, 29—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek,Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey,Wellington. Tellers: Elmes, Rickuss

Resolved in the affirmative.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICEResumed. Mr BEATTIE: I want to make this clear. I will not be bullied by the opposition into not answering.Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: They simply do not want me to tell the truth to the people of Queensland. The

people of Queensland are entitled to know how the members opposite vote. I table the Votes andProceedings, No. 117, of Wednesday, 9 August, for the information of the House. Tabled paper: Extracts from Votes and Proceedings of 9 August 2006.

They cannot argue with this because it shows their voting pattern. The members opposite votedagainst the motion on water supply. They voted against the motion on water on 22 February. They votedagainst the water regulations.

Let me highlight to the House what the members opposite voted against. The members oppositevoted against the motion relating to the water regulation. They voted against the Bribie Islandgroundwater project. The Brisbane aquifer project, they voted against it. The south-east QueenslandGold Coast desalination facility, they voted against it. The Southern Regional Water Pipeline, they votedagainst it. The raising of the Mount Crosby Weir, they voted against it. Stage 1A of the Western CorridorRecycled Water Scheme, they voted against it. Stage 1B of the Western Corridor Recycled WaterScheme, they voted against it. Stage 2 of the Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme, they votedagainst it. The eastern pipeline interconnector, they voted against it. The northern pipelineinterconnector, they voted against it. Stage 3 of the Hinze Dam, they voted against it. Stage 1 of theTraveston Crossing Dam, yes, they voted against it. The Wyaralong Dam, they voted against it.

Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The members of the opposition do not like to hear the truth. To minimise the taking

of water, they voted against it. Fighting the drought, they voted against it. Substituting reticulated waterwith recycled water, they voted against it. Let me be really clear. The members opposite cannot denytheir voting pattern. I table that for the information of the House. Tabled paper: Extracts from Votes and Proceedings of 22 February 2007.

That is how the members opposite voted. They voted against the Water Amendment Regulation(No. 1). Let us be really clear. The members opposite knew exactly what was in that regulation and theyvoted against it. The members opposite have not voted for one positive water measure yet—not one.Not one measure have they voted for to fight the drought. Not once have they ever supported thegovernment’s campaign to fight the drought. I will be clear about this.

The members opposite have voted against desalination, they have voted against the two damsand the pipelines. They have voted against the northern connector, the southern regional connector, theeastern connector and the western connector. What did they do? When it comes to water, the membersopposite voted against measures in the north, the south, the east and the west to deliver water.

The members opposite voted against the water grid. They voted against recycled water. Theyeven voted against fixing leaking pipes. For heaven’s sake, they voted against that as well! Rainwatertanks and retrofits for water-efficient taps, they voted against that. Council bore field and aquiferprojects, they voted against that. Raising the Mount Crosby Weir, they voted against it.

The members opposite have not voted for one positive thing in relation to fighting the drought orwater infrastructure—not one. Let us be really clear about that. To answer the question asked by themember for Sandgate, the members opposite have not voted for one measure to fight the drought—notone. When it comes to whingeing, they are gold medallists.


I say to the people of Queensland: we are the builders; they are the wreckers. What about thiscarry-on this morning? We had senseless points of order to stop me telling the people the truth. Let memake it clear: the members opposite cannot hide from their voting pattern. Their voting pattern is on thisparliamentary record. They voted against our water infrastructure. They voted against the water grid.They voted against any measure to fight the drought. They are simply whingers.

Those opposite are not interested in anything positive. They are the world’s best whingers. I sayto Queenslanders: what we need at a time of drought is to come together. We need to stand side by sideand come together in the middle of a drought, instead of playing stupid childish National and LiberalParty politics. They should support what is good for the state.

Let me make it clear: my government will deliver water security notwithstanding the opposition wehave from the Liberal Party and the National Party. All they are interested in is playing politics. Not oncehave those opposite supported any measure that is designed to improve water security. We will deliverwhat is required for Queensland without them.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Before calling the honourable member for Caloundra, I would like toacknowledge in the public gallery staff, students and parents from Aspley East State School in theelectorate of Aspley, represented in the chamber by the honourable Bonny Barry, and also staff,students and parents from Shalom College in Bundaberg, represented in the chamber by thehonourable Jack Dempsey.

Member for GreenslopesMr McARDLE: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday in the media the Premier was reported

as saying that he would stand down the member for Greenslopes as parliamentary secretary if the CMCbegan an ‘official’ investigation into allegations concerning Mr Fenlon’s activities. Given the seriousnessof the allegations against Mr Fenlon and his alleged links to Gordon Nuttall, has the Premier contactedthe CMC to establish whether its investigation is ‘official’ and, if not, why not?

Mr BEATTIE: I have higher standards than John Howard. Let us be really clear at the outset. Iwas asked a hypothetical question which I gave an answer to—and, that is, that I followed the normalproceedings and I have made that clear. I have indicated previously that both the Deputy Premier and Ihave met with the member for Greenslopes. I am not aware of any issue that would require him standingaside.

Mr Rickuss: You eyeballed him! Mr BEATTIE: I do my best to answer questions here. If people being half smart think they are

clever, I will let their constituents make a judgement about it. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party hasactually asked a serious question and I am actually trying to give him a serious answer. We do not needabsolute nonsense from you to try to do it.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Premier, please come back to the question. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Warrego!Mr BEATTIE: I will at least treat the deputy leader’s question with some respect, even though

some of the people next to him do not have any regard for him or the question. As I have indicated—and I will repeat this—I have met with the member on a couple of occasions.

I have sought some information and advice from the member concerned. That information has beenprovided to both the CMC and the Integrity Commissioner. So I have provided that information. Themember has been only too willing to provide me with that information. He was forthcoming in theinformation that I sought and I have provided that information to both the CMC and the IntegrityCommissioner. As I have indicated, I am not aware of any issues at this point that require the member tostand aside. But, as is my practice because this is an honest government, a decent government, I havereferred these matters to the appropriate people.

I set a test—and this test was set for the Liberal Party when we came in here last week aboutwhat they would do in relation to matters involving their party. The Leader of the Liberal Party did notfollow my lead on this and nor has the deputy leader. So let us be really clear about this.

Mr Hobbs: What did you do with Gordon?Mr BEATTIE: I set a standard which is applied to former ministers and will apply to existing

ministers and members where I have unreservedly referred matters to the CMC, which has resulted ininvestigations.

Miss Simpson: What about Gordon Nuttall? Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Deputy Leader of the Opposition!


Mr BEATTIE: I heard the interjection in relation to certain people named. I am aware of therulings of this House which do not allow me to respond. Those people who were referred to by name inthe usual half smart interjection were referred by me to the CMC and they have been dealt with in theappropriate place. I say to the people of Queensland: compare what I did to what the Liberal Party didlast week—

Ms Bligh: Nothing. Mr BEATTIE: Which is nothing. Compare what I have done to the behaviour of those opposite on

previous occasions. Members know what I have said in relation to that. Time expired.

Gold Coast, Water Supply

Ms CROFT: My question is to the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure. Is theDeputy Premier aware of concerns from Gold Coast residents over the future of this city’s water supplyunder the government’s water grid?

Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question and for her genuine interest in and concern toensure that the water supply to the Gold Coast is secured and, indeed, improved by the implementationof the government’s water grid. I am aware that there have been expressions of concern on the GoldCoast about the possibility that under the water grid water from the Hinze Dam, when it is a full, maywell be transferred via the southern regional pipeline into other water supplies such as Logan andBrisbane.

I would like to take the opportunity to remind people that the fact that the Hinze Dam is currentlyfull and Wivenhoe is at critically low levels has not always been the case. From early 2002 when theHinze Dam hit record lows, south-east Queensland’s Wivenhoe system answered the call. Water fromthe Wivenhoe system was pumped into the reticulation system at the northern end of the Gold Coast ata rate of up to 35 megalitres a day. At times more than 20 per cent of the Gold Coast’s drinking supplywas coming from the Wivenhoe system under those arrangements. Even when Wivenhoe system userswent on to level 3 restrictions in June 2006 pumping continued at the rate of 15 megalitres a day untilAugust 2006.

I want to assure the people of the Gold Coast that if the Gold Coast ever runs low again vitalsupplies will again be supplied and will be able to flow through the SEQ water grid. How are we going toprovide that grid? We are going to provide it through pipelines—the pipelines we are building which, asthe Premier just outlined, were voted against systematically by those opposite.

I listened during the Premier’s answer to calls from across the chamber indicating that when theopposition voted against the water regulation they were only really voting against the Traveston Dam—they were not voting against everything else; they really supported all those other things that they votedagainst. But what we need to look at is their behaviour since that vote in the House. Since that vote inthe House they have backed up that vote by systematic campaigns against major components of thegrid.

We have had the Sunshine Coast coalition members out there whipping up fear and parochialterror about their water being stolen out of their system into the Brisbane system and constantlyundermining the whole notion of water sharing. We have seen them out attacking the progress ofconstruction on the western corridor pipeline. We have seen them whipping up more fear about recycledwater. We have seen them whipping up concern about the desalination plant on the Gold Coast. So theirbehaviour since they voted against all of the components of the regulation has backed up the fact thatthey do not support the grid. You cannot support part of the grid and not other parts because then it isnot a grid. The point of a grid is that it is connected. You cannot have bits of it.

Water Management

Mrs CUNNINGHAM: My question without notice is to the Premier. Local councils and waterboards have managed a small number of storage areas and the majority of reticulation systemsefficiently and appropriately for many years. Given the Premier’s allegations that councils havesiphoned off water funds for other purposes, will he give an undertaking to Queenslanders that he willapply the same principle to government and keep funds generated by port authorities, power generatorsand the like, for use by these agencies to improve their services and infrastructure?

Mr Mickel: This pre-empts the motion.Mr BEATTIE: I am delighted to answer this question.Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Just wait, please, Premier. We do not have the motion of which

notice was given earlier in the day.


Mr BEATTIE: Here it is. Can I rise to a point of order that may help in a constructive way? Themotion tonight deals with cooperation. This question deals with money. I am happy to limit my reply tothat, if that helps.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I call the Premier. Please do not touch on areas that might pre-emptdebate tonight.

Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to answer this question because the issue pertaining to water is a veryspecial one. I understand that the member is a former mayor and naturally will have a supportiveposition in relation to local government and I respect that. As a government we do not and have notcontrolled the water resources, nor have we controlled the profits that have come from them. Asindicated in the KPMG report done by local authorities in the south-east corner—not outside, I want todistinguish that—they, in fact, made $1.3 billion over the last three years. I thought the Lord Mayor ofBrisbane, Campbell Newman, was refreshingly honest yesterday—

Mr Hobbs: Not the dividends, the revenue! Tell the truth.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Warrego!

Mr BEATTIE: I just say to the member for Warrego: for once have some manners. It is not themember’s question, it is the question of the member for Gladstone. If he wants to take stupid points oforder we will take extensions through the Speaker. We are not going to have a position where anIndependent member is not given an answer to her question. I say to the member for Warrego: showsome respect to the member for Gladstone. It is not his question. Let me come back to the questionfrom the member for Gladstone. We need to reassure councils in relation to where we are on this. Thepoint I am trying to make is this: we are simply saying that the significant profits, $1.3 billion over threeyears, should have been reinvested in water.

I pay tribute to the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman. Yesterday he was very honestabout this. He actually said we should be careful about taking over water. Why? Because, he said, themoney that they had been receiving in essence had been used for other services. In other words, if wetook it over they would have a shortfall elsewhere. The point I have been trying to make is that themoney that the councils had been making from water over which they control had, in fact, not beenreinvested back in water—not totally—

Mr Hobbs interjected.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Warrego, I warn you under 253.

Mr BEATTIE: It was being shared elsewhere. In other words, the lord mayor confirmed what I hadbeen saying. We are the only state outside Tasmania that does not control water in this way. We havehad a good partnership with local authorities. What the Deputy Premier and I have said is this: we wantthe profits from water reinvested back in water. Water is life and death. I say to the member forGladstone that it is different from some of the areas that she identified.

The reality is that the government has not been receiving any of those profits—we have not beenmaking money out of water; councils have. When we ran into drought we were suddenly the onesblamed for it. I understand that. But we do not control the assets and subsequently we want that moneyinvested in water.

Water Restrictions, Level 5Mr WENDT: Before asking my question, I wish to acknowledge my parents, wife and sister in the

gallery today for the first time. I particularly congratulate my father on his 70th birthday, which is today.

My question is to the Minister for Natural Resources and Water. Level 5 water restrictions are dueto come into force next month in south-east Queensland. Can the minister inform the House what willhappen to the water allocations of the mid-Brisbane River irrigators in my area?

Mr WALLACE: Yes, I can inform the House what will happen to the member’s irrigators. Themember for Ipswich West has been in my ear repeatedly about this issue. He has been doggedlydetermined to get results for his constituents. Compare his actions to the actions of those opposite andthey stand in stark contrast.

As the member is well aware, there have been rumours that in this worsening drought the Beattiegovernment would abandon irrigators on the Brisbane River between the Wivenhoe Dam and MountCrosby Weir. Today I am pleased to quash that rumour. The mid-Brisbane River irrigators will beallocated 25 per cent of their entitlement between 1 April 2007 and 31 March 2008. As the memberknows very well, it has been widely believed that irrigators were going to be restricted to zero per centunder level 5 water restrictions so this certainly must be a relief.


The irrigators’ monthly water use logbooks show that they have been using only 25 per cent oftheir 50 per cent allocation anyway. In effect, we are maintaining the status quo. These are tough timesfor all water users and the current drought conditions have impacted users throughout the state. Wewant to congratulate the mid-Brisbane River irrigators for tightening their belts as well. They are doingtheir bit to protect water supplies in south-east Queensland. I am sure that residents all over south-eastQueensland would join me in thanking them.

In the meantime, my department is working with SEQWater and the 126 mid-Brisbane Riverirrigators to allow seasonal water assignments among these water users by 1 July 2007. This will allowtrading of allocations for a maximum individual usage of 50 per cent of the entitlement. My departmenthas worked closely with the mid-Brisbane River irrigators over the past two years in establishing andimplementing water restrictions. My department has also consulted with the Queensland WaterCommission and SEQWater in approving the new increased restrictions to complement the QWC’sannouncement of the proposed level 5 urban water restrictions.

All unsupplemented irrigators upstream of Wivenhoe Dam, Somerset Dam and North Pine Damwill continue to be restricted to 72 hours pumping per month. The new restrictions do not apply for stockand domestic users. I want to congratulate the member for Ipswich West. He fought hard for this. He toldme we needed to look after these irrigators in his electorate and that is exactly what we have done.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I acknowledge in the public gallery staff, students and parents from theAspley East State School in the electorate of Aspley represented by the honourable Bonny Barry.

Asbestos in SchoolsMr STEVENS: My question is to the minister for public works and housing. I refer to his

government’s dishonest behaviour yesterday when it claimed only 20 school buildings had asbestosflooring problems when in reality it was more than 200.

Given that the deaths of at least two school teachers from asbestos related causes was attributedto asbestos in classrooms, why does he continue to repeat his dishonest assertions about asbestosinstead of getting on with the job and cleaning up this major health risk.

Mr SCHWARTEN: Let me firstly reject out of hand the member’s scandalous accusation ofdishonesty. It is beneath contempt, as far as I am concerned. As, indeed, is his scaremongering on thisissue. I am not aware of any teachers who have lost their lives as a direct result of asbestos. Thoseopposite continue to repeat that claim. I checked it with the Queensland Teachers Union as late asyesterday after the Leader of the Liberal Party made that claim yet again. There is no record with theteachers union in that regard. That bit of scandalmongery seems to persist.

Let me deal with the issue at hand. The reality is that as part of normal maintenance, anydetection of any asbestos material that may be a problem is dealt with. That is normally done throughouta school. It is either done at a school based level, as part of an annual inspection, or it is done as part ofa complaint that may be raised.

I stand by the advice that I got from the Department of Public Works yesterday. There were 20buildings out of several thousand buildings in Queensland where there was asbestos underlay underlino that may have become a problem at some stage in the future; it may have become exposed. As aresult of that, it was highlighted to be removed. Indeed, many of them have already been removed. Thatis the way it gets done.

If opposition members are fair dinkum about this, they will go to every one of their constituentswho has a house that was built before 1984 that has lino, tiles or any form of fibro in it, and they will tellthem that they are putting the lives of their kids and family members at risk. That is what they will do ifthey honestly believe what they are saying.

The truth is that there are many checks and balances in the system to detect this. There is aspecial $2.3 million program underway which is run through the Department of Public Works, but all ofthis is dealt with as part of the upgrades of schools. The continued scandalisation of this issue by theopposition does opposition members no credit whatsoever in the general community, and I say thatparticularly to the Leader of the Liberal Party. We know how unbalanced he is when it comes to mattersof untruthfulness. We saw that evidenced during the election campaign.

Dr FLEGG: I rise to a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. The minister’s words are offensive and Iask that they be withdrawn.

Mr SCHWARTEN: I withdraw, but everybody here in the election campaign saw him say that hewas not thrown out of the shopping centre and at that point—

Dr FLEGG: I rise to a point of order. I found those words offensive—Mr SCHWARTEN: I withdraw.Dr FLEGG:—and I ask that they be withdrawn and they should be withdrawn unreservedly.

14 Mar 2007 Ministerial Statement 991

Mr SCHWARTEN: I withdraw.Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The member withdrew unreservedly.Mr SCHWARTEN: All I say is that if the honourable member was to say that today was 14 March

I would make sure I looked at a calendar.

Queensland Rail, Graffiti OffencesMs NOLAN: My question is to the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. Minister, I

understand that the Queensland police Railway Squad has been cracking down on graffiti offencesalong the Citytrain network. Can the minister update the House on any recent achievements?

Ms SPENCE: I can. We have a terrific Railway Squad in the Queensland Police Service and the54 officers in that squad have really had a standout year. They have undertaken hundreds of operationstargeted particularly at court order offences, graffiti, car theft and also theft against vending machines inparticular. I particularly want to inform the House about an operation it began in November last yearcalled Operation Echo Throw Up—

Honourable members: Ha, ha!Ms SPENCE: I do not know why it is called that. It was aimed at a group of graffiti vandals who

were targeting the Brisbane metropolitan line and particularly the Ipswich line. These officers spenthundreds of hours in plain clothes doing surveillance on these lines and also acting on information frominformants. Fortunately, they have had some very good results. In fact, they have arrested seven peopleon 1,185 charges of wilful damage, so it is a great result. It is one of the largest graffiti arrests of its kindin Queensland, and I am sure it will make a huge difference to our railway lines around Brisbane and inparticular Ipswich.

Graffiti is not a victimless crime. It costs our society millions of dollars in clean-up costs each year,and it particularly costs Queensland Rail hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to clean up afterthis mess. The Railway Squad has a tag directory, which is a database containing descriptions of graffititags. The Railways Squad has almost 300 tags in the tag directory and it is continually being vigilant intrying to catch these menaces.

I am also pleased to say while I am talking about graffiti that, although it is of major concern toQueenslanders, the recent survey shows that in the last three years the number of members of thecommunity who have identified it as a problem has fallen by 10 per cent. Three years ago 52 per cent ofQueenslanders thought this was a major problem. We have reduced that to 42 per cent. I have to saythat around Queensland our police are making some very good arrests against these graffiti vandals.One arrest of one person can really eliminate a lot of graffiti in a neighbourhood. So I encouragemembers to go out to their Neighbourhood Watch groups and the people they represent and ask themto give up any information they have about graffiti problems in their area because the police are keen toget that kind of information, keen to monitor the tags and keen to come up with innovative ways toensure that these offenders are brought to justice.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: That concludes question time.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Amendment to Standing OrdersHon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (11.34 am), by

leave: I am concerned about the comments made by those opposite today about the regulations inrelation to whistleblowers.

Ms Bligh: The guidelines.Mr BEATTIE: The guidelines. Can I be very direct to opposition members and say that I think

there is a misunderstanding about how this would work. I do not know whether they are making apolitical point or whether they are serious, but I am going to treat it as serious. I was the ministerresponsible for the Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 2006. It follows a commitment mygovernment gave to strengthen the Whistleblowers Act 1994. The bill contained several key reforms—and it has been through the House so it has been debated—and one of those reforms was to amend theWhistleblowers Protection Act 1994 to ensure that a member of the Legislative Assembly can be anentity to which a public interest disclosure can be made. In other words, we are actually empoweringmembers of parliament; we are not doing the opposite. We are empowering members of parliament.The guidelines circulated on this amendment to standing orders similarly seek to provide guidance to amember who receives and acts upon a public interest disclosure about whether a member should orshould not reveal a disclosure in a parliamentary procedure.

An opposition member interjected.

992 Privilege 14 Mar 2007

Mr BEATTIE: Hang on, that is not what you said. This morning, the opposition members clearlydid not understand what the case was. Members of this House have a lot of scope to raise issues ofpublic importance and nothing in the guidelines circulated would now prevent it. Nothing changes thatposition. However, at the end of the day, that power comes with responsibility. Opposition members arenow worried about whistleblowers and, frankly, they should be concerned about how this process willgo. We are too, which is why we are protecting them. It makes sense that if a disclosure has beenreferred to an appropriate authority a member should refrain from commenting about the issue until theauthority has determined whether an investigation is warranted. Otherwise any unsubstantiated claimcould be made and the reputation of individuals unfairly or unnecessarily tarnished. I remind membersof this House of what happened in Western Australia when Penny Easton was named by a Labormember of parliament and, because they were unfounded allegations, subsequently committed suicide.That was my side of politics. This is about being responsible about how these things are done. It is notabout trashing people’s reputations.

Opposition members should look at what the guidelines say. Paragraph (2) says, ‘Theseguidelines seek to provide guidance’. Paragraph (3) says, ‘Compliance with these guidelines is notmandatory’. For heaven’s sake, it says that compliance is not mandatory. What we are trying to do is toset up some processes where these matters are properly and fully investigated by bodies like the CMCor other organisations. This does not take away any power that currently exists for any member. Whatwe are trying to do is actually give some guidance to people about appropriate behaviour, to get thebalance.

I just say to the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, because you and I had a number ofappropriate and I think thoughtful exchanges about this when the bill came to the House, that this isabout what I said. It is about getting the balance right. It is about a member having the right to raiseissues in here, and members can raise these matters in here without naming somebody. That is a veryimportant point. They can be raised in here without naming someone, but it is the balance about gettinga matter fully investigated and at the same time protecting people’s reputations.

Can I finalise my points on this by referring members to paragraph (5), which basically says that amember can raise things here if they are not satisfied. It says—Members should avoid disclosing the substance of the disclosure or the referral in any public parliamentary proceedings, unless—After inquiry with an appropriate entity in accordance with s.32 ... a member is not satisfied that the matter is being investigated orotherwise resolved ...

In other words, they recommend members send it to the CMC and if they are not happy—that is a prettybroad one—then it can be raised. The guidelines continue—... the disclosure has referred to an appropriate entity, but a member has a reasonable belief that further disclosure in aparliamentary proceeding is justified to prevent harm to any person.

These are very broad guidelines. Point F talks about the same sort of opportunity to raise things.As I said, I do not know whether it was party politics or whether they were serious but since the Leaderof the Liberal Party raised some serious matters here I will give him the benefit of dealing with them in aserious way. These guidelines are just that; they are guidelines. They are designed to protect people’sprivate reputations while there is an appropriate full investigation. But they do not take away the rights ofany member to raise any matter in this House if they believe it is in the public interest.

PRIVILEGE

Alleged Misleading of the HouseMr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (11.39 am): I rise on a matter of privilege suddenly arising. The

Premier deliberately misled the House yesterday and today in relation to the revenue for localgovernment. He made it quite clear that he was talking about profits of $1.3 million. The Premier hasmisled the parliament. Mr Acting Speaker, I will be writing to you to ask you to refer the Premier to theMembers’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee on the basis that he deliberately misled theparliament. I will table the KPMG report that quite clearly talks about total revenue. I have bought to thePremier’s attention in this House that he is incorrect and he deliberately kept going.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! You have made your point. Please write to me and I will take itunder consideration.

Mr HOBBS: I table that KPMG report.Tabled paper: Copy of report, dated August 2006, by KPMG titled ‘Local Government Association of Queensland Analysis ofFinancial Performance of Council Owned Water Businesses in South East Queensland Interim Findings’.

Mr BEATTIE: I rise on a point of order. I do not want in any way to infringe on his right to do that,but what he has said about me misleading the House is untrue. I ask for it to be withdrawn. I tabled thatdocument yesterday. The difficulty with the member for Warrego is that he cannot add up. I ask that thatpart be withdrawn. He can write to you.

14 Mar 2007 Community Ambulance Cover and Other Acts Amendment Bill 993

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: You have referred to the Premier; please withdraw those words. Mr HOBBS: I certainly withdraw. I am still going to write to you on the matter of privilege. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: That is understood.

COMMUNITY AMBULANCE COVER AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

First ReadingHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for

Infrastructure) (11.41 am): I present a bill for an act to amend the Community Ambulance Cover Act2003, and for other purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and I move—That the bill be now read a first time.

Motion agreed to.

Second ReadingHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for

Infrastructure) (11.41 am): I move—That the bill be now read a second time.

The Community Ambulance Cover and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2007 amends the CommunityAmbulance Cover Act 2003, the Electricity Act 1994, the Electricity and Other Legislation AmendmentAct 2006, the Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Act 1984, the Lotteries Act 1997, the State FinancialInstitutions and Metway Merger Facilitation Act 1996 and the Integrated Planning Act 1997. Thecommunity ambulance cover levy is collected by electricity retailers through electricity accounts asagents for the Commissioner of State Revenue and is imposed on certain electricity sale arrangementsfor the supply of electricity measured by a meter.

The amendments to the Community Ambulance Cover Act 2003 will ensure that the levycontinues to apply appropriately on commencement of full retail competition in the electricity marketfrom 1 July 2007. These are technical, rather than policy, changes which are necessary because ofchanges to electricity legislation being made by the Electricity and Other Legislation Amendment Act2006 to facilitate full retail competition. No material change is expected to the amount of levy revenuecollected as a result of these amendments and the same range of concessions will continue to apply.

Under the new electricity regime, all customers other than excluded customers will be free tochoose their electricity retailer. The bill will therefore remove the existing distinction in the CommunityAmbulance Cover Act 2003 between standard contracts for non-contestable customers and contestablesale arrangements for contestable customers as it will no longer be relevant. Instead, a new part 2 willimpose the levy on each customer sale arrangement entered into by a person with an electricity retailerunless it is an exempt arrangement. A customer sale arrangement is an arrangement for the sale ofelectricity by an electricity retailer to a person if the electricity is supplied for consumption in Queenslandand the supply is measured by a meter. The new provisions will mirror the former parts 2 and 5. Inparticular, existing exemptions will continue to be available. These amendments will ensure that the levycontinues to apply to customers who are presently liable as either non-contestable customers orcontestable customers and that there is no loss of levy revenue where separate supplies of electricityare bundled under one contract.

The bill also contains provisions to reduce compliance costs for electricity retailers and customersin certain circumstances which are more likely to occur with full retail competition. In particular, acustomer’s existing retailer will be able to process a refund or recover a shortfall even though theseadjustments may relate to a period when the electricity was being supplied by the customer’s previouselectricity retailer.

The bill also contains a number of minor amendments to energy legislation for the introduction offull retail competition on 1 July 2007. The amendments are to clarify certain key provisions for full retailcompetition in addition to the major and complex legislative amendments completed in the Electricityand Other Legislation Amendment Act 2006. The full retail competition reforms are squarely aimed atdriving more competitive pricing, improving product innovation and differentiation, increasing industryinvestment and ensuring the efficient supply of electricity for the longer term.

True competition ultimately relies on customers having confidence in the market and an ability tomake informed, educated choices. These amendments will ensure the electricity and gas marketsoperate effectively when full retail competition commences on 1 July 2007, allowing both customers andretail businesses to participate in the market with certainty.

994 Address-in-Reply 14 Mar 2007

Additionally, the bill provides for changes to the State Financial Institutions and Metway MergerFacilitation Act 1996. The act contains a number of provisions designed to ensure that Suncorpmaintains a significant presence in Queensland. One of these is that the Suncorp constitution includes aprovision that the majority of its directors must ordinarily reside in Queensland. In October 2006,Suncorp-Metway Ltd and Promina Group Ltd entered into a merger implementation agreement to mergetheir businesses through a scheme of arrangement. The merger implementation agreement provides forthe appointment of four Promina directors onto the Suncorp board. As a result, Suncorp has sought anamendment to the State Financial Institutions and Metway Merger Facilitation Act 1996. The bill seeksto amend the act to provide that a minimum of five directors or 40 per cent of the board, whichever is thegreater, must ordinarily reside in Queensland. This includes the managing director.

The government recognises, in making decisions about Suncorp, it must consider how thesedecisions impact on the longer term interests of shareholders, many of whom are of courseQueenslanders. The decision to allow the amendment was taken in the context that Suncorp has notrequested any other amendments to the act in respect of its Queensland presence. After the merger, theSuncorp head office and the organisation’s key functions will remain as they are today, located inQueensland.

The bill also makes amendments to the Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Act 1984 to correctan unintended consequence of the recently commenced Breakwater Island Casino AgreementAmendment Act 2006 with regard to land tenure agreements within the Breakwater Island marina basin.

The bill provides for changes to the Lotteries Act 1997. These changes will remove any legaldoubt that a lottery licensee may pay a prize to a claimant who is unable to present the winning ticket—for example, where it is lost or stolen. To minimise the likelihood of a payment being made to a personwho is not entitled to the prize, the legislation will require the lottery licensee to appropriately investigatethe person’s claims, taking into account the value of the prize being claimed. The legislation will providea non-exhaustive list of issues which may be investigated by the lottery licensee. The changes to theLotteries Act 1997 will also clarify the protection afforded to a lottery licensee by the act against furtherclaims for payment of a prize after it has been paid and will also apply to those circumstances where thelottery licensee pays a prize to a claimant who does not present the winning ticket.

Lastly, the bill will make amendments to the Integrated Planning Act 1997, IPA, to provideQueensland Water Infrastructure with the power to make partial resumptions and then reconfigure theremaining lot to allow the landowner to retain that part of the property not resumed. It is anticipated thatthese amendments will minimise delays in the development of projects that are water infrastructurefacilities. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Dr Flegg, adjourned.

ADDRESS-IN-REPLYResumed from 13 March (see p. 958).Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (11.49 am): It is with pleasure that I rise to reply to the address by

the Governor after the opening of parliament last year. I must say that Quentin Bryce has been anexcellent Governor. She is a very gracious lady who supports our sporting organisations andcommunities right throughout Queensland. We must congratulate her on the way she does that.

I again want to congratulate the Speaker and all members of parliament who have been returnedto this place. It is a very honoured position to be a member of parliament. I am sure that every memberrealises the privilege it is to represent up to 30,000 people in their electorates. I have been fortunate tohave stood for six elections and been returned six times—in a by-election in 1994, in 1995, in 1998, in2001, in 2004 and of course in 2006. I particularly want to thank my supporters throughout myelectorate. It would be difficult for me to name all of those people, but first of all I want to thank my wife,Mary, for her support over all of these years. Coming from a farming community and living on a ruralproperty, it is not easy to manage some of the hardships et cetera that come up when I am away interms of not only the property but also other issues.

I also want to thank my staff. All honourable members are aware of the hard work that our staffmembers do. Karen Farrell has been my electorate secretary since I started in the job and Roni Boyle iscurrently second in charge. I also want to thank my children, Michelle and Anne, and their husbands Ianand John, and my grandchildren, Robert, Michael, Ryan, Mitchell and Lachlan—my five grandsons ofwhom I am very proud. I particularly want to thank my electorate chairman, Kevin O’Reilly, and manysupporters. I will name a few supporters: Chris, John and Bev Currie; Jack and Joan Long; Elaine andCol Birkett; Stein and Stan Watkin; Tony and Jeanette Whitehead; and Glen and Myrtle Baillie. I havenamed just a few, but obviously there are many more than that throughout the Mirani electorate. Thosesupporters have helped me not only financially but also throughout the campaign and at other timeswhen working throughout the electorate. I was pleased to hold a barbecue for those who could attend. It

14 Mar 2007 Address-in-Reply 995

is quite surprising to think that, if you think about all of the supporters and people who support youduring a campaign—not all of them were able to come along but up to 150 people came along—by mycalculations, there are over 200 people who help out during a campaign. I am sure that every othermember is in the same boat.

The electorate of Mirani is fairly interesting in that, as most members would be aware, the miningindustry is booming. Mirani currently has the biggest coal ports in the world with Hay Point andDalrymple Bay. With the development of the mines, secondary industries are growing tremendously inMackay. There are huge developments of industrial sheds. Quite frankly, the industrial side of Mackay isbecoming a fairly big exporter of technology all over the world—not just in the mining industry but inmany other industries as well. There has been a huge impact on smaller communities in relation to thenumber of people living in the area. For a canegrowing, cattle grazing and reasonably limited coal-exporting region, it is now very much focused on mining. However, as I said, the other industries are stillthere.

There are issues with regard to fly in, fly out four-day rosters, exposure to fatigue driving and all ofthe issues associated with people being left behind by the prosperity in the region. Teachers, police,community workers et cetera are not receiving the appropriate level of recompense for their efforts butare still paying high prices for housing and ancillary services in the area. Typical of that example is thetownship of Nebo, which is a very small township. It has grown exponentially over a period of time.There were 10 houses there 15 years ago. Houses are now being sold for up to $400,000 or $500,000each, which is just unbelievable quite frankly, yet the town still only has one police officer.

As I have said in other debates on legislation, the sugar industry is going through some hasslesdue to the fact that smut disease has recently been found in the industry, and the industry is workingstrongly to overcome that problem. The industry has been through some difficult times. I am sure that,with the proper direction and the hard work that those in the industry do in order to minimise the diseaseoutbreak, we will get through it without too many hassles. In terms of the environment, the sugarindustry is up there with the best of them. With regard to green cane harvesting and trash incorporation,the utilisation of the waste product from ethanol, the dunder, being returned to the paddock is a closedcycle for nutriment. All of those things go together to make the sugar industry a very competitive andenvironmentally sound industry.

Another issue for the region is water. For many years—probably 50 years or more—a dam sitehas been recognised on the Connors River. It has been called a number of names, but the latest is theMount Bridget or Connors River Dam. There is some speculation that the government is workingtowards the possible building of that dam site. In that regard, the people who own or lease the land inthat region would like some certainty, because, as I said, the site has been recognised for many years.While there is continuing speculation about the construction of that dam, it makes it very difficult forthose people to have long-term planning for their operations into the future.

One of the bigger issues that we face from year to year in our schools—and I and others on thisside of the House have spoken previously about this—is the day 8 enrolment whereby at the eighth dayfrom the start of the school year a count is taken of the number of students enrolled and a decision istaken as to the number of teachers and support staff allocated to a school, and this is particularly difficultfor some of the smaller schools throughout my electorate. As members would realise, my electorate hassomething like 32 schools, the majority of which are reasonably small schools. Quite a number of themare one-, two- or three-teacher schools. When a teacher is taken away from a two-teacher school andthere are still 25 students to be taught from, as it is now, prep right through to year 7, that is a fairly bigcall for a single teacher to manage. Even though there are support staff to help them, the responsibilitycomes back to the principal to not only run the school but also manage the students. The introduction ofthe prep class this year has added another dimension to that complexity. There are a number of schoolsthroughout my electorate that have lost a teacher, gained a class and had a very minimal amount ofsupport added to their teaching numbers. I can tell the House that many P&Cs are not impressed aboutthat at all.

I believe that we should look at demographics. Many schools in my electorate are fairly remote.We need to be flexible when looking at day 8 enrolment numbers, because the reality is that once aschool loses a teacher it can take some time before another can be appointed, yet enrolment numberscan increase suddenly. As I mentioned earlier, in some rural areas population change happens rapidly.Within a month, a school population may increase by five or eight kids, but it will take some time to havea teacher reallocated.

In terms of health, the Mackay Base Hospital services a huge area and, as I have said, theMackay district is experiencing huge population growth. Even though some work has been done on thehospital over a number of years, a lot of the buildings are fairly dilapidated. The buildings date back tothe 1950s and I am sure that there are issues with asbestos. Certainly the outpatients section of theMackay Base Hospital is in need of upgrading.


The Mackay region is bursting at the seams. There are a lot of issues surrounding the location offuture infrastructure. We are looking at building a convention centre, a water park, a stadium, a towncentre facility and, of course, with all the extra people in town there is a real need for a multistorey carpark. On top of that, we must decide whether we rebuild the showgrounds in its current location or takeit to another site.

Mackay requires extensive infrastructure, but there are conflicting opinions about where thatinfrastructure should be placed. We have a number of sites that would be suitable for a number of theinfrastructure projects. There is an area in the middle of Mackay around the Ron Camm Bridge, on thesouthern side of the river between Caneland and the highway, that could possibly be developed toencompass some of the infrastructure that is needed. It is important to look at all the sites andinvestigate all the possible opportunities in the Mackay township to ensure that we build the properfacilities in the proper places.

In terms of my portfolio, I will deal very quickly with the QAS. Finally we have received astatement from the industrial advocate for the Queensland Ambulance Service that states that a shortfallof up to 1,200 paramedics will have to be made up over the next few years. I have continually raised thisissue in the House. Right across Queensland, and more particularly in the south-eastcorner, ambulance stations are being closed at night and paramedics are having to travel considerabledistances to attend emergencies. Of course, that blows out response times. Only last week in the HouseI raised a case that occurred on Bribie Island. A fire engine turned out to attend a very serious case.

Mrs Sullivan interjected.

Mr MALONE: I know that the member interjecting had something to do with that, but was not ableto help in any great way.

We also have situations where paramedics work for 10 hours straight and are then asked tostandby for another 10 hours. Under what is called an EA proposal, the paramedics are on relief dutiesfor another 10 hours following a shift. They are required to take an ambulance to their residentialaddress and, after the shift is finished, return that ambulance to the station in their own time. There area lot of issues involved with the Ambulance Service that I will talk about latter on.

In my electorate there is a little township called Eton which, over a number of years, has beenpestered by fruit bats or flying foxes. My colleague who sits alongside me raised this issue last night.This pest has created havoc for the small township of Eton. The bats are nesting in the trees anddirtying the local bowls club lawn. In recent times, the Environmental Protection Agency looked at theissue in Eton and suggested that another habitat be built. The EPA suggested that they should planttrees in another location where the bats will fly to rest overnight.

I do not know whose bright idea that was, but the reality is that it will take 10 years for a habitat togrow. The poor people living in the township of Eton will have to deal with the bat situation for another 10years. The EPA has to use some common sense in an effort to move these pests on. I know that thebats are protected, but the reality is that the humans have to live in their homes. The situation is nothygienic. It is a pest problem and a disease problem. Frankly, there has to be a change in policy and thesooner the better. With those few words, I congratulate all members who have returned to the House.Let us hope that the next three years are good ones.

Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (12.06 pm): Today it gives me great pleasure to give myaddress-in-reply speech. I commence by congratulating the Speaker on his appointment, members ofthe parliament who have been re-elected and particularly new members who have for the first occasioncome into the House, irrespective of which party they belong to.

Not all that long ago the honour of being a member of parliament was described to me in thefollowing terms: every three years the parliament opens its doors and the people of Queensland elect nomore than 89 members to act and represent them for the next three years. There are no more than 89members and, once the election occurs, the doors close and those men and women so selected arecharged with the obligation of enacting legislation and ensuring the good governance of the state. Thelegislation that we pass in this House impacts upon every Queenslander, sometimes on a daily basis. Assuch, the responsibility lies with us to ensure that such legislation is of the highest calibre and furthersthe quality of all those who live in this state.

Without doubt, the current government has the confidence of the people of Queensland and waselected to govern this state for a period of three years. That places upon it a responsibility not just todeal with the problems of today but also to act in a manner that reduces the risks of problems arising inyears to come. Therefore, it is incumbent upon any government that its planning take into account notjust the next three years but, arguably, the next 20 to 40 years and to put in train a vision for growthaccompanied by the obvious safeguards to protect the environment, our quality of life and that of futuregenerations.


As the title suggests, the opposition has the right to question, hold accountable and, whererequired, ridicule the actions or inactions of any government. By the same token, the opposition has anobligation to be effective and to offer an alternative government. By definition, this means that it mustprovide not merely a reactive approach but a proactive attitude to the concerns that we face on a dailybasis.

If an opposition fails to do this, it is failing in its primary responsibility. To repeat the actions andthinking processes of yesterday is to doom oneself to failure. The past can be of value, provided itsexperiences are evaluated, but it is the present and the future that must dictate actions. So it is withpolitics.

On many occasions in this House it has been said that the life of a politician is difficult. Their livesare subject to a level of scrutiny that is above that of almost any other person in business. Their familylives can be, to say the least, chaotic. Therefore, it is important for the public to understand and acceptthat parliamentarians are entitled to the normal courtesies that are allotted to other people in society,including time with their family and recreation.

In much the same way, the media plays a very important role in the life of a politician. Politiciansboth crave its attention and object to its intrusion. While accepting that the modern parliamentarian isopen to intense scrutiny and, on many occasions, criticism and that this is the life that we have chosen,one must wonder whether the media understands the pressures associated with such a lifestyle. Inparticular, it can be exceedingly difficult for family members, who often feel the pain more acutely thanwe do as we accept it as part of our daily lives.

For me, it is an honour to be elected the member of Caloundra which, along with much ofQueensland, is entering a phase of growth and expansion. Whilst population figures, housing numbersand business growth are often referred to—and it is well and good to know what these figures are—Ifirmly believe that the overriding consideration needs to be how we coalesce to form a society in whichwe wish to live over the next 10, 15, or 20 years. It is without doubt the type of society that we allow todevelop that will mark the success or otherwise of that growth and development that we are going toexperience. A reliance on roof and population numbers alone is a false yardstick to determine whetherwe have developed a society that we will be proud to hand to our children and grandchildren.

Caloundra faces growth problems similar to those experienced by many other areas of theSunshine Coast. Recently, the local growth management strategy document was launched inCaloundra. That document envisages growth across the city in the next 20 to 40 years. Whereas yearsago planning for five to 10 years was considered appropriate, that approach is now of no value in ourrapidly changing society. Caloundra, which was the first city to have the document approved by the stategovernment, faces significant challenges in the future. But they are positive hurdles and they areproblems that we would have rather than being concerned about whether we can be sustainable.Caloundra, however, needs additional resources and capital to build infrastructure and the many othernecessities that are required to cater for the future. There are many hurdles to overcome. There is anecessity to develop a regional planning document across the coast so that the whole of the coastgrows as a single economic unit.

As with most growing regional areas, funding is needed to ensure that Caloundra meets theneeds and requirements of its residents. Of particular importance is the protection and security of ourenvironment. We must remember that the reason many people travel to the coast to either reside orholiday is the atmosphere associated with living in or near a seaside area. This will be critical in theyears to come as the population pressures continue to grow and, with that growth, there is an increasingdemand for infrastructure of all types to be maintained and increased. But we must always rememberthe fragility of our environment.

The development and ultimate layout of Caloundra Downs south of Caloundra Road—an area ofsome 3,000 hectares—will lead to an additional population of between 50,000 to 100,000 people overthe next 40-plus years. This enormous area and the potential that it has for Caloundra cannot beoverestimated. Careful planning to ensure that the area grows at a rate commensurate with the needsand expectations of the citizens is equally important. Enormous challenges lie within thatdevelopment—challenges that will tax the patience of the residents, the technology available and thewill and perseverance that is required to ensure that that development occurs.

In relation to the needs of Caloundra, I would like to point out the necessity to retain theQueensland Air Museum, which is situated just outside the CBA of Caloundra city itself. As I have saidin the past, the air museum is a collection of aircraft dating back to the 1930s—both military and civil—that has been gathered and repaired by citizens of Caloundra who have mainly an RAF or an RAAFbackground. The site sits on two hectares. The collection has historical importance not just forCaloundra but for the whole of Queensland. If the area on which the museum is located passes into theCaloundra Downs complex, the concern is that the museum’s collection will be broken up and theaircraft and other memorabilia will not be sustained on the coast, nor in Queensland. In fact, it could besold interstate. That would be an enormous loss for the whole of the Sunshine Coast and, indeed, thestate.


At the moment, the development of the new Kawana Hospital is a real issue. How will thathospital impact upon the Caloundra Hospital? What will be the long-term services and needs that aregoing to be provided by that hospital to the people of Caloundra in the years to come? I acknowledgethat Kawana is only a short distance from Caloundra Hospital. However, the health minister needs tomake a very clear statement as to his intention in regard to the Caloundra Hospital—not just in theimmediate future, but in the next five, 15, 10, or 20-odd years.

In addition, the issue of water on the Sunshine Coast is exceptionally difficult. We on theSunshine Coast understand clearly the necessity to assist those people who are in need of water, thatis, in Brisbane and elsewhere. However, we want to control our own water supply. At the same time, wewill not allow any person to go without water or the use of water for any realistic need. There is a verystrong call upon the residents of the Sunshine Coast to rally to ensure that the control of the watersupply on the Sunshine Coast remains with the residents of the Sunshine Coast. In that regard, I join inwith the calls from the local councils.

Another issue relates to public transport and, in particular, the question of CAMCOS. Of course,CAMCOS is the rail corridor that will be a public transport corridor from Landsborough, Beerwah,Caloundra and up into Maroochydore. This transport corridor is sorely needed. Congestion on the roadson the Sunshine Coast is significant. What used to be a matter of a five- or a 10-minute drive betweenCaloundra and Maroochydore not all that long ago has now turned into an arduous 30-minute haulacross the Nicklin Way. Caloundra Road will be upgraded and opened by the end of 2008. In addition,the multimodal corridor linking Caloundra to Maroochydore will open at the same time. For that I thankthe government.

Can I say that this is one of the best times to be alive—not just in Caloundra but in the whole ofQueensland. The changes and the excitement brought by the expectation of that change are enormous.In my opinion, Queenslanders now have the skills and, hopefully, we have the maturity and theunderstanding to set the blueprint for the future. However, we will be driven by pressures over which wehave very little control. With the number of people coming into south-east Queensland each week—between 1,200 and 1,500—change is happening at an unprecedented rate.

Change of all types is occurring across all boundaries. One only has to consider the children whoare now at school. In my opinion, those schoolchildren in a very short time will be living in the first trulyglobal world. Many of us in this House will have two or three jobs during our careers, but in the not-too-distant future—in the next generation—children will have at least five, 15, and maybe even morecareers before they retire. It is also expected that these children will readily travel the world foremployment in greater numbers than ever before. The speed with which technology connects oneperson to another, not just in the same street but in different continents, places them at the apex of arevolution in lifestyle.

Last year, the Australian newspaper published a series of booklets titled 2026—a vision for thenation’s future, which looked at a range of questions, including advances in technology and what oursociety will look like in 20 years time. It is interesting to read these documents and compare howAustralian cities will evolve. Perhaps the most intriguing document deals with advances in technology. Itstates—The centuries of accidental discovery are over. These days, the ubiquity of information and the sophistication of research meansthat most progress is deliberate and relatively fast. The pace of change, like the quality of our lives, can only increase.

These advances are said to include smart clothes, which contain wireless biosensors monitoringvital signs and, in regard to children, alerting parents in the case of an emergency and telling them aboutallergies or viruses. Biosensors are already used in medicine to develop a ‘lab on a chip’ that checks forcardiac arrest by testing blood chemistry. One day a ‘specialist on a chip’ might be implanted in the bodydetecting diseases from cancer to the common cold long before the patient is aware of the symptomsand dispensing medicine directly into the bloodstream.

While today’s robots are programmed, tomorrow’s robots will think for themselves. Althoughrobots are now used in factories, power plants, laboratories, warehouses and surgical theatres, they willsoon be found in homes vacuuming, mowing and chatting at cocktail parties. They will be able to listenand speak and obtain energy from eating sugar and have increasingly complex facial expressions,dexterity and strength.

One day it is even predicted that we may be able to regenerate damage to body parts in our ownbodies eliminating the need for transplant surgery. Biologists are currently studying the zebrafish, whichis able to regenerate its retina, heart and spine. One day scientists may be able to alter a small numberof genes to allow people to access the embryonic ability to grow their own organs. These changes, ifthey occur, and others will be the greatest leap forward man has ever known. The only risk will bemankind himself. Whatever good we can do may equally be undone by our own stupidities, and it isperhaps the risk of self-elimination that raises itself as the greatest challenge for us in the years to come.

I quickly turn to the people who assisted me during my 2006 campaign. First of all I would like toacknowledge my wife, Judy, for her invaluable support and help that she has given to me and also ourchildren, Samantha and Joshua, who have helped not just on the day but throughout with advice andbeing able to talk to them about the issues I have faced.


I would also like to particularly mention Mrs Lesley Godwin. Lesley has been with me for anumber of years now both in the office and as a campaign manager before that. Lesley retired lastFriday from active work and is now enjoying some quiet time with her family and her own interests. Weall have people who actually make our office run. The members are only there, I suspect, on a part-timebasis. It is the people behind the counter who take the telephone calls and deal with the issues when weare not there that make or break a politician. Lesley Godwin is one of those people. She is an absolutegem. She is an absolute goldmine, and I am certain that we each have one of those in our office.

Lesley will be sorely missed by the people of Caloundra and by me. Without uplifting Lesleybeyond expectation, I would also like to thank Mo Barnes, who also works in my office with Lesley andhas helped me throughout the campaign and also to deal with the day-to-day issues across Caloundra.I want to thank Ken Hinds, Frank and Pam Gower, Norm and Gloria Stevenson and Colin and JoanButterworth to name but a few. I apologise to those I have missed but did not intend to. I do thank allthose who were able to assist me over the last three years and during the campaign as well.

I would like to turn quickly to the role of the Attorney-General. I know the Attorney is in the Housetoday. I am not in any way, shape or form indicating that the Attorney is not doing his role or that anyformer Attorney has not undertaken their role adequately. I am simply saying that everybody has anexpectation or desire as to how they see the role developing. That does not diminish somebody else.But everyone as individuals certainly should express how they see the role.

The position of Attorney-General, as we know, is unique amongst cabinet members. The holderof that position is charged as a first law officer of the state and secondly holds the position of a cabinetmember. The dual role provides the holder with unique opportunities and, in my opinion, significantchallenges and expectations. There is a strong need for any Attorney-General—and I do not care whatcolour they are—to be critically aware of the role they play in those two positions. I acknowledge that itcan be and would be exceptionally difficult at certain times for any Attorney-General to fulfil both ofthose roles. That is an issue that each Attorney has to deal with.

However, the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice role, in my opinion, is one of the mostimportant roles in the state. The Attorney certainly needs to head debate on many issues that impactacross the legal field and also the public on a daily basis—such things include double jeopardy, theappointment of judges and magistrates, the question of majority verdicts, the question of what will be thefuture role of the DPP in our criminal justice system, a review of the Bail Act, the role of society insentencing, the functions of the Crime and Misconduct Commission, together with many other areas.

I see the role of the Attorney-General as being very pivotal in any democratic society. I have anopinion that that role requires the Attorney to lead the debate. Leading the debate does not mean theAttorney has to follow what other dictates impose upon him or suggest to him should or should notoccur. But it is a role that is important and does carry with it significant weight throughout our community.As I said before, it need not be that the Attorney has to change the law to deal with an issue, but it isimportant that debate on these topics be commenced. The Attorney-General is uniquely positioned andthe role should be to take the lead in the debate in these areas.

I conclude as I started. I congratulate all members of the House. I think we may have our battlesin the House in regard to what we believe and do not believe, and that is part of being a parliamentarian.That is part of being what we are. We each have a right and obligation to battle for what we believe isright, and we take the fight up to the other party. That is part of the issue of being a parliamentarian. Atthe core, however, I do not believe that there is one member in this House who does not believe thatthey are working for the community. I think if we hold that at the core of what we do we cannot go too farwrong. Let us have the battle here. Let us have it in the media. But, at the end of the day, let us continueto understand that our role is to establish good governance laws et cetera for the state.

Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (12.25 pm): It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to theaddress-in-reply as the re-elected state member for Glass House. As I start this third term I havethought long and hard about the wonderful electorate I represent and what the needs for my area are.As a country girl from Beerburrum, who attended a school of 50 students, I often look around and amsurprised at the opportunities that have been afforded to me through the provision of an excellenteducation system and a family structure that understood and appreciated the opportunity that needs tobe afforded to all children so that they can achieve their potential. This same ethos is what drives theBeattie Labor government in the provision of infrastructure and services.

Over the past three years in my second term there were many, many achievements that weredelivered to the electorate of Glass House. Obviously time will not permit me to put them all on recordhere, but one that I am particularly proud of is the delivery of the upgrade of the icebox section of theMaleny-Kenilworth Road. This is a section of road that for 20 years the residents had wanted to getfixed. It cost us over $11 million to do. It was interesting that a National Party person said to me that theywere so glad that I was the elected member because they knew that only I could deliver that for them.So that was quite a good compliment.


I was also really pleased with the achievement of the delivery of the all-abilities playground atLandsborough. I would really like to thank Warren Pitt and his department. What we have developedthere in conjunction with the Caloundra City Council is a regional playground for little kiddies who havealways had difficulty playing with their siblings. We now have a playground that has places wherewheelchairs can access the sand pit, the fort and the water play. We have a flying fox that we can putthem on. It is all designed so that little kiddies with a disability are able to interact and play with the restof their family. It is really amazing, and I would like to thank all of the people who not only thought aboutit but also made that dream a reality for those parents. It is the provision of respite to some degree, but itcertainly means that these children will be able to be a part of their families and be much more a part ofthe community.

I am also pleased that work has commenced on the Caboolture to Landsborough rail upgradeafter many, many years of discussing it and planning it. The first sod has been turned and they areworking apace to get that delivered. This is vital for my electorate. The ability of people to hop on a trainand get to Brisbane or, eventually, get to the Sunshine Coast is vital. Our road network is very busy. Noteveryone wants to drive to Brisbane. Certainly having done that myself this week it is not something Iwould wish on anyone. It is a very congested road.

The problem we have always had in my area is that the number of services have not kept up withthe demand for the number of patrons who want to access public transport. By duplicating the line wewill be able to put on more services more frequently which means that electors in my area will be able totravel around as they need to when they need to, and that is the most important part of that. So I amreally thrilled to see that continue. Part of that delivery was also the Beerwah Railway Station upgrade. Itwas vital to get that infrastructure built. It cost us $2 million and the end result is that we have a state-of-the-art railway station that people want to go to so that they can access public transport.

We have done a lot of work on the various schools in my electorate. Getting ready for our historicprep year has taken up a lot of money and time, but as I travel around the schools—I have 20 primaryschools and 23 schools in total in my electorate—the work that has been carried out by EducationQueensland, Q-Build and the school communities to provide state-of-the-art facilities for these youngpeople entering prep has been absolutely fabulous and I commend them for that.

We had problems with the emergency department at the Caboolture Hospital. That has beenresolved by having an outside provider run the emergency department. This year, as we come towardsthe end of that contract, I am looking forward to seeing the transition back to Queensland Health runningthe emergency department. Aspen Medical has done an excellent job working with the entire hospital,including the nurses who are employed by Queensland Health, and integrating them with the personnelfrom Aspen. This has meant that Caboolture residents have had access to a high-quality emergencyservices department and that will continue to be delivered from this time onwards. I have been veryimpressed at how that was handled. In particular I thank Stephen Robertson and Uschi Schreiber for thework that they did in making that come to fruition.

We have delivered a lot for the people of Glass House, but during the campaign the Premierreleased a comprehensive 15-page document outlining how he was going to invest in the future ofCaboolture and the Glass House region. There are many things that we have said that we are going todeliver. One that I am particularly proud of, and something that I worked for four years to get funding for,is the $1.5 million that has been allocated to a community youth and arts development centre in Maleny.It is very hard for small rural towns to be considered for large-scale infrastructure such as this, but thisgovernment recognises that no matter where a person lives they need access to great facilities andservices. When this facility is built, which will be delivered within the next two years, our young peoplefrom the flexi school will have a permanent home, which I am really looking forward to. They will havetraining opportunities through the various different rooms that will be built. They will be able to accesscadetships, traineeships and other services that will be provided. It will also be a place where ourMaleny neighbourhood centre will finally have a permanent home. They provide a large number offederal and state government services and I am really keen to see those two bodies integrated together.

It will also have an arts focus. It is entirely appropriate that we have an arts focus in Maleny. Itmeans that young people will be able to access arts. They will be able to get people in on weekends,school holidays and at other times to assist them to grow and develop their own art opportunities. It wasthe Deputy Premier who stepped forward, saw that the need was there and has promised to fund that.

We are also funding the Landsborough Railway Station upgrade. Landsborough is an historicrailway station. We have had a bit of trouble with it; because it is such an historic station we did not wantto knock it down, we wanted to make sure that we were able to develop around it and increase itscapacity. That is being done as we speak. I am sure that the Landsborough Railway Station master,Lawrie Manson, is really keen to see that finalised. The upgrade will also deliver a much larger parkingarea. Obviously people travel from the coast to Landsborough to catch the train to Brisbane. It is a vitalpiece of infrastructure and we are moving ahead with that.


The government is also working closely with Australia Zoo to ensure that its expansion continues.I spoke about this last week in parliament. Australia Zoo is the biggest employer in my electorate. It is ahuge tourism generator for the Sunshine Coast and for the local businesses. We will be continuing towork through the Coordinator-General to make sure that whatever needs to be done to facilitate thatexpansion at a rapid pace will continue to go ahead.

We are obviously working on water. That is a vital piece of infrastructure we have in the northernpipeline interconnecter which is being worked through at the moment. I thank the residents who areallowing access to their property to work out exactly where it will go. It is vital that the Sunshine Coast ishooked up to the water grid. I have been interested to hear members on the opposite side of the Housetalk about it being a one-way pipeline. I think they have forgotten that in the last couple of decades wehave been in drought on the Sunshine Coast and certainly in Beerburrum where I lived. By the time wefinish this pipeline and connect it to the water grid it means that safety and security of water supply forthe Sunshine Coast will be assured for all time. Those opposite keep talking about it being a one-waypipeline; that is just errant rubbish, as everyone knows. It will be a two-way pipeline. We need to makesure that everyone in south-east Queensland has access to water. This is the government that willdeliver on that.

These are just some of the promises we have made. I put on notice that one of the other projectsthat I would like to see happen is the final bit of upgrading to the Maleny-Kenilworth Road. Almost all ofit is done; there is only a couple of kilometres left to go. I am putting on notice that we need that to befixed. We need to make sure that we have a supply of industrial land. It is in very short supply inCaboolture and the Glass House region. There is work being done on the investigation area west ofCaboolture. There are also spots in Glass House that I have identified that would make an excellentplace for industrial land. I know that State Development is working on that in conjunction with councilsand I would commend them to continue that but to bring it on quite quickly. We do need to make surethat industrial land is available because that is the jobs generator for the people who live in myelectorate.

Another thing that we are working on is a noisy sports precinct. Some people have decided thatthere is a block of land in Landsborough where they would like to plonk a noisy sports precinct. What Iwould say to those people and to the Caloundra council is that we need to find a large tract of land tocater for noisy sports not just for the next 10 years but for coming decades. There is no point justthrowing a dart at a map. We need to have a proper investigation across the entire Sunshine Coast areato find a place that is far enough away from residents that it will not bother them but is close enough forpeople to access. I trust that State Development, while working through SunROC, will actually find asuitable location for that to occur.

At this juncture I will return to the people who helped me throughout my campaign. It was adifficult campaign. The people around me did a fabulous job and there are large numbers of people thatI would like to thank. Firstly, I would like to thank my dad. He was a pillar of strength. He did whateverwas required, as my dad always does. He carried out babysitting; he was the prepolling king. Foldingand stuffing is something he is very talented at. He kept us all in line and made sure we ate properly anddid all the right things. My sister, Kathy, was also amazing. She took time off her paid employment. Shewas certainly the cornerstone of the election campaign. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of myspeech in Hansard.

Leave granted.I want to pay tribute to my mother, whose good and steady influence over my life continues in myself and my children even thoughshe passed away over eighteen months ago.I must say it was certainly a difficult campaign without the steadying influence and guidance of my mother, and this wascompounded with the death of my dearly loved father-in-law, Bob Ferguson, in the last week.As we get older and lose our first caretakers and mentors, it reminds us that life continues on with its rhythm of life—and that wemust all change and adapt throughout.When my husband Bill and I left Glasshouse in the last week of the campaign to be with Bill’s family, Kathy stepped into the breachand took over the running of—well, everything. The word thank you doesn’t seem to be enough. And thank you Jim Dillon—theALP ticket is in the mail.There are large numbers of people who I would really like to thank. Colin and Jo for doing whatever was required and running abooth all day—thanks.Linda and Jo, my two electorate staff, are the ones who keep my office running all day, every day. During the campaign theyalways pull out all stops to make sure that everything is done, always. They work hard to ensure that people’s everyday problemsare solved—and more importantly—they care. I couldn’t ask for two better people to work alongside me every day.There are many campaign workers who did everything that was required of them, and more. Pre-poll, staffing polling booths,folding, stuffing, doorknocking, mobile offices, assisting the postal vote campaign, getting information out. The Glasshouse teamwere a well-oiled machine.Can I thank Dick McKean for his many hours of folding, stuffing, putting election booth kits together and general help—turning upto help without asking—he was wonderful.Jim and Carolyn Duncan, Mal and Sandy, Clem Stubbs, Adrienne and Ralph Van Gelder, Frank Fanning, Annette and Jim Morris.Brenton Higgins who took the last week off work to help organise booth kits and deliver them and worked on election day.

1002 Security Providers Amendment Bill 14 Mar 2007

Ken and Ann Husband who, as always, blitzed Landsborough for me. With their team including Brett and Keith, everything wasdone—prepoll, info booths, folding and election day.Gillian Pechey, Ed Gordon, Heather Cameron, Sheila Duncan, Peter Boyd, Harry Simpson, Sharon Vonhoff, the White family,John and Carrie McNaught, Helen Gibson, and all the Glasshouse branch members and campaign workers who all contributedgreatly to a continuing Beattie Government and continuing government representation in Glasshouse.Can I thank Stephen Beckett who is always around for advice and support, Milton Dick ALP State Secretary who is not only anamazing strategist, but a caring and supportive mate who wants to see everyone doing their best. Thank you to Bill Ludwig whohas always been supportive of me, John Mickel for excellent advice, Anthony Chisholm for strategy and organisational abilitybeyond call and the Toadshow crew.The ALP Leadership team—Peter Beattie, Anna Bligh, Ministers and backbenchers have always provided support andleadership—and I thank them all.Finally, I want to thank my husband Bill and my two girls Jordan and Jetta—oh yes—and our poodle Midnight Black. My family isthe cornerstone of my life. They are the reason that I go to work every day, the reason that I want to be part of the team thatchanges life for the better for all residents of Glasshouse and all Queenslanders.As I have said previously, I am proud to be the State Member for Glasshouse and I am looking forward to a productive workingrelationship over the next three years with the many groups and residents who want to see our towns continue to grow andprosper.It has been a pleasure to work closely with Cr Anna Grosskreutz and Cr Dick Newman from Caloundra City Council to progressplanning and transport solutions for our local areas.I do need to inform the House that this level of representation that Anna and Dick have provided to our local constituents is underthreat by a misguided plan from the majority of Councillors. They want to reduce the number of Councillors and create multi-Councillor divisions.As a State Member who has a very large electorate, I fully understand the extra difficulties that are placed on Councillors with alarge non-urban base of constituents.Any decision to reduce the number of councillors would, in my opinion, reduce effective representation for hinterland residents.Because of the size of divisions, it is already difficult for Councillors to be able to manage their time in such a way that everyresident, regardless of their address, has the opportunity to see their Councillor and have their Councillor attend meetings, schooland other special events. Reducing the number or direct representation of Councillors would exacerbate that problem.Furthermore, it is absolutely essential that a Councillor has constituents to whom they are answerable. A good Councillor willensure effective representation on all issues affecting their Division, as well as deal with the development pressures which doarise on a regular basis. Councillors also need to be proactive in lobbying for additional infrastructure and services for their areas.Direct representation is the best way to ensure this happens.I feel that Hinterland residents would be dealt a huge blow by any decision to reduce Councillor numbers and concentrate thepower base on the Coast for the reasons I have stated above.I hope that commonsense abounds at the Electoral Commission and that this proposal of reduced representation for CaloundraCouncil residents is knocked out—for good.As the final speaker in this Address-in-Reply debate, I want to reiterate how proud and honoured I am to have been chosen by theresidents of the Glasshouse electorate to be their voice in the Beattie Labor Government.This is a government that continues to deliver on vital infrastructure for water, education, energy and transport. We are a government that listens, that has a comprehensive plan for the future and, most importantly, delivers for the people ofQueensland.

In conclusion, I stand here today with the pledge to continue to work hard and honestly for the people of Glasshouse.

Motion agreed to.Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jones): Honourable members, the address-in-reply will be

presented to Her Excellency the Governor at Government House at a time and date to be advised.

SECURITY PROVIDERS AMENDMENT BILL

Second ReadingResumed from 13 March (p. 937).Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—Lib) (12.37 pm): I had concluded yesterday before the adjournment

for dinner by saying that if one thing was clear from discussions that I had had with security providersand their industry representatives it was their desire for mandated, ongoing training.

Clause 21 of the bill inserts a new section 15 entitled ‘Imposed conditions’. This allows the chiefexecutive officer of the Office of Fair Trading to impose conditions when granting a security provider’slicence. New subsection (1A)(a) sets out some examples of what the imposed conditions may—and Iemphasise ‘may’—include, including—... a condition about the licensee’s completion of an approved training course for carrying out the functions of the type of securityprovider stated in the licence.

Yesterday I identified the new types of functions that are available under either a class 1 licenceor a class 2 licence and the training requirements for an applicant for those licences. This is now inrelation to the conditions that are being imposed on the licence for a licensee.

14 Mar 2007 Security Providers Amendment Bill 1003

Clause 21, which inserts new subsection (1A)(a), is in fact the entire legislative change dealingwith ongoing training set out in the bill. There is no other legislative requirement in relation to ongoingtraining in the legislation. While the criteria for an application for a licence remain largely unchanged—that is, you must have carried out the appropriate training—there is no legislatively mandated course ofcontinuing training and the matter is left in the hands of the chief executive officer who may, or equallymay not, impose a condition requiring ongoing training via the licence. This flies in the face of the oftrepeated statements of the minister and the Premier that they want to improve standards and mandateongoing education for security providers.

Additionally, it was an often repeated claim that security firm licence approval would beconditional on the provision of ongoing training to staff by approved industry based training providers.This was a condition that was going to be mandated and imposed on security firms and they would haveto ensure it was done. Again, there is no statutory condition. Clause 21 of the bill imposes a new section15(1A)(b) that merely states that the chief executive can impose a condition that a security firm licenseemonitors its employees to see if they are complying with the act. The only condition placed on thesecurity firm that employs the security guards, the security officers or the crowd controllers is that theymonitor their staff to see that they are complying with the provisions of the act. That means effectivelymonitoring the employees to see that they are maintaining the standards imposed on their licence. Soone licence imposes an obligation to look at the sublicensee, if you like, to make sure they arecomplying with their licence obligations. It is hardly a mandated training regime.

If it was the intention of the government to have a better training regime and to mandate it, then Ithink this legislation needs to go further. It leaves the question of whether ongoing training is requiredentirely up to the chief executive. This is a curious result, given the public benefit test report said that74 per cent of respondents did not agree that the training required to obtain a licence as currently setout was sufficient and that 97 per cent of respondents agreed that training should reflect thecompetencies required for each different function of each type of security provider for which the licenceis sought. The legislation does go some way to addressing that.

In all the discussions I have had with those interested in the legislation, the provision of ongoingtraining was supported, and most were disappointed that the bill did not clearly set out that this ought tooccur. There was a realisation of the extra cost involved in mandatory training, but almost all thought thecost would be worthwhile in terms of improvements to the industry and the provision of services.

The question the minister should answer is: how often will the power to impose conditions suchas refresher training be applied by the chief executive in practice, and to which categories of licence? Ifthey are applied or it is intended that they be applied all the time, why not simply include it as a statutorycondition in the bill rather than an imposed condition at the discretion of the chief executive?

There has also been discussion about a mandated code of practice. Much has been said by thegovernment about mandating a code of conduct or practice. This is supported by the industry, but thedetail is very light on. Clause 24 of the bill amends section 21 of the act to provide that contravention ofa code of conduct is grounds for suspension, cancellation or refusal to renew a licence. I should alsopoint out that a right of appeal against that decision still resides in the act, but to date there is no code ofconduct.

I guess this is an often repeated refrain, and I do not know that there is an answer to it.Regulations often lag behind legislation, and this is again the case with the code of conduct here. It isimportant to note that the support of the industry for the code is subject to consultation on its termsbefore finalisation. I do acknowledge the minister’s advice that that will occur before a code of conduct isinserted via regulation for the industry.

In addition to the provisions of the legislation that I have addressed in my response to the secondreading speech, there is also concern about adequate resourcing of the Office of Fair Trading to enforcecompliance and to oversee the other reforms of this package as well as its ongoing services. The Officeof Fair Trading and the Liquor Licensing Division need to be equipped to provide full support to theindustry to enable compliance with the proposed changes to the act. I have heard reports of delays of upto 14 weeks between an application for a licence and its issue. Inquiries made by my office indicate thatthere is some disharmony between those responsible for obtaining the security checks. Both the policeand the Office of Fair Trading have responded differently to questions about where they believe thedelays are occurring. Irrespective of where that delay is occurring, it is clearly not good enough to havedelays of up to 14 weeks. Applicants who have paid up to $1,000 or more for training and an applicationfee are effectively denied participation in the workforce while waiting for a licence to come through.Additionally, a valuable resource is being left to sit on the bench when, according to all reports—and Ihave mentioned some of them previously—they are desperately needed.

Another issue that came up was the availability of information. Information should be readilyavailable and in a form easily understood by the industry to streamline the implementation of changes.An example would be the provision of online, real-time licensing information. This would allow securityfirms, often with 300 or 400 employees on their books, to keep up to date on the currency of licensees.


It would also enable them to carry out their functions of making sure that their licensees are keeping upto scratch as required by the legislation. This industry has traditionally had a workforce that is highlymobile and transient. Many people move around and it is often difficult to maintain detailed records onthe currency of licensees.

Representatives from the crowd controller industry are largely in support of the bill, yet even theyare slightly disappointed. They have noted an ongoing reference to crowd controllers as ‘bouncers’.Clause 6, which would amend section 5 of the act, states as an example that a crowd controller could be‘a bouncer at a hotel, nightclub or rock concert’. This reference should be removed in order to adhere tothe goal of cleaning up and improving the public image of crowd controllers.

Representatives from the retail shopkeepers association have expressed some concern that thebill is unclear when applied to in-house loss prevention officers, although perhaps a properunderstanding and a proper explanation by the OFT would address that situation. The reason is thatloss prevention officers often perform other duties as well; therefore, the changes need to be very clearabout who is classed as a security officer requiring a licence. For example, what percentage of timespent on loss prevention duties is required to be covered, or not, under the proposals? Another questionis: should the legislation apply only to loss prevention officers employed on a full-time basis?

In concluding, I would like to reiterate the coalition’s support for the bill. We welcome many of itsprovisions and believe that they will go a long way to improving the security industry in terms ofperformance and image in Queensland. I have raised issues which have been raised with me bymembers of the industry, industry associations, other groups as well as individual operators. I believethe minister is aware of these and ought to consider them, particularly those relating to training andcompetency in the security advisers and security installers part of the industry. In this area, the coalitiondoes not consider the legislation goes far enough. It does not cover competency training across allsectors of the industry and, despite all comments to the contrary, it does not provide for mandatoryongoing training, which is stated to be one of the aims. Mandatory ongoing training will be a decision forthe chief executive to impose or not. I refer to the use of the word ‘may’ again in that particular part of thelegislation.

We do commend the bill. We think it goes a long way to cleaning up the industry. It addresses anumber of the concerns I raised earlier. We will be supporting it. I would like to thank all those who tookthe time and trouble to talk to me and meet with me and my staff. In particular, I thank members of theBuilding Service Contractors Association of Australia, Mr Brian Swinton, Mr Kevin McAney andMs Louise Van Ristell, the executive officer; the loosely named electronic security group, including JimAugustikas, Craig Smith, David Follett, Ferris El-Affiffi and Chris Heseliet; the National Security ScreenAssociation, and I am afraid their concerns will have to be dealt with in another way; the QueenslandRetail Traders and Shopkeepers Association; the Electrical and Communications Association; theQueensland Hotels Association, particularly their able executive director, Mr Justin O’Connor; and allthose private industry operators, of whom there were many, who took the time to contribute to what I amsure will be a much anticipated improvement to the legislation.

Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (12.49 pm): It is with pleasure that I rise in support of theSecurity Providers Amendment Bill 2006. As stated in the minister’s second reading speech, the keyobjective of this bill is to tighten a regulation of the security industry to ensure that only those persons ofreputable character operate in the industry. This is a very welcome and I believe mutually beneficialoutcome, because over recent times the reputation of some of those in the security provision industry—and in particular those we refer to as bouncers—has come under question with reports in the papers ofsome not so satisfactory outcomes of the way they actually undertake their work.

That involves only a very small number of people in the industry. Nevertheless, it does tend to tarthe whole industry with a bad name. The measures in this bill will go a long way towards tightening upthe industry and removing those bad elements who have crept into this form of work. These measuresare very welcome because it will lead to greater public confidence as people undertake their day-to-dayactivities which quite often involve them going into crowded public areas. In nightclubs there is thepotential for people to get in harm’s way so we rely on these people to protect us in some way. So Iwelcome the tightening and toughening up of the provisions covering the security providers industry.

Among the measures contained in this bill is the expansion of the licensing categories to capturecurrently unregulated providers of security services, including those who operate in industries wheresecurity work can be mixed with other duties. I think that this change reflects the changing nature ofwork and the work mix that people undertake in modern society. We are seeing a growth in the use ofelectronic surveillance and high-tech equipment employed by individuals as well as companiesproviding security.

The bill also seeks to strengthen character and probity tests in an effort to weed out undesirableelements in the industry. I referred to these earlier. I think everyone accepts that they are a smallminority. Quite often when these people come to the public’s notice it is for something quite drastic. Weneed to get rid of that element that seeks to find its way into the security provision industry so that wecan have a greater sense of confidence in the people we are dealing with.


The bill requires licensees to continue their professional investment through ongoing training.Keeping up to date is so important. The only constant in life often is change. In every field of endeavourand in every profession these days it is a constant effort to keep up with the latest and greatest inprofessional development in order to carry out our roles to the best of our ability. Keeping up withprofessional development has become a community expectation that needs to be taken into account.I am pleased that this bill addresses that issue.

The bill seeks to increase the penalties for operating without a licence or for engaging unlicensedpersonnel. I welcome this increased deterrent that will again lead to an increase in public confidenceand better protection generally for licensees themselves. It also seeks to implement other importantchanges to the way security providers operate and are monitored to ensure protection of the communityand property. These are measures such as a mandatory code of practice and a provision for ongoingtraining. I have already mentioned the benefits that this can bring.

The Security Providers Amendment Bill also contributes to the harmonisation of the nationalsecurity provider regime. I want to focus my attention on this area. In September 2005 the Council ofAustralian Governments, COAG, recognised that a national harmonised security industry has a key roleto play in counter-terrorism activities at a time when security is paramount. COAG also requested areview of all state and territory licensing regimes.

We sadly live in an age of terror. It is not something we welcome, particularly not in a country likeAustralia that has a history of encouraging egalitarianism and has been a home for people fromcountries all around the world. We have lived in relative peace and harmony for several hundred years.We cannot put our heads in the sand. We must recognise the increased threat. We need to be aware ofit and we do need to be vigilant.

The COAG review report recommended that there be nationally consistent probity and characterchecks and that a core set of security activities for the purpose of licensing in all jurisdiction bedeveloped. This harmonisation seeks to enable greater consistency between the interstate licensingregimes so that a common approach to licensing appropriate and competent operators is takennationwide. The current Queensland act does not licence as many security activities as the majority ofother states and territories legislation does, nor does it contain as high a standard of probity criteria tofilter out those who are not appropriate to work in an industry trusted by the community to protect peopleand property.

The bill dramatically boosts the standard of the security industry by expanding the licencecategories and strengthening the probity checks under the act to ensure that rogues do not flock toQueensland. The national approach in licensing of security providers will enable security resources tobe quickly deployed across jurisdictional boundaries on the basis of need. The bill allows for this by theintroduction of a temporary permit regime for bodyguards, crowd controllers, security officers andsecurity firms currently licensed in another Australian state or territory to carry out authorised functionsfor a particular event.

This is most relevant to the south-east corner and, indeed, to the Gold Coast where, from time totime, activities take place on a cross-border basis or there are travelling officials and VIPs who havesecurity travelling with them. That is probably where this provision will, in practical terms, be applied. Ihave some examples here. Security officers licensed in New South Wales will be able to performsecurity officer functions at specific events such as a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetingheld in Queensland. Such events place an unusual short-term demand on the services of theQueensland industry. The changes will allow such demand to be met for the duration of the event.Applications for temporary permits will be processed and tested against the same suitability criteria asnormal applications. This means that the applicant will be assessed against the same criminal historyand other probity checks. I welcome these moves.

I acknowledge that there has been very broad public consultation behind the development of thisbill. That is most welcome. There has been some comment that it has taken a long time. It is a complexarea and there are a lot of views to be sought and assessed. They then have to be put into a form thatactually makes most people confident about the outcomes in the final bill. I acknowledge thatconsultation process.

I also acknowledge the minister’s effort and her department’s effort in bringing this to the House.Minister Keech above all has a commitment to the rights of consumers in this state. That is a reallywelcome commitment. We all need protection. All of us are vulnerable at some time in our lives, andparticularly as we get older. It is the elderly in our communities who have the least defence againstpeople who are increasingly cunning. I acknowledge the minister’s support for these vulnerable peopleand consumers in this state. I commend the bill to the House.

Sitting suspended from 12.57 pm to 2.30 pm. Ms van LITSENBURG (Redcliffe—ALP) (2.30 pm): I rise to support the Security Providers

Amendment Bill 2006, which strengthens the criteria used to determine a person’s appropriateness tohold a licence. The chief executive will be able to take into account additional criteria when assessing aperson’s appropriateness to hold a licence. Existing criteria allow the chief executive to consider


whether the person has shown dishonesty or lack of integrity, associates with criminals in a way thatindicates involvement in an unlawful activity or that the person holds an unrecorded conviction for anoffence. With the number of incidents in recent years of alleged bashings of nightclub patrons bybouncers, it is essential that we ensure that people entering the industry are above reproach, that theyhave the proper training for the job and that their use of restraint is within safe parameters. As a seasidesuburb, Redcliffe has a fleet of security personnel who patrol our beaches and the lagoon at SettlementCove in the evenings. This has added to people’s feeling of safety around dusk and after and I have notheard that there have been any physical issues or clashes involving security personnel.

This bill also ensures that even if personnel do not have a title which denotes security but securityduties are part of their role they will be encompassed by this bill. The bill proposes that unrecordedconvictions—that is, findings of guilt where a conviction is not recorded—be considered when assessinga licence application. Consideration of unrecorded convictions is to be limited to those offencescurrently prescribed under the act as disqualifying offences—for example, theft, assault, burglary anddrug offences. Use of unrecorded convictions will also be limited to findings of guilt within the previousfive years. Discovering that a person has unrecorded convictions will not automatically result inexclusion but will provide the chief executive with a more comprehensive picture of a person’s suitabilityto hold a licence. These amendments are consistent with the national approach of assessing a person’ssuitability to operate in the security industry. They also ensure that Queensland contributes to nationalharmonisation of security industry licensing regimes as recommended by the Council of AustralianGovernments. I thank the Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading, Wine Industry Development and Womenfor the insightful amendments to this bill. It will close the loopholes that have allowed some inappropriatepeople to enter the industry. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (2.33 pm): I rise to make a contribution to debate on theSecurity Providers Amendment Bill 2006. The main purpose of this bill is to amend the SecurityProviders Act 1993 to bring Queensland into line with national trends with respect to licensing, probityand character checks that reflect the agreed position of the Council of Australian Governmentsapproach to counter-terrorism and aims to address the problem of rogue security service operatorsentering the industry. The bill will extend the scope of the legislation to include the licensing of thoseinvolved in the installation of security equipment, those operating electronic security surveillanceequipment, those handling dogs involved in the security industry and those security guards and securityadvisers employed by individual venues. The bill will also broaden the definition of a security officer andprovide for a licensing regime that will cover crowd controllers and private investigators in addition tosecurity officers and firms.

This bill creates more regulation in an already highly regulated industry. The nature of theregulation will determine if this addresses or exacerbates the problems experienced by the securityindustry. The main characteristic of the bill is that it increases the probity checks on operators wishing tocontinue in or enter the industry. I do not think there would be any opposition to more comprehensiveprobity checks on participants in the security industry in the community given the nature of the servicesthat security providers deliver. However, we must be careful that the proposed amendments to thislegislation do not create a situation where the process of certification for new security providersbecomes too difficult and/or onerous. Overly restrictive barriers to entry into the security industry wouldlimit the recruitment of new guards into an industry that is growing rapidly and that already suffers froma shortage of qualified personnel. There are numerous regulatory bodies in association with theirdepartments that are already involved in the certification of security providers. This no doubt causessignificant administrative challenges for businesses trying to deal with the bureaucracy. There needs tobe a streamlined regulatory approach to governing the security industry, as licensed security providersalready come under the scrutiny of the Queensland Police Service, in particular the Queensland PoliceService Liquor Investigation Unit, Liquor Licensing and other divisions within the Office of Fair Trading.

There needs to be some clarification of what constitutes a public place for the purposes ofdefining the duties and obligations of security providers at venues. This is a question of duty of carebalanced against the scope of jurisdiction that security guards have in discharging their responsibilities.Security providers are constantly placed in difficult quandaries where they are obliged as part of theirduty of care to assist patrons who have exited their venue but are no longer on the licensed premisefrom potentially hazardous situations that they may find themselves in. However, security providers areextremely limited from a jurisdictional perspective because security providers in these circumstancesare no longer on the licensed property to which they are assigned at that point in time. They have limitedindemnity from events that may occur while they discharge that duty of care. The minister might reflecton the lack of practicality that having several different types of licences for security providers largelydelivering the same service to customers provides. For example, categories include a security guardlicence, a crowd control licence, a bodyguard licence, an armed guard licence and a dog handlingsecurity licence, all delivering similar security services. The fact that there are several separateindividual categories of licences gives the impression that the government is reluctant to provide anyencouragement for security providers to train for any more than a single area in the security industry.


While no-one would oppose sensible changes to probity checks to guard against entry by roguesinto the security industry, given that the skills shortage in Queensland is also affecting this industry,overregulation does not encourage new industry participants or service providers. With police andbackground checks currently required for applicants seeking a security guard licence, it would beopportune to simultaneously issue these security providers with a blue card, for instance. Blue cardsrequire the same police and background checks. As such, it would make sense to issue one with theother, especially given that security guards and crowd controllers are frequently required to deal withminors. Clause 15 proposes changes to the legislation to allow the chief executive to considerunrecorded convictions such as findings of guilt where no conviction is recorded for certain offenceswhen considering an application for a security provider’s licence.

Similarly, clause 16 amends the act to allow the chief executive to consider charges allegedagainst a person for the purposes of assessing an application. It is argued in the explanatory notesaccompanying this bill that this deviation from the usual practice of presuming an individual’s innocenceuntil proven guilty ought not to apply in this instance because we need to recognise that securityproviders occupy a special position of trust within the community involving the protection of people andproperty. The explanatory notes argue that it is appropriate that a higher standard of character beexpected from an industry occupying such a position of responsibility. I have some sympathy with thissentiment, although I wish to again point out that the department and other agencies involved in theconsideration of these applications or overseeing their implementation ought to be circumspect in theway in which they apply these new provisions. Some industry bodies have expressed concern thatthese changes may result in a dramatic decrease in security provider numbers. These arrangementswill need to be implemented judiciously so as not to exacerbate the current shortage of qualifiedpersonnel in this industry, which is already short of licensed security providers.

Broad powers delivered to the executive arm of government to deny an application for a licencebased on the presence of unrecorded offences against an individual or for charges that have beenalleged only and not substantiated are certainly contrary to some fundamental principles that have beenpart of our legal system for some time. There may be a range of reasons the judicial arm of governmentmay decide not to record a conviction. The judicial arm of government has been entrusted with thatdiscretionary power for some time. It is usually exercised when there are mitigating or extenuatingcircumstances to be taken into account. As I have indicated previously, given the nature of the servicesbeing provided by the security industry, I understand why these discretionary powers have beenintroduced by the government in this bill, but I hope that there will be a concerted effort to ensure thatthese provisions are not abused or exploited.

Currently, legitimate firms operating in the security provider industry find it difficult to obtainreliable information about existing and/or prospective employees or the licences that they hold. Thisinability reduces the effectiveness of the various compliance programs or initiatives that areimplemented by responsible firms in the security provider industry. Despite these difficulties, these firmsare required by statutory authorities regulating the security provider industry to maintain accurate andup-to-date compliance checks on their employees. As such, the government should consider anappropriate interface between firms and the database held by regulatory authorities to assist those firmsto keep an accurate and up-to-date compliance register. This would give the government an opportunityto set some industry standards and benchmarks in relation to the registration of security providers, theregular mandatory training of security personnel and, conceivably, to establish an industry code ofconduct for firms in the security provider industry to go through an induction process with theiremployees about the provision of security provider services to clients.

Some industry groups, principally those involved in the hospitality industry, have concerns aboutthe increased regulation of in-house security at individual venues because of the potential costs thatthey may incur as a result of a higher level of training and certification required for in-house securitystaff. However, other industry groups, principally those providing specialised security services, stronglysupport the further regulation of in-house security as this would give some parity to the two areas of theindustry. It is perceived by the firms providing specialised security services that the benefits willoutweigh any costs involved in the tighter regulation of in-house security services. From thisperspective, I expect that the community should be able to expect a higher standard of professionalismfrom security staff employed directly by individual venues as opposed to contracted security staff from asecurity provider firm as they will be better trained to undertake these roles.

Clause 6 of the bill provides a new definition of ‘crowd controller’. This definition needs to berefined and clarified to define more clearly the roles and jurisdiction of a crowd controller, including someof the roles that a crowd controller may be required to undertake. For example, the definition of ‘crowdcontroller’ in the bill does not provide an adequate description of the role when that person is acting as adoor host at the entry to the premises at which that person is providing those security services.

While on the topic of appropriate descriptions for security providers, clause 6 of the bill provides adescription of a crowd controller as ‘a bouncer at a hotel, a nightclub or rock concert’. In light of some ofthe negative media attention that has been focused on certain incidents involving security providersrecently, which this bill seeks to address, I suggest to the government, at least in terms of the text of this


bill and the subsequent act, that the term ‘bouncer’ might not be entirely appropriate to describe crowdcontrollers who hold a security provider’s licence. Indeed, if we are seeking to improve the standardsand performance of the industry, the very first thing we might do is eliminate the colloquialisms in thetext of the legislation that regulates it.

The definition in the bill does not provide any guidance with respect to the scrutiny of anindividual’s identification as they enter the venue. Checking the identification of patrons entering alicensed venue is a fundamental function of crowd controllers. That ought to be a significant componentof any training provided to security officers by industry regulators as part of the process of issuinglicences.

Clause 8 of the bill provides for a person to be considered to be a security officer if that person isemployed, whether or not principally, to guard, patrol or watch the liquor licensed premises of theemployer. This clause could be interpreted to read that, under this legislation, ancillary staff, such asbottle shop attendants attached to a licensed premises, could be considered to be security officers. Ifthe government intends this to be the case, it will need to provide for these ancillary staff to be properlylicensed. If the government does not intend for this to be the case, clause 8 ought to be tightened up toprovide some clarity to the industry.

Clause 21 of the bill provides for the mandatory supervision of security officers on restrictedlicences. I am in agreement with the principle of experienced security licence holders being required tosupervise provisional security licence holders. But I wonder if the description of ‘appropriate directsupervision’ needs to be given some further consideration. The bill describes ‘appropriate directionsupervision’ simply as—... supervision of a security provider by another security provider who—(a) is a security provider of the same type as the supervised security provider; and(b) holds an unrestricted licence for carrying out the functions.

Perhaps the government could consider the introduction of a category of unrestricted securitylicence holder that would be appropriate to undertake supervision of a restricted licence holder, such asan open licence holder who has completed a supervision training component delivered by the regulatoryauthorities issuing licences or by security provider firms as part of ongoing training. That would enhanceprofessional standards in the industry and deliver better security services to the community in the longerterm.

Clause 21 provides for a condition of a licence awarded to a security firm to be a requirement thatthe licensee monitors, at stated intervals, whether or not its employees who are employed as securityproviders are complying with this legislation. So companies will be required to monitor all of theiremployees to ensure that they are compliant with the legislation as a condition of their licences. I am notsure of the ramifications of an employee of a firm not complying with the act. Will the breach of thelegislation by an employee see the firm jeopardise its own licence? Or will simply the ability todemonstrate that the firm was monitoring its employees be sufficient to avoid any repercussions?

The bill is not clear about the practicalities of this clause. If taken literally, this clause would be aparticularly onerous task for security firms to undertake. Firms would need to devote enormousresources to establish compliance departments to audit compliance by employees. Surely a better wayof encouraging compliance would be rigorous initial training of new employees during the licensingapplication process, a comprehensive induction process for security officers when engaged by a firm,and ongoing structured training for security providers as the regulatory environment changes.

To conclude, the main point I wanted to make was to encourage the government to provide forregular ongoing and mandatory training for all guards regardless of the licence they hold. If it islegislated, security provider firms can enforce it rather than have it occur on an ad hoc basis acrossfirms that may deliver at varying standards, at varying degrees of regularity or not at all. Regulatoryauthorities will need to engage security provider firms during the implementation of these newarrangements and subsequently to give them an opportunity to deliver quality training to new entrantsinto the security industry. In this way we should be able to provide an improved framework for thedelivery of security services to the clients of those firms providing the services and thus to the people ofQueensland.

Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (2.49 pm): I am pleased to join the debate on the SecurityProviders Amendment Bill 2006. Madam Deputy Speaker, as you have already heard from my colleagueand shadow minister for tourism, fair trading and wine industry development, the honourable memberfor Clayfield, the coalition will be supporting this bill.

In essence this bill seeks to provide a licensing regime in Queensland for security providersspecifically identified in the explanatory notes as crowd controllers, security officers, privateinvestigators and security firms. It is intended that this will assist in protecting and enhancing communitysafety through implementing strategies which contribute to safer communities. In particular, it addressesmany issues including the scope and coverage of the act in relation to existing licence categories andprobity checks, and the test to determine an applicant’s appropriateness to hold a licence.


On previous occasions during my time as shadow minister in this portfolio I have indicated mysupport for extending probity checks to be conducted in any area which encompasses public safety.I am glad that this bill has finally found its way to the House, because it has now been nine months sincethe minister’s statement on 7 June 2006 in which she said—... the Beattie government will dramatically boost security industry standards of the security industry under a package of reformscurrently nearing completion.

When one considers that this bill has been languishing in some form for a period of almost five years,once again one can only say that we are very glad it has finally made its way into the House.

During this time we have witnessed a number of incidents where shocking assaults have causedgrievous harm to patrons of nightclubs in entertainment precincts which the media have labelled‘bouncer bashings’. Claims that certain Gold Coast nightclubs are controlled by bikie gangs do notpromote public confidence in the security industry. Recent forays into Coolangatta and Palm Beachlicensed premises by northern New South Wales gang members who use vandalism and standovertactics provide further evidence of the need to strengthen existing laws.

In a ministerial statement on 7 June, from which I have already quoted, the minister also madethe statement—I am determined that Queensland will have the best security provider regulatory regime in Australia.

But will these laws be tough enough to prevent malevolent people from entering the industry? We haveseen what is happening with rogue tourism where state government laws lack any teeth, prosecution israre and the problem persists largely unchecked to our detriment.

Whilst debating the Liquor Act Amendment Bill 2005, which introduced a 3 am lockout andlegislated the necessity for licensed premises to have crowd controllers, I raised a number of concerns.There were difficulties raised at that time regarding the supply of adequately trained and licensedsecurity providers for the security industry, and the availability of appropriately qualified personnel still, Ibelieve, remains as a difficulty for the industry today.

One of the critical areas that the departmental review and this amendment bill have failed toincorporate within the licensing process is a psychological assessment particularly for those securityproviders who are dealing with the public in potentially violent and often volatile circumstances. Iacknowledge that this bill aims to provide greater clarity through the more specific classification of thetypes of security providers by the changes in definitions in clauses 4 through to 10. What does alarm meis the amalgamation of security equipment installers with crowd controllers, bodyguards and securityguards into this one piece of legislation. What we have in fact are two distinctly separate industries—one in electronic security and the other a physical security presence. The Queensland SecurityAssociation has confirmed—The industry has grown substantially since 1993 both in size and accountability. The majority of the growth has been in thetechnical sector where there is no licensing regime.

It goes on to say—This sector comprises of the following: alarm sellers, installers, electronic reporting facilities, CCTV and access controlconsultants, sellers and installers.

A disparity arises with regard to this statement with respect to the highly regulated electricalcontracting industry. This industry is already subject to many regulatory requirements under theElectrical Safety Act 2002, and the Electrical and Communications Association, as the primary employerassociation in Queensland, is comprised of approximately 2,000 electrical contractors. To make it clearfor all members of the House, being an electrician is not the same as being an electrical contractor.Electrical contractors must hold specific electrical contractors licences as well as ACA licensing,occupational licensing and be a fit and proper person. It may be said that anyone can purport to be asecurity system installer, but to have it completed properly consumers should ensure that the installer isa licensed electrical contractor.

I am aware that the ECA has made a submission in the review process. I ask the minister whethershe will grant its request for either an exemption or positive notice registration for electrical contractorsand their electrical workers from the need to hold a security firm licence or a security equipmentinstallers licence. Due to their compliance under existing licensing arrangements and given that theimposition of new licensing requirements would create an unfair competitive advantage to others in thesecurity product market, I urge the minister to give this due consideration.

In respect of the physical security presence, I remind honourable members of the minister’scomments also on 7 June 2006—Our model will include tougher industry probity checks, including the use of charges, unrecorded convictions and criminalintelligence so that we can weed out the thugs before they start work and ensure that criminal elements do not infiltrate theindustry.

For the public to have confidence that they can go out to public places and enjoy themselves, weneed to have confidence in those people who are placed in charge of crowd control. As I have alreadystated, I support measures that increase the probity and integrity checks which in turn serve to enhance


the credibility of the industry. Our society’s attitudes have changed drastically since 1993, as has ourpopulation. A culture of binge drinking and easy access to drugs that induce violent behaviour havegiven rise to a sharp increase in aggressive and often unprovoked attacks on patrons both by otherpatrons and overzealous bouncers—sometimes with lethal consequences.

The case of former Australian cricketer David Hookes in 2004 created a wave of protest from thepublic when the bouncer involved was found not guilty of a charge of manslaughter. In the last 10months we have seen headlines in the newspapers covering incidents where patrons have been victimsof alleged assaults by bouncers in Brisbane and on the Gold Coast. Sadly these actions cast a blackcloud over the integrity and credibility of those who work in this demanding industry.

One area which this bill does not clarify is a specific licence for a security provider and partnerdog. Under clause 8, the minister seeks the definition of a security officer under section 7(1) to includethose officers who also work with or without a dog. Leaving this partnership type of security provision tocouncils to monitor is unsatisfactory. Moreover, it does not ensure accreditation. It is my understandingthat the New South Wales parliament addressed the need to be aware and respect security workingdogs when partnered with an accredited security provider under the New South Wales CompanionAnimals Act 2000. I wonder why this is an area the minister seems loath to address.

Regulations for security providers who are seeking to work with a partner dog to have completedthe course PRSSG24A ‘Manage dogs for security patrols’ as recognised under the Australian NationalTraining Quality Framework, or the ANTQF for the benefit of the honourable for Clayfield, are lackinghere and should be considered in this legislation. Additionally, it would be practical for these handlers tobe assessed by someone of a similar standard to those who are recognised as an accreditedappropriate person to monitor dog handlers who work within our Corrective Services, Police Service andarmed forces.

Another area which the minister seems to have omitted from this legislation is that of cross-borderrecognition of licensing. Whilst there is potential for a national uniform licensing regime, this is not likelyto eventuate in the short term. As the Currumbin electorate shares a border with New South Wales, Istrongly urge consideration to be given as to how Queensland can work more closely with New SouthWales on this issue. I would like to use this opportunity to seek clarification from the minister in relationto another of her statements on 7 June 2006, and that is—We will boost resources and operations to ensure compliance with our tough new laws.

I would ask the minister in her reply to advise how her department intends to boost theseresources and operations, how many staff will be added to the department to deliver this and what willbe the associated costs.

In closing, I recognise that this bill is a step in the right direction. However, there is still room forimprovement in relation to training provisions and that part of the industry involved with security dogs. Iapplaud those who have stood by this industry over the years and I am sure that they will be pleased tosee some strengthening of the laws so that this industry can gain the credibility it so deserves.

Mr GRAY (Gaven—ALP) (3.00 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the Security ProvidersAmendment Bill before the House. As the minister said in her second reading speech, the key objectiveof this bill is to tighten regulation of the security industry to ensure that only those persons of reputablecharacter operate in the industry.

Like many other citizens of Gold Coast City, I am dismayed when local media outlets report theactions of some security personnel in mishandling patrons at many nightclubs, clubs, pubs and otherrecreational sporting venues which are a large part of the lifestyle of Gold Coast City because of itsstrong recreation and tourism economic base. My concern is not only about the reporting of theseincidents but also that people exist in the industry who lack the basic skills, training and temperament towork in the industry. While I readily recognise that the patrons are often drunk and difficult, I alsorecognise that many good security providers work in the industry who have the necessary skills,training, company support and decency of character to handle difficult situations well, much to thebetterment of the industry and the image of the industry itself.

This bill goes a long way to deliver those necessary qualities to the industry. Firstly, it expandsand better defines the current licensing categories to ensure all appropriate security personnel will needto be licensed. Secondly, it introduces a scheme of trainee licences to encourage more people to enterthe industry. As we see too often when demand exceeds supply within the labour force of a growthindustry—and this industry has had a very rapid growth, as all members will realise and recognise—training and quality selection processes are often forgotten.

The bill also strengthens the training requirement and makes ongoing training by approvedindustry based training providers a condition of corporate licence renewal, requiring that securityproviders working in licensed premises hold an RSA, the Responsible Service of Alcohol certificate, andundergo ongoing training in alcohol related issues. I cannot speak more strongly about my support forthis provision of the bill. The necessity for all security providers to be well informed about alcohol relatedissues is vital. Damage is often done to patrons who are inebriated. The recognition of such patrons andthe knowledge to deal with them effectively and carefully is vital.


This bill mandates appropriate ratios of crowd controllers to patrons at licensed premises andevents. We often hear stories about the paucity of crowd controllers at events where unruly behaviourprevails, behaviour that could have been controlled and prevented if sufficient numbers of properlytrained crowd controllers were available. The human toll that often occurs as a result of inadequateplanning and provision of security services is only too well witnessed in the accident emergency wardsof our hospitals. The provisions proposed in this bill tackle the problem head on by putting theresponsibility for security provision where it belongs—with the organisers of such events.

This bill also strengthens probity checks on suitability to work in the industry, includingconsideration of unrecorded convictions and police intelligence. This industry has both the ability toenhance a safe and secure society or to create havoc through the exercise of poor judgement bysecurity providers. It is vital that those who work in this industry are suitable to do so. Those who havecriminal histories or have committed civil offences are not suited to the industry. A cool head and clearlogical thought is what is needed for workers in this industry. Those quick to anger and those who resortto physical force as a first, rather than a last, resort are not needed in the industry. While training can bevery powerful and can change learnt violent behaviour, it is more effective if the personality of thetrainee is in keeping with the intent of the training in the industry itself.

This bill also requires corporate licence holders to ensure their staff comply with codes of conductand practice based on industry standards. There are many good providers in the security industry whohave contributed, through consultation, to the writing of this bill and I feel that these good providers whoset an excellent example to all others in the industry should be mentioned. Often only the poor examplesof the industry find their way into this House or, worse still, into the media. I give voice in this place tothose decent companies that are good examples of the industry whose efforts bring praise rather thanscorn.

I have had contact over the years with a number of security providers and have gone out of myway to engage and learn from these providers largely to ascertain the issues that they have to contendwith in many social settings. In doing so I have learnt much about the industry and this has indicated tome that there are many leading companies in this industry. I wish to talk about some, but not all, of thosegood and decent community interest providers.

HTP Security Services run by Henry Davis provides security services across the industry rangewith crowd control as a particular strength. This company offers certificate studies in crowd control andis a leader in the industry. This company operates largely within the Gold Coast City. ISS Security basedin Murarrie and managed by Peter Beadle employs over 1,000 staff working in major airports,courthouses, shopping centres et cetera. This company, interestingly, offers a certificate III in aviationsecurity, something of vital interest to us all. This is a real initiative gaining real results. Another of mytop six providers is State Wide Security and Traffic Management based at Slacks Creek. It is a well-respected company in the industry. Chubb Security Services managed by Nick Samios is a greatprovider with a real passion for supporting the professional development of its employees, paying forstudies at university for many of its employees who display initiative, interest and capability. Well done,Chubb Security Services.

Pro-systems’s Frank Sain is another industry leader, with his company providing services largelyin the crowd control area. This company offers certificate II and III courses in security operations, BlueCard provision, RSA and first-aid training. Finally, I include ARM based at Coopers Plains. Itsmanagement under Peter Buckler must be included in my list of security industry leaders.

Mr Reeves: They have a good union, too.

Mr GRAY: Yes, there is good union cover. All of those companies have decent EBAs in place withtheir workers. They are loyal to their workers and their workers are loyal to them and they set a very highprofessional standard.

In a short time I have been able to identify a number of well-respected companies in the securityindustry. It is far from complete, I readily admit, and I apologise to those who are also strong leaders, buttime does not permit me to mention others around the state. Along with this underpinning legislation,which is strongly supported by the industry, they and many other companies represent the way forward.

This legislation makes it easier for the chief executive to suspend the licence of persons who areno longer appropriate to remain in the industry. This is not an industry where shonks should betolerated. The damage they cause not only tarnishes the image of the industry and those industryleaders that I have mentioned but also is seriously injurious to the patrons they are supposed to serve.With those few words, I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (3.09 pm): I rise in support of the Security ProvidersAmendment Bill 2006, which will tighten regulation of the security industry to ensure only those personsof reputable character operate in the industry. Rapid growth, continuing advances in technologies and aheightened focus on personal security present significant opportunities and challenges for the security


providers industry and the Office of Fair Trading. This bill seeks to ensure that the Security Providers Act1993 better reflects the diverse occupations in the security industry, that only reputable persons operatein the industry and that a higher degree of harmonisation exists in the regulation of the industry inQueensland compared to the other states and territories.

As at 30 June 2006, there were 16,619 licensed security providers in Queensland engaged ascombined security officers, crowd controllers and private investigators. Activities regulated by the actinclude people who are employed to keep order around public places including nightclubs and hotels, toprovide services such as mobile and dog patrols, to act as armed and unarmed guards and to respondto alarms.

A nationally consistent approach to licensing, probity and character checks will help ensure thatrogue elements do not practise in Queensland. Under this legislation, Queenslanders will be protectedfrom unacceptable behaviour of security providers. It will ensure that only those of acceptable characterenter the industry and operate as security providers and behave according to community expectations.It also ensures that operators possess basic levels of competency in the delivery of their services tomembers of the public.

A range of proposals are aimed at ensuring appropriate behaviour, including the introduction of amandatory code of practice and ongoing industry based training to force security personnel to learn up-to-date techniques for maintaining order and avoiding escalation of disputes. The public benefit testreport stated that 81 per cent of respondents to the consultation paper agreed that security providersshould be required to undergo ongoing education or continuing professional development. There iscurrently no available TAFE or similar course or examination by which competency or proficiency in theelectronic security industry can be measured.

The purpose of this bill, which is an industry regulation bill and not an education and training bill,is to mandate compliance with industry standards. It is not the intention of the bill to provide foreducation, training or testing of tradespersons. That is entirely a matter for the education and trainingminister to consider in the future. That said, where there are existing industry competency tests, the billwill require compliance with them. For example, persons engaging in work which requires anelectrician’s licence will still be required to hold such a licence, even if they are also required to belicensed as security providers. Some stakeholders believe that the trades licence requirements ought tobe extended to require training and competency in work not presently subject to trade licencerequirements. The training regime will be industry based practical training, which is strongly supportedby security industry stakeholders as a means for them to monitor standards of behaviour and trainingacross the industry.

To assist the right people to enter the industry, the bill proposes a restricted licence for trainees.Applicants under this scheme will need to first pass strict criminal history and character probity checks.If their application is successful, these restricted licensees must then work under the direct supervisionof a fully licensed security provider and also complete an approved training course within a limitedperiod of time. This will assist firms in rural and remote areas to meet local demand.

The training proposals will supplement the existing qualifications required before a licence isgranted. This training is of a professional development nature to ensure a licensee’s skills are kept up todate with behaviour and situation management. Firms and personnel in these sectors will need to belicensed, allowing the department to check the background of operators, mandate training and monitortheir appropriateness to remain in the industry.

Some stakeholders believe that the draft bill does not go far enough in terms of regulating theentire security industry. However, there was general confirmation of support from stakeholders that thechanges will assist in improving the quality of personnel operating in the industry. The bill will boostsecurity industry standards and ensure that this government is providing a safe and secure communityfor all Queenslanders. I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.14 pm): I rise to speak to the Security ProvidersAmendment Bill 2006. As other speakers have said, particularly the member for Gaven, in all of ourcommunities there are many good companies, including a lot of family companies, which providesecurity services to not only shopping centres and the like but also small businesses, and they do anexcellent job. However, as is the case in almost all areas of legislation, it is the handful of people whowant to do the wrong thing that necessitates more onerous constraints on everybody.

I believe the community has been rightly sickened by footage showing the behaviour of somesecurity providers, particularly at nightclubs and the like. In these cases, there appears to be a callousdisregard for the safety of the patrons. Whilst I am sure security guards who provide the bouncer-typeservices are, like police officers, subjected to abuse by inebriated patrons or patrons abusingsubstances, it does not justify in any way, shape or form that open violence shown by security guardstowards patrons, and in some instances without justification. I believe the majority of the community willbe pleased to see a tightening up of the security industry.


This bill will regulate previously unregulated sectors of the industry, including security equipmentinstallers, electronic surveillants, dog handlers, in-house security guards and security advisers. I believethe inclusion of background checks, including information in relation to convictions that have not beenrecorded, will be welcomed. It is an intrusion on an individual’s rights and freedoms. However, thoseoffences are an indicator of the type of person being employed, particularly if they are repetitive offencesor sexual offences. Security equipment installers go into people’s private homes and have access toconfidential information and have an opportunity to become familiar with people’s homes andbusinesses. Therefore, it is important that those service providers are above reproach. So, while on theone hand it is intrusive, it is important to remember that their work is in its own way intrusive as well.

The main problem that I have heard from people applying to become security guards has beenthe delay in the approval process, particularly if they have jobs waiting to step into. I have had to write tothe relevant minister on a couple of occasions in the past in relation to the delays. Sometimes people’sexpectations of the process are unrealistic as well. A full police check will not happen in a day but, whenpeople have to wait six to eight weeks to take up a job, they start to get very nervous and very itchyabout the process.

There are two other matters I want to raise. The first relates to the destruction of information thatis collected on people during those background checks. After the department has done a backgroundcheck on a person and their application has been approved or otherwise, is that information destroyed?It might have been clarified in the bill, but I did not pick it up. What approval is there for the departmentto hold what level of records?

The other issue I wish to raise is in relation to a class 1 licence. The classifications of people whowill have unrestricted licences include bodyguards, crowd controllers, private investigators, securityofficers and security firms providing security services. I noted an incident in today’s paper which Iwanted to raise in terms of the importance of scrutinising people who apply for these unrestrictedlicences. I want to highlight the fact that, even though these more strict approval processes and vettingprocesses will be in place, we cannot legislate for ethics. I refer to the article in today’s Courier-Mail onAnna Coren from Today Tonight. She admitted that a private eye hired by the program to try toorchestrate a confrontation between Mercedes Corby and Jodi Power was quite prepared to lie toMercedes during the role he accepted from Today Tonight, purely so that Today Tonight could get thisconfrontation going for program reasons. Ms Coren does not see any problem with that lack of ethics.We can legislate a lot of things in terms of getting the right people into jobs but we cannot legislate forethical behaviour. I trust that the changes that the minister is making to the legislation will go some waytowards ensuring a proper match between the responsibilities of security providers and the people whoare employed in those roles.

Mrs SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (3.20 pm): I rise to speak in the debate on the SecurityProviders Amendment Bill 2006. It introduces several new security activities into the existing licensingregime. At present, crowd controllers, security officers, private investigators and security firms arerequired to hold a licence. These licence categories were established when the act commenced in 1995and no longer reflect the diverse occupations now in the security industry.

The bill expands the licence categories to ensure that currently unregulated industry categoriesare covered, including patrol dog handlers, security advisers, security equipment installers and in-housesecurity officers. This means that in-house security officers or, to put it another way, staff employed topatrol or watch their employer’s property will be required to be licensed.

Included in this category are dedicated retail loss prevention officers employed by big retailersand in-house security officers employed by critical infrastructure organisations such as maritime andregional aviation hubs. Those employees who perform this role as an incident part of theiremployment—for example, those employed in small businesses who are also required to keep an eyeon the employer’s goods while performing their main duties—will not need a licence. Additional securityactivities to be licensed include the installation, maintenance or repair of security equipment.

Those working in alarm response centres who monitor residential and commercial alarms andthose monitoring closed-circuit television security systems will also require a licence under the changes.Persons who provide advice to minimise security risks and provide management strategies to prevent orovercome security hazards will need to be licensed. This may include advice in relation to theinstallation of electronic surveillance equipment such as closed-circuit television and motion detectorsystems.

Installers of vehicle security systems or standard retail stock loss systems which we normally seeat the counters of grocery stores are not captured. This is to maintain national consistency with thesectors captured in interstate equivalent licensing regimes. Persons involved in retail key cutting andthose persons installing basic security items, such as window grilles and door locks, in buildings ownedor occupied by those persons or installed for others during construction, repair or renovation are also notcaptured.


The reason the entire industry has not been subject to this licensing regime was consideredcarefully during the public benefit test process, or PBT. The policy objectives of the act are to protectpersonal and public safety and property by maintaining a licensing regime to ensure that only those ofreputable character operate in the industry. The exemptions to licensing as stated above—that is, theinstallers of the vehicle systems or standard retail stock loss systems—have been assessed and it wasdetermined that the cost of licensing these categories far outweighs the benefit to the community. Thecategories have been identified as categories that pose a low risk of harm to the community and by notlicensing them it is also bringing Queensland’s legislation into line with other states and territories,adding to the harmonisation of security industry legislation.

One concern was raised by a constituent who is currently working in the electronic securityindustry. She was concerned about the perceived lack of consultation with electronic security industryrepresentatives. I wrote to the minister, Margaret Keech. I commend her on a very comprehensiveresponse to my constituents. The minister met with my constituent and some of her industry colleaguesat Parliament House on 8 February 2007. This gave the minister the opportunity to address theirconcerns during a very positive discussion about the amendments contained in the bill.

There has been extensive consultation on the proposed changes contained in this bill. BetweenApril and May 2005 a discussion paper was released to industry and the community to obtain feedbackon the operation of the act. A draft PBT report was released in May 2006 seeking views on optionsto amend the act. A copy of the draft bill was released for public comment during October 2006.Feedback provided in this process was taken into account and assisted in the refinement of the bill.

My constituent will be pleased to know that further consultation will be conducted in relation to theconsequential changes to be made to the Security Providers Regulation 1995 through the regulatoryimpact statement process. This will occur after the bill has been debated and passed this week inparliament. Communication with stakeholders will continue and information about the amendments toassist the security industry will be released as part of the implementation process. I commend the workdone by the honourable minister and her staff. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr DEMPSEY (Bundaberg—NPA) (3.25 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the SecurityProviders Amendment Bill. Its primary aim is to amend the Security Providers Act 1993 in order torecognise a national approach to licensing, probity and character checks that complement COAG’scounter-terrorism initiatives and provide a tighter mechanism to prevent unscrupulous individuals andgroups from entering the industry.

I also support the provision to have unrecorded convictions recognised to identify the previousmisdemeanours of offenders to increase the confidence of the general public. With today’s technologyconsideration should also be given to including a fingerprint or DNA sample as a means of identificationand to further increase consumer confidence. Confidence would also be increased if security providersin the hospitality industry were assisted in implementing risk management procedures that requiredrandom alcohol and drug testing of employees. This would increase safety and help the reputation of allwho are involved in the industry.

I would now like to discuss the concerns of Craig McAdam, a dedicated and highly respectedmember of the Bundaberg community and owner operator of a very successful locksmith business.Mr McAdam’s letter states—In the amended bill section 8A What is Security Equipment:—states security equipment is acoustic, electronic, mechanical orother equipment designed adapted or purporting to provide or enhance property security or for protecting of watching propertywith examples provided as, alarm system, alarm monitoring system, an audio and or visual recording, an electric, electromechanical or electro magnetic, or biometric access control device, intrusion detector—microwave—infra red or contact or a safeor vault. Under these examples and the exclusions of section 6B(2 & 3) there will be many basic locksmiths who do not require a securitylicence while the bill is meant to imply that security locks and the like it does not say that or provide examples regarding this areaof the industry. Therefore a person trading as a locksmith doing mainly domestic repairs and installations not installing electronic access controldevices or not working on safes over 50Kg does not require a security licence. This person trading as a locksmith would also havethe ability to purchase opening equipment and technical manuals thus giving the ability to open vehicles, houses, business andprovide keys for the same all without a security licence.

These unlicensed operators have the same access to opening equipment as licensed operatorsand all of this is at a time when even police are denied basic rights to phone tapping powers to addresscorruption and major crime. I ask the minister: when is a locksmith a locksmith? When will the ministerlook to strengthening the bill to protect their industry, that being the locksmiths and the community?Mr McAdam further states—The bill should include security locks, master key & security key systems, cutting of keys to data ... recoding of locks (change keysif lost, stolen or to exclude persons from keys e.g. previous tenants etc).

These are all security issues. The letter continues—While there has to be a balance, the installation of deadlocks and the like need to be carried out by a trained professional: In acommercial building—building codes, fire legislation covering exits and fire doors and the like are an every day consideration. Weunderstand that other persons like builders, home renovators and the like also need to be able to install security locks in their day-to-day operation.


The objective of this amendment is to protect the general public, how can only covering the professional half of the locksmith/security industry protect the general public.In general I know many submissions regarding this amendment have been submitted however from the draft to the proposed actlittle change has occurred. There are many people involved in our industry who are very professional and believe that withoutincluding the above listed security equipment this act is revenue raising creating increased costs for professionals yet leaving thepart of the industry that is not self regulated to slip through proposed amendment.

I note the concerns of Mr McAdam that the Security Providers Amendment Bill must ensuresecurity and professionalism in the industry as well as ensuring that self-regulated operators do not slipthrough the regulatory mechanism. This is a positive step in the right direction and I ask that furtheremphasis is placed on training, education and certification to protect all those in the industry as well aseducate the community on the professionalism of all those involved. I also note that there will be anextra cost to regional and rural employees and employers to access training and certification incomparison to their city counterparts. I ask that consideration be given to the latest educationaltechnologies to reduce this added financial burden and the cost in time and stress on them and theirfamilies.

In closing, there have been a number of unnecessary delays over many years to have this billimplemented. Now that we are in the final stages, the public and the people in the industry need to knowthat proper enforcement will be carried out to protect their job security and personal safety.

Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (3.31 pm): I rise in support of the Security ProvidersAmendment Bill 2006. The key objective of the bill is to tighten regulation of the security industry,ensuring that only persons of reputable character can operate in the industry. I agree wholeheartedlywith this objective. The bill will do this by strengthening character tests and strengthening probity testsand will also require the continuation of professional development by licensees, amongst other things.Probity checking will be tightened by the department being able to use information of the QueenslandPolice Service. This will include information such as unrecorded convictions and/or other informationgained in relation to undesirable persons. Unrecorded convictions will be considered within the previousfive years. Security officers are trusted people in our community. Nearly every major shopping centrethese days has security officers on duty and people want to be sure that they are of good character andthat they are honest and trustworthy, at least to the extent that these amendments allow.

This bill also mandates codes of practice in an attempt to ensure that all people in the industrymeet set standards of behaviour. The bill further mandates ongoing training in relation to avoidingescalation of disputes and maintaining order. This is so important for public safety. I get manycomplaints in my office about security officers being out of control in hotels and other establishments. Itis not an officer’s God-given right as a security officer to break the law by using excessive force andassaulting patrons. Some constituents have complained to me that security officers have a completechange in personality once they put on their uniform. In fact, they think they can do or they can say whatthey like to members of the community. This is outrageous behaviour. It is simply not on and it isinsulting to the general public, let alone their actions being unlawful. I am very pleased that there hasbeen widespread consultation on this bill, both internal to the government and also in the industry. Icommend the bill to the House.

Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (3.34 pm): I am pleased to contribute to debate on theSecurity Providers Amendment Bill before the parliament. I note the extensive speech by the shadowminister, the member for Clayfield. This bill is of particular interest and relevance to me as the memberfor Surfers Paradise, an electorate in which the implications of this legislation materialise on a nightlybasis in our famous party precinct. Indeed, the primary impetus for the review of the current act was aseries of incidents that occurred across the state, many in my electorate, involving security providers—in most instances nightclub bouncers and crowd controllers and nightclub patrons—situations whichwere no doubt exacerbated by the stupefying and sometimes stupidifying effects of liquor.

The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the Security Providers Act 1993 is relevant tothe current state of the security industry. The most important function of the bill, however, is to effectchanges that will enhance the reputability of the security industry in Queensland by ridding it of therogue element which undermines the entire industry. The proposed legislation achieves this in a numberof ways. By expanding the licensing scheme to cover currently unregulated areas of the securityproviders industry, the bill endeavours to broaden the definition of security providers so as to ensuremaximum stakeholder and consumer protection as well as providing a framework for best practices inthe security industry. Similarly, enhancing the licensing requirements and ongoing conditions that mustbe satisfied before a person can obtain a licence in Queensland, along with implementing morestringent probity checks, will significantly enhance the likelihood of netting rogue operators before theyassume the role of authority. Collectively, the amendments before the chamber today will have animmense and positive effect on the security industry in Queensland.

This legislation will affect in excess of 15,000 people currently employed in the security industry.The largest sector of these—combined security officers and crowd controllers—comprises thosereferred to as bouncers. Bouncers play a very important role in upholding peace and order and effectingadherence to Liquor Licensing and the Liquor Act 1992 in their duties, which include the checking of IDs


and ejecting patrons who behave contrary to the objective of the Liquor Act. This component of theindustry is the one most people in my electorate and wider south-east Queensland associate with thesecurity industry and the one with which this legislation is principally concerned with.

In a broader sense, however, security providers increasingly play an important role in the day-to-day carrying out of enhanced national security measures and counter-terrorism initiatives by the verynature of their employment, which can involve protecting critical and/or vulnerable infrastructure. Thesignificance of these duties should not be overlooked when considering this bill. As the Council ofAustralian Governments concluded, the national security industry has a key role to play in counter-terrorism activities at a time when security is paramount. Furthermore, COAG has noted that if a terroristattack or other large-scale emergency occurred in many cases security providers will actually be the firstto respond to such an incident. As such, it is of absolute importance that our security guards, crowdcontrollers and other safety officers are qualified, honest people who are well trained and well versed inbest practice in the security industry. Thankfully in Australia we have not had a situation where this hasbeen necessary, but the heightened focus on personal and national security and the consequentramifications on the security industry illustrate the value of our security personnel in Queensland andacross Australia. It also highlights the need for state statutes to reflect the varying roles of securityoperators in Queensland as well as ensure our legislation parallels other jurisdictions and conforms tothe national security agenda as outlined in the COAG meeting.

I want to turn my focus back to the more commonplace function of this legislation. As I havementioned, security guards and crowd controllers, known as bouncers, make up a significant part of thesecurity providers industry in Queensland. This is the case particularly in the south-east population hubsand on the Gold Coast, which is the renowned party capital of Australia. Unfortunately, bouncers havebeen subject to some damning press recently in the wake of a series of incidents that not only highlightthe need for these legislative changes but also necessitate them. The perils and failings of securityproviders in upholding their primary aim—to protect people and property—was tragically illustrated inJanuary 2004 when legendary Australian cricketer David Hookes passed away following an altercationoutside a nightclub with a crowd controller. Whilst this incident occurred in Victoria, sadly it is indicativeof episodes that are not infrequent in our state. Just last month a young man celebrating his 21stbirthday at a nightclub in Surfers Paradise was allegedly struck by a bouncer, causing him to fall down atwo-metre flight of stairs and hit his head on the pavement.

For more than a week Sam Page, a rising surfing star, lay in the Gold Coast Hospital in a comasuffering a fractured skull and bleeding to the brain as a result of the blow. I am happy to report that Samis now on the road to recovery. Last week he returned to Snapper Rocks to watch some of his idolscompete in the Quicksilver Pro and spoke of his ambition to one day join the world championship tour.Sam knows that he was lucky to survive. The sad fact is that many before him have not, includingHookes. Others have escaped death but remain permanently scarred.

The Gold Coast Bulletin in its editorial dated 14 September 2005 hit the nail on the head when itstated—No bouncer anywhere should take the Hookes verdict as a licence to go beyond what is legal in crowd control ... That has to benoted, particularly on the Gold Coast where the fact we have not had a similar hotel or nightclub fatality has been more of a matterof luck than good management.

The newspaper was referring to the decision of the Victorian court to acquit the security guardwho threw the fatal punch of the charge of manslaughter. Of course, since then there have been similarincidents, including one resulting in the fatality of a Gold Coast man in Brisbane last year.

The problem with our security industry—and this problem is by no means unique toQueensland—is that for too long the industry has gone largely unregulated bar the minimal licensingrequirements. In fact, it has been noted by the government’s own review of the current legislation that, ofall the states and territories, Queensland has some of the least stringent criteria for registering securitypersonnel. In fact, the public benefit test report on proposals to reform security industry licensing inQueensland even insinuated that Queensland had become an easy avenue by which people could gainemployment in the security industry nationally through the Commonwealth’s Mutual Recognition Act1992. It is hoped that these amendments will rectify this issue and set the industry on the right path torestoring public confidence in our security personnel.

The failing of this Labor government to adequately regulate the security industry in Queensland isevident in the government’s own Office of Fair Trading statistics that point to a number of criminalelements in the security industry in its current state. From June 2005 to November 2006, the Office ofFair Trading conducted checks of 249 security providers across Queensland involving nearly 850employees. The results found that an alarming 30 per cent of the checks resulted in the investigation ofbusinesses or individuals and, in some cases, further legal action was taken.

In Queensland, we have the situation of some people acting in positions of authority as securityguards and crowd controllers being found to have been previously charged with murder, manslaughteror serious assault. How is it that these people received licences in Queensland? Indeed, some of thefeedback that the Office of Fair Trading received during the consultation process indicated that many


industry insiders and stakeholders themselves are advocating ongoing anger management training,particularly for crowd controllers or bouncers. The industry, consumers and the government have longrecognised the problems in Queensland’s security industry. Why does it often take a tragedy orunfavourable media coverage to bring about change?

I would like to draw attention to the lengthy delay in effecting pertinent changes to securityindustry legislation. The Security Providers Act, enacted in 1993, is grossly out of date and irrelevant tothe contemporary security industry. The consultation process on the review of the act commenced in2002. The review was announced in 2004 and the consultation paper was released in 2005. Only now,in 2007, are we seeing any action being taken. There was a similar delay of years in enacting changesto the transport legislation, which were finally passed by this parliament last week. We have a reactivegovernment that does not appear to be concerned about averting problems before they occur.Prevention is always better than cure.

Nevertheless, I am pleased that there is now an air of change in the security industry. Theamendments that are currently before parliament are timely, given revelations last year by aQueensland police detective that bikie gangs had infiltrated the security industry, particularly in andaround the Gold Coast party precinct. This is of immense concern to me, because that same policeman,Detective Inspector John Hartwell of the Criminal Investigation Bureau in my electorate of SurfersParadise, has also indicated that the bikies controlling the nightclubs are also very likely tied up with themanufacture and distribution of illegal drugs. I am hopeful that, by enacting this legislation, we will ridthe security business of the rogue elements that tarnish the entire industry.

In introducing this bill, the minister for fair trading has taken a streetsweeper to the securityindustry. This bill cleans up what has regrettably become a mucky and murky industry. This legislationwill not only benefit the nightclub patrons and other persons affected by the security industry, it will havea constructive outcome for the industry itself. It will mean that the reputations of those bouncers, crowdcontrollers and security guards who uphold the principles of promoting public safety and the security ofpremises are not tainted by a few savoury characters. When it comes to standards of security inQueensland, this legislation will lift the bar.

One of the key changes that this bill makes is a substantial increase in the penalties thatindividuals and corporations will be liable for if they are found to be in breach of the legislation.Currently, the maximum penalty for carrying out the functions of a security provider, or representing to orbeing willing to carry out the function of a security provider without a licence, is a fine of $7,500 for anindividual and a fine of $37,500 for a corporation. Obviously, such penalties are ineffective as adeterrent because there are operators out there who are prepared to take such a risk. This legislationboosts these penalties significantly and, in particular, it clamps down on serial offenders, with penaltiesof up to $375,000 or 18 months imprisonment for a third offence. Hopefully, these ramped-up penaltieswill serve as a deterrent to those who are tempted to flout the law.

Of course, this amendment will only prevent people from operating unlicensed if the rules areimposed and policed. There is no point in having a tough penalty regime if the laws are not enforced. Inote the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Bundaberg, in regard to that issue. I callupon the minister to ensure that these laws will be strictly enforced. I also ask the minister to considerdrug testing for security providers, as has been the practice in Western Australia since 2000. Drugtesting would further ensure that the bad apples are thrown out before they are let loose on our streets.

Finally, although this bill will improve the safety of public spaces and restore some integrity to thesecurity industry in Queensland, I would like to note that this legislation is not a comprehensive solutionto some of the problems that we face with regard to improving security and public safety. As thehonourable minister stated, there are more than twice as many security providers in Queensland asthere are police. There is no question that the private security industry has an important role to play inprotecting persons and places. This heightened responsibility presents significant opportunities andchallenges for the security providers industry and the state government through the Office of FairTrading. It is intended that this bill will mitigate some of the challenges that we face currently. However, Iwould like to express the view that this bill should not be a bandaid solution. These amendments willimprove public safety only if they are incorporated with other such measures.

In my electorate of Surfers Paradise, those extra measures mean providing more resources andpolice officers to effectively patrol the party precinct. I would also like to see city surveillance enhancedwith more CCTV cameras around the trouble spots on the Gold Coast. The bill receives my support.

Mr WEIGHTMAN (Cleveland—ALP) (3.46 pm): I rise to speak in support of the SecurityProviders Amendment Bill—a bill which I am glad to support in recognition of the valuable role thatsecurity providers play in our society. In my work as a police officer I frequently worked with members ofthe security industry. The security industry plays an integral role in crime prevention, with just over twiceas many security personnel as there are police officers in Queensland. Two areas where I have seensecurity personnel really complement the work of law enforcement agencies are crowd controllers atnightclubs and hotels, where private security professionals ensure the safety and wellbeing of patrons,and by providing patrols and surveillance to residents and businesses to help those people protect theirlivelihoods.


This amendment bill enhances the Security Providers Act 1993 in a number of ways. The billexpands the sectors of the security industry that are regulated by the act by including securityequipment installers, dog handlers and in-house security guards and advisers. Importantly, the bill alsotightens prelicensing probity checks by expanding the criteria upon which those probity checks areconducted and making several other improvements to the licensing regime.

This bill will bring the Queensland security providers legislation into line with recent calls by theCouncil of Australian Governments that the legislation be harmonised Australia wide. Thatharmonisation will promote the key role that the private security industry can play in counter-terrorismand in the protection of critical infrastructure within Australia. This national consistency will also ensurethat rogue elements will not flock to the state that has the lowest security standards.

One of the most important elements of the bill is the introduction of new criteria to theappropriateness test. That new criteria allows the chief executive of the Department of Tourism, FairTrading and Wine Industry Development to consider unrecorded convictions for disqualificationoffences, investigative information from the Queensland Police Service and other backgroundinformation in order to ensure that inappropriate people are not working within the security industry. Thisaspect of the bill will ensure the robustness of the security industry and help security providers continueto offer a high level of service provision and provide valuable community assistance.

This element of the bill was one of the key findings arising out of the thorough consultation thattook place during the formulation of the bill. I am pleased to support this bill, as it will ensure the futurestrength of the private security industry in Queensland and the valuable contribution to crime preventionthat the industry makes. I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (3.49 pm): The security industry is a very important one, and soI am pleased to speak on this bill, the Security Providers Amendment Bill 2006, today. It is absolutelyvital that those who work in this industry not only are of reputable character but also have the skills andtraining to deal with possible criminal activity and people who may be affected by alcohol and drugs, andalso have cool heads and the necessary people skills to deal with anything from minor altercations orinfringements to what could be a major incident.

When an application is made for a security licence or for the renewal of a licence the police checkwill now also include unrecorded convictions and any other information of relevance to weed outundesirable characters. When one considers the wide range of activities covered by this bill, it is evidentthat someone with criminal intent could obtain a licence and then assist in various criminal activities—they may be able to pass on inside information, ensure that access be gained to premises, tamper withelectronic surveillance devices and a host of other activities.

While the existing legislation covers crowd controllers, security firms and private investigators,this amendment bill will now also include dog handlers, those who install surveillance equipment andmonitor it, security advisers and in-house guards and all persons who now carry out surveillance on anyproperty by either their personal presence or by electronic means. It is now commonplace for manyretail outlets to employ their own security guards. I must say that the figures of pilfering from stores havegrown to a very significant level, which means that we are all paying the price in the cost of goods.These will now also be covered in this legislation. The one exception is for state government employeeswho have their own probity checks carried out.

The incidence of binge drinking and drug taking has reached such proportions that those whowork as security guards in our licensed venues need specific training. I should add here that theresponsible service of liquor requires that the venue must take its role very seriously. It is well knownthat in any altercation when the parties are tossed out of a club on to the street if a punch is landedwhich results in a person falling heavily to the ground there is a high probability that they will die due toa brain haemorrhage. It is also the case that someone who is high on drugs must be handled verycarefully. For example, if you chase a person who has been sniffing paint you could cause their death.Young people are constantly advised to look after their mates and to seek medical aid at the first sign ofproblems. However, due to the activity being illegal, there is often a fear of calling for help. Securityguards in precincts where liquor and drugs are being abused need to be very vigilant and to have goodtraining to recognise danger signals.

There will rightly be increased penalties for working in this industry without a licence and also forthose who employ someone who is unlicensed. The penalty for operating without a licence will increasefrom 100 penalty points to 500 for the first offence, 700 penalty units for a second offence or six monthsimprisonment, and 1,000 penalty units or 18 months imprisonment for a third offence or more. Once inthe industry, regular training updates are required to ensure that people’s skills remain up to date andthat they understand behavioural management. Newly licensed security officers will be required to workunder the supervision of an experienced officer and complete an approved training course. Provisionhas also been made for temporary licences so that interstate security guards are able to be employedwhen major events take place to augment local workers.


Many of these issues dealt with in this bill have been discussed at great length in my own localliquor industry group. LIAG, the Logan Liquor Industry Action Group, has been a very successful group,which meets regularly on a monthly basis at a different venue around the greater Logan area. Police,licensees, venue managers, security providers, Relationships Australia discuss all issues relating toliquor outlets, clubs and gambling venues and regularly have guest speakers to keep them up to date onlegislation, trends and training. Although I attend fairly regularly, I must pay tribute to my colleague themember for Springwood, who has taken a much more hands-on approach such as speaking to schoolgroups on responsible behaviour, particularly when the annual schoolies celebration is approaching.

I believe it is most important that we reach young people while they are still at school and possiblyin the later primary years. We hear of the incidence of drinking and drug taking in ever reducing agebrackets. Our school based police officers, counsellors and school nurses also play an important role ineducating students to respect their bodies and make healthy choices not only in their eating anddrinking but also in their lifestyle. In the Logan area we are privileged to be part of the place basedHealthy Lifestyle program, and there will be substantial work carried out in our schools.

The security industry is a very important aspect of keeping our community safe, and this bill willgreatly enhance the professionalism of the industry and ensure that only those who pass these verystrict probity checks can be employed. I thank the minister and her staff and commend the bill to theHouse.

Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (3.56 pm): I rise to make a short contribution to the SecurityProviders Amendment Bill. At the outset I congratulate the minister on the wide-ranging nature of thereview and the length of time it has taken to ensure that the right procedures and training are put inplace. We see security providers at crowd events, at shopping centres and in a variety of otherpositions. It was quite instructive to learn that, as at 30 June 2006, we had approximately 16,500security providers in Queensland. When we only have 9,200 police officers, those figures show thatsecurity providers provide a major component of safety within the state.

I thought it was quite instructive to look at some of the figures from the Office of Fair Trading.From June 2005 to November 2006, the Office of Fair Trading checked 249 security providerbusinesses which involved 843 employees, and 30 per cent of those resulted in some further legalaction or further investigation. This is an industry which sets out to protect our hearth and home. Thosesorts of figures must really cause some concern for the general population.

This legislation ensures that the community is protected from unacceptable behaviour of securityproviders, that people of acceptable character operate within the industry, that they possess basic levelsof competency in the delivery of service to members of the public and that the industry or marketparticipants behave according to community expectations.

One of the comments that was made in the COAG consideration is that these people who areworking within the security industry are in fact working in areas where overall security for thecommunity—this relates not only to people’s behaviour but also to terrorism and so on—is able to becarried out by people who have proper training.

The training courses which have been approved will ensure that individuals applying for specificlicences complete the competency for that particular licence. It is quite an expansion of the currentprovisions under the act where there are only a limited number of licences. The act seeks to expandthose licences so that individuals seeking to move into other areas—in particular as bodyguards—arelicensed separately from crowd controllers. This will ensure that the people who seek to undertake thatsort of work are able to carry out their duties effectively.

The regime that the bill imposes will ensure that those who I suppose one could term as cowboyswithin the industry are weeded out and that we only get people who have the ability to carry out the workand are suitable to be licensed. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.

Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (4.01 pm): The private security industry is a longstanding andnecessary complement to our formal policing services. Security personnel can carry substantialresponsibilities in crime prevention and law enforcement and therefore must be appropriately licensedand monitored.

I say well done to the minister, her staff and departmental officers for the extensive work that hasbeen done in the consultation process and analysis leading to this bill. I also commend thecomprehensive analysis of the issues set out in this bill in the Parliamentary Library research papercovering this bill. While I am putting the praise out there, let me also thank the security staff atParliament House for their professional standards of work in keeping this precinct safe and, in doingthat, keeping us all safe.

The Queensland government has been increasing police numbers throughout the state, but withjust over twice the number of security personnel to police it is essential that we rein in the activities ofthis industry and let operators know that we are very serious about maintaining high standards foroperators in the industry as it grows. Checks carried out by the Office of Fair Trading show thatsomething like 30 per cent of operators were subject to further investigations and, in some cases, I


understand legal action was taken against these operators. About 115 complaints were lodged againstthe industry last year. That may not seem like a large number but it is enough to indicate that there arerogue elements in this industry, as there are in any other industry. It is important that we remain vigilantin our monitoring, probity checks and other measures that are included within this bill.

I must admit that I was not fully aware of the size of the private security industry and the extent ofthe activities. I was also very surprised to see the growth in security personnel numbers in the pastcouple of years. Figures for 30 June 2006 indicate that there had been a 93 per cent growth on thefigures for the previous year. There are something like 1,200 or so people listed as security officersaround the state. The combined security officers and crowd controllers number close to 1,400. Thenumber of security firms was about 892, there being a 68 per cent growth on the 2004-05 figures. Wehave about 541 private investigators around the state and that number seems to be growing as well.

I have had my own very disturbing experience with a security operator whose work involvedleaving dogs in yards overnight. This fellow bred these Alsations and then left them in yards aroundBrisbane. I am pleased to see that these dog handlers will also be covered under this legislation. Thisfellow had access to weapons, most likely illegally, he had domestic violence orders against him and hewas stalking my colleagues and I. This kind of sinister character should not be able to be within cooee ofa responsible industry like security and he most definitely should not have had access to weapons. I askthe minister to ensure that she is confident that the provisions within this bill and its links to the WeaponsAct are tough on the illegal and inappropriate access to and use of weapons by security personnel.

I support the expansion of the definition of security officer to also include a person who, forreward, watches another person’s property or personally patrols a property and, as I said, the extensionto people like this fellow who had the responsible position of handling and leaving dogs at yards. Thisfellow was wearing a uniform that displayed badges which looked very professional and was pretendingto be someone he was not. He was using his role to threaten and intimidate lots of other people,including me and my staff.

I support the measures that strengthen character and probity tests to weed out undesirableelements within the industry. I support continuing professional development through ongoing training. Ialso support the increase in the penalties for operating without a licence or for engaging unlicensedpersonnel. These are very sensible measures that are being included in the bill. It will go a long way toimproving and cleaning up this industry. I wish the minister well in its implementation. I know that thesecurity industry will be called upon more and more as our fears grow about terrorism. There will bemore people needed to monitor and watch over infrastructure and to be at events providing crowdcontrol and other support. It is a growing industry. It is very, very important that it is a well-monitoredindustry. I congratulate the minister on this bill. Let us make sure that we keep this industry on a verytight rein.

Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (4.05 pm): I rise very briefly to put on record my support for thispiece of legislation. I have spoken in the House on a number of occasions about the need inQueensland to tighten up the regulation of the security providers industry. There would not be a weekthat would go by when there was not a young person in my electorate who approached me or myelectorate office with a complaint about the misbehaviour of people working as security providers atpubs and clubs.

I am one of the members in this place who represents more students and more young peoplethan anyone else. These are a group of people who have some of the greatest contact with securityproviders in Queensland. I am delighted that there are increased penalties for people who are operatingin a manner that is unlicensed. I am also very, very pleased to see that this legislation ensures thatsecurity providers will from now on have character checks before they are allowed to undertake thatactivity. I thank the minister for this fine piece of legislation.

I am thrilled that there is some regulation of people who provide security services using dogs. Aconcern was raised with me by a gentleman who actually provided security at my electorate office whenI was first elected in 2001. He said that he went to great lengths to ensure that the dogs he used andthat he brought around with him when he was working as a security guard were well trained and notlikely to act in a manner that was erratic. His concern was that he was at a distinct commercialdisadvantage because other people in his industry did not invest the money in their animals to ensurethat that was the case. What they invested their money in was insurance so that when their animalmisbehaved in the way that it was likely to at some stage they would simply use the insurance companyto pay out the person who was bitten, mauled or attacked. This gent did the right thing and ensured thathis animals were always well behaved because they were well trained. At that stage he was at acommercial disadvantage. That will no longer be the case. In fact, he will be at the forefront of hisindustry. It is a great advantage to him into the future. I thank the minister greatly for that. With thosewords I am thrilled to support the bill.

Mr STEVENS (Robina—Lib) (4.08 pm): I rise to assure the minister that when necessary andgood legislation is introduced into this House the coalition is more than happy to support it.This amendment bill most certainly fits into this category. As the member for Robina and arepresentative of the Gold Coast, I can say that we have many instances where this legislation will affect


our community—in particular, the very important but at times controversial night-life industries that aresuch an integral part of the tourism reputation of Gold Coast city. The nightclub industry needssupporting at every opportunity to clean up its act, and industry members themselves are very proactiveand supportive of positive measures that will increase public confidence in the safety of their securitysystems.

The reality is that alcohol is a major factor in the provision of their entertainment and when alcoholis consumed in excessive amounts—as the member for Southport would know—it can sometimes leadto irrational and threatening behaviour that requires strong and responsible management by trainedsecurity providers. This bill successfully seeks to raise the bar in the level of performance necessary ofthose participating in the security industry.

In essence, the legislation addresses three distinct areas of the security providers’ domains, and Iwill address each area separately. Obviously, the area of most concern and the one that generatesmajor news headlines far more frequently than we would like to see is the unfortunate cases ofexcessive force used by security controllers—who were known in the old days as bouncers—whichresult in bashings, serious bodily injury and, in the worst cases, death caused by the overexuberantexercising of security measures. By the very physical nature of the position, the job can involve peoplewho are hyped up by natural means or other and who rely on their body size, imposing presence andauthoritative demeanour to persuade unruly patrons and troublemakers to behave in a better manner.Their job is not easy, and self-control is the greatest asset in the controller’s arsenal.

The measures that are included in this bill will add to the reference checks ongoing training andquality control through information sharing with the Queensland Police Service and allow thedepartment to consider previous legal history before licensing participants in the industry. Theintroduction of a new trainee program with a restricted licence and increasing the penalties for operatingwithout a licence are positive reinforcements of the security providers code of conduct and can onlydeliver a better outcome for industry participants. The fact that this legislation is a reactive response tothe Council of Australian Governments’ call for harmonisation of state and territory private securitylicensing regimes is a sad indictment of the department’s lack of preparedness to get on to the front footwhen dealing with this extremely volatile industry.

The new coordination that this legislation will enable will give a timely boost to the ability of theindustry to present a cleaner and more acceptable image to the community of the types of individualswho are the face of this industry. Time and time again we see a newspaper headline of ‘Bouncer bashespatron’ emanating from Surfers Paradise or Broadbeach.

If there is one issue that this amendment has failed to address, it is the issue of drug and alcoholtesting of controllers on a random basis. I firmly believe that where life and limb are involved—as inother pursuits such as driving a car or horseracing—it is imperative that drugs and alcohol are stampedout as possible influences on any incidents that may result in personal damage. I understand thereluctance to invoke such costly and difficult measures to address these problems, but I do not believewe can have an adequate solution to the industry problems until these issues are addressed. It is no usetesting people for drug and alcohol abuse after incidents have occurred. It must be included as part ofthe preventative measures in addressing industry perception problems, and perhaps we will see thislegislation revisited in the not too distant future to erase my and the community’s concerns.

In accentuating the problems and issues within the industry and commending the government ontaking this further step in providing a better security providers code, may I also congratulate those whodo work in the industry in a positive and proactive manner, as I am aware of the difficult and dangerousrole they play in our community to enforce this proper code of behaviour in those entertainmentprecincts. The vast majority of operators in the industry are good and are intent on protecting theirreputation. They work hard to provide a safe environment for people to be entertained in. I believe thoseoperators will also support this legislation, even though it may come at a further cost to the industry.

While discussing the merits of security firms and their readiness to lift the standard of employeebehaviour, I might add that it has come to my attention that there may be instances of some companiesnot paying the full entitlements to their employees under contractual arrangements, and the employeesare too frightened to complain for fear of losing their jobs. This is illegal behaviour now under currentlegislation. Despite the contracting bodies to the security providers not wanting to know what employeesare being paid but rather what is the lowest cost to the contracting body, it is the security provider whohas the full responsibility to pay full entitlements to all employees. Perhaps contracting bodies should beheld to account if employee entitlements are currently not being met. We then may see a closer scrutinyof entitlements and employees receiving their correct entitlements, which would in turn add to theattraction of the industry to those better prospective employees.

The second area that the legislation enhances is in the cloak and dagger world of the privateinvestigator. Because of the very nature of its secrecy and investigation into some very privateinformation, the private investigator must be subject to the highest probity checks possible. Missingpersons, financial confidentiality and inquisitive relationship matters are sensitive areas that must beprotected in the safest degree. Any measures this bill introduces that give strength to existing


parameters for operation in this twilight world will be most warmly entertained by a society growinglyconcerned about Big Brother access to their private information. Operators in the industry mustbe amenable to rigorous and stringent safeguards to the standards applicable to participant licensing,as any adverse findings against individual operators in the industry reflect on the industry as a whole.

Finally, the third area where this legislation should bring improvement to operative behaviour is inthe provision of security equipment. With the rapidly changing environment in the provision of securityequipment due to the enormous technological advances in the industry, unconscionable behaviour byless than savoury operators in this industry can be far more difficult to check. The more checks andbalances that can be put in place to protect the standard of participant in this growing industry, the betterthe public will feel protected against dodgy operators—who are increasingly becoming a widespreadfact of life. Including security equipment installers, electronic surveillance operators, dog handlers, in-house security guards and security advisers as part of the wider licensing regime will improve thechances of detecting unsuitable personnel who are playing a role in this important industry.

Background checks, ongoing training programs and a commitment to providing individuals with aclear criminal background are important steps in enhancing the credibility of an industry that is playing agreater and greater part in our everyday lives. The most pleasing aspect of this legislation for me is thecomprehensive ability to check the backgrounds against other states and territories as, prior to thislegislation, the obvious lesser standard of probity investigation in Queensland made it the natural choicefor persons of ill repute trying to get a start in the industry—an industry which could give them so manyinsidious opportunities. That avenue will hopefully be closed to some degree by this legislation, and I amsure that the security provider industry will be a better industry through the introduction of this amendinglegislation. It may create some financial pain and time-consuming effort in the initial stages ofimplementation, but the long-term gain for the industry in perception and integrity will far outstrip thoseimmediate imposts on the industry. I am sure the long-term players and the good players in the industrywill welcome this legislation that the coalition is pleased to support.

Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (4.18 pm): I thank the House for the opportunity to speak in favour ofthe Security Providers Amendment Bill 2006, a bill which will support the rapid growth of the securityindustry in Queensland. I thank the Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading, Wine Industry Development andWomen for introducing this bill. Security is something that we have become more familiar with as aresult of the terrorist attacks which have affected us all on some level, either by direct experience,through family or work colleagues or via the horrific images on the news and online. Security is aconcept that we once related to on a noted but perhaps casual basis, but it is no longer the case. It isnow an important and intricate part of our modern way of life, even here in Queensland.

The security of our personal identity, our personal safety and that of our children and families hasbecome highly important and the provision of services to support these concerns has moved outside ofthe traditional regulators, such as the police, because demand has outstripped the available resources.The security industry is a very important part of the Queensland economy. Rapid growth, continuingadvances in technology, the pace of construction and property development, the range and extent oftechnologies plus those mentioned before have resulted in a growth industry to the point where securitypersonnel now outnumber police by two to one.

The Security Providers Amendment Bill 2006 seeks to address the areas where it is perceivedthat the current act does not reflect the diverse occupational groups that are now part of the securityindustry. The security industry is made up of people and businesses working in the provision of security,protection and private inquiry services. To give some idea of the significance of this industry inQueensland I point out that to date there are some 28 industry related courses available. They arecourse in such things as: crowd control, security management, airport security, CCTV, access control,video and audio intercom systems, home automation, and web-based security providing remote controland personal ID verification such as through fingerprinting, voice prints et cetera. I could go on but Ithink we can judge from the list just how significant a role this industry performs in our day-to-day workand living arrangements. Even the local supermarket employs biometric security systems. Operatorssimply place their finger on the register to commence their login.

Growth has been experienced in all levels of this industry. There has been growth in the numberof private companies undertaking this work. There has been growth in the number of individuals who areseeking work in this industry. There has been growth in the number of businesses and governmentauthorities now using security services and providers. Proportionate to the growth in the industry hasbeen the increasing need, since the framing of the original legislation, to address the growing numbersof personnel now working in this industry.

This legislation addresses this issue comprehensively. It broadens the scope of the work areas toinclude security equipment installers, electronic surveillance operators, stock handlers, in-housesecurity guards and security advisers. This bill will now make it compulsory for additional occupationalgroups not currently caught by the act to obtain the appropriate licence so that they can continue toundertake work. The amendments to the act mean that the records of existing licensed security


providers will also be reviewed. It is anticipated that the increased workload resulting fromthese amendments will be substantial. Additional staff for the licensing branch as well as a plannedupgrade of the current computer system are some of the considerations which have been factored intothe cost element resulting from these amendments.

In statements made by the Premier he has confirmed that these amendments will significantlytighten regulation of the industry by setting new standards of conduct, higher levels of training andongoing self-assessment to meet the new licensing requirements. In short, these amendments deliveron all the promises and more that the state government has made.

The Australian Security Industry Association Ltd has worked very closely with the minister on thisbill and has commented that it is a significant step forward towards improving the regulatory regimecurrently governing the industry. A lot of end users and people in the community do not understand thatthe industry does not just include crowd controllers, doormen or bouncers outside nightclubs. Some90 per cent of the industry comprises those in other occupations such as technicians who installcomputer advanced systems that control security systems and security concierges who look after usersof commercial premises and the security of buildings. In other words, they are highly skilledprofessionals who work within a strict framework of guidelines that encompass every area of their dutieson the job.

At the Council of Australian Governments special meeting on counter-terrorism in September,COAG agreed to a broad range of counter-terrorism initiatives. In addition it was noted that a nationalapproach is needed in order to enable Queensland and the other states and territories to be preparedand as ready as possible for future threats. The key word that came out of the discussions washarmonisation. In her statement on the regulation of the private security industry the ministeracknowledged this call by COAG for the states and territories to harmonise private security licensingregimes to complement COAG’s counter-terrorism initiatives.

A national approach that sees states and territories working together will create a nowhere-to-hide framework to prevent the current record of unsuitable persons who exploit loopholes andinconsistencies entering the industry and engaging in dangerous and violent activities that are not inkeeping or supportive of the image that the industry wishes to portray. In addition, this legislation isgoing to support trainee personnel by allowing individuals to provide security work on the job as long asthe work is carried out under the direct supervision of a security provider who is licensed to perform thefunctions and who has completed the necessary training. This restricted licence will be valid for only sixmonths but will not be renewable by the holder for the same work after that six months has expired.

Finally, this bill will enable security industry personnel who are licensed outside the state to assiston a temporary basis with large scale authorised events or functions which require increased numbersto apply for a temporary permit and enable the holder to carry out in Queensland stated authorisedfunctions for a stated particular event. This state government is doing its job and striving to meet its goalby addressing the pressing needs that this record growth has placed upon the security industry. Thisimportant piece of legislation improves the current act with the key areas of licensing, probity checksand permits for interstate personnel addressed plus an affirmation of the state’s part in Australia’sdefence against terrorism. This bill is a positive step in providing sensible and practical solutions to keepQueensland heading in the right direction. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (4.26 pm): I am very pleased to rise to speak in the debate onthe Security Providers Amendment Bill which is before the House. I have spoken many times about theLiquor Industry Action Group, Logan Corridor, of which I am member. I just heard the member forWoodridge speak of her involvement in this group. Also included in that membership are securityproviders and representatives of the security industry.

One of my roles in that organisation is to bring relevant legislation to the attention of members.The LIAG Logan Corridor believe it is very important to their membership to be aware of any proposedlegislation affecting the liquor industry or other stakeholders in their group. They encourage submissionson legislation and they encourage debate. I am very pleased that I received ideas, views and feedbackon this legislation and on various other issues that are important to them and the liquor industry. Duringmy speech I look forward to putting forward their views on this bill that they have given me and that theyhave provided during the consultation process.

In Australia we have a large number of private security personnel and they perform a wide rangeof duties. This number is continuing to grow. What I often hear from security providers is that they areconcerned that their industry is much maligned because of those people who are not operating in aprofessional manner. They welcome regulation to ensure a high-quality service is performed in thesector.

This bill addresses some of the concerns they have raised with me regarding probity checks andtraining standards. In terms of probity checks, the department will now liaise more closely withQueensland Police with regard to unrecorded convictions and other background information. Theunrecorded convictions will be limited to offences serious enough to be currently prescribed under theact as ‘disqualify offence’ such as theft, assault, burglary and drug offences. This bill will strengthenprobity checks to ensure only appropriate people are working in the industry.


While I will probably concentrate a lot on the liquor industry security providers I know that thereare so many other duties that security personnel perform. I have some figures on employment in theindustry. Security officers, including those who protect public events—more recently we have seen anincrease in the number of security officers at parties—represent 69 per cent of the industry whilelicensed premises crowd controllers are roughly 20 per cent of the industry. So, as we can see, themajority of the jobs are in those two areas.

Those at unlicensed premises, such as our shopping centres, warehouses, airports and othercritical public infrastructure, and our armed guards also make up another large group in the industry.Looking at the range of duties we can see that it is very important that our security personnel aretrustworthy and appropriate persons to protect not only people but also property. It should also be notedthat the bill will now address the wide range of occupations that are now involved in the security industry.The bill will expand the licence categories to ensure that further industry sectors are covered includingpatrol dog handlers, in-house security officers, security advisers and security equipment installers.

Training of security officers has also been a topic of debate in the industry, and training proposalsin this bill will ensure that applicants will need to first pass strict criminal history and character probitychecks and will also ensure that professional development is undertaken in order to keep licensees’skills up to date, particularly with regard to behaviour and situation management. The training regimewill be industry based with practical training, and I know that that is something that the industry certainlyagrees with.

Parents have raised concerns when their sons and daughters attend nightclubs, and that certainlyhas been raised with me in my electorate. Parents want to know that security personnel at these clubsare professional, well trained and the appropriate person for the job. They want to know that they are notinciting bad behaviour, nor are they rough handling patrons who could be their son or daughter. Theyalso want to know that they are appropriately trained to handle situations that can arise in pubs andclubs. This bill will assist in addressing their concerns.

As I stated before, members of the LIAG in the Logan corridor give me a lot of feedback on manytopics, and they have done so with this bill. I am always pleased to pass on to the minister any feedbackthey give me. Some security providers have given me comments, and I want to inform the House ofwhat they had to say. One member of that group said—The good stuff will be in the regulations which of course will follow after the bill is passed. I am very pro further regulation of theIndustry to eradicate unscrupulous operators. We spent much time and effort at the time the Government was taking submissionsand feel we have put in our 10 cents. This has been reflected in the bill. I look forward to the bill being passed.

I was very pleased to hear that. Members also suggested that I take a look at a regulatory impactstatement, Harmonisation of private security industry regulation: a regulation impact statement, whichwas written in response to the COAG request for states to review their acts. What stood out in thatreport was the request for a national approach and for consistency of standards throughout the states inthe security industry. I also note the concerns raised about the probity checks and the training, but I dowant to acknowledge that this bill does go a long way to addressing those concerns. I want to thank theLIAG in the Logan corridor for participating in the consultation process on this bill and for providing mewith feedback on it. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (4.31 pm): I rise to support the Security ProvidersAmendment Bill. There are three principal objectives of the bill: first, to tighten regulation of the securityindustry to ensure that only those persons of reputable character operate in the industry; second, that ahigher degree of harmonisation or alignment exists in regulation of the industry in Queenslandcompared to other states and territories; and, third, to ensure that the Security Providers Act 1993 betterreflects the diverse occupations in the security industry. The bill will achieve these objectives byexpanding the categories of licences to include previously unregulated providers of security services,including those who operate in industries where security work can be mixed with other duties. It will alsostrengthen the character and probity tests to weed undesirable elements out of the industry. The bill willrequire licensees to continue their professional development through ongoing training, increase thepenalties for operating without a licence and for engaging unlicensed personnel and other changes toensure the protection of community and property.

In September 2005 the Council of Australian Governments recognised that a national harmonisedsecurity industry has a key role to play in counter-terrorism activities. The COAG report recommendedthat there be uniform national character and probity checks and the identification of core securityactivities for licensing in all jurisdictions. The current Queensland act had left many security activitiesunregulated in comparison to other states and territories and the probity criteria under the current actwas also less stringent than those in place in other states and territories, and this bill will address thosedeficiencies. A nationally consistent approach to licensing is important in an age when the nationalsecurity industry has a role to play in counter-terrorism activities. Potentially, the security industry couldplay a key role in protecting critical infrastructure and responding to a terrorist incident. A nationalapproach will stop people who are unfit from operating in this industry seeking refuge in Queensland.


The bill also provides for the introduction of a temporary permit regime for bodyguards, crowdcontrollers, security officers and security firms that are licensed in another state or territory to carry outcertain functions for a particular event. This will allow private security officers to be deployed around thecountry at events which would otherwise be beyond the scope of the resources in any one state. Therange of activities regulated by the 1993 act include crowd controllers, mobile and dog patrols, armedand unarmed guards, responding to alarms and private investigators. But the new act will ensure thatthe industry is protected from the unacceptable behaviour of security providers and that only persons ofan acceptable character enter the industry and that operators possess basic levels of competency andindustry participators behave according to community expectation.

The bill is necessary for a number of reasons, not least of which is the size of the securityindustry. As at 30 June 2006 there were 13,798 security officers and crowd controllers; 1,243 securityofficers, which was a 93 per cent increase from 2004-05; 892 security firms, a 68 per cent increase from2004-05; 541 private investigators; and 145 crowd controllers. Overall, the industry represents asignificant part of the crime prevention and law enforcement apparatus in Australia, with just over twicethe number of security personnel to police. But as we have heard in the debate today, and as somemembers have brought forward from the experiences of their own constituents, concerns have beenraised about the character of those who operate in the security industry. That is not to say that the vastmajority of those who operate in the industry are not of good character and take their responsibilitiesseriously and comply with the existing provisions of the act and will comply with these tightenedprovisions. However, there are a couple of rotten eggs in the basket, and this bill is designed to weedthose out. At the end of the day, the bad eggs tarnish all who are complying and striving to comply andbe up to scratch in their responsibilities in this industry.

The Office of Fair Trading in a brief snapshot of checking between September and October 2006found that 2½ per cent of criminal history checks revealed an adverse criminal history and that somelicences administered revealed disqualifying offences. Between June 2005 and November 2006 theOffice of Fair Trading checked 249 security provider businesses involving some 843 employees. Some30 per cent of those checks resulted in investigations of businesses or individuals involved, and in somecases further legal action was required. That demonstrates the need for the provisions in this bill whichwill strengthen the character, probity and compliance activities in the industry. Some 80 complaints peryear were received in connection with the security provider industry, with the majority relating to securitysystem installation contracts and maintenance, and most of those were in the home security area.However, 15.2 per cent related to unlicensed security providers, 11.6 per cent related to the conduct ofcertain security providers and 6.4 per cent were for complaints of assault generally related to securityofficers at licensed venues in a crowd-controlling capacity. Certainly, some very high-profile exampleshave been mentioned in this debate—the tragic death of David Hookes being one of them. One of theobjects of this bill is to ensure that those who are operating in the industry are of the utmost goodcharacter.

Why is it time to review the act? The current act has been in place for some 10 years. In that timethe security industry in Queensland has changed markedly. Also, during that time there has beengrowing community concern about people being injured at nightclubs as a result of altercations betweenintoxicated persons and security providers. Currently, when considering whether an applicant for alicence is an appropriate person to hold a licence, the chief executive can consider the dealings in whichthe person has been involved which would show dishonesty, or lack of integrity, or using harassingtactics; whether the person associates with a criminal in a way that indicates an involvement in anunlawful activity; whether the person has taken advantage of the laws of debtors and bankruptcy; orwhether the person has been convicted of an offence.

Additionally, a person is not considered to be an appropriate person to hold a licence if thatperson has been convicted of a disqualifying offence in Queensland or another jurisdiction in the past 10years. Examples of those disqualifying offences are offences carrying a term of imprisonment of oneyear or more under the Weapons Act; offences under the Drugs Misuse Act carrying a term ofimprisonment of one year or more; offences relating to breaches of the peace; offences relating to theadministration of justice; offences committed against a public authority; offences against morality,homicide, suicide, the concealment of a birth, and endangering life or health; rape and sexual assaults;offences against liberty; stealing, burglary, receiving stolen property, impersonation, conspiracy andother fraudulent offences. There are also some offences under the Police Service Administration Actwhich are disqualifying offences. Currently, if the chief executive requests the Commissioner of Police toprovide a criminal history for an applicant, unreported convictions are not permitted to be taken intoaccount in assessing whether a person is appropriate to hold a licence.

This bill amends the act to now allow certain unrecorded convictions to be taken into account.The chief executive may also consider unrecorded findings of guilt in relation to disqualifying offencescommitted by the person in the previous five years that have not been quashed or set aside by a court ifthe offence indicates that the person is a risk to public safety or it would be contrary to the public interestto issue them a licence. Importantly, the criminal history will be required to show every charge againstthe person and a brief description of the manner of the offence giving rise to the unrecorded conviction


or charge mentioned in the person’s history. The chief executive can obtain a discretionary note toconsider the nature of unrecorded convictions in the previous five years and their relevance to theperson’s capacity to perform the functions of a security provider. So the chief executive will retain thatdiscretionary role. These extra provisions are necessary, because the industry and communityconsultation undertaken in the development of this bill revealed that people with links to criminalactivities are entering the security industry. Furthermore, intelligence has identified a growing problem offraud occurring in cases where licence applicants have illegally changed their name to avoid revealingan existing criminal history.

Only yesterday in this House we debated legislation that creates the offence of identity fraudunder the Criminal Code. The Queensland Police Service has found that approximately 10 per cent oflicensees have come to their attention in the previous five years, either as a suspect or as a confirmedoffender. Those findings by the Queensland Police Service leave us in no doubt of the need for thesestrengthened character and probity tests that are contained in the provisions of this bill.

Some additional changes to the bill include that licensees will be required to give the chiefexecutive written notice of any changes in their particulars within seven days of being charged with anoffence. That will include charges or convictions against the licensee for a disqualifying offence, unlessgiving such information prejudices or otherwise hinders an investigation, leads to the identification of aninformant, or affects the safety of a police officer, complainant, or other person.

Clause 17 provides guidelines for the chief executive when considering information about aperson’s criminal history, including changes in criminal history or investigative information. Importantly,the use of that information is limited to a decision regarding the person’s appropriateness to continue tohold a licence. There is also a requirement that that information be confidential and destroyed as soonas practical when it is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was given. Further grounds aregiven to suspend or cancel a licence or to refuse to renew a licence if the licensee has contravened theact or the code of practice for security providers.

Clause 28 inserts a section that provides for the issuing of temporary permits for a particularevent. I mentioned that earlier. The licence categories will be expanded. The bill expands the securityprovider licence to license bodyguards separately from crowd controllers and introduce new licencecategories for security advisers and security equipment installers to ensure that the licensing of securityofficers captures electronic surveillance operators, dog handlers and in-house security officers and toprovide greater definition in the detail of crowd controllers and private investigators.

As the honourable minister remarked in her second reading speech, these provisions are neededto address a trend in the security industry where personnel and firms avoid coverage because ofdefinitions under the act as they applied to persons or firms who mix security with other duties.Bodyguards, who will be licensed separately, will be defined as persons who, for reward, provide apersonal protection service. A new licence category is created for a security adviser, being a personwho, for reward, gives advice about security equipment, or security methods. Another new licencecategory has been added for a security equipment installer, namely, a person who, for reward, installs,repairs, services or maintains security equipment.

The definition of ‘security officer’ has also been expanded to include a person who, for reward,watches another person’s property and clarifies that a person will come within the definition of ‘securityofficer’ if they personally patrol property or personally monitor a property by operating audiovisual orvisual recording systems, radio or other electronic monitoring systems. Additionally, a security officer willencompass a person who guards, patrols or watches another person’s property with a guard dog.Documented occurrences of serious incidents involving trained dogs used by security officers and aconsequential question over the ability of guards to handle dogs has given rise to this amendment.

Greater detail has also been provided in the definition of ‘crowd controllers’, where such a personis defined as someone who, for reward, is at a public place principally for keeping order in or about thestated public place, including, for example, by screening the entry of persons, monitoring or controllingthe behaviour of persons, or removing persons, for example, from a hotel, a nightclub or a rock concert.A public place will also be defined to include licensed premises in entertainment venues to which thepublic are admitted, whether or not for consideration.

The maximum penalties for carrying out the functions of a security provider without a licence, oradvertising or holding out that the person carries out or is willing to carry out the function of a securityprovider have been increased. A first offence will incur 500 penalty units—up from 100 penalty units. Fora second offence, the penalty will increase to 700 penalty units, or six months imprisonment. For a thirdoffence or subsequent offence, the penalty is increased to 1,000 penalty units, or 18 monthsimprisonment. These upgraded penalty provisions provide a strong deterrent for those seeking tooperate in the industry outside the regulatory requirements.

Most significantly, new training requirements have been introduced that will require individuals tosuccessfully complete an approved training course. Previously, to be eligible for a security officer or acrowd controller’s licence a person must have completed a Certificate II in Security Operations from theNational Asset Security Training Package, or to be eligible for a private investigator’s licence a personmust have completed a Certificate III in Investigative Services.


These new training requirements will ensure that security personnel will have to learn the mostup-to-date techniques for maintaining order and avoiding escalation of disputes and will requireprofessional development to ensure that the licensee’s skills are kept up to date with behaviour andsituation management. Consultation undertaken during the course of developing the bill revealedconcern that certain sections of the security industry have a very limited understanding of theirlegislative obligations and the civil and/or criminal implications of their actions as a security provider.

As a consequence of those observations and developments in the industry, it was suggested thatthe act be amended to require licensees to attend refresher training prior to the renewal of licences, andthat is a welcome addition to the bill. Clause 21 now states that extended licences may be grantedunder certain conditions, including a condition about the licensee’s completion of training for carrying outthe functions of the security provider, such as refresher training courses and, for a security firm licence,a condition that the licensee monitors, at certain intervals, for compliance with the act.

Overall these changes are very welcome. They are very timely. They are the result of anextensive consultation, and they will give the community much greater confidence that people who workwith and operate in the security industry are persons of good repute and that the training will beprovided to keep their skills up to date with changes in a rapidly changing industry. I commend the bill tothe House.

Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (4.51 pm): It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate on theSecurity Providers Amendment Bill 2006. I acknowledge that it has been over 10 years since this area ofour law has been reviewed and, as we all know, in that period dramatic changes have occurred in ourculture and our society, and it is timely that this legislation is reviewed. Those changes have happenedin attitudes and also the realities of public and personal lives in relation to safety and security.

The legislation will have broad community relevance. I find it difficult to think of anyone who is notaffected by this legislation. Whether people are enjoying their time off at pubs, clubs, concerts,racetracks, sporting venues, footy games, or they are at work, travelling to work or indeed at home,chances are they are going to come into contact with security officers, crowd controllers, security firms,private investigators and security equipment installers who are governed by this legislation—the pointbeing that you do not necessarily have to work in the security industry to be affected by this bill.

As a result of this legislation passing this chamber, the level of professionalism and safety in thesecurity industry will increase. The lives and wellbeing of the public and the workers will be protected,and that is why I offer my support for the provisions in this bill. However, like my coalition colleagues, Inote that these vital legislative changes have been delayed and the government has been caughtdragging the chain. The member for Surfers Paradise pointed that out, as well as the member forCurrumbin.

More than two years ago on 29 May 2004 there was a distressing incident when 21-year-oldDaniel Trimble was vigorously pushed down the stairs outside a Bundaberg nightclub by a securityofficer who was attempting to eject Daniel. Daniel hit his head against a concrete wall and ended up withmassive brain damage and died in hospital six days later. This was a great tragedy for our region. Thesecurity officer was sentenced to jail for seven years for manslaughter, with parole recommended aftertwo years and four months. The incident highlights the need to toughen up the requirements in theselection process for security and crowd controllers, and I am pleased that this legislation is doing justthat.

However, the fair trading minister in her response to the tragedy was quoted in the BundabergNewsMail back on 17 March 2005 as saying that one of her main priorities for the year 2005 would be toreview the Security Providers Act and ‘consider better training and screening processes for those whowork in the industry’. I merely make the point today that it has taken approximately two years since herstatement for these amendments to be debated in this House. Like all members of the coalition, wewould have preferred that these amendments be addressed earlier in this place.

My personal experience in the security industry comes from a time when I was a young man inthe RAAF. I worked in a second job for a short while as a crowd control officer at a local pub. I can stillremember the manager’s instructions to me when he hired me. He said, ‘I pay you to bleed, not me.’While I acknowledge that thankfully the world and attitudes have changed since the mid-1980s, thelesson I have taken from that period of my life was that we can make all the rules in the world but theattitude of individual managers and owners of these clubs also have a great influence on how individualcrowd controllers behave. The old saying is true: a fish rots from the head down.

The security industry is a growth industry. There is also a high rate of casualisation. Many peoplewill work in the security industry as a second job. I have been going on a little crusade about thecasualisation of the workforce both within the government and within private industry. I appreciate theneed for a certain level of casualisation within the workforce. But overall I believe that casualisation ofthe workforce actually breeds corruption, or at least makes it a system more open to corruption—andthe same would apply with the security industry. For me, a healthy industry is an industry that has a highrate of full-time employment, with all the benefits that flow through to the workers from that full-timeemployment, and obviously one that has a higher standard of training and professionalism.


I recently had a conversation with a crowd control officer who worked in Brisbane. He was a unistudent studying a business degree and trying to keep the wolf from the door by actually standing infront of a door himself—in the Valley. He made me aware of the increasingly dangerous environmentthat security officers work in. Just like police and prison officers, security officers are often abused,punched, spat at, shot and assaulted for a minimal wage. It is a tough way to earn a dollar. With theemergence of a new and more violent drug culture, the work environment for a security officer is onlygoing to get more dangerous and therefore the need for better training is paramount.

As a security officer working in Queensland you can expect to be working in a state which thePremier himself described a couple of years ago as the ‘amphetamine capital of Australia’. If we aregoing to be far dinkum about solving the drug problem that is facing security providers then in this placewe should be soon giving police the same telephone intercept powers every other police force inAustralia has. Of course these powers will help combat the manufacture and distribution of these illicitdrugs by organised crime groups and gangs.

We also have in Queensland a government with a lax attitude towards drug use in our schools,which I believe is another problem that contributes to the overall drug culture in Queensland. TheQueensland government promotes harm minimisation; we would prefer zero tolerance. Not enoughresources are dedicated to drug and life education. That resourcing level needs to be ramped up.

Ms KEECH: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The comments that the honourablemember is making have no relevance to the Security Providers Amendment Bill, which we are debating.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Moorhead): If the honourable member is going to make comments inrespect to drugs I would ask him to make them in respect to security providers.

Mr MESSENGER: Thank you for your direction, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am disappointed that theminister cannot see the relevance of my comments because I am sure that a lot of other people will.

In February 2007 the Centre for International Economics in Canberra and Sydney produced areport titled The harmonisation of private security industry regulations; a regulation impact statement. Iwould like to share some of that report which I think is relevant to this debate. Between 2003 and 2006the Queensland registrar received at least 100 complaints—25 per year on average—against securityguards and crowd controllers compared with approximately 12,000 licences on issue in a typical year. In1998, 135 crowd controllers underwent licence checks at 30 Gold Coast venues. Five were found to beunlicensed. Two of the five were holding false licences. On the Sunshine Coast 30 crowd controllersunderwent licence checks at 12 venues where 100 per cent compliance was observed. Seven years ofrecords of spot enforcement checks by the Office of Fair Trading in Queensland indicate that, while theindustry is complying with the act for the most part, there remains an element that operates withoutappropriate licences.

By some accounts, the number of private security personnel in Australia roughly matches thenumber of police, at around 40,000 to 50,000, although other estimates suggest that private securitypersonnel may outnumber police two to one. We have certainly heard evidence of that today from otherspeakers.

Internationally, Australia appears to be a bit below average in its intensity of private security use,with an estimated 188 security personnel per 100,000 head of population. This is less than the UnitedStates with 326, but well ahead of New Zealand with 82, and behind the European Union at 237. Thereare estimates that the Australian private security industry earned $2.36 billion in the year 2005-06 or abit over $100 per Australian resident which equates to an estimated $1.36 billion contributed to theAustralian economy—in value-added terms in 2005-06, 0.15 per cent of the total GDP. There are alsoestimates that put the number at $4.3 billion or a bit over $200 per person.

The security industry in Australia encompasses security officers at about 69 per cent of the totalindustry; licensed premises or crowd controllers, roughly 20 per cent of the industry; unlicensedpremises—shopping centres, warehouses, airports—roughly 50 per cent; debt collectors, 20 per cent;and armoured guards at around .2 per cent. Locksmiths are estimated to be around four per cent.Determining the exact size of the sector is problematic. Different studies use different measuringtechniques and differences can be attributed to how broadly the private sector security industry ismeasured, as well as counting the number of licences issued versus the number of full-time jobequivalents. Debt collectors do not form part of the security industry in New South Wales.

Between 1996 and 2001, while police numbers increased at the rate of population growth, thenumber of private security personnel increased at five times that rate or nearly five per cent per yearaccording to some reports. Since then it appears to have slowed, increasing on par with economicgrowth which is around three per cent per year. On one interpretation, the rapid growth in the privatesecurity industry would suggest that it is in high demand and is commercially successful, but it isfrequently asserted that the industry is wracked with problems. Instances of inadequate service andcorruption in security work underscore the need for effective government intervention. According toresearch done by Zedner in 2003 on the UK market, the security industry is marked by high levels of


corruption, violence, rapid staff turnover and high customer churn and cannot maintain consumerconfidence or public respect. At the federal government level in Australia there is concern thatpurchasers of security services are dissatisfied with the competence and quality of service offered bysecurity providers and consultants.

In closing, I thank parliamentary security officers who do a sterling job protecting ourselves, ourfamilies and other staff here in the parliamentary precinct. Once this legislation is passed thedepartment will be armed with the laws to do the job. Of course, that is no guarantee that the job will bedone by this government. We do not want to see the same sort of institutional dysfunction in the Officeof Fair Trading as has taken hold in the management of the departments of Health, Education, Police,Child Safety, Infrastructure, Emergency Services, Primary Industries—the list goes on. The onus is nowon the government to deliver and make these laws workable. I support the legislation before the House.

Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (5.05 pm): It is my pleasure to rise to speak in support of theSecurity Providers Amendment Bill. I have been looking forward to these changes coming to the Housebecause of a very sad experience that I had to endure when I was 21—which everyone will agree wasnot that long ago. I am pleased that the minister has been able to introduce these changes to the Housetoday.

I was very good friends with a young man who was victimised by a nightclub bouncer. He wastaken out the back of one of the clubs that we were at one night and was beaten until his teeth werebroken. Because we could not find him we made the assumption that he must have gone home aheadof us and so we all went home. The next morning we found out what had happened. Most people wouldassume that bouncers have the training and professionalism to deal with young people who areintoxicated in a way that reduces the risk of harm to anyone. On this occasion that did not happen andmy very good friend ended up with his teeth broken; his whole face was unrecognisable. The personalcost of this unnecessary incident included not only the pain of the injury and the embarrassment myfriend had to face at not being able to go to work but also the thousands of dollars in dental costs to hisfamily to reconstruct his whole mouth.

On this occasion the bouncer was on a working holiday from England. Further scrutiny of peoplewho are applying for licences will minimise the risk of this kind of thing ever happening again. Recentlythere was another incident on the Gold Coast. Rising Sydney surf star Sam Page was on the GoldCoast for a holiday and was the victim of a bashing by a security bouncer. He ended up in hospital. Hisparents had to go through the same ordeal that my very good friend’s family had to go through. It is nosurprise that this incident ended up in every single newspaper from the Gold Coast to Sydney andMelbourne. From a Gold Coast tourism perspective, this is not the type of incident that we want tohappen. We do not want it to happen to our local people or to visitors to the Gold Coast.

It has taken some time for the department to review the legislation, but there has been very goodreason for that. The department has worked well with the Queensland Police Service. Not only did ithave to establish a code of conduct; it also had to work out a training regime that will improve thisindustry. We all know that people of all ages look forward to enjoying a night out with their friends andfamily in an environment that ensures safety and where the risk of undesirable incidents is reduced.

I am pleased to see that the requirement for crowd controllers, security officers, privateinvestigators and security firms to hold a licence in order to operate has been expanded to include doghandlers. This afternoon many members have mentioned a number of incidents involving dog handlersand the responsibilities they have. Many people have much trust in the work that they are doing. We areasking someone else to ensure our personal safety and security.

I am pleased that by expanding the definition of security providers the licensing requirements willnow capture firms and providers that avoided those requirements. This is because the previous act hadnot included these people or the businesses had been defined in another way that was not covered bythe act.

The probity checks of licensees has been tightened. There is now a better partnership with theQueensland Police Service and the department of fair trading in scrutinising applicants. I havementioned that the changes will occur to the training regime. I think that this is a very important part ofthis bill. A lot of constituents have spoken to me about needing to improve the training in this industry notonly to improve the reputation of the industry but also to ensure the monitoring standards are kept forthe industry.

The bill provides for an improved training regime that will see license holders required to obtainongoing training to make sure that their skills are relevant and up to date. No changes will be beneficialto the community unless they are supported by adequate penalties and enforcements.

The bill proposes increased penalties for operating without a licence. I understand that theminister has worked very hard to ensure that these changes are complemented with significantincreases in compliance measures. I would ask the minister to explain in her summary how thedepartment will enforce the changes and if the industry stakeholders, such as unions and trainingproviders, perhaps through the code of conduct, that will ensure compliance. I look forward to theminister’s response on that issue.


These changes are needed to improve the reputation of the security industry, to ensure publicconfidence and trust in those people who work in the industry and to provide services in the industry.Increasingly, people are becoming more protective of their personal security and that of their families.People want to be sure that their privacy is kept with the greatest confidence, and that is guaranteed bythe growing security industry. This has already been mentioned in the briefing paper supplied by theParliamentary Library. It explains how the workers in the industry have increased and that people arenow relying on the services offered by the security industry.

I hope that the code of conduct and changes introduced in this legislation reinforce to the industrythat they have to uphold a certain standard. I also hold great hope that this legislation will go a long wayto ensuring that we will never hear of the disturbing incidents of thuggery and violence that haveunfortunately marred the industry reputation in recent times. I congratulate the minister and herdepartment for the work that they have done. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr FINN (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (5.13 pm): I rise to make a couple of very brief comments. I amcognisant of the timing of this debate. I think that my colleague the member for Barron River provided acomprehensive outline of this legislation. It was very detailed and a very considered contribution. Wecan see that his legal background has given him a very good understanding of the legislation in thisHouse. I note that the papers he was holding while he delivered his speech were white and not green.

I welcome this legislation that we are bringing to the House today. Many members have spokenabout how it is cleaning up the security industry. It is important legislation as many people in thecommunity are impacted by legislation that regulates the security industry. The member for Indooroopillyspoke about young people in his electorate who engage with crowd controllers on a regular basis. I thinkmany of us would have that same circumstance in our electorates. We also have hoteliers in ourelectorates. I have security companies that operate out of my electorate. I particularly acknowledgeARM Security in Coopers Plains which has contributed in the formation of this bill. It is a key player inthe industry.

I was going to briefly address the issue of compliance, but I think that other members havecovered it quite well. This legislation greatly increases the penalties attached to compliance for theemployment of unlicensed operators in the industry. I do not regularly get up in this place and talk aboutthe benefit of penalties. However, I think that it has been proven that often stiffer penalties are needed inindustries like these to ensure compliance. That, in brief, is what I was going to say about that aspect ofthe bill.

I would particularly like to acknowledge the major players in the industry—unions, industryassociations and employers—that have been involved in the consultation process. The LHMU inparticular is a union that covers crowd controllers and people in the security industry. It is a union thatcovers a large number of semi- and low-skilled workers. These are people who are often left without thecoverage of a union. Many are probably working in industries and do not have the necessary skills toindividually bargain. I acknowledge the work that the LHMU does. A good outcome of this legislation isthat the union and the industry association have worked so closely together. That is what is necessary toensure that things such as the code of conduct and the compliance requirements in the act are followed.The key to that is that the players in the industry work together.

It is particularly important in this industrial environment where there are workers who arepotentially most affected by the Howard government’s industrial relations regime. These are workerswho rely on overtime and penalty rates. They work weekends. They work public holidays. These are thepeople who can be significantly affected by the federal government’s changes. The federal workplacelaws also limit the access of unions to workplaces. In industries such as this that can have a significantimpact on community safety and the safety of employees working in dangerous environments.

With its work on the code of conduct and its work on industry training, this legislation brings theplayers together so that to an extent they can determine the levels of regulation needed. This billenables them to do that in partnership. For those reasons, I congratulate the minister for bringing thislegislation into the House, and I commend it to the House.

Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading, Wine Industry Developmentand Women) (5.17 pm), in reply: At the outset I thank all members for their contributions to the bill. I amreally impressed with the quality of the contributions and, in particular, the amount of consultationmembers have had at their local level regarding the Security Providers Amendment Bill. I also thank thecoalition for its support through the member for Clayfield.

This is an historic day not only for the security industry of Queensland but also for allQueenslanders. At some stage during the day and during the week every one of us rely on the servicesof members who are regulated through the security providers bill. Whether someone is at work, athome, enjoying themselves during the day at South Bank or at one of the regional parklands, or whethersomeone is enjoying themselves in the evening at licensed premises or a nightclub, the security industryplays a role in protecting our lives and our property. That is why I am very proud to be presenting this billto the House.


The importance of the bill is recognised through the very large number of members who havecontributed both from the government and the non-government sides. In particular, the bill is historicbecause it boosts the standards of the security industry in Queensland. It will bring the higheststandards of probity as well as licensing previously unregulated sectors of the industry. The new code ofpractice for the industry has been welcomed by the industry itself. As members have said, it will providea new level of compliance and regulation.

I now want to move on to some areas raised by the member for Clayfield. In particular, I want toaddress his criticism of the bill—and of course we cannot have an opposition supporting a bill withouttrying very hard to find areas to criticise. Opposition members had to search high and low until theyfound the area to criticise, and they chose the issue of time frames. I cannot comment on previousministers who were responsible for this portfolio, but I can say that, to my recollection, the very firstindustry association meeting I had when I became minister for fair trading in 2004 was with the securityindustry at the premises of the LHMU, which arranged a meeting with employers. After I listened verycarefully to the concerns of the employers, I said at that meeting that I would ensure there would beextensive consultation with both employers and the union to ensure that all sectors of the industry hadtheir say.

I am proud that the government has been able to fulfil that commitment of listening and consultingwidely with the industry. I make no apologies whatsoever for the time it has taken. In fact, in theconsultation I have had up until very recently, not one member of the industry has complained to meabout the length of time being taken. So I do not believe that issue has legs at all.

The member for Clayfield also accused me of plagiarism for adopting the industry’srecommendations. On the one hand I am expected to consult with the industry, and on the other hand ifthe industry makes recommendations the government is accused of plagiarism. Once again, if I put agroup of experts together and they work very well together in an industry stakeholders committee andthey bring a report to the government, if the government adopts large amounts of that report and that iscalled plagiarism then I plead guilty. I believe it is actually the government doing the right thing byconsulting widely and listening to the concerns of industry.

It is true that in the early stages of consultation the security industry called for higher standards ofconduct in the industry. We have certainly done that through a regime of comprehensive codes ofconduct for each part of the industry. As well, the government has raised probity standards and giventhe chief executive better powers to enforce them.

I am also pleased that, contrary to the point made by not only the member for Clayfield but alsothe members for Robina and Currumbin that this bill is reactive to the COAG review, I can inform thosehonourable members that that is not correct. In fact, this bill pre-empted any national harmonisation. Mydepartment was getting on with the review of the act long before the Premier and members of COAGmet to ensure that due to counter-terrorism issues there would be a COAG review. Once again, in thiscase, the Beattie government has been proactive and led the way in the review of the Security ProvidersAct.

The member for Clayfield also raised some issues regarding transitional provisions in new section60(3), and these relate to the training regime for crowd controllers and bodyguards. The member hadsome difficulty understanding this provision, and I will just explain it to him. An applicant for a crowdcontroller licence authorising bodyguard functions who applied for that licence prior to commencementof the amendments will be subject to the training requirements that were in force when they lodged theapplication. That means we do not expect to make this retrospective in the sense that, if you havealready applied for a licence, then the training provisions that occurred previously will remain in force. Ithink this is a common-sense response and it certainly does not add any additional impost on thoselicensees.

The other issue with respect to training is the class 2 licensees. This is the non-manpowerindustry. During the extensive consultation that not only my department did but I personally did,particularly with ASIAL, the need for regulation of the non-manpower part of the industry was reallypushed home to me time and time again at every meeting. As we know, the electronic security industryis becoming more and more important, whether it is from an anti-terrorism perspective or from protectingproperty and people. It is a very important area that previously had not been regulated, and I ampleased that the bill provides for that.

Class 2 licensees are those installers and trainers who are involved in what is now described asthe non-manpower part of the industry. Probity requirements of the act are being enforced for thissection of the industry but not the training requirements. The member for Clayfield asked questions withrespect to that. In particular, there are a range of reasons for this. I was very pleased to meet with thenon-manpower segment of the industry recently, a meeting that the member for Pumicestonecommented on. I also thank the member for Kurwongbah for facilitating that meeting.

The government will not be introducing additional training and competency requirements for class2 licensees because trade competency and training is already governed by trade licensing regimes andother legislation. Electricians are required to complete their trade and prove their competency that way.

1032 Motion 14 Mar 2007

Cablers are required to get a cabling licence, which theoretically involves satisfying the Commonwealthof their competency. As well, the member for Mount Ommaney actually made a very comprehensivecomment on this matter, and I would encourage the member for Clayfield to review the member forMount Ommaney’s contribution in Hansard regarding training requirements.

When I met with the electronic surveillance representatives, they raised this issue with me and itwas one of the major issues we discussed. I said to them that, as minister for fair trading, trade licensingrequirements were not my responsibility, but I was prepared through my department to help them in anyway I could. If they wish to have additional trade licensing requirements and additional competencystandards, I am prepared to provide support for them through the various ministers. It is certainly not theobject of this bill or the Security Providers Act to duplicate the efforts of other ministers’ portfolios.

I also respond to one point made by the member for Broadwater in her contribution andacknowledge the very unfortunate experience that she and her friend had. She asked about the role ofunions in providing input into the code of conduct. Unions, employers and employer associations will beconsulted again very widely in the establishment of the code of conduct.

The member for Clayfield, when scratching around trying to find some negativities, commentedthat the regulations, which include the code of conduct, have lagged behind the legislation. We raisedthis issue when debating the body corporate bill last week and, again, this shows the member’s lack ofexperience in the House. I recognise that he is a new member, but I did explain to him that an actual billis required to have a head of power for regulations. So we introduce the bill, then after that theregulations are provided for in ensuring that the bill provides the head of power. Also, it is notappropriate for me to be pre-empting Her Excellency the Governor in terms of details of a regulation, butI can inform the honourable member that there will be full consultation with all areas of industry andunion in the preparations for the code of conduct.

Debate, on motion of Ms Keech, adjourned.

MOTION

Local Authorities, Water SupplyMrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (5.30 pm): I move—

That this House acknowledges the work done by Queensland Local Authorities over many years to provide a safe and reliablereticulated water supply to their communities and calls on the Premier to work co-operatively with Councils in the South East andacross Queensland to continue these positive relationships and arrangements.

In this chamber and in the media over the past couple of weeks the Premier has made statementsin relation to water supplies and the current precarious situation of water in the south-east. To the manypeople listening to these comments on quite a number of instances he made it clear that he believeslocal governments are behind much of this problem. I would like to look at several issues and endeavourto provide some balance.

The Premier has accused local governments of removing over $1 billion in water funds for non-water expenditure. In August 2006 the LGAQ commissioned KPMG to do an analysis of the financialperformance of council owned water businesses in south-east Queensland. I table a copy of its interimfindings.Tabled paper: Document, dated August 2006, and titled ‘Local Government Association of Queensland Analysis of FinancialPerformance of Council Owned Water Businesses in South East Queensland’.

Its findings included—Total water and sewerage revenue was about $1.14 billion in 05/06. Total revenue has grown at an annual compound rate of 5.9%between 01/02 and 05/06;

The main source of revenue was rates and charges, which accounted for 74.2% of total revenue in 05/06;

The total dividend paid was $83.3 million in 05/06 representing a dividend payout rate of 17.8%. Dividends paid represented 6% oftotal revenue;

The total tax equivalents were $102.3 million in 05/06, representing an effective tax rate of 17.9%. Tax equivalents represented7.3% of revenue;

Capital expenditure on water and sewerage assets was $434.9 million in 05/06. Capital expenditure has increased at an annualcompound rate of 21.6%.

This accusation of financial asset-stripping is not a new event, however, for the state government.Craig Johnson in the Courier-Mail yesterday rightly reminded the readers—Not content with merely demonising councils by accusing them of neglecting water infrastructure in the quest for a quick dollar,Premier Peter Beattie is now threatening to legislate for a complete takeover of that infrastructure.

Given that it used to take up to 95% of dividends from capital-starved outfits such as Energex (only to blame ‘acts of God’ whenthe lights finally went out), the State Government has a hide to scald councils. For doing the same thing.

14 Mar 2007 Motion 1033

Out of the funds councils currently receive from water and sewerage charges, 2,000 jobs aresustained. If the government acts on its threats and takes over water in Queensland, what will happen tothose jobs? What job security will there be for these people given the proven cost-cutting agenda ofcommissions not answerable to the people?

The Premier has also stated that local councils administer water through water boards or counciladministered schemes. This is true in many instances. For example, the Gladstone Area Water Board isa category 1 entity. It is made up of two Gladstone City Council representatives, two Calliope ShireCouncil representatives and three people nominated by the Minister for Natural Resources and Water.All nominees must gain ministerial appointment.

SEQWater is 20 per cent made up by the Queensland government, 45 per cent by the BrisbaneCity Council and 35 per cent by the 11 councils in the south-east. SunWater, on the other hand, is agovernment owned corporation and administers 26 major dams, 81 weirs and barrages, 72 majorpumping stations and over 2,500 kilometres of pipeline and open channels. The attack, then, by thePremier on councils is not well founded in that the state government already has a significant part toplay in water supply.

For many years the LGAQ has endeavoured to worked cooperatively with the government of theday. I found it telling to read a scathing statement from the chief executive officer, Greg Hallam, inrelation to the deterioration of this relationship in the wake of the Premier’s comments and actions. Iknow that Greg is reticent to be critical of the government of the day. He is mindful that the LGAQ, onbehalf of the councils, works closely with the government, particularly the local government minister butalso the Premier and Treasurer. I know that he likes to keep positive lines of communication openwherever possible.

The destructive path chosen by the Premier in his public criticism of councils in the south-east isnot conducive to providing better services to Queenslanders at this difficult time. This government didnot respond to indicators and reports some years ago that a crisis was looming. Paul Bell, president ofthe LGAQ, rightly reacted to the Premier’s recent comments. An article in the Courier-Mail states—Local Government Association of Queensland president Paul Bell rejected the call for councils to hand over their water assets andsaid councils were willing to work with the Government. He called on the Premier to reconsider his stance, saying councilsendorsed the model for level 5 restrictions, but simply wanted to ensure their ratepayers were not slugged with huge price rises.This was an unfortunate escalation of events and I have great faith in the premier’s ability to reconsider. We will workcooperatively and in a conciliatory way, but won’t resign from defending our ratepayers in any form.

Local authorities, both elected and employed, work hard to supply services to their communities.Whilst periodically we hear exceptions to that rule—and members of the community will, at times, haveproblems with the way their councils are operating—in the main I believe we can all accept that localauthorities do work well with their communities. I would ask that the Premier accept this offer ofcooperation from the LGAQ on behalf of councils and work to continue to provide good service toQueenslanders rather than, as lord mayor Campbell Newman accused him of, playing political games.

Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (5.36 pm): I rise to second the motion moved by the member forGladstone. This government has no grounds to stand on when it comes to accusing others of notmeeting their responsibilities. In the roughly nine years I have been in this place I have witnessed thisgovernment constantly standing up in this House, puffing out its collective chest and literally skitingabout the unprecedented growth of the south-east corner and then failing to recognise that this growthhas an alarming impact on existing resources and infrastructure. The Premier stated that CampbellNewman admitted water moneys were being diverted. Local government recognised the growing needsof their communities, obviously. The state government’s failure to supply adequate funding is simplyanother admission that it did not recognise the growing problem.

When it comes to water infrastructure we should look at the facts. The facts are that localgovernments are not responsible for dam building. But this government is. Councils are responsible fortreating the water and for retail issues. How much water infrastructure has been constructed in thesouth-east corner since this government came into power four elections ago? There is plenty ofinfrastructure. There is the stadium, but unless we put in a pool liner it will not hold any water. Thenthere is the Goodwill Bridge. But that is right, water goes under the bridge. Until recently there has beenno water infrastructure constructed until the situation was, as the government described it, almostArmageddon.

Governments need to work with local government. Most importantly, to work with someone onehas to listen to them. Too often governments assume a position of one size fits all when it comes to localgovernment and their problems. In my own electorate, part of which is in the south-east corner, we haveour own problematic water issues. I am aware how hard many of these councils try to make governmentaware of the needs of their communities and water is, for everyone, the topic of greatest need.

The Rosalie Shire Council recently received almost full funding for an emergency pipeline toYarraman under the Urban Drought Water Program. In addition, the towns water supply pipeline project,commissioned and financed by the Coordinator-General, will provide the towns of Yarraman, Blackbutt-Benarkin, Toogoolawah and Esk with a new potable water supply. So this shows that good results canbe achieved when state and local governments work together.

1034 Motion 14 Mar 2007

Kumbia was in dire straits for water and this government eventually came to the party—thecommunity thanks it very much for that. It was like pulling teeth to get that assistance. There is adesperate need to have a recycling plant put into our highest employer at a cost of approximately$3 million. Our bores, which many rely on, are running dry. The councils have played their part bysupplementing these industries’ water needs but that cannot go on forever because the town supply is alimited supply—limited to months, not even a year.

Councils have spent the money that they were literally saving for emergency purposes such asthis. They cannot do any more. They have done what they can. The accumulated job losses, if we donot get $3 million to put into a recycling plant, are possibly as high as 10,000. This industry meets worldbest practice per unit. Some $3 million is not much to ask to preserve 10,000 industry related jobs—notwhen the government spends $9 million on landscaping a project! Quite frankly, I know where I and theresidents of local government would prefer to see the money spent—on their industries and jobs, notsaving some plants. Governments offer 75 per cent of money for drought assistance. Why is it only forresidential? Businesses are the backbone of a town. Without them towns die. There is no growth tax inlocal government; that belongs to the state. Kingaroy shire has doubled its rates in 15 years. If it raisesits rates by one per cent, that would only bring in $50,000. What is it expected to build with $50,000when it comes to water infrastructure? In the Kingaroy shire alone daily consumption today is less thanit was in the seventies, so how can any government say local governments have not done enough orhave not played their part?

One united viewpoint from all of the local governments in my electorate is that they would urgethe Premier to re-engage with councils and cooperatively tackle the current water crisis with thecombined resources of state and local governments. This would produce water supply solutions that arethe most efficient and would satisfy all of the needs of the communities involved. Day after day we sithere and listen to the government’s catchy little phrases and watch it play its games. This government isfull of stunts. Members not wearing coats in parliament is one, as are dual-flush toilets in our rooms.I am all for dual-flush systems by the way, but why not put in appropriate pedestals designed for dual-flush systems? Wrong pedestals and dual-flush systems simply do not work! After 2½ flushes you haveto hit the full flush in total desperation to achieve your aim, totally devoiding any water-saving intentionyou might have had in the first place. It was a con on the people to think that we put in dual-flush toilets.People try to do the right thing, but when the government cheats on the system what do we do? Hereare a couple of more quirky sayings: while governments talk farmers walk and while governments delayratepayers pay. Use those sayings for a change, just to break the monotony!

Time expired. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for

Infrastructure) (5.41 pm): I move—That all words after ‘Authorities’ are deleted and the following words inserted:‘in partnership with the State Government over many years to provide a safe and reliable reticulated water supply to theircommunities and recognises the importance of State and Local Governments working co-operatively in the South East and acrossQueensland to continue these positive relationships and arrangements.’

I think the amendment to the motion is a much more balanced representation of what mostpeople in this House on all sides genuinely believe, and that is that nothing is achieved in either water ora number of other services without genuine active partnership between state and local governments.The amendment does much more fairly acknowledge that, to the extent that local governments haveachieved things in relation to water in their communities—and they have—they have for the most parton any significant piece of infrastructure done so with a direct 40 per cent subsidy from the state. I donot think it is unreasonable for us to recognise that in the words of the amendment to the motion.

I believe that we have a unique opportunity before us as we consider the most appropriateresponse to the worst drought that we have ever seen in the south-east corner. This drought is comingat a time when we are experiencing the most rapid growth anywhere in the country. I think if we werehonest with ourselves, we would sit down and ask ourselves this simple question: if we were asked todesign the best, most efficient, most practical, most effective water management and distribution andsupply system for the south-east corner of Queensland, would we sit down and design one that has 19water storages managed by 12 water authorities overseen by 18 councils subsidised by a stategovernment? The very simple answer to that, frankly, is no.

I believe that most parties most of the time have been trying to make that system work, but thereality is that it is inherently dysfunctional for the circumstances that we are facing. I heard both of theprevious members talking about how well various councils have done in servicing the needs of theircommunities. I think that is probably a fair comment, but it is precisely and exactly because localgovernments have serviced their own communities that the region of the south-east has been so badlyserved. We are currently, for example, building the southern regional pipeline. There is really no reasonin many respects why that could not have been built years and years ago. The reason it has not beenbuilt is that there are four councils across that area and a state government and everybody has beenthinking that it is somebody else’s responsibility.

14 Mar 2007 Motion 1035

If you asked anybody to sit down and draw up a plan to manage water in the south-east, as I said,I think the first starting point would be a single authority that has planning responsibility across theboundaries of those shires. We live in a regional economy in the south-east. We work in a regionaleconomy. I live within the boundaries of one council area; I quite often go across to the other councilareas. When I am at the Gold Coast I drink water. People in Brisbane take their children to schoolacross the boundaries. Those children drink water at school. As I said, these are the sorts of things wehave to take into account. Frankly, the current system just does not do that. In addition to that, we haveto be honest with ourselves and acknowledge that politics gets played when we have all of those playersin one area of service delivery, particularly when it is an area of service delivery that is under pressurefrom population and an area under pressure from something like a drought.

I do not intend to go into all of the ins and outs of what has happened over the last three or fourdays, but I have to say to the Independents in considering how these circumstances arose—and I willgive them the media release that was put out by the council of mayors in response to the WaterCommission’s reports put out on Friday—that frankly this is not cooperation. Those reports were draftreports. When they were put out, I put out a press release and held a press conference where I made noattempt to attack anybody other than to say that we will look at this and if we can minimise the impact ontaxpayers that is exactly what we will do. There was no attack on local governments, yet they put out thispress release which I have to say is so far beyond the pale that nobody could support it or believe it wascooperative, and I will provide a copy of it to the Independent members. Then on Sunday I find myself inthe paper being called a Nazi. I do not know how that contributes to any sensible, grown-up discussionof a very important and essential service. As I said, the amendment recognises the importance ofpartnership and I believe it should be supported by this House.

Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Water and MinisterAssisting the Premier in North Queensland) (5.46 pm): It gives me pleasure to second the DeputyPremier’s amendment. Local governments have always been responsible for providing water andsewerage services to their communities in Queensland. Over the past 10 years the state governmenthas provided significant assistance to local governments to help them build and manage their own waterand sewerage systems. In fact, the state government has provided subsidies for water supply andsewerage capital works to local governments for more than 40 years. Surely in such a crisis—this theworst drought in history—we deserve a say.

As well as financial assistance, the state government has also provided technical support to localgovernments. This includes development of a number of water and sewerage planning guidelines,technical reports and information documents to help local governments deliver their obligations. Toassist local governments to embrace a more businesslike approach to planning and managing theirwater and sewerage systems, the state government developed and promoted the total managementplanning concept. The total management planning document guides a local government’s water andsewerage activities. It documents the strategies, plans, policies, practices, priorities and staging of waterand sewerage infrastructure. In fact, state subsidy was offered to all local governments to prepare theirinitial total management plans.

The state government has enacted the Water Act 2000, a watershed policy initiative that wasdesigned to assist local governments in their role in ensuring continuity of supply of water and sewerageservices to our towns and cities. Under the act, local governments prepare the following: strategic assetmanagement plans, which document the local government’s adopted service standards and their assetmanagement strategies to ensure these standards are maintained; customer service standards, whichare provided to individual customers telling them what service they can expect; drought managementplans, which detail how local governments will maintain water supply during a drought; and systemleakage management plans, which detail measures that council will take to minimise water losses fromtheir distribution systems. Not only has the state government provided substantial assistance to assistlocal governments with their water and sewerage undertakings, it has also provided substantialassistance to them to upgrade the spillway capacities of their existing dams.

For instance, in my electorate the state has provided financial assistance to NQ Water, which is aboard owned jointly by the Townsville and Thuringowa city councils for the Ross River Dam. To date,over $51 million has been paid to NQ Water to upgrade the dam. As work has not yet been completedon this project, more subsidies will be paid to NQ Water when the final cost of the upgrade is known.The state has also provided financial assistance to SEQWater, which is majority owned by localgovernment, for spillway upgrades to Wivenhoe Dam. That work has now been completed and the statehas provided a subsidy of over $25 million.

The state government has initiated a number of regional water supply strategies acrossQueensland to provide a comprehensive approach for meeting regional, urban, industrial and ruralwater needs both in the short term and the long term. The strategies are at various levels and stages ofdevelopment. The central Queensland study has been completed. The South East QueenslandRegional Water Supply Strategy commenced in 2002. This work is being finalised by the QueenslandWater Commission. Currently, there are a number of other priority regional water supply strategies beingprogressed by the state in far-north Queensland, Mackay, Whitsunday, and the Wide Bay-Burnett.

1036 Motion 14 Mar 2007

In addition, my department has committed to proceeding with a regional water supply strategy fornorth Queensland, which includes Thuringowa-Townsville and the Burdekin. This strategy is due forcompletion in mid-2008. These studies are fundamental to providing water for the future of our state andwill guide both local government and state investment in water infrastructure and demand arrangementsfor years to come.

The Queensland state government—the Beattie government—has a proud record when it comesto delivering local government subsidies and services. Surely we deserve a say in the future of this vitalservice in our state.

Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (5.51 pm): I rise to speak in support of the motion moved bythe member for Gladstone. Water is one of the highest priority issues here in the south-east and itcertainly is a subject that has attracted more and more attention as the crisis has worsened. Now, it hasreached the stage at which the state government is floating the option of seizing control of local authorityassets so that it can have sole control of existing water supply infrastructure in this region.

Clearly, this move has implications for the rest of the state. If this government seizes localgovernment assets to resolve one of its own responsibilities, there will be nothing in the way to stop itseizing other assets as well. It will not be confined to the south-east; the government’s tentacles willreach right across the state. We often hear the Premier rail against Canberra usurping states’ rights andprotesting about Canberra overriding states’ rights, yet at the exact same time he is planning to usurplocal government powers and override local government processes. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

But it does not stop there. We also have a government that is insisting that any revenue that localgovernments receive from water infrastructure needs to be spent on water infrastructure. Yet thisgovernment has raided port authorities, energy companies and other GOCs and taken their revenue intoconsolidated revenue to spend willy-nilly on buying votes. Again, the hypocrisy is breathtaking.

This morning the Premier said that the difference between water revenues and revenues frompower or ports and so on was that water was a life and death issue. In that case, one might ask: whywas nothing done to secure adequate supplies before water became a life and death issue? It is alsonot acceptable for this government to suggest that securing the future water supply of the south-easthas been the responsibility of local government. That is just playing Pontius Pilate. It was not localgovernment that received reports dating back years warning of the need to prepare for drought, it wasnot the mayors of the south-east who sat down in meetings with senior departmental staff to considerthe dire predictions of impending disaster through lack of structure; it was this government. So in theinterests of moving forward, perhaps the first thing that should happen is for this government to step upto the plate, own up to its mistakes and stop the pathetic duckshoving that it has indulged in while waterreservoirs have been running dry.

Although the focus of this crisis is on the south-east, the issue of water management andcooperation—or lack of it—from the government is also of vital concern to people in regional electoratessuch as the Tablelands. People in regional Queensland are watching with very great interest indeed howthese issues are dealt with and how they are playing out. The issues relate to more than just watermanagement planning, or the lack thereof.

One clear example is the debate about paying for the massive raft of infrastructure projects thatare now underway or planned to ensure that Brisbane and the south-east has enough water to ride outthe drought. When the pricing recommendations of the Queensland Water Commissioner werereleased, they were based on full cost recovery as demanded by the National Water Initiative.Yesterday, the Premier told this House that these prices are not going to apply and that, in fact,subsidies to the tune of some $1.5 billion over the next 10 years would be granted to the south-east sothat consumers would not have to pay the full cost of the water grid.

Yet in my electorate, where studies are being undertaken for the Nullinga Dam, we are told thatthere is no option but to go down the track of full cost recovery. That is expected to mean that, once thedam is constructed, the water will cost in the thousands of dollars per megalitre, because full costrecovery will be enforced. Shires in my electorate are facing a doubling of water changes as SunWaterhikes up its fees. Why? Because it is enforcing full cost recovery. If it is good enough for ratepayers inthe south-east to escape the burden of full cost recovery, why is it not good enough for ratepayerselsewhere in Queensland? To paraphrase George Orwell, we are all equal, but some are more equalthan others.

Irrigators in the area known as above Tinaroo Falls Dam and who have agreed to participate inthe introduction of the water meters to assist the state government to better manage underground watersupplies are being slugged with the cost of buying and installing and maintaining those meters. Theyeven have to pay for the people to come to read the meters. AgForce has figures which show thatirrigators across Queensland will soon be hit for $55 million for water meters that they will never own.Let us remember that irrigators use only four per cent of the state’s water. That is hardly an excessiveamount in return for the jobs, income and export earnings that are generated, not to mention the foodthat is produced to be put on our tables.

14 Mar 2007 Motion 1037

Although there must be a cooperative approach in the south-east, there also needs to be acooperative and equitable process for the rest of the state. Water is a life and death matter. No-one hassuggested until now that the people of Brisbane are in danger of perishing because of a lack of anaffordable drink of water. But the Premier has now raised that spectre. In regional areas, people’slivelihoods are in danger of perishing from a lack of affordable water.

Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport)(5.56 pm): It is my pleasure to join in the debate and to speak in support of the amendment to the motionthat was moved by the Deputy Premier. I think this debate is premised on a false notion, and that is thatthere is not a strong relationship that exists and has existed over a long period between the stategovernment and local councils both in the south-east corner and more broadly throughout the state. Interms of water infrastructure, this relationship can be easily quantified.

When we look over the period that the Beattie government has been in office in Queensland, wecan quantify the level of support and the strength of the relationship that the government has had withcouncils by a figure of some $777 million. That is the amount of money that the Queenslandgovernment—the Beattie Labor government—has provided to councils around the state since coming togovernment for the support of water infrastructure. That money has gone into providing fundingassistance to build trunk infrastructure for pipelines, treatment plants, bores—for all sorts of waterinfrastructure that is needed in the various communities that make up the state of Queensland. That$777 million has been provided through the life of this government and continues to be provided in thisterm of the Beattie Labor government.

At this point, in the south-east corner we are facing a drought, the quantity and the depth of whichhas not been experienced before. That calls for a particular response to those circumstances.Regardless of what anyone says about any sorts of predictions, no-one believed that the drought thatwe are experiencing currently would in fact have the dimensions that it has at the moment. As agovernment and as a parliament—all of us together—we need to recognise that we need a response tothat set of circumstances. That response cannot particularly take account of the niceties of the situation.What we need to do is make sure that we respond fulsomely in a way that, as a government, tacklesthese issues head-on and provides a response that will secure the water supply for the south-eastQueensland region as a whole as we face this unprecedented situation.

In these circumstances, it is important to emphasise the point that the Deputy Premier madeearlier, and that is that if someone sat down today with a blank piece of paper and a pencil, there is noway that they would come up with a set circumstances for the delivery of water infrastructure that existspresently. That is not particularly anyone’s fault. Like most institutional arrangements, it is acircumstance of history. At the moment, what is required is leadership on the part of government at alllevels and a cooperative relationship that says that we need to work together to address theshortcomings of that institutional framework to overcome them and to make sure that we can provide asecure water supply.

Since we introduced the water regulation which provided for a range of infrastructure here in thesouth-east corner, that is a level of cooperation that has enjoined the councils of the south-east cornerto deliver with the government, both in a funding partnership and working in partnership, a range ofinfrastructure programs. Those programs are familiar to everyone in this House and to all the councils inthe south-east corner.

What is important here is to realise that with those arrangements and the difficulties theyinherently present, regardless of the players involved in those circumstances, the proposal by thegovernment is to appoint Darryl Somerville to undertake an audit of the water infrastructure to makesure that we have a baseline opinion about what we need to do as a community. This is not a debatebetween two different levels of government; this is a debate about water supply and this is a debateabout the community. In the end, that requires all of us to act in the best interests of the region and thecommunity and to step up to the mark when we find a challenging set of circumstances. It is importantthat we emphasise that this relationship of cooperation not only has a deep historical nature but also isone that is on a strong footing into the future.

The debate tonight gives me an opportunity to also inform the House that I have recentlyapproved a further $7.5 million to go on top of that funding I have announced. That is for projects rightaround the state—$2.5 million for a water and sewage treatment plant at Jondaryan on the DarlingDowns; $125,000 for a treatment plant at Stone Henge, a town of 40 people 90 minutes south west ofLongreach; money for a new water pipeline for the Caloundra City Council; $1.46 million for Hervey BayCity Council for a pipeline from Burrum Weir to Burgowan water treatment plant; and another pipelinefunded in this latest round, a $111,000 subsidy to the Ipswich City Council. This is funding that gets paidas a matter of course by the state government. It is funding that backs up that commitment over timeand it is a commitment that will continue.

Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (6.01 pm): I rise to participate in the debate and speak insupport of the motion moved by my parliamentary colleague the member for Gladstone. I know that themember for Gladstone went to a great deal of effort to try to ensure that her motion was moderate andnot over the top. After listening to the Deputy Premier’s amendment, I also can see that the DeputyPremier has tried to ensure that her amendment was likewise moderate and not over the top.

1038 Motion 14 Mar 2007

Before I progress directly to the substance of the motion, I wish to take members to section 30 ofthe Local Government Act, which sets out that the local authority shall have and possess and mayexercise and perform express powers and authorities including the power to make by-laws in relation tothe following matters—and there are a lot of matters listed and included in those matters is the power tosupply water.

The motion the member for Gladstone has moved is in two parts. It talks about a partnership. Thefirst part is an acknowledgement of the work undertaken by local councils in providing the very importantwater service to their constituents. The second part calls on the Premier to work in cooperation withcouncils. In speaking to this motion, I share with members what I understand has been happening onthe Sunshine Coast and, in particular, in the Caloundra and Maroochy areas.

The Deputy Premier spoke about the need for a regional approach. In 1946—yes, almost 60years ago—the Landsborough and Maroochy shire councils proposed the construction of a dam toprovide water to both shires. They proposed this in partnership. In 1982, 25 years ago, Jack Beausangof the Landsborough council, now the Caloundra council, and Fred Murray of the Maroochy ShireCouncil teamed together in partnership and started the project at a site now known as Baroon PocketDam. In 1984 the Landsborough-Maroochy Water Supply Board, now known as AquaGen, was formed.A dam, tunnel and water treatment plant was built on the site and completed in 1989 at a cost ofapproximately $40 million. This dam is still operating today and is the primary source of all the treatedwater for the Caloundra City Council—with the exception of Maleny, which has its own treatment plant—and I understand supplies 65 per cent of the requirements of the Maroochy shire population.

In 1989 a hydro-electric power plant was established and built at the water treatment plant inpartnership by those two councils. I understand that this hydro-electric power plant provides anelectricity savings each year to the value of $150,000 and also enables the plant to receive each year$50,000 of renewable energy certificates. AquaGen is a real life example of how for over 60 years theCaloundra and Maroochy councils have been able to work together in a genuine partnership to ensurethe provision of good reliable drinking water to residents and visitors to the region. I table a copy ofAquaGen’s annual report for the year 2004-05 and, in particular, draw the attention of members topages 14 to 16 under the heading of ‘Planning for the Future’.Tabled paper: Copy of the Aquagen Annual report 04/05.Tabled paper: Copy of the Aquagen Water & Renewable Energy Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2005.Tabled paper: Copy of documents downloaded on 14 March 2007 concerning the Caloundra-Maroochy water supply.

Today we on the Sunshine Coast have safe, reliable, treated drinking water. I believe our localcouncils—Noosa, Maroochy and Caloundra—are all doing a very good job in not just providing treatedwater for today but also planning for the region’s water needs for the future, a regional approach. I quotefrom Noosa Mayor Bob Abbot’s response to the motion. He said—Let’s get back to the position that allows each level of government to get on with the things we are good at and work together toprovide a better water service to south-east Queensland.

I table his written response.Tabled paper: Correspondence, dated 14 March 2007, from Mr Bob Abbot, Mayor, Noosa Council.

I also note that these comments are consistent with the survey of south-east Queenslandresidents commissioned by the Local Government Association of Queensland. I table that article for thebenefit of all members.Tabled paper: Copy of Local Government news release, dated 14 March 2007, titled ‘Survey supports Councils’ maintainingControl of Water’.

A further article I wish to table is a press release I have received this evening from the MaroochyShire Council in response to this motion and in response to the Deputy Premier’s press release dated 9March 2007. I quote in part from that press release—The facts are that Maroochy Shire Council made the following investments directly in Maroochy Water Services assets over thethree years identified on the attached table. Capital expenditure on water and sewerage assets, $76.3 million; reduction on waterand sewerage debt, $16.2 million; transfers of water and sewerage reserves, $16.9 million—a total of $109.4 million. Tabled paper: Details of investments by the Maroochydore Shire Council in water services.

I ask all members before voting on this motion to reflect on comments that were made in thischamber and in federal parliament and in the media just over a fortnight ago when we saw the similarargy-bargy between the federal government and state premiers around Australia in relation to the waterflow in the Murray-Darling Basin. We all have a role to play in working in partnership.

Time expired. Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (6.06 pm): It is a pleasure to rise and support the amendment moved

by the Deputy Premier. I want to put on the record my appreciation and understanding of the scope ofwork that is undertaken by local councils in my electorate—the Brisbane City Council and Pine RiversShire Council—and across Queensland. I have had the pleasure of visiting communities across thestate and talking to local councils about the unique challenges of building and maintaining infrastructurefor populations that wax and wane and delivering services to people who expect a level of servicedelivery equitable to those enjoyed in the most populous parts of the state.

14 Mar 2007 Motion 1039

Indeed, it is incredibly informative and invaluable that on a number of occasions I have joinedlocal councils for briefings on issues like traffic, local road planning, approvals for new housing estatesand delicate environmentally sensitive issues. With the members for Kurwongbah, Everton and FernyGrove, I have often joined the Pine Rivers council to collaboratively discuss and advocate for funds todeal with that fast-growing region.

I joined other female MPs, including the member for Algester, the year before last on the ‘sheilasto the bush’ visit to the south-west in which we talked specifically about issues affecting water with ourcountry cousins. We went to Dalby to see their desal plant. At Goondiwindi we saw a ski park, which Ithink they were turning into a waterfront estate. We met fantastic female farmers who had amazinglyadaptive land care strategies. We went to Cubbie Station, which was an education.

Ms Struthers: You saw that sign that said, ‘Free beer if you come back tomorrow.’ Ms BARRY: Yes—and we had a valuable visit to farmers at St George. Managing a safe and

reliable reticulated water supply to their communities is important to councils. Water is both a curse anda blessing for councils. But right here, right now, water is a matter of life and death—the life and death ofeconomic stability, lifestyle, future prosperity; life and death for stocks, crops, agricultural lives andpeople’s dreams; and, without being a doomsayer, life and death for people. Already we have heardstories of older people in south-east Queensland rationing their drinking water in response to what theyinterpret to be water restrictions. I have had to counsel a number of seniors in my electorate to keepdrinking during summer because they think it important that they conserve water. It is appropriate forthis state government to determine on behalf of the people of Queensland the best possible course ofaction for the state’s water resources. In the first instance it is absolutely critical that councils fix leaks inthe system.

A sum of $32 million has been made available for this work, but to date only $7 million has beenspent, $6 million of it in January—and this in the most urgent of times. Only 10 per cent of water hasbeen saved from leaks and that is 90 per cent too little. It is unacceptable for people to be photographedregularly by the media standing in front of fountains of water gushing from pipes that have burstbecause they have fallen into decline, or for people to be unable to walk across footpaths or their frontyards because constantly leaking pipes have created a swamp, as has been the case in some of myolder suburbs.

It is a bit rich for everybody to continually ask people to tighten their collective water belts, losethe pleasure of gardening and feel the effects of reduced water pressure in their pipes—pipes whichbelong to an already aging pipe system—when repairing leaks is not the absolute priority of council.State funding for leak repair is not new. For years we have funded councils for major infrastructureprograms. Water is a source of revenue for council to be used at its discretion. I take that point.However, where is the money going? If I could see it going into important projects like road safety, Icould be a little more sympathetic to councils that rail against the pressure being applied by this stategovernment.

For my constituents in my electorate one of the most pressing issues of road safety concerns aBrisbane City Council road, that is, Telegraph Road, which crosses the Caboolture rail line. Clearly, thatrail crossing needs to be rediverted. Calls from residents, state members of parliament and our ownLiberal councillor to redirect the crossing have fallen on deaf ears at City Hall. The state roads ministerhas made $150 million available across the state to fix crossings, yet the lord mayor has made nomovement to even fund the commencement of the planning of this road redirection.

One cannot have it both ways. Councils cannot have funds from state government to fix leaks andnot fix leaks. They cannot have the authority to redirect water revenue away from water infrastructure ifother critical infrastructure projects lay unattended. This is a time for tough decisions and for councils tobe truthful about what the state government has made available for water programs to deliver thenecessary infrastructure that residents deserve.

Mr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (6.11 pm): I rise to support the motion moved by the member forGladstone. Tonight we have had a very interesting debate. There is a sense of Big Brother about all ofthis. One can understand local government being very wary. The Beattie government has a none-too-flash record on water and health, yet it says, ‘Trust us, we’re from the government. We will look after allyour local government water.’ I do not blame the collective voice of local government for being verycynical about that particular set-up.

The survey of south-east Queensland residents that was commissioned by the Local GovernmentAssociation clearly shows that Queenslanders do not want the state government to take away the rightsof managing water from local government. That is absolutely clear.

I turn to the Maryborough experience by way of example. The Teddington Weir is as old as I amand that is getting pretty ancient, to say the least. The Teddington Weir is being managed wonderfully bythe Maryborough City Council. At a time when we have an incredibly dry spell and dams are notoriouslylow, the Teddington Weir is not only 100 per cent full but also overflowing to the point that the

1040 Motion 14 Mar 2007

Maryborough City Council has decided that on Monday all level 1 water restrictions will be lifted.Therefore, one can imagine that my community is not too thrilled about giving over the management ofan excellent facility that has been planned and maintained impeccably and is an absolute model for therest of the state on how to manage water.

An honourable member: It’s rained in Maryborough.Mr FOLEY: That may be true. We do get rain, but it is not just about getting rain. I have read a

recent report that suggests that if the Traveston Dam had been built 10 years ago it would not be fullnow. Therefore, it is not just a question of building dam infrastructure and rainfall.

The member for Aspley talked about the dire need for water in Brisbane. I have a great deal ofsympathy for older people who are trying to do the right thing in terms of managing their waterrestrictions. Today I had an interesting conversation with a cab driver who asked me not to tell anyonehis name but to respect his confidentiality. I do not know his name anyway but—

An honourable member: You can respect his confidentiality. Mr FOLEY: I am respecting his confidentiality. Ms Nolan: Except that you are saying it in parliament. Mr FOLEY: No, he asked me not to mention his name. I am saying ‘a cab driver’. The member for

Ipswich would know that there are a few cab drivers in Brisbane. The cab driver said, ‘I still water my plants illegally and I’ll be buggered if I’m going to let them die.’

I beg the House’s pardon for the unparliamentary language, but that is exactly what was said to me.Therefore, when we look at the Maryborough community that has maintained an excellent water facilitythat is full to overflowing and attitudes such as that, members can understand that we are not too keenon handing over our water rights.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I advise the member for Maryborough that that language isunparliamentary and I ask him to withdraw.

Mr FOLEY: I unreservedly withdraw the statement that was made to me today on behalf—Mr Hayward: On behalf of the cab driver. Mr FOLEY: Yes. The Teddington Weir supplies the city with water and we have engaged

consultants to examine the bulk water needs of Maryborough up to 2040. That is an example of long-term sensible planning. The year 2040 is a long way away, so the Maryborough City Council has beenvery proactive in planning in relation to water. Again, it does not appreciate being condescended to,patted on the head and told to roll over and play dead while the state government takes over its waterinfrastructure. In 2006-07, the Maryborough council is investing $6.7 million in upgrading waste waterfacilities. We have an excellent facility for collecting waste water, recycling it and making it available foragriculture. My community does not want the Traveston Dam and we do not want the state governmentto take over our water.

Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (6.18 pm): I support the amended motion and I certainly agreewith the sentiments expressed therein. When it comes to water there must be cooperation between alllevels of government, particularly local and state.

The original motion seems to imply that at one time there was a great deal of cooperationbetween state governments and the local authorities. I served on the Gold Coast City Council from 1988to 1994 and for those last three years I was the chairman of the planning committee. I was one of onlythree aldermen who opposed the amalgamation of the Gold Coast City Council and the Albert shire. Theother aldermen were Lex Bell and Gary Baildon. I know that there are members on the other side of thedebate who have also served in local government.

My point is that the level of cooperation with the state government was fairly mixed. At the time ofthe amalgamation I made an observation that at least it would lead to a united position and morecooperation with the state for the benefit of the region, particularly on issues such as water anddevelopment on the flood plain. There were occasions of cooperation such as with the construction ofthe rail line and other roads, including the M1.

However, the Gold Coast City Council and the Albert Shire Council would have regular jointmeetings to discuss issues of concern to both councils—issues that required a joint approach to thestate government. In those days dealing with the state government was very much an us-and-themsituation, because I think they were fairly used to dealing with a conservative and certainly NationalParty-led government. It was a fairly mixed situation. There was no unanimous position on how to dealwith the state government. With regard to water, the Gold Coast City Council owned the Hinze Damfreehold and sold water to the Albert Shire Council. Every year there would be an argument about whatthe Albert Shire Council had to pay for that water. Invariably, that would have to be resolved by a stategovernment appointed arbitrator.

14 Mar 2007 Motion 1041

The Albert Shire Council did no planning for growth, particularly when it came to waterconsumption. Issues of water were raised in many meetings with the Albert Shire Council. The GoldCoast representatives would point out that one cannot keep subdividing cow paddocks to accommodate2,000 or 3,000 people where previously six people and 200 or 300 cows had lived. It’s response wouldbe, ‘Well, we’ll just buy more water from you.’ We would then say, ‘Well, there might come a time’—remember, this was about 1990—‘when the Gold Coast can’t sell you anymore water.’ In those days thatwas greeted with much merriment. Look where we are today!

With regard to planning for dams, the Nationals often raised the issue of the scrapping of theplanned Wolffdene Dam. Of course they neglect to mention that this was a platform of the Goss Laborgovernment in 1989 and the position was supported by the Liberals. So even if the coalition hadretained government the dam still would not have been built. The Wivenhoe Dam was constructed withthe cooperation of the local authority, the Brisbane City Council, and the state government. It was built inthe 1970s. In those days there were just as many protesters around about the building of WivenhoeDam as there are now about the Traveston Dam. If the Bjelke-Petersen government in those days hadtaken notice of the protesters, where would we be? We would not have the Wivenhoe Dam to deal withthe present situation.

Mrs Pratt interjected. Mr LAWLOR: It was also for storage. Whatever the original purpose was, it is now serving the

purpose of storage of drinking water. Several years ago when the Hinze Dam was at 25 per cent and the Wivenhoe was at 90 per cent,

I was told by engineers that a pipeline system was needed that connected the dams because at thattime—over five years ago—there was enough water in the Wivenhoe to supply the whole of south-eastQueensland for four years without one more drop of rain falling. Now we are building that water grid toconnect the various dams to spread the available water, say from Hinze to Wivenhoe and so on.

When we talk about cooperation, the Gold Coast gets water from the Wivenhoe Dam, to the northof the Gold Coast around Beenleigh, yet councillors down there were saying—and we are talking aboutcooperation—that they were not going to give any of their water to Brisbane, notwithstanding the factthat the Gold Coast is getting water from Brisbane right now. The idea that there has been cooperationin the past is a bit of a myth.

This government is quite prepared to cooperate with all local authorities. On Monday eightbackbenchers met with the Local Government Association, including Paul Bell, Greg Hallam andseveral other officers. It was a good meeting—a cooperative meeting. This government is quiteprepared to cooperate with the local authorities.

Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (6.21 pm): I support the motion moved by the member forGladstone, Mrs Cunningham. In her address the Deputy Premier said that the community would wantone local authority. This is typical of the mistruths the government puts about. In fact, a survey was donelast Monday night that was commissioned by the Local Government Association. It was conducted byindependent pollsters Market Facts. By a margin of better than two to one, it was found that south-eastQueensland residents opposed the takeover of council water assets by the state government. In otherwords, 52 per cent of south-east Queensland residents said no to asset stripping, 24 per cent said yesand the balance said they did not know. The strongest vote against the Premier’s proposed takeoverwas on the Sunshine Coast, where 72 per cent of residents said no. They said no. That is what theysaid.

This is typical of the mistruths from the government. The Premier is demonising councils bysaying that councils, for instance, are getting $1.3 billion over three years. Therefore, the councils areirresponsible, and they should have been putting that money back into water infrastructure. This reportis quite clear. It says that councils received $83.3 million in 2005-06. If that is multiplied out roughly, it isabout a quarter of a billion dollars overall for the three years. It is nowhere near the $1.3 billion thePremier mentioned.

There has also been a capital expenditure of about $439 million in 2005-06. Every dollar of thedividend paid out by South East Queensland Water—$3.60—was invested back into water. There hasbeen an enormous return there. Under the law the dividends have to be at a commercial rate of return ofabout seven per cent. The obligation under the national competition policy and the interrelatedgovernment agreements says that. Local governments are doing exactly what they have to do. Theirdividends are lower than Victorian Water. What is going to happen if the $83 million that localgovernments are now making out of that water is not in their budgets? Will the councils have to put uptheir rates to increase the amount of money they are going to lose? About 2,000 to 2,500 jobs are at riskin local government across Queensland if this occurs, and that will mainly happen in south-eastQueensland.

The government’s proposal of a zero return is against its own legislation and against the nationalcompetition policy arrangements that are in place. The government is not even telling the truth. It cannotdo that. The councils are getting a seven per cent return because it is under legislation. The councilshave to get that. The government has to go to the Commonwealth government and talk to it about

1042 Motion 14 Mar 2007

changing the rules. If the government does that, the rules have to be changed for SunWater and all ofthe water authorities. The government does not have a good record in this area. The government isbasically using stunts. This government is on the wrong track.

Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to. AYES, 50—Attwood, Barry, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt,Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce,Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Welford,Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, NolanNOES, 29—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth,Langbroek, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Rickuss, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens,Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Foley, Lee Long

Resolved in the affirmative.Motion, as amended, agreed to, viz—

That this House acknowledges the work done by Queensland Local Authorities in partnership with the State Government overmany years to provide a safe and reliable reticulated water supply to their communities and recognises the importance of Stateand Local Governments working co-operatively in the South East and across Queensland to continue these positive relationshipsand arrangements.

Sitting suspended from 6.33 pm to 7.30 pm.

MOTION

Disallowance of Statutory InstrumentMr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (7.30 pm): I move—

That the Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006 and subordinate legislation 2006 No. 289 tabled inthe parliament on 6 February 2007 be disallowed.

I have to say from the outset this evening that the opposition is not in the business of disagreeingwith the government’s strategy on road safety. We are certainly supporters of road safety in this state,and I think we identified that very precisely and very clearly with the legislation on drug driving and otherissues relating to transport that went through the House recently. The heavy road transport industrycertainly applauds that legislation. Anybody who is sane, sensible and responsible will certainly endorseit and support the government in that initiative.

I do not condone breaking traffic laws and the opposition supports the great majority of bills in thisHouse on road safety and related issues. But I do believe that this is a victimisation of innocent peoplewho need their heavy vehicle licence to go about their employment. These are people who keep thisstate and nation moving—whether they are driving semitrailers, heavy rigid trucks, type 1 or type 2 roadtrains, B-doubles, AB-triples or whatever configuration it may be. The government’s regulations onlogbook demerit points will be the scourge of the heavy transport industry. Like many other industries,many of these good operators are leaving to go to the mining sector or other employment.

I do not say this lightly, as I said at the outset. I have spoken with the minister and transportindustry leaders about this issue. Nobody—and I mean nobody—endorses breaking the law, but heavytransport fines have now been doubled as a result of the government’s policy and demerit points havealso been included in the penalty system. While the fines are certainly a deterrent, I believe that thedemerit points system will be an absolute impediment to the heavy transport industry. The heavytransport industry employs people who are professionals in their field of expertise; they are people witha lot of training. You cannot just get a motorcar licence and go and drive a type 1 road train, a type 2road train or a semitrailer, for that matter. You have to go through the channels that lead up to that,whether it be heavy rigid and then semitrailer.

I am directing a lot of my comments tonight to the fact that irritated and agitated police officers canutilise their authority to make it difficult for these operators, and the demerit points system will certainlycome into play. In the briefings from departmental officers we heard that 85 per cent of people are finedon the road because they do not have a logbook or do not fill in a logbook. I know perfectly well thatduring the last week or so there were six or seven of these cases where heavy transport operators werefined for not filling in logbooks or whatever and are therefore now subject to the loss of demerit points.

I am worried that if we lose these people—and, as I say, they are professionals; it is not anapprenticeship that is done in one or two years—road safety will become an issue, because desperationwill creep in and the people who operate these vehicles will be those who have lost their licence beforeor who have a ‘don’t care’ attitude and snub their noses at authority. At the end of the day, the drivingregulations require drivers to drive for five hours, have an hour off and then drive for another five hoursand unload or whatever. The people who are in the regulated industry and who have done theTruckSafe program and maintain the criteria that goes with fatigue management are certainly upholdingthe law. I have spoken to many of those operators and they are quite happy with it. I spoke to one of mybrothers the other day and asked him about it and he said, ‘I’ve never been knocked off for a logbookfine.’

14 Mar 2007 Motion 1043

I believe the people in the livestock industry are the ones who will be at the wrong end of thescale here. They may have a load of cattle but they may not be able to make their driving time hours of12 hours or whatever it is because there were problems loading the cattle. I will use the example of theQuilpie to Dinmore stretch where it takes about 12 hours to get a road train through there by the timeyou break it up in Toowoomba, get someone to pull the dog trailer down the range and unload that truckand get it back to, say, Blacksoil where they will pull up. That truck has to stay there then for five or sixhours while the driver rests.

This is another situation, and I have spoken to the minister about this and he has agreed thatMain Roads will now look at where extra rest areas can be placed. I know that heavy transportcompanies from the far north in the gulf country region—companies like Road Trains of Australia,Curly’s Transport at Cloncurry, Grants Transport from Winton and other companies that haul from furtherout—will never be able to make the time schedules to Brisbane or wherever. We have to bear in mindthat two-thirds of livestock that are slaughtered or go to market in this state come to the south-eastcorner, whether it is through an abattoir or a saleyard. The important thing is that transport inspectorsand police show understanding and compassion at this time. I know the minister has been sympatheticabout this situation. I know he is the one who is trying to clean up the industry, and we support him inthat.

The other side of the equation is the produce carriers in the far north who can also run into thesame fate. I spoke today to a long distance operator who operates between Brisbane and Darwin. Whileit is all very well to have hot-seat driving or two-up driving and they change drivers at places like MountIsa, they still have to get to Mount Isa and they cannot drive a truck from Brisbane to Mount Isa insidethe given time. This is another aspect of the regulation that I make reference to and bring to theminister’s attention tonight. Whilst I know he will not support where I am coming from, I hope he willsupport my arguments on the viewing of the logbook. For example, in the logbook where it starts atmidnight and finishes at midnight, the inspectors can go through that logbook in any 24-hour period. I donot think that is fair, because in real terms any 24-hour period can start at four o’clock one morning andfinish at four o’clock the next morning. If that is outside the guidelines of that midnight to midnight, thatdriver can be suspended, fined or whatever for driving outside the hours. I say to departmental officersand the minister that a fair equation here would most definitely be a situation where midnight to midnightis the regulation for logbooks.

The other issue I want to touch on tonight is the driving hours prescribed for livestock andproduce drivers. They are the ones who really have to make the markets. I can give examples.Problems are caused if a driver has an ugly time loading livestock, runs into a flooded creek or river orgets a flat inside dual tyre at two o’clock in the morning in driving rain. They cannot change those tyresin 20 minutes; it could take a couple of hours to do it by the time they find somewhere to pull over andget that wheel off. These are all situations where drivers will run out of time.

The fatigue management operation is a great provision. It is going to be around for a long time. Alltransport operators will have to be part of that if they are fair dinkum about staying in this industry longterm. At the end of day, there is not going to be any room for cowboys in this industry anymore. I joinwith the minister and the government, as do other members of the opposition, in their endeavours tomake absolutely certain that this industry is cleaned up and made safe. We are not going to do it if wesubject drivers to this extra scrutiny. They could be apprehended and knocked off for a breach oflogbook laws. There are good drivers out there and they are professionals. These are the people thatwe have to make sure we keep in the industry.

There are a couple of other things that I want to touch on this evening. The only way to meet therequirements is by hot seat-driving. That is certainly not acceptable to livestock drivers. I have referredto the two-up driver operations or the hot-seat driving. A driver does not get a proper night’s sleep whenthey are sleeping in the bunk of a sleeper cab. It is impossible to get proper sleep. Most accidents thatoccur with heavy transport occur as a result of two-up driving.

On the other side of the equation there is a lack of rest areas. I have canvassed that issue thisevening. The 24-hour logbook period is very important. I appeal to the minister to make certain that thatperiod becomes part of the government’s regulation because I think it will add fairness to the equation.The important factor here is that we need to look after those people who are trying to do the right thing.

When I was the minister I gave the livestock and other produce drivers extra time to get theirstock or produce off if they experienced a difficult situation. I know that heavy transport drivers from thenorth and gulf regions are going to build some spelling yards or upgrade the yards at Blackall so thatthey can unload. Still they would be pushing to get to Dinmore or wherever in time because their type 1configuration has to be broken up at Toowoomba. Please God, I hope the federal government comes tothe aid of the state government soon and we see the Toowoomba bypass built. These heavy transportscould descend on the south-east corner without being subject to the trauma they go through now.

The real issue to be considered here is the issue of animal welfare. Animal welfare is an integralpart of where I am coming from tonight. If drivers run out of driving hours in the middle of the midday sunor in the afternoon we will find that we could have fat bullocks standing in a road train for five hours. The

1044 Motion 14 Mar 2007

kidney fats will melt and they will die in the trucks. Then we would have an animal welfare issue. If theyare drought stock they will go down. If they are lactating or heavily pregnant cows they will go down.This is a case where animal welfare comes into play.

I have spoken to the minister about this. I hope that we can see a way clear to have somecompassion and understanding in the law. The real issue for the produce people from the far north ismeeting the market timetables. If this cannot be avoided we are going to see the biggest heap ofvegetables and probably the best soil in the world in a refuge pit outside the markets in Brisbane. That issomething we do not want to see happen.

Mr Deputy Speaker O’Brien, I have spoken to people in the area of far-north Queensland that yourepresent. If people are pulling cattle out of a place like Weipa and it takes 12 hours to get to Cairns,they will face the situation where they will not get to Townsville or wherever before the deadline.

These are contentious issues. The real issue is securing the right people in this industry andmaking absolutely certain that they are treated as professionals and given the recognition that theydeserve to get the livestock to their destination. At the same time they should not be subject to blatantabuse by transport inspectors and irate police who see them as the ones on the roads who cause themost problems.

There are no sealed roads in the gulf region, which you represent Mr Deputy Speaker, and insome other regions such as that which the honourable member for Mount Isa represents. It takes driversnearly a week and a day to get back on to sealed roads before they can make the trip further south. A lotof people do not take that into account. I appeal to the minister and to the department of transport toshow some understanding. I trust that they can see merit in where the opposition is coming from. Thesepeople are professional working men. They have families and they need to keep their jobs.

Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (7.45 pm): I am pleased to second the motion moved by themember for Gregory. As the member for Gregory has explained, this regulation will not work in apractical sense. We need some flexibility in the system. What we are seeing in this regulation isprovisions that are more stringent than the national standards. It is important to recognise that. Thegovernment is coming in over the top. The one-rule-fits-all approach does not work.

Mr Lucas interjected.

Mr HOBBS: What the regulation proposes makes it harder for people. What is the reason forthat? There is no logical reason for this occurring apart from the desires of Hughie Williams and theunion movement. That is the reason we can see for this occurring.

If we are talking about road safety I have some figures on the accidents involving heavy trucks.Semitrailers—that is, single trailers—account for 60 per cent of the major accidents and they carry45 per cent of the freight. The road trains account for 10 per cent of the major accidents and carry15 per cent of the freight. More mature drivers are operating road trains and it is a different storyaltogether. We do not have road trains carrying livestock on the coastal routes. There are B-doubles.

The other point is that 75 per cent of crashes occur in the first three hours of a journey. Thegreatest number of crashes occur on Mondays. These figures point not to fatigue but to bad driverhabits that we have no control over. It is Mondayitis. What the government is doing is putting a penaltyon everybody else. The road train operators are more responsible, more mature and better drivers yet apenalty will be imposed upon everybody.

Picking up cattle from Tambo is the absolute limit from which a driver will have to get cattle intothe meatworks in one day. If the driver has a hold-up—whether they come across a flooded creek or geta flat tyre—what are they going to do? They could be 10 minutes, 20 minutes or 30 minutes out ofDinmore, Dalby or Roma and what would they do? Would they pull up beside the road? There isnowhere to pull up. They cannot stop. What if they have to sit and wait for a creek to go down, forinstance? What happens if there is a hold-up in loading? It is absolutely ridiculous. I was speaking theother day to George Johnson, the president of Livestock Transporters Association of Queensland. Hewas telling me a few stories. We heard that Road Trains of Australia has 16 road trains.

Six staff came in and said to the boss, ‘Sorry, mate. We just can’t afford the fines. We can’t affordto stay in your industry.’ As a result, those staff have had to move on. How are there going to be double-ups? That can happen with trucks carrying general freight when it is known that that truck will get to acertain town at a certain time. If that is the case, there can be another driver waiting to take over. Butway out west there cannot be double-ups. How would the minister like to sit in the front of a cab with acodriver day after day after day after day? It just does not work. We cannot put two people in a road trainand sit them in there for that period of time. We cannot do it. As a result of this there will in fact be joblosses because the cattle will not be able to get to the meatworks. Hughie Williams will in fact lose jobsbecause drivers will not be able to deliver the cattle to the meatworks because of this stupid regulation.This is a senseless regulation.

14 Mar 2007 Motion 1045

Logbooks should operate from midnight to midnight, and that gives a reasonable opportunity tosee what drivers are doing. The regulation needs to be 16 driving hours a day as opposed to 16 workinghours, because drivers could park their truck beside a flooded creek and have a sleep but it is countedas working hours. It is ridiculous. If a driver has a two- or three-hour sleep, why can they not keep ongoing and deliver the cattle? If that does not happen, the stock will be sitting by the side of the road inroad trains. I am talking about three trailers in many instances pulled up on the side of a road that has norest area. Those trucks have the potential to tip over, because the cattle rock around and so forth andover the truck will go. It is absolutely stupid. Graham Elmes from Cape York talked about the fact that itcosts $40 a beast to transport them from Weipa to Townsville. All this is doing is taking the revenue outof the industry. The minister is not thinking logically about it.

Mr Lucas interjected.

Mr HOBBS: But it is not. It is not doing that. I really believe that the minister needs to listen for astart and maybe take on board what we are saying. We live in those areas. This is our livelihoods, forheaven’s sake. We live there. We know these people. The minister is sitting in here in his ivory towerand is not even taking into consideration what the issues are.

Ms Barry interjected.

Mr HOBBS: I hear a comment from the member for Aspley. I bet that it has been a long timesince she has been to Blackall and a long time since she has been in a road train. She would not have aclue what is going on. I plead to the minister—

Ms Barry interjected.

Mr HOBBS: That is extraordinary. We are running out of time. The minister really needs toconsider that this is not doing what he was hoping it would do.

Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (7.52 pm): I rise to speak against the disallowance motion inrelation to the Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1998. This regulationintroduced demerit points and increased fines for driving hours and logbook offences for heavy vehicledrivers under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Fatigue Management) Regulation1998. Quite simply, road safety is an increasingly important issue, and a key area within road safety isheavy vehicle driver fatigue. If we believe what the member for Warrego said, he virtually said that allroad train drivers are breaking the law as we speak. He also talked about people leaving the industry.This regulation is about road safety. The other benefit is that it evens the playing field so that the roguesof the industry—and thankfully there are only a few of them—will be caught. If it is an even playing field,companies or contractors will not try to get particular jobs knowing that they can make their drivers drivewell above 16 hours if they are carrying livestock. This will create an even playing field for the goodoperators which does not exist now. That is a side benefit to the issue of road safety. Road safety is thekey, but there is that side benefit to it.

Proper compliance with recording driving and working hours under fatigue managementlegislation is at the heart of this regulation to introduce demerit points and increase fines. Let us get onething straight: the regulation that the opposition is moving to disallow does not introduce one newobligation on the heavy vehicle industry. This regulation is all about putting penalties in place that send avery clear signal that deceptive flouting of obligations will not be tolerated. It was 16 hours for livestockbefore 1 March; it is 16 hours for livestock after 1 March. It is the same, and offenders need to be dealtwith accordingly as this is a very serious road safety issue. This is not about overexuberantenforcement, as this can be clearly addressed through enforcement instructions to police officers andtransport inspectors.

I have had the pleasure with the member for Gregory of meeting with truck drivers and truckoperators. A couple of points have been made about drivers being picked up about spelling errors andthe like. The reality is that no evidence of that can be found. In fact, the minister quite clearly said at ameeting that I attended that if people have evidence of that being picked up they should let it be knownthat that is occurring. If that is occurring, then that is not the intent of these changes. It is not about aspelling error of a particular street or a particular town. It is not a literacy test; it is about road safety. Thecurrent heavy vehicle driver fatigue management regulations also provide, amongst other things,systems and guidance that clearly set out sound practice for maintaining appropriate driving hours forheavy vehicle drivers.

There is a rapidly growing body of knowledge on the sources of fatigue in the heavy vehicleindustry, and I note that the National Transport Commission recently undertook a comprehensive reviewof the regulatory approach to managing fatigue in the driving of heavy vehicles and driving hours. Iunderstand that in progressing the development of these reforms a thorough review of this research wasconducted to canvass the nature and extent of the fatigue problems which led to a range of options forimproving the management of heavy vehicle driver fatigue. All Australian jurisdictions were involved indevelopment of the reforms, and extensive consideration and consultation was undertaken with the

1046 Motion 14 Mar 2007

industry and the respective transport unions. The new reforms received unanimous support from theAustralian Transport Council and, when adopted, should see a reduction in heavy vehicle crashes as aresult of drivers being less fatigued than at present through improved fatigue management practices onthe part of drivers and operators. I expect these changes will also see safety benefits for all road users.

I congratulate the minister for his part in progressing these reforms and for putting the issue ofdemerit points and penalties on the National Transport Commission agenda. I believe that thesechanges will also further strengthen the chain of responsibility legislation, as the new provisions willimpose various duties and responsibilities on parties in the supply chain whose actions or inactionsaffect road safety. It is well known the role and impact that employers or those in the chain can have onheavy vehicle drivers and their ability to comply with fatigue regulations. The amendments within theregulation being debated tonight will go a long way to addressing the responsibilities of all of thoseinvolved in the heavy vehicle freight chain. If they continue to flout our fatigue laws, then employers anddrivers will suffer both the consequences of these higher penalties and licence demerit points.

Crashes involving heavy freight vehicles have far more severe consequences than light vehiclecrashes. On average, four per cent or one in 25 casualties of heavy vehicle crashes are killed comparedwith 1.6 per cent or one in 60 for light vehicle crashes. The amendments within this regulation, togetherwith the new national reforms when adopted in Queensland, should significantly improve road safety inQueensland. I emphasise the point: this is about road safety. The other benefit is that this will put inplace a level playing field for the whole industry.

If we continue to allow drivers in the livestock industry to exceed the 16-hour driving limit, we areallowing the opportunity for serious road accidents to occur. As a government, we have had toimplement reforms in a range of industries, as have previous governments, to make workplaces or ourroads safe. We cannot just say, ‘This is going to cost jobs’ and allow an unsafe practice to continue.Today people wear workboots and they wear hard hats. They did not do that many years ago.

An honourable member: They had hard heads.Mr REEVES: The member is probably right. This is a serious issue. We cannot allow an unsafe

practice to continue just because one, two, three or four drivers say that they are going to get out of theindustry because they might get a fine that they cannot afford to pay. We would be failing in our duty aslegislators if we allowed that. We must make all of our workplaces safe. More importantly, we need tomake the trucking industry safe. By doing that, we make the other road users safe, particularly in thoserural and regional areas. I do not support the disallowance motion. I thank the minister for progressingthese important changes to improve road safety. I congratulate him on doing so.

Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (8.01 pm): I rise to speak in support of the motion to disallowthe Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006, which was moved by themember for Gregory. I am particularly concerned about the effects that this regulation will have onindustries in the electorate of Hinchinbrook, which depend greatly on heavy vehicle transport to movetheir produce to southern markets. I recognise that the principal concerns about this regulation pertain tothe cattle industry. North Queensland and far-north Queensland have a well-established and growingcattle industry. They face significant difficulties if the provisions of this regulation are not reconsidered inrecognition of the serious difficulties they will cause for the road transport industry and the industriesthat depend on it.

It would appear that the regulation includes demerit points and fines which, taken together,exceed the latest recommendations from the National Transport Commission report of November 2006.There is a firm view among road transport industry operators and the primary industries that theyservice that this regulation will increase transport costs and, as a consequence, the cost of the productsthat these heavy vehicles are carrying.

There are several arguments to be advanced in support of treating the transportation of liveanimals differently from the transportation of other products owing to animal welfare considerations. If adriver has completed their allowable driving hours and then is required to stop to rest until they areallowed to drive again, the animals that the driver is transporting standing in the trailers will remainstanding if there are no appropriate unloading and holding facilities available. From time to time duringthe transport of live animals responsible drivers stop to check their load. If this regulation puts pressureon drivers to make destinations within shorter time frames, the regularity and diligence of drivers withrespect to these animal welfare considerations may be compromised. Similarly, even if the trucks arenot carrying live animals, from time to time responsible drivers stop to check their rig while haulingloads. But if drivers are pushed by imposing overly restrictive logbook requirements they may not beable to monitor their loads as frequently to meet delivery timetables. This has the potential to affect roadsafety.

The banana industry in my electorate depends on heavy vehicle transport to deliver bananasgrown in north Queensland to the southern markets in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide andPerth. Every week about 290 semitrailers carrying bananas travel from north Queensland to those

14 Mar 2007 Motion 1047

southern markets. The main concern of the banana industry is that the transport operators serving thatindustry will lose demerit points for noncompliance with aspects of the regulation as a result of trivialoffences, such as spelling mistakes in logbooks.

There is already a shortage of heavy vehicle licence holders available to meet the growingdemand for road transport. Industry groups in north Queensland are concerned about the changes tothe regulation that will extend delivery times to the furthest destinations, such as Melbourne, Adelaideand Perth, from two to three days. This will certainly increase the costs of produce and goods hauled outof north Queensland.

Mr Lucas: Only for people who break the law, and they’ve been breaking it at the moment.Mr CRIPPS: In addition to the banana industry and the cattle industry, other industries in north

Queensland that depend on heavy vehicle transport to deliver their products to southern marketsinclude the mango, lychee and pineapple industries and a range of other horticultural industries.

Mr Lucas: You’re slurring all the industries by saying this.Mr CRIPPS: I am surprised that the minister is taking exception to my comments about north

Queensland. Recently he was in north Queensland and drove along the highway between Cairns andTownsville where he would have seen the large number of heavy vehicles on the road.

Industry groups and transport operators have reported some instances of overbearing inspectorswho have been known to go back over 12 months of entries during their logbook inspections to pick upspelling mistakes and fine drivers for these types of trivial infringements. Others have reported thatinspectors are sitting outside the gates of wholesale markets and pulling up drivers as they drive outheading towards the service station roadhouses up the road to have a break where they complete theirlogbooks. But because the drivers have not made the entries to their logbooks on site at the market theyare fined and as a result they lose points.

In considering the proposed changes to this regulation, the lack of rest bays available to heavyvehicles on heavy vehicle transport routes is a major concern. This means that drivers have to time theirstops and probably have to pull up short of their allocated driving times, because they know that there isnot a rest bay or a roadhouse for another two hours or so. There needs to be more bays and these baysought to have sufficient space to take a number of trucks. There ought to be appropriate facilitiesprovided at these rest bays.

If the minister is not inclined to support the opposition’s disallowance motion tonight, he ought togive serious consideration to placing a moratorium on the enforcement of this regulation for 18 monthsor so in order to give him and his department an opportunity to build those extra bays and appropriatefacilities before his government imposes these new conditions. I think that is a reasonable compromise.It would give the government an opportunity to demonstrate that it was serious about improving roadsafety beyond the other changes that were made recently without insisting on unnecessarily punitiverestrictions on the heavy vehicle road transport industry.

Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (8.06 pm): I rise to speak to this disallowance motion, whichwas moved by the member for Gregory. It is disappointing that these laws have been introduced inQueensland. They are a recipe for disaster. If they are not rescinded, they will cost jobs. They will alsoincrease the risk of accidents because inexperienced drivers will be employed to replace thoseexperienced drivers who will exit the industry because they have had a gutful, or it is no longer viable forthem to continue, or they have lost their licences because of loss of demerit points.

These new laws do not cover driving errors but paperwork infringements. If a driver is issued witha logbook infringement and is penalised with demerit points and a fine, the demerit points are not justdeducted from the driver’s truck licence but also from the driver’s car licence. Therefore, it is possible forthose drivers to lose their entire licence when their only crime was to not complete their logbookscorrectly. Regardless of whether or not these people are competent drivers, their inability to completetheir paperwork adequately puts them in the same category as those people who drive dangerously,thereby putting other road users at risk.

The average age of the Australian truck driver is the mid-50s. Already the trucking industry issuffering from a shortage of experienced drivers. Currently, several livestock transport firms have stooddown road train units because of the shortage of experienced drivers. The welfare of the stock and thedisastrous conditions of some of our rural roads requires drivers with experience in this industry.However, these unfair rules will result in the trucking industry not being be able to attract drivers to theindustry. Who wants to lose their licence, risk their livelihood or face the possibility of having to seekalternative employment because of logbook infringements? This is an extreme punishment for a law-abiding citizen.

Commercial pilots can lose their commercial pilot’s licence but not lose their ability to fly. Thosepilots can retain their private pilot’s licence so that they can gain employment in the private sector. Whyshould truck drivers lose their car licence for misdemeanours that do not reflect on their ability to drive?A comparison could be made between this regulation and the legislation that was introduced to regulate

1048 Motion 14 Mar 2007

the helicopter industry. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority recognised the particular difficulties faced bypilots involved in the helicopter-mustering industry and proposed amendments to reflect itsunderstanding of the industry-specific issues. This motion provides this government with an opportunityto recognise the specific difficulties that are faced by livestock transporters.

This legislation demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of cattle transportation. It doesnot take into consideration the particular challenges specific to the cattle industry. The animal welfareissues and the road conditions that these drivers have to endure to safely cart cattle from onedestination to another are being ignored by this legislation.

Livestock transporters plan their trips with the best intentions of completing the journey within thetime frame guidelines. However, with animal welfare, weather, shocking road conditions and mechanicalissues, there are going to be times when the trip will be delayed. It is not possible to pull up at a suitablerest area for five hours with a truck loaded with cattle. How many rest areas has this state governmentput in place with shade that can be utilised to protect their cargo? There are few spelling facilities thatare suitable for livestock transporters. It was the Goss government that pulled up all the trucking yards.There are not many trucking facilities here in Queensland—certainly not enough trucking facilities.

On the Flinders Highway between Townsville and Mount Isa there are only two governmentfunded rest stops. The one at Marathon on the eastern side of Richmond is not big enough to cater fortriples. The rest stop at Maxwelton on the western side of Richmond is the only suitable governmentprovided resting facility for triples along that highway. Is the government going to spend millions onupgrading and creating more rest areas throughout the state to cater for these new logbookinfringement laws? Will this government subsidise the trucking industry to ensure that it remains viable?

With the livestock industry there will be serious animal welfare issues that drivers, unless they arewilling to break the law, will not be able to address. Animal welfare will be seriously jeopardised unlessthese laws are thrown out. I have been informed that at this present moment at Harvey’s Range andForty Mile Scrub the transport department are out there harassing truckies, checking their logbooks,booking them and making their lives a misery.

Ms Croft: That’s rubbish. Mr KNUTH: This law will create an unsafe environment on our roads through the exodus of

skilled drivers. It will increase freight costs that will flow on to the consumer, create animal welfareissues, cost jobs and has the potential to ruin an industry. You are concerned about animal welfareissues, aren’t you? You care for animal welfare.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Member for Charters Towers, would you pleasedirect your speech through the chair.

Mr KNUTH: I support the opposition’s motion to have the logbook and the demerit point rulesdisallowed.

Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy—ALP) (8.12 pm): From 1 March heavy vehicle drivers will incur driverslicence demerit points and increased fines for driving hour offences and logbook offences. Thesechanges through regulation are about increasing compliance with logbook driving records and thedriving, work and rest hours contained in the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—FatigueManagement) Regulation 1998.

The regulation that the honourable member for Gregory, in good faith, wants this House todisallow is about adding weight to the 1998 fatigue management regulation and targets those driversand heavy transport operators who have found ways to abuse the regime prior to that which existed on1 March this year. Now while there was some sound argument for access to appropriate rest areas forheavy transporters, there is no argument that road safety is an increasingly important issue, and a keyarea within road safety is heavy vehicle driver fatigue. Proper compliance with recording, driving andworking hours under fatigue management legislation is at the heart of this regulation to introducedemerit points and increase fines.

Let me make very clear what is being changed in this regulation. None of the requirementsrelating to regulated driving, work and rest hours are being changed. None of the requirements relatingto logbooks and local area records are being changed—which includes the ability for livestock operatorsto operate for 16 hours, and if they are in a little bit of trouble they have an extra hour of operation beforeany action is taken against them. That is how it exists at the moment.

The points raised by the opposition exist under the current regulation. There is no change. Theindustry is functioning well, except for those operators who are breaching the regulations. What is beingchanged is the penalty system applying to these requirements. This regulation will introduce demeritpoints and tougher fines for existing offences. This is because there are still some heavy vehicle driversout there who continue to drive while fatigued, putting Queensland lives at risk. There are a lot of goodoperators out there but this is about getting those tough nuts.

14 Mar 2007 Motion 1049

We cannot argue about the facts which clearly show that people are dying and being seriouslyinjured as a consequence of fatigued drivers failing in their task. During 2005, there were 48 fatalitiesand 439 hospitalisations as a result of crashes involving a heavy freight vehicle within Queensland. In2006, this fatality rate rose to 54. In 2005, 10 of these fatalities were a direct result of crashes involvinga fatigued heavy vehicle driver. This represents 21 per cent of all fatalities as a result of crashesinvolving a heavy freight vehicle. These statistics also represent nine more fatalities than the previousyear and five fatalities more than the previous five-year average. This is despite the intent of the 1998regulation which was to reduce the time that drivers spend behind the wheel without taking reasonablebreaks.

By using demerit points we quickly rid the transport industry of those drivers who cheat thesystem by misrepresenting their hours of work through false logbook entries, and by increasing the fineswe rein in those operators who have in the past not hesitated in paying the fines of drivers just to get thejob done. The following drivers will be impacted by this amendment: drivers detected not carrying,producing or completing a logbook driving record as regulated; drivers driving beyond regulated drivinghours; drivers not taking regulated rest breaks will find themselves with demerit points against theirlicences, as well as significant fines, increased from 1 March; and any operators, consigners or anyother responsible person who causes or influences a driver to commit logbook or driving hour offencesunder the chain of responsibility obligations will also be affected, with the fines being increased from$1,500 to $4,500.

Road transport carries about 75 per cent of land freight in Australia, and it is expected thatthe amount of freight will double by 2020. What will also happen is that population growth will increase.Traffic movements will increase by about 30 per cent. With the high volume of traffic movements, bothlight and heavy, and the frequency of traffic movements, the risk of road crashes also increasessignificantly, and that is why government has to be proactive in the development of a policy and, wherenecessary, introduce legislation to manage the risk so as to keep a level of control over the road crashfactor. It is just something we have to do.

Currently four per cent of all road crashes and 12 per cent of fatal crashes in Queensland involveheavy vehicles. In 2003, heavy vehicles were found to be 14 times more likely than cars to be involvedin a fatal crash. So it is clear that with the projected increase in heavy vehicle movements there will bean increase in crash risk not only for heavy transport drivers but also for people like us. It is a fact thatheavy vehicle crashes will become an issue for industry, government and the public, and thegovernment cannot afford not to get tough and deal with what I call the tough nuts.

One of the most likely contributing factors of road crashes involving heavy transport is fatigue.Fatigue is frequently the trigger for a series of contributing factors that lead to heavy vehicles beinginvolved in a road crash. So it is important for the authorities to be able to monitor the hours that a driveris on the job; hence, the need for the logbook system.

Although there is a range of factors that can cause fatigue, there are probably three maincauses—lack of sleep, time of day or circadian factors, and time performing the task. These are thethree main factors that immediately come to one’s mind when one starts talking about the heavytransport industry. The high level of expectation that comes with the demands of road freightmovements means that drivers frequently go without beneficial sleep. They often drive at hours whenthe rest of us are sleeping and their body clocks cannot get into the routine of work and effective sleep.

In addition, because of the distance that road transporters are required to travel, the driver is onthe job for extended periods. They are expected to spend a lot more time on the job. The very nature ofthe task means that truck drivers are called on by their employers to continually step outside what isbest practice driving.

Mr Malone: That’s bullshit and you know it. Mr PEARCE: No, it is not bullshit.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! I warn the member for Mirani that that was not

parliamentary language.Mr PEARCE: And neither was my response. As soon as this happens, drivers increase the risk of

becoming fatigued and being unable to maintain the level of alertness that is required for the driving of afully laden articulated vehicle. In fact, they fast become as dangerous as a drunken driver.

A study by the Centre for Sleep Research in South Australia has found that a person who drivesafter being awake for 17 hours has a risk of crashing equivalent to that of a person with a blood alcoholreading of 0.05. We are allowing livestock operators to be on the road for 17 hours. By the end of the 17-hour shift, they are in the high-risk category. Driving after 24 hours without sleep increases the riskequivalent to that of a person with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10.

Regulation 15 of the Transport Operators (Road Use Management—Fatigue Management)Regulation 1998 provides that the maximum driving hours for heavy vehicles in Queensland are fivehours for any 5.5 hour period, 12 hours for any 24-hour period, and 72 hours for any 168 hour period.

1050 Motion 14 Mar 2007

Again, I go back to the point that livestock operators are allowed to be on the road for up to 17 hoursbefore any action is taken against them. In simple terms, that means that a driver of a heavy vehiclewould need to take a 30-minute rest break every 5.5 hours of driving, a 12-hour rest break in any 24-hour driving period and a 96-hour rest break in any 168 hours of driving.

While the intent of the 1998 regulation was to clearly define fair and reasonable hours of work inhuman terms, the lack of tough penalties encourage some drivers and operators—I repeat, somedrivers and operators—to abuse the system through the misrepresentation of the regulations as theystood prior to 1 March. Because of that abuse, the minister was required to adjust the penalties in aneffort to address the unsafe practice of misrepresenting the facts in logbook entries.

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (8.23 pm): I support our shadow minister on thisproposal. I come from one of the major transport and trucking cities of Australia. Toowoomba has a veryunique blend of major companies that are involved in long haulage to northern Australia, down the eastcoast and into southern Australia, as well as livestock and produce haulage. Some of those operatorshave over 100 prime movers and are very sophisticated.

Despite what has been said by some opposite, I want to highlight the great job that the truckingcompanies have done in implementing systems of fatigue management and accreditation, and theirinvolvement in Truckcare, Trucksafe and other programs. They have promoted sleep apnoea tests andinstalled coolers in the cabs so that the drivers can sleep at night. They are conforming to the rules. Thatresponse has been outstanding in a very difficult industry. Some companies own bunk houses that arelocated down the east coast to provide beds and catered meals for the drivers. They are using asophisticated system of screening in the trucks to provide half-hour warnings that a rest time isapproaching, electronic monitoring and all of that. Those things are in place. We should recognise whatthose operators are doing.

Tonight we are debating changes in the demerit points and the fines. The hours are staying thesame and the previous speaker spoke about driving for 16 hours. That cannot be done. Under theregulations, the driver has to take two 15-minute breaks or one 30-minute break, and after a shorterperiod they have to do the same thing. That happens throughout a 16-hour shift. The guys and girlsdriving trucks containing livestock have to do the loading, check their loads, perhaps get a pregnant cowup that might have gone down and so on.

I ask the minister to please listen to what we are saying about this central issue, involving demeritpoints and fines. I want him to understand how unbelievably difficult it is to get drivers. We all know thatthe Australian economy has become too strong and big for our population, and we cannot get staff to dothings. Ergon cannot get staff to do the electrical connections on the downs. It has the money to do it,but it cannot get the people. They have all gone to the mines or they all have jobs. It is most difficult forthe livestock and produce cartage industries. The companies cannot get workers. Young guys are notgoing to want to have to drive a truck for 280,000 to 300,000 kilometres a year—compared to a towndriver who may do 20,000—in an industry where they can lose demerit points and be finedlarge amounts of money. Working-class people cannot afford massive fines of thousands of dollars, sothey will simply not bother to join the industry. They will go up to the mines instead.

The real issue is that the experienced drivers will not stay in the industry. The trucking companieswill lose 50 per cent of their good drivers—the drivers who have been there for 30 years and who haveexperience. Those are the drivers who have undergone fatigue management courses and know how tomanage the trucks. They know when to stop and have a break and they know how to conform to therules. They are the professional drivers, and we will lose them. They will say, ‘Blow this, I’m off.’Because of that, we are importing from Brazil, Vietnam and China drivers who do not understand ourculture or our laws.

Mr Pearce interjected. Mr HORAN: There is no-one to drive them and no-one coming through. That is why we implore

the minister to look at this. As the minister knows, the industry is prepared to raise the bar in exchangefor a little bit of flexibility in this area. By implementing programs such as Trucksafe and Truckcare,dealing with issues such as animal welfare, providing sleep apnoea tests and coolers in the cabs and soon, the trucking companies have shown that they are prepared to raise the bar in return for a little bit ofcooperation. They want to work with the government.

One of the most serious problems to be faced will be animal welfare. For example, take a driverwho has to pick up animals from the Roma saleyards, which are the biggest saleyards in Australia. Thatdriver may make it to Dalby and then run out of time. What do they do? They are one hour fromToowoomba, they have four decks of cattle on a B-double, the temperature is 38 degrees and they facebeing booked by the animal welfare division of the DPI.

We need a little bit of flexibility. The industry is prepared to talk and look at raising the bar. It isprepared to work on a cooperative basis. I have outlined how responsible and sophisticated members ofthe industry are, as evidenced by the systems that they have put in place. That is what tonight’s debateis about.

14 Mar 2007 Motion 1051

We can absolutely guarantee that it will be impossible to get drivers to cart produce, cattle and soon. This state—capital cities, regional areas, indeed the whole nation—relies on transport. The transportindustry will suffer because of the demerit points that are to be introduced and that will apply to carlicences, and the severity of the fines that will apply to the drivers themselves, which the truckingcompanies cannot pay.

Because all the other speakers need to have a fair go, I simply ask the minister to listen to mypoints. This is about the drivers, it is about animal welfare and it is about an industry that is sophisticatedand wants to cooperate. All that it needs is a little bit of flexibility.

Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (8.28 pm): The first thing I should say is that no-one on this side ofthe House condones illegal truck driving, working over hours or anything along those lines. Basically, Isupport the shadow minister and the disallowance motion.

Sometimes I wonder about the hypocrisy of those on the other side. In my role as shadowminister for emergency services, I know that ambulance officers and paramedics do work 10-hour shiftsand are then placed on call for another 10 hours. Sometimes they can work up to 12 hours, dependingon the overtime, and are then asked to take the vehicle home and go on call for another 10 hours. Asituation could exist where they are driving continuously for up to 15 hours. Frankly, I do not think that isright. In terms of what we are trying to do with this legislation, it is unbelievable.

Those on the other side are supposed to support the battlers. Very professional outfits run thetrucking industry throughout Australia, and Queensland in particular. However, the reality is that a lot ofthose drivers are family people who are trying to earn an income. When we look at some of the fines,$4,500 for one indiscretion seems like a lot of money. I hear unbelievable stories about inspectorspulling blokes out of cabs at two o’clock in the morning. Those guys have pulled up at a truck stop forthe night and are trying to take a break. If an inspection group comes through, they pull the guys out oftheir cabs. They wake them up and try to verify their logbook licences. They do not really give a stuffabout how they do it or where they do it. Those poor buggers have to go back on the road—

Ms Jones interjected. Mr MALONE: Someone from up the back is making stupid and inane comments. The member

would not have a clue. As the previous speaker said, what will happen is that the real professionals willgive the job away so quickly it will not be funny. They can earn $100,000 by working in the mines, andthey would not have to work those sort of hours.

The Rockhampton to Mackay run is a four-hour run no matter how you look at it. There isnowhere on that road for drivers of B-doubles with refrigerated transport to pull over and have a spell. Ifsomeone is doing a road transport cattle run, there is no way in the world they can pull over, have ashower, have a feed and take a rest. I am not sure where the minister is coming from. We are not seeingthe infrastructure that is required to implement this regulation. It is almost as if the government reallydoes not care about our road transport industry in Queensland.

As I said, we have very professional operators. There are very few guys on the road nowadayswho will risk receiving demerit points or fines by trying to break the law. Miners in the mining industrywork 12-hour shifts four days a week. They then climb in their cars and drive for five or six hours to gohome. Members opposite cannot tell me that the miners are not nearly as dangerous as some of theprofessional truck drivers who are working those fairly extended hours. Quite frankly, we really need tolook at the whole situation.

As I said before, there are people on the other side of parliament who are supposedly concernedabout the battlers in our industries. We are basically forcing those people to change jobs or not do thosejobs at all. The consequence of that is that the whole economy in terms of on-costs—the transport costsof delivering goods into every township throughout Queensland and across Australia—will increase.With those words, I would like to support the shadow minister’s motion to disallow this regulation.

Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (8.31 pm): I rise to speak against the disallowance motion movedthis evening by the member for Gregory. In listening to the debate tonight it is very clear that the issue athand is the heavy vehicle fatigue penalty changes. I am more than willing to accept that the member forGregory and—

Mr Johnson interjected. Ms NOLAN: Sure. Mr Johnson interjected. Ms NOLAN: I thank the member for Gregory for his generous assistance, but I understand the

point. There is, nonetheless, a principle that underlies that which is about managing fatigue andtherefore road safety. If the member would just let—

Mr Johnson interjected.

1052 Motion 14 Mar 2007

Ms NOLAN: I understand that the member for Gregory and other members opposite have a greatdeal of experience and insight into the transport sector. It is appropriate that that should beacknowledged, just as it should appropriately be acknowledged that the government has made anumber of changes over a period of time with a view to managing fatigue, managing hours on the roadand improving road safety in trucking and other industries. Clearly the government is seeking to makeadditional changes in that regard with a view to further improving road safety. In this debate that is theside on which I quite unreservedly fall.

The point I want to make is not about the minutiae of that aspect of the disallowance motion. Thepoint that I want to make in speaking tonight is that the regulation that the opposition is seeking todisallow actually contains many more amendments than the heavy vehicle fatigue penalty changes. Bydisallowing this regulation there are other important amendments that would also be lost. In total, theregulation contains amendments to 12 regulations. I would like to briefly run through those other keychanges that would also fall victim should this disallowance motion be successful.

The amendments to the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Regulation 2005 extend theexpiration of the transitional provision that preserves existing guidelines issued under the regulation bythe chief executive about the type, age and use of vehicles to provide public passenger services forwhich operator accreditation is required.

Under the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Standard 2000 public transport operatorswhose vehicles comply with the guidelines are deemed to have vehicles of a suitable type and age toprovide the relevant service. It is proposed to transfer these guideline provisions to the standard or theregulation later this year. It is essential that they are retained until this transfer occurs. The bottom line isif that if this regulation was disallowed and those guidelines not retained we could potentially have, forexample, substandard buses, including school buses, operating on Queensland roads.

An amendment to the Integrated Planning Regulation 1998 clarifies the development exemptionfor community infrastructure for various types of transport infrastructure. Specifically, the amendmentomits certain land types, thereby exempting all aspects of development for the maintenance, repair,upgrading or duplication of rail, bus, light rail and other miscellaneous transport infrastructure.

The Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Accreditation and Other Provisions)Regulation 2005 has been amended to ensure that certain provisions do not sunset prior to theirtransfer to the primary legislation. The provisions that I refer to are sections 108 to 115, which relate tomoving vehicles on or from prescribed roads, and sections 118, 119 and 121, which relate to certainfunctions and powers of authorised officers. These provisions are absolutely essential to the effectiveenforcement of transport legislation as well as the preservation of our road infrastructure. They mustremain in place until they are relocated to the act down the track.

Another amendment of significance is to the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulation 1999. This amendment increases the maximum speedcapability of a road train prime mover to 100 kilometres an hour to allow industry operators to achievedual capability by being able to switch from road trains to B-doubles and semitrailers without the roadtrain prime mover speed-rating restriction of 90 kilometres an hour. This measure is clearly of significantbenefit to transport operators, including the rural transport operators with whom the member for Gregoryis connected and whose position he is purporting to put forward tonight.

As I mentioned earlier, the regulation contains amendments to 12 regulations. While many of theamendments appear to be quite minor and do not involve any change in policy, they are still important ifwe are to have robust law in Queensland. I think it must be considered that there would be a seriousunintended consequence of accepting this disallowance motion which might, as I have suggested, leaveus with older and more dangerous school buses on the road that may hinder the industry whose viewsthe member for Gregory puts forward—for instance, the change to speed limits for road trains—andwhich might affect planning changes in terms of busways, light rail and other matters.

On that basis, I do not think it is reasonable for us to disallow the whole lot—to throw out the babywith the bathwater. On that basis, I strongly oppose the motion to disallow the regulation.

Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—Lib) (8.38 pm): At the outset I would like to reiterate the point that hasbeen made clear to the House by the honourable member for Gregory and the coalition: we do notsupport drivers who are going to break the law. We are all working for a safe and efficient transportsystem for Queensland. We want a transport system that works for the operator, the consumers and thepublic, and we want it to work in their best interests. However, we do not think that the imposition ofdemerit points and large fines for misspelled place names and for not carrying a logbook will helpachieve this aim. The possibility of demerit points leading to a loss of licence and fines leading to a lossof income for truckies who forget their logbooks or who do not stop right on the required time becausethere are no safe or available rest areas will lead to a loss of drivers in an industry that is already starvedfor drivers.

14 Mar 2007 Motion 1053

In a growth industry where the biggest barrier to expansion is the availability of drivers, thepossibility of demerit points, unreasonable fines and loss of income for minor offences is ludicrous. Weall know that without transport provided by heavy vehicles our state and indeed the nation would grind toa halt. The industry is growing at eight per cent a year in Queensland, and new laws need to besupportive of safe driving practices and constructed so that they do not scare off potential or existingdrivers. We do not need the cold, dead hand of socialism coming over the top and killing the industry inthis state.

In a 2003 report on Australia’s future, it was stated that the road freight transport industry carried1.4 billion tonnes of freight each year. This figure represents 70 per cent of all freight carried in Australiaand contributed over 4½ per cent to the gross domestic product in 2006. As another measure of the sizeand importance of the transport industry, 2½ per cent of all Australians in employment in 2001—the lastyear for which figures were available—worked in the transport industry. Freight originating inQueensland accounted for almost 30 per cent of the total tonne-kilometres travelled in Australia in theyear ended 31 March 2001. By far, most of this freight originates in Brisbane and amounts to 15 timesthat carried from Brisbane by rail.

For such a large industry and one that is so vital to the functioning, prosperity and economics ofour state, the figures in relation to the people who are participating in the industry are disturbing. Theyshow that the drivers in the heavy industry area are an ageing group. The average age in 2003 was 49years, and there is evidence that a large portion of current drivers will retire in at least the next 10 years.

Mr Lucas: Precisely. What does that say about the conditions?Mr NICHOLLS: You just worry about getting the trains through the tunnels. There is a growing

shortage of skilled workers in the road freight industry, and employers were reporting difficultiesattracting young people back in 2001. This situation is only becoming worse. The practicalities of thisregulation when applied to the industry are not all fine and dandy, as the government and minister wouldhave us believe. To the average truckie, who is not expected to be a brain surgeon and is not expectedto be able to write great treaties or great stories, the misspelling of difficult towns and suburbs such asWoolloongabba, Weipa and Windorah—I mean ‘Windorah’—would be a common occurence.

Government members: Ha, ha!Mr NICHOLLS: See, even the best of us can get it wrong, let alone the people on that side who

would have trouble spelling any word with more than two consonants and two vowels in it. Thisregulation now creates an atmosphere of fear in the hearts of the drivers who are in the industry andwho are trying to do the right thing. Let our truck drivers be just that. They are not supposed to be brainsurgeons and should not be punished for minor human errors. The existing pressures and demands ontruckies already create a large measure of stress. Simply driving a heavy rig through the streets ofBrisbane and indeed over the Gateway in peak-hour traffic is a task I would not like to attempt, let alonewith the additional pressures of deadlines, rest stops and the requirements of moving livestock throughour heavy traffic areas.

Fortunately, we have a very good transport industry with many reputable and law-abidingoperators, who indeed make up the vast majority of operators. This law has been made for a minority ofpeople. It will punish those consciously and repeatedly ignoring the law. The law is there to ensure thesafety of road users, but the legislation will also punish a large portion of the majority who are law-abiding truckies who, like us, are only human and suffer the same failures like forgetting an importantdocument such as a logbook and occasionally misspelling an unfamiliar name. This legislation is sure tofurther encourage the underhand practice of falsifying logbooks to evade demerit points. This is not adesired outcome and one that could be avoided with the removal of unnecessary and heavy penalties.

The issue of working time and driving time has been addressed by the honourable member forGregory, and I will not repeat all of those details here in relation to those areas which he knows so well.Problems with the existing rest areas have been highlighted by the former president of the QueenslandLivestock Owner Drivers Association, who stated—The rest areas that are in existence are too far apart, too small or are being used by caravans. Road builders also use them tostockpile road base for road works ...

This makes them difficult for trucks to use. The president of the Livestock Transporters Association alsoexpressed concern in this area, and is quoted recently as saying—Many rural and remote communities are located at the extent of the maximum driving hours.

He said they will suffer as a result of this. In fact, AgForce has also taken up the issue. In conclusion, the motion moved by the honourable member for Gregory tonight to disallow the

transport regulation has not been moved in order to condone illegal driving practices; it has been movedto advocate for well-considered regulation that has practical applicability to an industry that is vital to theQueensland economy without creating unnecessary barriers. It should be supported.

1054 Motion 14 Mar 2007

Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (8.45 pm): I rise to lend my support to thedisallowance motion that has been moved by the shadow minister for transport, the member forGregory. It has been so well argued by the member for Gregory and a whole series of members on thisside of the House. I will not repeat the arguments that have been put with such conviction from this sideof the House, but I could not let this debate pass without standing in this parliament to speak on behalfof my constituents who have come to see me.

They are very genuine people—they are mates of mine in some cases—who have done nothingelse all their lives but drive trucks. They take pride in their profession and who should be respected forthe great professionals they are. I speak of blokes like Jerry Morgan, who has driven a couple of millionmiles, Johnnie Doppler and Kelly Forsyth. They are ordinary Queenslanders who have made truckdriving their passion and their career. They have come to me genuinely concerned about the effects ofthis legislation and what it will do to their business and their industry.

Minister, I beseech of you tonight to take heed of what has been said in this parliament. What hasbeen said here in this disallowance motion is not just the normal backwards and forwards of politics.What has been said here is a genuine attempt to bring home to you the concerns that these peoplehave about the effects this regulation will have.

I have heard the almost verbatim responses from members over there who found themselves onthe speaking list and who stood up and spoke about road safety and all of that type of stuff. It has beensaid over and over again that we all support road safety; we all support any effort that will reduce thenumber of accidents of any sort. We all support that but, unfortunately, what we have here tonight is oneof those cases where the best intention is producing the opposite outcome. The government has comeinto this place with the best intention, but it has to realise that the outcome it will produce is not the onethat it has talked so much about. By implementing this regulation, the government will not produce abetter outcome; the government will make the situation worse because it will force out of the industry somany good operators, decent fellows, blokes who have driven a million miles without any seriousaccidents, blokes who know the industry. The government is forcing those people out of the industry.

The issue is not the driving hours or the fines; the issue is the demerit points. The issue is thepotential for those people to lose the very basis of their income-earning potential—that is, to lose theirtruck licence. That licence means more to them than we could ever realise because it is the basis oftheir existence. They have the potential to lose that driving licence, their right to earn an income and theright to drive like we do—but, more importantly, their right to earn an income. They have the potential tolose that right to earn an income simply because of mistakes in a logbook, simply because somepedantic inspector works out that they have spelt the name of a town wrong or they have not ruled thelines right. The minister knows and I know that there are transport inspectors our there who take thatlittle bit of power that their position gives them to the nth degree, and they have the potential to takeaway from these people the very basis of their income-earning ability.

That is the issue. It is not about road safety. Our move to disallow this regulation tonight is notabout road safety. We are all of the same opinion that we want to see an increased level of road safety.We want to see it not just in the trucking industry but in other industries. I have discussed with my goodfriend the member for Fitzroy the fact that we want to see an increase in road safety across a wholerange of situations where people drive for too many hours while they are fatigued.

That is not what this disallowance motion is about. It is about recognising the adverse impact thatthis regulation will have, albeit unintentionally, on the trucking industry. If we lose those good drivers—and we will lose those good drivers if they are faced with a situation of losing their licence because ofthe accumulation of demerit points because they spelt a town wrong or did not rule the line right or havenot done some other silly thing with their logbook—they will be replaced with less skilled drivers,overseas drivers, cowboys, people who have not had the experience.

Those guys will not cop it. They will go and do something else. There are plenty of otheropportunities. As the member for Toowoomba South pointed out, they will go and work in the mines ordrive trucks in other situations. Honourable members we will end up with trucks on the roads that arebeing driven by people who are a heck of a lot less skilled than the drivers who are out there now. Noneof us want to see that. That will be the effect of this regulation.

It saddens me to see a provision come into this House tonight—as has happened so many timesin the past—that will result in the opposite of what those who bring it in prophesy. The outcome of thisregulation will be the opposite of what those opposite suggest. It is the people with the practicalknowledge of the industry who can point that out to the government. I do not think that too many of thepeople who have spoken against this disallowance motion tonight have the practical knowledge tounderstand the impact that this regulation will have.

No doubt the political reality of this place will be that this disallowance motion will not succeed.But I believe there is an inherent responsibility on the minister to hear the message that is beingdelivered in good faith tonight and ensure that this regulation does not produce those sorts of adverseoutcomes that we very much fear it will. I say that very genuinely. It is not about the political argy-bargyof this place, it is about ensuring that those good truck drivers out there can continue to perform the

14 Mar 2007 Motion 1055

great role that they do in transporting goods up and down the state, that their skills are employed inensuring that it is done in a safe and reliable manner and that they are not forced out of the industry andreplaced by people who are less skilled and will increase the level of danger for all of us.

I believe that the disallowance motion moved by the member for Gregory should be passedtonight and the minister should take this regulation and reconsider it. If that is not to be then I hope theminister will heed the message that has been delivered here tonight on behalf of the people that I andother members on this side of the House represent.

Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (8.53 pm): I rise tonight to oppose the motion to disallow theTransport and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation. This regulation containsimportant amendments to reinforce the message that heavy vehicle fatigue is a serious issue.These amendments will strengthen the deterrent effect by introducing demerit points for fatigueoffences. The regulation also increases infringement penalties for these offences to more closely alignthe fine with the severity of the offence and to more accurately reflect the associated road safety risks.In reviewing this regulation it is apparent that the purpose of this regulation is to better address theresponsibilities of heavy vehicle drivers by ensuring that they meet the driving hours and the logbookrequirements contained in the Transport Operation Regulations 1998.

As we all know, the consequences of a heavy vehicle driver driving tired can be extremely severeand as such the penalties that apply to noncompliance with the associated rules should also thereforebe equally severe. I recall some recent media relating to a heavy vehicle driver who was convicted in theBrisbane District Court of the dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death. This driver was driving a64-tonne prime mover with two semitrailers attached along the Ipswich Motorway at Darra. The driverchanged lanes and collided with a Dodge pick-up truck whose 67-year-old driver suffered a heart attack,apparently triggered by upper spinal fractures, and subsequently died.

It was reported that the convicted driver had been driving for about 17 of the previous 24 hoursand that he said he had ‘simply not seen the Dodge pick-up’. The offender was sentenced to three yearsjail with a fixed parole release date after one year and further disqualified from holding a drivers licencefor four years. In some minds this sentence may seem harsh but to the family of the fatally injured driverI am sure this is only a small compensation for the loss of a loved one.

Each year an average of 49 people die on Queensland roads as a result of crashes involvingheavy freight vehicles, with 20 per cent of those fatalities involving the drivers of the heavy vehiclesthemselves. Alarmingly, what this tells us is that a person injured in a crash involving a heavy vehicle is2½ times more likely to be killed when compared to the fatality rate in crashes involving light passengervehicles.

This is why we have strict rules that apply to drivers of these vehicles, with fatigue managementbeing one key aspect in this regard. Queenslanders do not want heavy vehicle drivers to be drivingoutside the prescribed hours and therefore driving tired. Obviously this state would be lost without theheavy vehicle freight industry as it provides a vital service in moving freight locally, regionally andnationally. The road freight industry is central to achieving substantial improvements in productivity andgrowth within the economy and without this industry our everyday life would be impacted greatly. It istherefore vital that we ensure that we preserve this industry. As such, it needs to be remembered thatthe fatigue laws are in place not only to protect other road users but also the heavy vehicle driversthemselves.

We have heard debate tonight on how it is possible that a heavy vehicle driver may potentiallylose their licence and therefore their livelihood due to the introduction of demerit points for fatiguerelated offences. While this may be the case, these drivers are a danger on our road network and do notdeserve to have driving privileges. Drivers who adopt such dangerous practices are a threat to eachmember of this parliament, they are a threat to our family and friends, they are a threat to themselvesand, in fact, they pose a threat to every person on the road in Queensland. We need to take action tocurb these dangerous behaviours. It should be remembered that drivers who abide by the law will not beimpacted by these changes and as such have nothing to fear. I strongly oppose the motion tonight.

Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—NPA) (8.57 pm): At the outset, I would like to acknowledge theEmersons and Brimblecombs who are in the gallery. They came in to have a meeting with the DeputyPremier’s office today. I now turn to the disallowance motion.

No-one wants cowboys in the industry. There is nothing surer than that. I will raise a fewscenarios. A driver is stuck on the Ipswich Motorway because of an accident. I was coming toparliament one morning, I hit the Ipswich Motorway at six o’clock and I did not get to Parliament Houseuntil after nine o’clock due to the accident. Does the minister want the drivers to walk away from their B-doubles on the Ipswich Motorway because they are over their driving time? That is ridiculous.

If they go into the Brisbane markets to unload fruit and vegetables they could arrive at fouro’clock, they could be unloaded by five o’clock and could be out on the Ipswich Motorway before thetraffic. If their 12 hours are up they would lose demerit points? If they had a couple of hours break theywould be on the Ipswich Motorway by 7.30. This does not make sense.

1056 Motion 14 Mar 2007

There are some big transport companies in my electorate that deal in dangerous goods. What arethe dangerous goods operators going to do—work on the basis of a 12-hour drive?

Mr Lucas: If they’re driving 15 hours I’d be very concerned.Mr RICKUSS: Are they going to have to work out a 12-hour drive? If they drive to a truck stop

where they intend to stop but there is another dangerous goods vehicle parked there, under the law theycannot park if there is another dangerous goods vehicle in that truck stop and they therefore have todrive on.

Mr Lucas: They’ve got an hour’s grace before they get any demerit points.Mr RICKUSS: They have to drive on.Mr Horan interjected.Mr RICKUSS: That is right; they have blown a tyre on the way. This is really hard on drivers. The

problem of course, as other speakers on this side of the House have said, is that the cowboys will be theonly ones left in the industry because the good drivers will leave the industry. Some drivers in myelectorate could earn nearly as much money driving local stuff, so why would they want to driveinterstate? Why are they going to drive interstate?

Mr Lucas interjected.Mr RICKUSS: There are not enough truck stops.Mr Lucas interjected.Mr RICKUSS: I do not know if the minister is aware of this, but has he seen the Australian

Logistics Council retail logistic supply chain code of conduct? All of the big retailers are signed up tothat. All of the big trucking companies are signed up to that. All of the big members are signed up to thatand are involved. Drivers have to be members of this to supply the big chains. It is the only way theretailers will get their goods delivered, but there has to be some grace. If drivers get too many demeritpoints against them, they will definitely lose their licences. These are some of the real scenarios that wewill face. I note the member for Fitzroy is in the chamber. How many miners are killed driving back fromtheir work site after they have done their 12-hour shifts? That is fatigue management, but they aredriving a car and there are no laws against that. How many people hop in their four-wheel-drive andhook up their caravan after they have done an eight- or 10-hour day?

Mr Malone: It’s a bit like the railway workers.Mr RICKUSS: That is right. The minister has to be realistic. Taking demerit points off these

drivers will overpenalise them and they will leave the industry. As other members on this side of thisHouse have said, we will lose the good operators. That is what is going to happen. I definitely supportthe motion moved by the shadow minister for transport.

Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (9.01 pm): I rise to support this disallowance motion whichintroduces demerit point penalties for exceeding a variety of time related regulations. Three demeritpoints will be deducted from a drivers licence if drivers exceed their maximum driving time by two hoursor more, if they exceed maximum continuous driving time by two hours or more, if they exceed totalwork time by two hours or more, exceed maximum continuous work time by two hours or more, fail tomeet minimum rest time by a shortfall of two hours or more, and the list goes on. In fact, in addition tothose that I have mentioned, there are another 26 sections which will attract a new penalty which is inaddition to any financial or other penalty that may be imposed. It is also proposed to include two demeritpoint penalties for seven more sections. Essentially, these are when various driving related time limitshave been breached by between one and two hours.

There is no doubt that road safety is an important issue, but it really needs far more commitmenton the part of this government to make a real difference. These kinds of regulatory changes in reality donothing more than make it more and more difficult for our heavy transport operators to meet the growingdemands that are being placed upon them. The corporatisation of our railways has very rapidly led to acutting of services on all but the most profitable routes. There is now no alternative to putting more andmore freight on to our road networks. It was decisions of the state government that corporatisedQueensland Rail. It was decisions of the state government that have forced entire regions to fall back onto road transport as their only freight solution. It was decisions of the state government that have left ourroad networks in a pathetically poor condition and totally unable to cope with those exact samedemands now being placed on them.

Instead of improving roads and instead of making a physically safer environment for all drivers,we get cheap and nasty solutions such as harsher penalties and tighter conditions. Let us consider thereality facing our heavy transport operators. A truck carrying freight to far-north Queensland leavesBrisbane. The driver is required to stop after 12 hours. He is then required to rest for a certain period,then drive for a set period and then stop to rest again and so on. That is a regulatory requirement. If hedoes not do that he faces penalties which directly affect his ability to earn a living. But are there rest

14 Mar 2007 Motion 1057

stops at 12-hour intervals? Are they safe and large enough for a number of heavy transport trucks, offirm footing and useable in all weather? Do they have such very basic facilities such as toilets, a tap andmaybe even a table with a roof over it where a driver can have a meal? If it is a truck without a sleeperunit, then how is the driver expected to rest if he cannot find a motel or other bed in time? Are there suchstops 12 hours in each direction from Townsville, Cairns, Mount Isa, Mackay, Toowoomba, Kingaroy,Karumba and all of the other places that heavy transport travels to and from? If this government is goingto insist on these driving restrictions for heavy transport drivers, then surely it is reasonable to think thatit should provide at least the most basic facilities to make it possible for drivers to abide by theseregulations.

My time is running out so I simply say in conclusion that this government has a duty of care toensure that drivers are able to operate within a reasonable and safe road environment, and I support themotion.

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (9.05 pm): Before I commence my remarks, on behalf ofthe member for Nanango I want to table a letter from one of her constituents who wished to expresstheir concern about this regulation.Tabled paper: Correspondence dated 12 February 2007, from Mr Joshua Morris, Training and Fatigue Management, MartinsGroup of Companies to Hon. Paul Lucas MP, Minister for Transport and Main Roads regarding demerit points and fines for heavyvehicle drivers.

However, I have to say that there has been no contact with my electorate office that I am aware ofin relation to this regulation and concerns about demerit points. I was concerned to hear some memberssay—and I had a short conversation with the minister and he has since interjected on a number ofoccasions and other speakers from the government side have also said this—that the requirements andobligations on drivers have not changed. I wonder whether the concern is about the fines and thedemerit points—and I can understand their concern about that—but if they are driving according tofatigue management requirements now then perhaps the impact on them should be minimalised if theycontinue to obey those rules.

However, I think it is legitimate that concerns in relation to inspectors who wake sleeping driversup is a nonsense and I ask the minister to respond. It is a nonsense to have demerit points and fines forpeople who cannot spell, because all of us would be gone a million, and I would ask for the minister’scomment on that. Any traffic inspectors who do that are small-minded, vindictive people. I believe thatthe regulations with the fines imposed may empower drivers to be able to stand up to bosses who aretelling them to disobey the laws because they will pay the fine. Now they may have a defence to say,‘No, it’s not only the fine; it’s the demerit points. I’m not prepared to cop it.’

I have a lot of regard for the member for Gregory. I believe he has a great heart for all people, butparticularly for those people who live in rural areas. I also have a lot of regard for the member forFitzroy’s concern about road safety. It was interesting to hear the two different contributions in relation tothis disallowance motion. I believe that fatigue and the effect of fatigue on drivers of heavy vehicles is areal concern. I think all of us have been driving on the highway when we have been tailgated by semisor pushed off the road by semis. I have certainly experienced it, and I stick to the speed limit, so it is notas if I am going too slow for them. If that is a fatigue management issue, those drivers need an ability toprotect themselves from perhaps company owners who are pushing them. Like other speakers, I believethat the majority of truck drivers are honest, responsible, reliable and well-regarded people. They aregreat contributors to this community. But if these regulations will give them more protection on the roadand protect others, then they will be a good innovation.

Mr WEIGHTMAN (Cleveland—ALP) (9.08 pm): I rise to oppose the motion of disallowance.Having said that, I do appreciate the position that the member for Gregory is in and also the passion withwhich some speakers on the other side of the chamber have spoken regarding this issue. Basically, thisis a wider matter. This is a wider community matter and it is about road safety. We have to take intoaccount the safety of all road users, not just the people who drive heavy vehicles. The most telling factthat I can put to the House in my two minutes is that road toll statistics speak for themselves. On anaverage, there are 49 fatalities and 402 hospitalisations each year as a result of crashes involving heavyfreight vehicles within Queensland. If the implementation of these demerit points saves 10 per cent ofthose lives, we are looking at saving five lives and 40 hospitalisations. That has to be worth the effort. AsI said, I appreciate where the members opposite are coming from. It is hard for the heavy vehicledrivers. I have mates who are truckies and I know that they work very hard and they work long hours.Unfortunately, those long hours are the problem.

A lot has been said about the statistics in relation to driving while fatigued and sleep deprived. If adriver has driven for 16 hours, it is the equivalent of him driving with a blood alcohol content of .05. Thelonger a person drives, the worse his condition gets. We do not advocate that for any driver, whetherthey are a heavy vehicle driver or a normal road user. The bottom line is that people who drive for thoselong hours push the boundaries. They are mostly heavy vehicle drivers and they need to be pulled intoline. That is what we are trying to do.

1058 Motion 14 Mar 2007

Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (9.10 pm): I would like tothank the honourable members for their contributions tonight. At the outset I want to make it clear that,although I disagree with the members of the opposition and a number of members on the crossbenches,I accept that what they have done here tonight has been done in good faith. I have a very good workingrelationship with the shadow minister. I accept that he and the other opposition members did what theydid tonight with the best of motives. I do not think they are right. They do not think that I am right. But Ido not dispute their bona fides.

I want to address a number of fundamental issues that I have with the opposition’s disallowancemotion. Firstly, this disallowance motion does not deal only with the demerit points. The opposition hasmoved a motion of disallowance of the entire regulation. Section 50 of the Statutory Instruments Actallows the opposition to move a disallowance motion to part of a regulation. If the opposition had its waytonight, we would be not only disallowing the heavy vehicle demerit points but also disallowing aprovision in the regulation that increases the maximum speed capability of a road train/prime mover to100 kilometres an hour to allow industry operators to achieve dual capacity by being able to switch fromroad trains to B-doubles and semitrailers without the road train/prime mover speed rating restriction of90 kilometres an hour. That is what we would be disallowing if we passed this motion. That is a provisionthat would advantage the heavy vehicle industry. Instead of the opposition moving this disallowancemotion to the entire regulation, it should have moved a motion for a partial disallowance of theregulation, which it is entitled to do under section 50 of the Statutory Instruments Act.

Let me be very clear about what is not being changed by this regulation. None of therequirements relating to regulated driving, work and rest hours are being changed. None of the existingdriving hour exemptions are being changed. None of the requirements relating to logbooks and localarea records are being changed. These requirements exist under the current legislation to ensure thatdrivers get adequate rest and thereby do not pose a threat to their own safety and the safety of otherroad users.

Comments have been made about the importance of the livestock industry to Australia’seconomy. To be a livestock driver must be the toughest of all long-distance driving jobs. I appreciate thedifficulties associated with managing and driving livestock from remote locations. In fact, the other daysomeone said to me, ‘Will you come out and do a long-distance drive with a driver in the livestockindustry?’ I said, ‘I am happy to do that.’ I have certainly done that up the coast on B-doubles with thestandard heavy transport industry. I am more than happy to do that with the livestock industry, because Iaccept that it is difficult for them.

But that is precisely why we make extra allowances for livestock operators. That is why anyoneelse who drives a heavy vehicle can drive for 14 hours, but someone who drives a livestock vehicle candrive for 16 hours. It is legitimate to do that. Nothing in this motion changes that. In real terms, thatmeans that livestock operators are allowed to drive four hours more than the regulated standard drivinghours and two hours more than the drivers operating under the Transitional Fatigue ManagementScheme.

That means that before a livestock long-distance truck driver attracts any demerit points, theyhave to drive for 17 hours. I do not think it is unreasonable for drivers who break a law that allows themto drive for 16 hours by more than an hour to wear some points for that.

Mr Horan: Sometimes you take your breaks along the way.

Mr LUCAS: Of course. But all of the laws are drafted on that basis. This regulation changes thepenalty system that applies to these requirements. This regulation will introduce demerit points andtougher fines for existing offences. That is because there are still some heavy vehicle drivers outthere—a very small minority—who are continuing to drive while fatigued, putting Queensland lives atrisk. During 2005, in Queensland there were 48 fatalities and 439 hospitalisations as a result of crashesinvolving a heavy freight vehicle. In 2006, this fatality rate rose to 54. In 2005, 10 of those fatalities werea result of crashes involving a fatigued heavy vehicle driver. That figure represents 21 per cent of allfatalities as a result of crashes involving a heavy freight vehicle. These statistics also represent ninemore fatalities than were incurred in the previous year and five fatalities greater than the previous five-year average.

In simple terms, that means that our current penalty scheme for driving a heavy vehicle whilefatigued needs to be strengthened. Driver fatigue can be just as deadly as excessive speed or drinkdriving. The member for Fitzroy pointed out very adequately the blood alcohol equivalent of driving for alengthy period. It is very, very frightening.

I will give members some examples of why legislation to deter heavy vehicle drivers from drivingtired is necessary. On 19 December 2005 a heavy vehicle driver died and a light vehicle driver receivedmultiple fractures when the heavy vehicle veered across the double white centre lines into thesouthbound lane and collided with the light vehicle. On 26 February 2005 a heavy vehicle passenger

14 Mar 2007 Motion 1059

died and the driver was seriously injured when the vehicle left the road and collided with a tree. On 13April 2003 a heavy vehicle driver died when their B-double left a straight section of road, overturned andwent down an embankment. On 18 April 2002 a heavy vehicle driver died after their B-double left astraight section of road, struck a tree and caught fire. On 7 December 2000 a heavy vehicle driver fellasleep at the wheel, hit a stationary vehicle and killed two doctors. Those are just a few examples of theaccidents that can occur.

I would also like to highlight a particularly alarming statistic with regard to heavy vehicles and thepotential harm and enormous impact people driving whilst fatigued can have on the road network. Overthe past five years in Queensland there were 243 fatalities as a result of crashes involving heavy freightvehicles. That figure represents an average of 49 fatalities per year and 15 per cent of our road toll.

An important factor to note in this new penalty regime is that demerit points will not be applied fora breach of driving hours if it is for less than an hour. The members opposite have said to me—and Ihave heard it very loud and clear—and other people have said to me that they did not want a technicalexclusion. They did not want, ‘If you are five minutes over, you will wear points.’ So we gave drivers anhour’s grace before they wore points. These drivers will still be penalised with a fine, but will receive nodemerit points. I table the summary comparison of the offences.Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Summary comparison of heavy vehicle fatigue offences, old and new fines, and demerit pointsfrom 1 March 2007’.

There are various categories of offences. For example, failing to record required information ordriving record attracts a penalty of three demerit points. That is the not filling out the logbook offence. Ofcourse, that offence has to be penalised severely because people who do not fill them wait until theytake their rest and then rort them.

On the other hand, there is the offence of failing to record information in the required manner,which attracts zero demerit points. So there are different categories of offences that people can commit.But I will say this quite categorically: if anyone is getting done for making spelling errors—that isTownsville without an ‘e’ or with one ‘l’ instead of two—please tell me, because I will not tolerate that.But no-one has been able to provide that to me.

Mr Johnson: Going back through the logbook, too. They’re going back six months.

Mr LUCAS: I ask members to please write to me about those constituents who come to themabout infringement notices that they have received and which they do not like. I want the law to catchthe people who need to be dealt with; I do not want to have a regime that penalises the vast majority oftruckies who are decent and honest.

Queensland can take pride in the fact that under successive governments—both Labor andcoalition—it has been the most progressive state in Australia not only in relation to road safety but alsoin relation to the efficient use of heavy vehicle combinations. Although the other states may prohibit suchcombinations, in Queensland we adopt a performance based approach. We allow far more efficientfreight combinations in Queensland than the other states allow. That approach has been to theeconomic advantage of our transport industry. We ought to be very proud of the fact that we do that.Other states get stuck into B-doubles because they do not like the sound of the name. We know that B-doubles are among the safest of all combinations. Therefore, we are at the forefront of the transportindustry.

Since the introduction of the regulation, one person has been picked up by QueenslandTransport inspectors. That person drove from Victoria for a continuous period of 18 hours and 45minutes, other than for filling up the tank. The driver admitted the offence and was issued with twoinfringement notices. However, since 1 March—in the first week of the introduction of the regulation—only seven infringement notices were issued by Queensland Transport inspectors. That suggests thatcompliance with the existing driving while fatigued laws has clearly improved.

We are not seeking to impose demerit points on someone who, through unforeseencircumstances, exceeds their hours by 15 or even 45 minutes. By increasing the penalties fornoncompliance with existing regulated driving, work and rest hours, we are seeking to deter driversexceeding their driving hours. Up-to-date enforcement statistics show that over a 12-month period, over4,500 infringements notices were issued for a range of driving, work and rest hours offences andlogbook or driving record offences.

There is a very simple solution to these changes. If people do not want to be booked all they needto do is comply. This is where I part company with the opposition. A number of people in good faith said,‘You will force people out of the industry.’ The one way to make sure that people are not forced toundercut, undercut, undercut and drive unsafe hours is for everybody to be subject to an equal regime.That is when we get the cowboys out. I feel terribly for heavy vehicle drivers who have other people outthere who want to rort their logbooks and undercut them. What situation are they left with then? They

1060 Motion 14 Mar 2007

are saying, ‘Charlie can do it continuously. He doesn’t need to take a break.’ And those opposite want tohave a regime that does not deal with those people adequately. I say to truck drivers that we will makesure that the playing field is levelled in favour of the vast majority of those who do the right thing.

I have instructed Queensland Transport to undertake a thorough evaluation of the existinglivestock welfare driving hour exemptions to ensure that any reforms strike an appropriate balancebetween the issues of fatigue management, livestock management and economic viability. As I saidbefore—and I do not know whether the member for Gregory heard me—it must be the toughest job of allto be a livestock transporter in terms of the industry, the hours, the roads and what they have to do. I ammore than happy to listen to their issues and see what we can do for them. I cannot compromise on theissue of driving hour safety. But there might be a number of other things that we could work out inrelation to them.

A number of people have spoken about the guidelines in relation to rest areas. As part of thereforms, the National Transport Commission also undertook a project to examine current road agencyguidelines and practices on the provision of rest areas in rural areas and to propose modificationsnecessary to cater for the needs of heavy vehicle drivers in non-urban areas. One of the members—Iforget who it was—made a reasonable point about what do you do if you are in a rest area withdangerous goods and someone else drives up next to you. That is unrelated to these rules, but it is nota bad point.

Mr Johnson: Or another truck with dangerous goods pulls up beside you. Mr LUCAS: That is right. That is not a bad point, and we need to look generally at what would

happen in that situation. That is unrelated to these provisions here, but it is something that we need tolook at.

The ATC commitment to these guidelines was reinforced in the recent vote on the nationalpackage through ministers being asked to ‘affirm the commitment to the provision of adequate restareas to enable rest requirements to be met, including meeting the COAG requirement for theconstruction of rest areas to agreed national standards’.

We have a range of heavy vehicle rest area facilities spread across 170 locations. I have said toindustry, ‘Please sit down and tell me where you think they are a priority for the future and we will workwith you as well.’ I will not get into the federal government tonight about its totally woeful level of fundingfor the National Highway, but this is one of the issues that we should be addressing.

Already under this program a heavy vehicle rest area project has been approved on theLeichhardt Highway between Goondiwindi and Westwood. Another on the Cunningham Highwaybetween Goondiwindi and Yelarbon has been short-listed for consideration this year. Further work isbeing done. An audit being conducted by the NTC, to be completed by June 2007, is looking at heavyvehicle rest area facilities on the following sections of the AusLink network: Brisbane to Cairns,Goondiwindi to Toowoomba, Stanthorpe to Ipswich, and Gold Coast to Brisbane. Main Roads will carryout its own investigation of the remaining strategic freight network by the end of August 2007, to guidefuture investment in heavy vehicle rest areas.

The statewide planning for roads has allocated $11.8 million for fatigue countermeasuresincluding consideration of additional heavy vehicle rest areas on ‘other state controlled roads’ in yearsthree, four and five of the new RIP.

Mr Johnson: Where you are doing those duplications—that is a good location. Mr LUCAS: I accept the point that member for Gregory is making in that regard. The member for

Gregory also touched on the issue of what we are doing in terms of improving the efficiency of thenational freight network. The Roma to Mitchell project—making that suitable for B-double access—could save truck drivers $1,000 a trip.

Mr Johnson: Type 1. Mr LUCAS: It could save type 1 drivers $1,000 a trip if the federal government would spend the

money. That is what we need to address—increasing freight efficiency. I made it clear at the summit that we would legislate in the area of heavy vehicle demerit points. It

has been known for a long time that we would take action in this regard. We have special requirementsfor the livestock industry. They are allowed to drive 16 hours rather than 14 hours because of theirparticular circumstances and, indeed, these demerit point provisions do not cut in for another hourafterwards.

We know that there have been fines paid in a number of instances by the bosses and that is away of holding it over the truckies’ heads. They say, ‘We’ll fix up the fine; you drive.’ Then the truckdriver has no incentive to comply with the law because the boss is paying the fine. That is why demeritpoints for speeding and all sorts of offences are used to stop the rich and those people who areadvantaged by the offence paying the fine.

14 Mar 2007 Motion 1061

I accept the vast majority of truckies are law abiding and it is a tough industry. But this is aboutmaking it an industry that people want to work in, where people are not forced to drive unfair and unsafehours. Nothing has changed on what is or is not legal. I get on quite well with the member forHinchinbrook. I think he is an intelligent person who has the best interest of his electorate at heart. Butwhen he says that these people who are complaining are law-abiding people, it is only those people whoare breaking the law who need to be concerned because this does not change the laws. It changes thelaw with respect to the consequences of breaking the laws, not whether the law is broken in the firstinstance.

In terms of spelling errors or technical issues, I have said over and over give me examples. Butno-one has given them to me yet. I am more than happy to look at them, and I look forward to gettingletters from people and I will deal with that. I think our transport inspectors do a wonderful job. Theremight be one or two who are overzealous, and we need to look at that. But, by and large, they are thereto do one thing—to keep your kids, my kids, your family, your loved ones, your truck drivers safe andalive on our roads.

The member for Tablelands spoke about the fact that we need to spend more money on ourroads. We do, and that is why I indicated what we will do with rest stops. In addition to that, I cannotstress enough that in Queensland we spent $1.98 billion in capital expenditure on our roads this year.New South Wales spent $1.5 billion and Victoria $1.1 billion. We spent 2¼ times and two timesrespectively per capita what New South Wales and Victoria spent. This is a big state and it requires bigexpenditure, but we are out there doing it.

People like the member for Darling Downs, who in their normal snide remarks say things like,‘What would you know about it?’—

Mr Hopper interjected.

Mr LUCAS: There he is again—one of the most ignorant people in the parliament. I will say thisabout debating here—

Mr HOPPER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find those comments offensiveand I ask them to be withdrawn.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Darling): Minister, will you withdraw?

Mr LUCAS: I withdraw the comments. I say this: everybody who sits in this parliament representsthe people of their electorates. It is ludicrous to suggest, for example, that if you are not a lawyer youcannot comment on legal issues, or if you are not a police officer you cannot comment on police issues,or if you are not a parent you cannot comment on child welfare issues. When people make these snideremarks of ‘What would you know?’ all they do is belittle the place and belittle the role of a member ofparliament.

The role of a member of parliament is to represent their constituents regardless of their individualskill set. We have a broad variety of people here, and that is what makes this place great. But the daythat you say that only truck drivers can deal with issues concerning the truck driving industry or that onlylawyers can deal with legal issues is the day when we ought to give up and allow this place to be run byexperts. We are experts in representing people generally and that is why we are here.

Mr Hopper: You haven’t got a clue.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr LUCAS: I do not need protection from him, Madam Deputy Speaker. In conclusion, this isabout protecting the vast majority of truck drivers who are law abiding and who do the right thing. It isabout protecting their road safety and the road safety of others. It is about protecting them from shonkswho seek to undercut them and remove the viability from their industry. We have the best and mostefficient truck driving industry in the world in Australia. There is no doubt about that at all in terms of thedistances that we have to travel. This is about making it even safer and better.

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

AYES, 24—Copeland, Cripps, Dempsey, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard,McArdle, Malone, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Elmes, Rickuss

NOES, 50—Attwood, Barry, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Cunningham, Fenlon, Finn, Foley, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt,Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk,Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Roberts, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman,Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan

Resolved in the negative.

1062 Adjournment 14 Mar 2007

ADJOURNMENTHon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (Acting

Leader of the House) (9.36 pm): I move—That the House do now adjourn.

Parliamentary Dress CodeMrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (9.36 pm): This week public perception of politicians sunk to

new depths with the Premier pulling yet another stunt in lowering dress standards in the 52ndParliament under the guise of saving water by running air conditioners in parliament at warmertemperatures. The Premier pulls these stunts on a daily basis to divert attention from issues ofcorruption and sleazy deals associated with his government, and the motive behind moving this motionwithout notice is obvious. If he was so concerned about saving water in the parliamentary precinct, whydid it take until after the September 2006 election to install dual-flush toilets in the offices and bedroomsin the annexe? New sessional order 6 states—

Dress standards in the Parliamentary Chamber should be appropriate to the Queensland climate and reflect general communitystandards. All Members and staff are expected to dress in business attire. Male members and staff may wear a long sleeve shirtand tie or coat and long sleeve business shirt without tie.

Interestingly, there is no dress code mentioned for women either in this motion or in existing standingorders. A 2001 report of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Study Group entitled Gender-sensitising Commonwealth parliaments noted that generally there is an absence of a dress code forwomen in most parliaments. Perhaps the Premier will bring in a new code for women at the next sitting.

Over the years Speakers in the Canberra House of Representatives have permitted alterations todress codes. Some have proven to be mistakes, attracting humiliation. In 1977 it was acceptable towear tailored safari suits without a tie. Thankfully, that dress code was changed in later years. I willnever forget the ridiculous sight of South Australian Labor Premier Don Dunstan in his short pink hotpants.

Politicians are paid substantially high salaries compared to most Queenslanders. Parliament isrecognised as an institution where formality rules and business dress, which is a coat and tie, andprofessional conduct are expected. Since the commencement of the 52nd Parliament led by the Beattiegovernment behaviour in the House has been shameful. Derisive personal comments and insults arehurled across the chamber in a sloppy and dishonourable manner.

Ministers’ replies to questions on notice contain sarcastic and unprofessional remarks to well-intended questions asked by members on behalf of constituents. I share those shoddy replies withresidents in my electorate who have innocently requested answers to their concerns. They are notimpressed with the unprofessional manner exhibited by ministers. Neither were a dozen guests from theGold Coast who witnessed this morning’s disgraceful antics by the Premier and his government duringquestion time.

Correspondence is treated with disdain and arrogance by some ministers who take months toreply. A sampling of their tardiness includes a letter to the minister for transport dated 13 October 2006which did not receive a response until 5 January. A letter to the minister for education dated 5September 2006 was not answered until 4 December 2006. At least with a petition or a question onnotice one gets a reply in 30 days, even though it may contain personal and shabby comments.

The relaxing of dress standards by the Premier has the potential to further diminish parliamentarystandards. The emperor may have new clothes, but his motivation for doing so is transparentlyinsincere.

Time expired.

Liberal PartyMr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (9.39 pm): Yesterday the Australian newspaper revealed that the

Australian Electoral Commission is examining one of the most blatantly dishonest transactions in recentpolitical history—that is, the secret, illegal and possibly corrupt payment of $140,000 to meet the legalfees of an unsuccessful candidate for Liberal Party preselection for the seat of Moggill prior to the 2004state election. In June 2005 I tabled a copy of the secret agreement that is now the subject of the AECinvestigation, which is an investigation that I applaud the AEC for undertaking. I have a copy of it here. Ithas the signature of Michael Caltabiano all over it. It is between Russell Galt, the Liberal Party ofAustralia and Michael Caltabiano. This shameful matter involves two sets of high-ranking Liberal Partyofficials. It also directly involves the Prime Minister and the Federal Treasurer.

14 Mar 2007 Adjournment 1063

When failed candidate Russell Galt lost the preselection to the current member, he took thematter to court and lost. He then appealed but withdrew the appeal after the then state president,Michael Caltabiano, and the state director, Geoff Greene, entered into an illegal and secret agreementto meet his legal costs of $140,000. However, there was a problem about raising the money and makingthe payment. The State Council of the Liberal Party specifically directed that Mr Galt’s costs not be paid.To get around the state executive direction, Mr Caltabiano and the current federal Minister for theAgeing, Santo Santoro, misled Liberal Party business donors by pretending that the funds they wereseeking were to be used for the state election campaign. Senator Santoro personally rang a number ofbusiness people soliciting urgent donations. He did not disclose the real purpose of his calls.

In order to get around the state executive decision, the money raised was laundered through thefederal headquarters of the Liberal Party in Canberra. RG Menzies House became a giant laundromat.That illegal and secret transaction was sanctioned by the then federal president, Shane Stone. It musthave also been sanctioned by the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer who sit on the federalexecutive. I also believe that the transaction was a corrupt one.

The agreement was driven by the federal member for Ryan, Michael Johnson. He had backed MrGalt in the preselection. The payment of Mr Galt’s legal fees was a condition of the support for MichaelJohnson’s branch-stacking members at the upcoming Liberal Party State Convention, at which MichaelCaltabiano’s position as president was under threat. Despite this transaction being irregular, secret andillegal, the federal president, Shane Stone, laundered it through the federal organisation books, andpassed the $140,000 on to Minister Ellison. That is rightly now the subject of the AEC investigation.

The same Shane Stone has now been appointed by the state president, Warwick Parer, andGeoff Greene to ‘review’ federal and state MP’s accounts. He is the Liberal Party’s bagman as well as itslaundryman. When he meets the Liberal members opposite, they need to muster the courage todemand answers as to why the Queensland organisation was raising funds for an illegal purpose andnot raising funds for the state election campaign. They also need to ask him why he oversaw the secret,and deceptive laundering of $140,000.

Time expired.

Eventide Nursing Home

Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (9.43 pm): Last year I raised a serious issue, and I tabled apetition containing 2,726 signatures opposing any plans to privatise the state government ownedEventide Nursing Home at Charters Towers. Also included in that petition was the need for the stategovernment to provide adequate funding and staffing levels to enable the facility to function at fullcapacity.

Eventide has a unit called the Pandanus Unit, which was closed down in 2002 after 40 beds wereremoved to Townsville. Residents believed that the unit was going to be upgraded to a secure dementiaunit only to receive the opposite news.

The city of Charters Towers was founded in 1872 and has an ageing population. The combinedcity and shire population is near 13,000. Eventide provides a service to people as far away asRichmond, yet the facility has no secure high-care dementia unit. This has caused a lot of grief and hasseparated couples and loved ones, some of whom have lived together for up to 60 years. At presentthere are four secure units available in the Tablelands and six in the Townsville district. However, thereare up to 400 people on the waiting list. All that is required is small modification at the Pandanus Unit tomeet the needs of the community.

We have a multimillion-dollar facility that is not operating to its full capacity, yet our elderly areforced to be separated from their family and loved ones and go to other care facilities in towns hundredof kilometres away. This is causing a lot of grief in the community. Some 2,700 petitioners understandthe situation. It is ridiculous that Townsville residents are residing in Eventide and that Charters Towersresidents are on the waiting list and are forced to go to Townsville or other care facilities.

Many families are holding on, trying to care and cope with the stress of looking after loved ones indifficult circumstances. The sad part is that we have a wonderful facility that has a unit that is closed.

It is estimated that within the next 20 years the number of people over the age of 70 will double,and in rural and regional Queensland the percentage will be higher. It only makes common sense, and itis a matter of ethics and principal, that the Pandanus Unit is fully reopened for the benefit of the wholecommunity, particularly in the area of specific dementia care.

I call on the state government to allocate a portion of the $9 billion injection of funds into theQueensland Health system to be used for the provision of a secure unit for dementia patients inCharters Towers and that urgent funding is granted to provide care to current dementia patients atEventide until a dementia care facility at Eventide is provided.


Bruce Highway UpgradeHon. KW HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (9.45 pm): Last Monday I had the pleasure of attending

the official commissioning of the Bruce Highway upgrade from Boundary Road to Uhlmann Road,Burpengary. I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the presence of the federal minister, JimLloyd, and the parliamentary secretary for transport and main roads in Queensland, the member forHervey Bay, Andrew McNamara, who attended this very important commissioning function.

This part of the Bruce Highway comprises the boundary between my electorate of Kallangur andthe Murrumba electorate represented by the honourable Dean Wells. This section of the Bruce Highwaycarries over 75,000 vehicles per day. The upgrade and widening will significantly improve the highway’ssafety and capacity.

Mr McNamara interjected. Mr HAYWARD: I well remember 26 September 2005 when, along with the federal member for

Longman, Mal Brough, we performed a sod-turning ceremony to start this new $108 millionconstruction. The work came in on budget and on time.

There were many contractors, subcontractors and workers involved in this project. I want tocongratulate them for their dedication and hard work on that project. I particularly want to thank theprincipal contractor on that job, Leighton Contractors.

I have spoken many times in this parliament about the upgrade of the Bruce Highway in myelectorate to six lanes. That upgrade has been underway for over six years. The work is not completedyet, with the final stages to take the six-laning to meet the Caboolture Bypass in the electorate ofPumicestone, which is currently under construction. The completion of the stage to Uhlmann Road isvery exciting and important for road users in my electorate and the other near northern areas. PineRivers and Caboolture shires, which directly feed on to the Bruce Highway, are fast growing areas ofsouth-east Queensland. I expect that, as the upgrade task is complete to Uhlmann Road in Burpengary,traffic flows from the Kallangur electorate will be greatly improved.

I have previously urged highway users to show patience during the road construction and plan fora slower journey to their destinations. I congratulate them for their road behaviour and considerationduring this time. The next stage to the Caboolture River will finally complete the project as it directlyaffects my electorate.

I welcome the funding for this project, which has come principally from the Commonwealthgovernment but with the support of the Queensland government. I urge the Commonwealth governmentto set aside sufficient funds to ensure that the upgrade can be completed to the Caboolture bypass.Again, congratulations to all who were involved in the project. The upgrade is very welcome in theKallangur electorate.

Water InfrastructureMr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (9.48 pm): Much has been said in the House today and yesterday

about the role local governments play in relation to water infrastructure in this state. It is very importantthat we had that debate tonight. I made a contribution to that debate, but I think there are a lot of furtherissues that need to be put on the record so people understand exactly what the guidelines are that localgovernments operate under. For instance, the state government should take a leaf out of the actions oflocal governments. In 2005-06 the total water and sewerage revenue from all sources was $1.4 billion.This revenue has increased from $1.1 billion in 2001-02, representing an annual compound growth rateof 5.9 per cent.

The main source of revenue was rates and charges, which accounted for 72.4 per cent to79.5 per cent of total revenue during the analysis period. Local government has made a hugecontribution to infrastructure in the past and continues to make a contribution. In 2005-06, the 14 south-east Queensland local government associations invested a total of $435.9 million in water andsewerage supply assets.

If we believed what the Premier has been saying in the last couple of days, we would think theyjust got the money and ran. That is not the case at all. The capital expenditure has increased from$198.9 million in 2001-02, representing an annual compound growth rate of 21.6 per cent. Capitalexpenditure from 2001-02 to 2005-06 represented 32.4 per cent of total rates and charges earned bythe south-east Queensland water businesses and, in comparison, was more than two-thirds—in fact68.4 per cent—of the amount spent on annual operating expenditure.

A study undertaken by Morton Consulting entitled ‘Water supply and waste water outlays byQueensland local government’ dated August 2006 examined the overall level of expenditure on watersupply and waste water services by local governments across Queensland. The study estimated that in2004-05 Queensland local governments spent an estimated $1.14 billion on water supply and wastewater services across the state, representing an average outlay of $384 per capita. This expenditureincludes operations, maintenance and administration as well as new works, renewals andreplacements.

14 Mar 2007 Adjournment 1065

When we look at exactly what has been done, we see a different story altogether. In fact, theguidelines that local governments operate under are exactly those that are laid out in legislation. Theyhave full cost pricing. They have to do this under the guidelines. Full cost pricing means the full cost ofgoods and services is included in the business activities and financial statements, including adjustmentsfor competitive neutrality. Such costs should include estimates of operating costs, including theallocation of overhead costs, depreciation and amounts equivalent to Commonwealth, state and othergovernment taxes.

Time expired.

Parliamentary Dress Code; QPILCHMr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (9.51 pm): As a member of parliament, I find it a pleasure and a

privilege to visit schools and my university, the University of Queensland, but I also spend quite a lot oftime visiting kindergartens. I do not think I have seen a hissy fit at any of the kindergartens I have evervisited that quite matched the antics of the member for Currumbin in the House tonight. I just give thismessage to the member for Currumbin, who has what appears to me to be an absolute obsession withthe dress code within the parliament, and maybe the message will be useful for all of her colleagues inthe Liberal and National parties: loosen your ties and just relax. There are a lot more important things inlife than obsessing about whether someone wears a tie or not.

Recently, I had the pleasure of opening the inaugural QPILCH homeless persons art exhibition atthe Metro Arts gallery on Edward Street. The exhibition was organised by a number of groups, first andforemost being QPILCH. Also involved were the Red Cross Night Cafe, the Brisbane Youth Service, theBrisbane Homeless Service Centre and HART 4000, as well as volunteers from QPILCH’s wonderfulhomeless persons’ legal clinic and of course their clients. The Queensland Public Interest Law ClearingHouse is a not-for-profit community based organisation. It coordinates pro bono legal work and alsoreceives some funding from the Department of Communities.

I want to pay tribute firstly to the exhibitors whose talent, I have to say, was not only evident butwas also the envy of all the lawyers who were in the room on the night. These are people who havegenuinely accomplished against the odds. Their work was not only great to look at but it genuinelychallenged me, and I think it also challenged the other people who attended the gallery opening, to thinka bit harder about homeless issues. I want to also thank all of the wonderful lawyers who volunteerthrough QPILCH. It is a wonderful organisation. I especially thank the young lawyers. It is great to seetheir commitment to social justice. They are genuinely helping to make the world a better place. I wasalso joined on the night by the Deputy Mayor of Brisbane, David Hinchliffe. I want to pay special tributeto Tony Woodyatt, Peter Rosengren and Monica Taylor from QPILCH. I urge them to continue theirimportant work.

Fishing IndustryMr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (9.54 pm): I rise tonight to speak about a great injustice that has

been done to more than 150 fishermen throughout Queensland, and I particularly want to speak about aperson by the name of Ray Perrett. Ray’s only crime was that he trawled through a green zone and wasfined $2,000 and convicted of an offence. He is now a criminal. He even had to apply to the FederalPolice to take a holiday on Norfolk Island. Ray was a property owner out at the Roma-Injune district untilhe sold his property back in 2000. He lived in that area all his life. He is a good person. He raisedhuge amounts of money to put a defibrillator in a local hospital. He was the voluntary chief fire warden inthat district for most of his life and he received a long service medal upon retirement from that position.He went on to be active in the campdraft industry and ran many schools for the campdraft people rightthroughout Queensland.

What is happening to our fishing industry is a real shame. More than 150 fishermen have beenfined and convicted. The situation now is that those convictions and the ongoing fines have beenrescinded, but these 150 or more people now find that they are criminals and they have to go throughthis legal process. Most of them are retired people who do not have GPSs. They have gone out in a littletinny in areas just off the coast where the green zones are not clearly defined and they haveinadvertently been caught in the wrong place. In a lot of cases, they are pensioners and this is atremendous imposition on them. I call on the minister and those who have the ability to change this lawto lift those convictions, particularly those convictions on the more than 150 fishermen throughoutQueensland who are caught in this situation. It is unfair, unjust and un-Australian.

State Emergency Services, VolunteersMr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (9.56 pm): I would like to advise the House tonight about an

opportunity I had to accompany the Minister for Emergency Services, the Hon. Pat Purcell, last Sundaywhen he presented a number of awards including national medals, meritorious service medals andclasps for both medals to State Emergency Services volunteers from the Ipswich region. Of particular


significance at this awards ceremony was the fact that we celebrated a combined total of more than 900years of service by this group, which is a fabulous record. It is sometimes easy to take the contributionof volunteers for granted, but many community organisations would simply fail to exist without them, andthat is not to mention how essential they are to our other emergency service officers.

The Ipswich SES area consists of the Ipswich, Goodna, Marburg and Rosewood groups, witheach group having a diverse workload. Operations over the past year have covered areas such asstorm damage repairs, traffic control duties and land searches, while fortunately, or unfortunately, therehas been no work on flood control during this time. But it is not only the local Ipswich community whichhas benefited from their services, because I am aware that the Ipswich SES had a strong representationin Innisfail a year ago helping with the clean-up after Cyclone Larry. They spent around three weeksworking in that devastated area.

All of these operational duties are very important, but it is easy to underestimate the amount oftime that volunteers often give to an activity like the SES when you include training and the actualrunning of the unit. As I said earlier, the awards presented on Sunday recognised a collective 900 yearsof community and voluntary service. This is an incredible commitment and one which on behalf of theIpswich community and this House I thank them for. However, before I finish I think it is also necessaryfor us to thank the families and employers of these and all SES volunteers. As everyone knows, thededication of emergency services personnel can and does put a huge burden on family life and jobs. Itis therefore critical that this House acknowledges and recognises the support of the many families,employers and colleagues who cover the jobs of those volunteers who are on duty and thus enablethem to continue to serve the community with such distinction.

Government Owned Corporations

Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (9.59 pm): The corporatisation of public entities has been asorry part of government policy on both sides of politics for many years now. It has led to the loss ofessential parts of the very foundation of our country and our state and reaped a harsh toll on ordinaryQueenslanders. Corporatisation is not some kind of magical answer to the supposed inefficiencies ofpublic sector management. It has impacted on everything from the water supply to power generation,from railways to port operations and the list goes on.

I have never believed that just because something is managed by the public sector it isautomatically badly managed. Everyone in this place would agree that our public servants are, on thewhole, dedicated, professional and easily the equal of their private sector counterparts. So why are weso ready to accept that they cannot manage things equally well?

The mad drive to corporatise has nothing to do with the management skills of public servants.The difference between public sector entities and corporate entities rests on just one factor. Publicsector entities take into account the public interest in their decisions. Corporate entities, includingGOCs, do not. Instead they bow down to the all-powerful profit motive. The public good disappears asan issue compared to the lucrative siren song of higher and higher profits and earnings. The dollar iseverything and be damned anyone who might have to suffer along the way to generating a bit morerevenue.

Of course, that suits the government. Any unpopular decisions a corporatised body makes can beput at arms-length. Just look at the handwashing that went on over the state of Brisbane’s power grid.But the profits, that is a different matter. The profits generated by the harsh decisions of governmentowned corporations keep on flowing to government. That is what corporatisation is all about. When,eventually, these government owned corporations are sold off into the public sector, for even more profitto government, as shown in the fate of Telstra, for example, the ordinary people simply get an evenworse deal.

But that cannot be a surprise, surely, when the whole point is to take public interest out of thedecision-making process and replace it with the mighty dollar. When these kinds of corporations areestablished we do not see them employing hundreds more Queenslanders. Instead, time and again, wesee them rationalising their workforces and putting Queenslanders out of jobs. Again for one simplereason: to make as much profit as possible and be damned whom it hurts. The government, as theshareholder, cannot wait to get its hands on the resulting profits.

I believe there is a very clear role to be played by governments, especially state governments andfederal governments, in nation building. It is a role that has been largely abandoned. It is a role whichGOCs will never undertake. While the public good was sufficient reason for the Snowy Mountainsscheme to go ahead or the Ord River region to be opened up, I do not believe either of those iconicprojects would have gone ahead if the profit motive had been the sole driving reason. Leaving decisionsabout how we build this state and this nation at the mercy of profit driven executives is, I believe, arecipe for disaster.

14 Mar 2007 Attendance 1067

Bundamba Electorate, Water Pipeline ConstructionMrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (10.02 pm): As the state member for Bundamba I would like to

place on record my personal thanks to the residents of Nelson Street, Stubbins Street and River Roadand other surrounding streets of Bundamba for their patience and understanding with the construction ofpipelines and treatment plants being built in their near neighbourhood.

It was announced that the work on the water projects would have to occur 24 hours a day, sixdays a week in order that the pipeline projects could be finished on time. At this stage I am advised thatthe first full 24-hour shift will start around 16 March 2007. It is anticipated that the noise levels will bekept to a minimum with low-level noise works being undertaken—for example, steel fixing and thepouring of concrete.

Night shift currently involves between 20 to 30 workers. However, with the increase to the 24-hourshift we expect that to increase to 70 to 80 workers by the end of March. In addition, occasional Sundaywork will include follow-up work needed such as concrete placement and concrete finishing, greencutting and road-marking work. Extended hours concrete work is limited to those activities with minimalnoise. For example, it is anticipated that there will be no bulk earthworks or piling.

A steel fixing contractor will start around-the-clock work by this Friday and by 25 March it isanticipated that piping work will be carried out by mechanical workers. It is expected that building of thenoise-mitigating earth bund and an acoustic fence will begin next Monday, 19 March.

Weekly discussions and informal feedback with residents via the free coffee van continues everyTuesday morning. Follow-up home visits have occurred to help solve any issues raised at the coffeevan. This is an excellent community consultation program being undertaken in the Bundambacommunity.

Earthworks, sealing internal roads and increased watering of the site by water carts is being doneto reduce any dust. At night floodlights are placed on low and are positioned to shine away from theresidential areas. I would like to report to the House that as of today I understand that there have beenno hotline calls received in relation to works at night. Overall there have only been very few complaintsin relation to the extended hours operations. They have mainly been about minimal noise and dustcomplaints. However, each one is being individually investigated and appropriate measures will beundertaken.

I think that the support of the Bundamba Neighbourhood Watch Committee as well as our localpeople has been fantastic. I would like to say thank you to the residents. We are very grateful for theirtolerance and their community spirit as we fight to overcome this drought. Their community spirit willforever be remembered by the people of south-east Queensland.

Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 10.05 pm.

ATTENDANCEAttwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Copeland, Cripps, Croft, Cunningham,

Darling, Dempsey, Elmes, English, Fenlon, Finn, Flegg, Foley, Fraser, Gibson, Gray, Hayward,Hinchliffe, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Hopper, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Knuth,Langbroek, Lawlor, Lee Long, Lee, Lingard, Lucas, McArdle, McNamara, Male, Malone, Menkens,Messenger, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk,Pearce, Pitt, Pratt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Rickuss, Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine,Simpson, Smith, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg,Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson

hansard home page: e-mail: phone: (07) 3406 7314 fax: (07) … · 2007-03-20 · geothermal energy...

Documents