Hansard Home Page: E-mail: Phone: (07) 3406 7314 Fax: (07 ...

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

Thursday, 15 November 2007AUDITOR GENERAL’S REPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 4321

Tabled paper: Auditor-General of Queensland, ‘Report to Parliament No. 9 for 2007—Results of audits as at 31 October 2007’................................................................................................................................ 4321Tabled paper: Auditor-General of Queensland, ‘Report to Parliament No. 9 for 2007—Results of audits as at 31 October 2007—Executive Summary’. ............................................................................................ 4321

SPEAKER’S RULING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4321Same Question Rule, Bills and Amendments .................................................................................................................... 4321

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................ 4321Photographs in Chamber ................................................................................................................................................... 4321

PETITIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4322TABLED PAPERS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4322SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................ 4322

Unveiling of Didgeridoo ...................................................................................................................................................... 4322MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 4322

Public Hospitals, Quarterly Performance Report ................................................................................................................ 4322Geothermal Energy ............................................................................................................................................................ 4323Style and Presentation of Legislation ................................................................................................................................. 4324Steve Irwin Day .................................................................................................................................................................. 4324Public Hospitals, Quarterly Performance Report ................................................................................................................ 4324

Tabled paper: Queensland Health quarterly public hospitals performance report—September quarter 2007. ...... 4324Queensland Police Service, Annual Statistical Review ...................................................................................................... 4325

Tabled paper: Queensland Police Service Annual Statistical Review 2006-07...................................................... 4325Tabled paper: Queensland Police Service Annual Report 2006-07. ...................................................................... 4325

Water Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................................................ 4326Tabled paper: Copy of a media release, dated 7 November 2007, by Queensland Coalition titled ‘Wyaralong Dam should have been built years ago’. ............................................................................................. 4326Tabled paper: Copy of a submission, dated 2 April 2007, from Mr Jeff Seeney MP, Leader of the Opposition, to the secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport relating to additional water supplies for south-east Queensland. ........................................................................... 4326Tabled paper: Copy of extract from Hansard, dated 14 November 2007, page 4251............................................ 4326

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

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

Table of Contents — Thursday, 15 November 2007

Cyclone Guba; House Fire Prevention ...............................................................................................................................4327Taxation Reform .................................................................................................................................................................4327Housing Affordability; Skills Shortage .................................................................................................................................4328White Ribbon Day ...............................................................................................................................................................4328Roadside Drug Testing .......................................................................................................................................................4329Local Government Grants Commission ..............................................................................................................................4329Security Industry, Licences .................................................................................................................................................4329Aurukun ..............................................................................................................................................................................4330Solar Thermal Power Station, Cloncurry .............................................................................................................................4330Steve Irwin Day ...................................................................................................................................................................4331Primary Industries ...............................................................................................................................................................4331

Tabled paper: Report, dated September 2007, by Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries titled ‘Prospects for Queensland’s Primary industries 2007-08’. .....................................................................................4331

MOTION ..........................................................................................................................................................................................4332Bills Declared Urgent; Allocation of Time Limit Orders .......................................................................................................4332

Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to. ..........................................................................................4332Resolved in the affirmative. ....................................................................................................................................4332

HEALTH QUALITY AND COMPLAINTS COMMISSION SELECT COMMITTEE .........................................................................4332Report .................................................................................................................................................................................4332

Tabled paper: Report, dated November 2007, titled ‘Review of the Health Quality and Complaints Commission and the Health Quality and Complaints Commission Act 2006’. ........................................................4332

MEMBERS’ ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE .................................................................................4333Report .................................................................................................................................................................................4333

Tabled paper: MEPPC Report No. 84 ‘Matter Referred by the Speaker on 11 October 2007 Relating to the Procedures for Considering Requests to Refer Complaints to the Committee’. ..............................................4333

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE ...............................................................................................................................................4333Discussion Paper ................................................................................................................................................................4333

Tabled paper: Management of Funding to Non-government Organisations—Discussion Paper, November 2007.......................................................................................................................................................4333

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE ...............................................................................................................................................4334Report .................................................................................................................................................................................4334

Tabled paper: Public Accounts Committee Report No 77—Review of Auditor-General Report 1 for 2006—Results of Local Government Audits for 2004-05—Local Government Investment Credit Risk. ............................4334

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...................................................................................................................................................4334Department of Child Safety; Child Deaths ..........................................................................................................................4334Department of Child Safety; Child Deaths ..........................................................................................................................4335Education ............................................................................................................................................................................4335Department of Child Safety; Child Deaths ..........................................................................................................................4336Coal Industry .......................................................................................................................................................................4336Death of Mst. RC Saunders ................................................................................................................................................4337Water Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................................................4338

Tabled paper: Copy of a media release, dated 2 February 2007, by Queensland coalition titled ‘Snail like recycled water pipeline progress a concern’ and media release, dated 30 April 2007, by Queensland coalition titled ‘Water grid on track—for 2013’.........................................................................................................4339

Department of Child Safety, Commercial Accommodation .................................................................................................4339Public Hospitals, Quarterly Performance Report ................................................................................................................4340

SPEAKER’S RULING .....................................................................................................................................................................4341Rules Relating to Questions Without Notice .......................................................................................................................4341

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...................................................................................................................................................4341Kingaroy Court House ........................................................................................................................................................4341

Tabled paper: Text of a letter from an unidentified juror relating to Kingaroy Court House. ...................................4341Brett Irwin Memorial Shield .................................................................................................................................................4342Townsville Hospital, Cardiac Services ................................................................................................................................4342Coal Industry .......................................................................................................................................................................4343SunWater ............................................................................................................................................................................4343

CHILD PROTECTION (OFFENDER PROHIBITION ORDER) BILL ..............................................................................................4344First Reading ......................................................................................................................................................................4344Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................................4344

WATER AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL; SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND WATER (RESTRUCTURING) BILL ..............................................................................................................................................................4347

Consideration in Detail (Cognate Debate) ..........................................................................................................................4347South East Queensland Water (Restructuring) Bill .............................................................................................................4347

Clause 53, as read, agreed to. ...............................................................................................................................4347Clauses 54 to 57, as read, agreed to. ....................................................................................................................4347Clause 58, as read, agreed to. ...............................................................................................................................4348Clauses 59 to 66, as read, agreed to. ....................................................................................................................4348Clause 67, as read, agreed to. ...............................................................................................................................4348

Table of Contents — Thursday, 15 November 2007

Clause 68, as read, agreed to. .............................................................................................................................. 4348Insertion of new clause— ....................................................................................................................................... 4348Division: Question put—That Dr Flegg’s amendment be agreed to. ...................................................................... 4352Resolved in the negative. ....................................................................................................................................... 4352Clauses 69 to 82, as read, agreed to. ................................................................................................................... 4352Clause 83, as read, agreed to. .............................................................................................................................. 4352Clauses 84 to 101, as read, agreed to. ................................................................................................................. 4352Clause 102, as read, agreed to. ............................................................................................................................. 4353Clauses 103 to 117, as read, agreed to. ................................................................................................................ 4353Schedules 1 to 3, as read, agreed to...................................................................................................................... 4353

Third Reading (Cognate Debate) ....................................................................................................................................... 4353Long Title (Cognate Debate) .............................................................................................................................................. 4354

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER LEGISLATION (INDIGENOUS REGIONAL COUNCILS) AMENDMENT BILL; LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT BILL ................................................................................................................................ 4354

Second Reading (Cognate Debate) ................................................................................................................................... 4354Tabled paper: Copy of an ‘open letter’ to the Minister for Main Roads and Local Government from the Clifton Shire Community Group Against Forced Amalgamation headed ‘Regarding: Royal Commission into Local Government Reform’.............................................................................................................................. 4356Tabled paper: Document detailing the Local Government Reform Commission’s consideration of public submissions. ................................................................................................................................................ 4381Division: Question put—That the Local Government and Other Legislation (Indigenous Regional Councils) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. ......................................................................................... 4385Resolved in the affirmative. .................................................................................................................................... 4385

Consideration in Detail (Cognate Debate) .......................................................................................................................... 4385Local Government and Other Legislation (Indigenous Regional Councils) Amendment Bill .............................................. 4385

Clause 1, as read, agreed to. ................................................................................................................................ 4385Division: Question put—That clause 2, as read, stand part of the bill. ................................................................... 4386Resolved in the affirmative. .................................................................................................................................... 4386Clause 2, as read, agreed to. ................................................................................................................................. 4386Clauses 3 to 100, as read, agreed to. ................................................................................................................... 4386Division: Question put—That clause 101, as read, stand part of the bill. ............................................................... 4387Resolved in the affirmative. .................................................................................................................................... 4387Clause 101, as read, agreed to. ............................................................................................................................. 4387Insertion of new clause— ....................................................................................................................................... 4387Tabled paper: Explanatory Notes for Amendments to be moved during consideration in detail by the Honourable Warren Pitt MP.................................................................................................................................... 4387Amendment agreed to. .......................................................................................................................................... 4387Clauses 102 to 105, as read, agreed to. ............................................................................................................... 4387Clause 106 (Insertion of new ch 3, pt 1C)—........................................................................................................... 4387Division: Question put—That clause 106, as amended, stand part of the bill. ....................................................... 4388Resolved in the affirmative. .................................................................................................................................... 4388Clause 106, as amended, agreed to. ..................................................................................................................... 4388Clauses 107 to 126, as read, agreed to. ............................................................................................................... 4389Amendments agreed to. ......................................................................................................................................... 4390

Local Government Amendment Bill .................................................................................................................................... 4390Clause 1, as read, agreed to. ................................................................................................................................. 4390Clause 2, as read, agreed to. ................................................................................................................................. 4390Insertion of new clause— ....................................................................................................................................... 4390Division: Question put—That the member for Warrego’s amendments be agreed to. ........................................... 4398Resolved in the negative. ....................................................................................................................................... 4398Clauses 3 to 6, as read, agreed to. ....................................................................................................................... 4398

Third Reading (Cognate Debate) ....................................................................................................................................... 4399Division: Question put—That the Local Government and Other Legislation (Indigenous Regional Councils) Amendment Bill, as amended, be now read a third time. ....................................................................... 4399Resolved in the affirmative. .................................................................................................................................... 4399

Long Title (Cognate Debate) .............................................................................................................................................. 4399PARLIAMENTARY AMNESTY GROUP ........................................................................................................................................ 4399

International Day of Action, Pakistan ................................................................................................................................. 4399SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT ............................................................................................................................................................ 4403VALEDICTORY .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4403ADJOURNMENT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 4412ATTENDANCE ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4412

15 Nov 2007 Legislative Assembly 4321

THURSDAY, 15 NOVEMBER 2007

Legislative Assembly

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. MF Reynolds, Townsville) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 am.Mr SPEAKER (Hon. MF Reynolds, Townsville) acknowledged the traditional owners of the land

upon which this parliament is assembled and the custodians of the sacred lands of our state.

AUDITOR GENERAL’S REPORTMr SPEAKER: I have received from the Auditor-General a report titled Report to Parliament No.

9 for 2007: Results of audits as at 31 October 2007. I have also received an executive summarybrochure to report No. 9. I table the report and the brochure for the information of members. Tabled paper: Auditor-General of Queensland, ‘Report to Parliament No. 9 for 2007—Results of audits as at 31 October 2007’.Tabled paper: Auditor-General of Queensland, ‘Report to Parliament No. 9 for 2007—Results of audits as at 31 October 2007—Executive Summary’.

SPEAKER’S RULING

Same Question Rule, Bills and AmendmentsMr SPEAKER: It has been a rule of Westminster parliamentary practice since at least the early

16th century that matters already decided during the same session may not be brought forward again.The matters do not have to be identical, merely the same in substance as the previous matter. In otherwords, it is a question of substance, not form.

This general rule is also applicable to bills. There is no rule preventing the presentation of two billson the same subject, or indeed opposite intent. However, if a decision of the House has already beentaken on one bill, the other is not to be proceeded upon.

Similarly, a bill cannot be introduced that is substantially the same as a bill which has failed asecond reading. Nor can an amendment be moved to a bill that has already been moved to another billand defeated or is substantially the same as a bill that has been defeated. However, since at least 1850the rule has not applied so as to prevent the amendment or repeal of an act of the same session.

The Local Government Amendment Bill currently before the House seeks to repeal provisionsinserted into the act by the Local Government Reform Implementation Bill. The rule detailed above doesnot apply so as to prevent the bill from being considered.

The Local Government Amendment Bill is a very short bill encompassing six clauses on twopages. The member for Warrego last night circulated 46 pages of proposed amendments to the bill. TheLocal Government Amendment Bill has a long title that provides ‘for an act to amend the LocalGovernment Act 1993’. Therefore, in accordance with the title, members are permitted to move anyamendments to that act. The title does not limit amendments to a particular purpose. However, many ofthe member’s amendments were proposed amendments that the member had circulated and wasintending to move to the Local Government Reform Implementation Bill. Some of these amendmentswere, in fact, moved and defeated. Others were not moved because the bill was time limited. Further,other amendments circulated are the same as clauses contained in the Local Government (Candidatesfor State Elections) Amendment Bill 2007, a bill that was defeated.

In summary, the same question rule applies to make the following amendments to the current billcirculated in the member’s name out of order: amendment 5, which is substantially the same asamendment 4 to the Local Government Reform Implementation Bill and amendments 49 and 50, whichare substantially the same as the defeated Local Government (Candidates for State Elections)Amendment Bill 2007.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Photographs in ChamberMr SPEAKER: I have given permission for a Courier-Mail photographer to be in the chamber

today under the rules that are presently within the guidelines of the House which allow head andshoulder photographs to be taken.

4322 Ministerial Statements 15 Nov 2007

PETITIONSThe following honourable members have lodged paper petitions for presentation—

Local Government ReformMiss Simpson, from 223 petitioners, requesting the House to consider that the areas of Yarraman and Upper Yarraman beincluded with Nanango and Blackbutt in the proposed South Burnett Regional Council Area.

Bundaberg, Housing DevelopmentMr Dempsey, from 67 petitioners, requesting the House to re-examine the proposed public housing development for HillvueCrescent, Bundaberg, to maintain the aesthetic qualities of the existing residential development.

Broadbeach Waters, Noise BarriersMr Stevens, from 150 petitioners, requesting the House to erect sound barriers from Monaco Street to Poinciana Boulevard,Broadbeach Waters to reduce excessive sound levels.

Gold Coast HighwayMr Langbroek, from 343 petitioners, requesting the House to reject the ‘western route’ planned for the Gold Coast highway andfor the alternative routes to be put forward to the community.The following honourable members have lodged e-petitions which are now closed and presented—

Equine InfluenzaMr English, from 652 petitioners, requesting the House to raise with the federal Minister for Agriculture the impact of thegovernment’s decision to not honour the original agreement to cost share the financial assistance towards veterinary care ofequine influenza infected horses.

Currumbin Wildlife SanctuaryMrs Stuckey, from 442 petitioners, requesting the House to renew the contract of Michelle Monsour as CEO of the CurrumbinWildlife Sanctuary.

Traveston DamMr Gibson, from 1,799 petitioners, requesting the House to extend the period for public comment of the draft EIS for the proposeddam at Traveston Crossing by at least four weeks.

TABLED PAPERSMINISTERIAL PAPER TABLED BY THE CLERKThe following ministerial paper was tabled by the Clerk—Minister for Health (Mr Robertson)—• Response from the Minister for Health (Mr Robertson) to two paper petitions (919-07 and 920-07) presented by Ms Lee

Long from 2,401 and 3,991 petitioners respectively requesting that qualified natural healing practitioners be recognisedand covered under health policies

MEMBERS’ PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERKThe following members’ papers were tabled by the Clerk—Member for Burnett (Mr Messenger)—• Replacement Explanatory Notes to the Criminal Code (Assaults Against Police and Others) Amendment Bill 2007Member for Bulimba (Mr Purcell)—• Non-conforming paper petition presented by the Member for Bulimba (Mr Purcell) from 66 petitioners relating to proposed

legislative changes that may stop Cash Converters from providing short-term cash loans

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Unveiling of DidgeridooMr SPEAKER: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I welcome to the public gallery today two

members of our Indigenous working group, Mr Paul Travis from James Cook University in Townsvilleand also Mr Norm Clarke. Today has been an historic occasion for the parliament itself in regard to theunveiling of the wind yarn, the didgeridoo, which has taken place this morning. I particularly welcomeMr Travis and Mr Clarke to the chamber.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Public Hospitals, Quarterly Performance ReportHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.38 am): Later this morning, the Minister for

Health will table the Queensland Health quarterly public hospitals performance report. This report willdetail the performance of Queensland’s hospitals in the key service delivery areas of emergency andelective surgery.

15 Nov 2007 Ministerial Statements 4323

This report delivers on our commitment to openly inform Queenslanders about the performanceof our health system and sets a new national benchmark for transparency and accountability. It showsthat our hospitals are treating more patients than ever before as Queensland continues to grapple withthe challenges of an ageing population and a rapidly growing state.

My government recognises the significant pressures that this growth places on our health systemand we are taking action. We are investing a record $10 billion over five years through the Health ActionPlan.

Today’s quarterly report highlights the significant inroads made so far. For instance, during theSeptember quarter our public hospitals performed almost 30,000 elective surgeries—more than in anyother quarter since our system reforms began two years ago. However, the report also reminds us thatthere is more work to be done. Managing waiting lists remains a huge challenge for our hospitals—herein Queensland and across the country. Our government will rise to that challenge and do more.

While the midyear budget review is still being finalised, I indicated publicly some weeks ago thatHealth would be a major focus of this year’s midyear deliberations. As such, I am pleased to advise thatthe Cabinet Budget Review Committee this week has approved an additional $50 million in recurrentfunding to further tackle record patient demand in many of our hospitals across the state. This fundingwill mean Queensland hospitals can carry out even more procedures, including elective surgeries. It willalso enable our clinicians to take immediate action to relieve pressure in other essential areas.

Over the coming weeks, Queensland Health will work with hospitals to allocate these funds tohospitals across the state as part of their own internal annual midyear review process. The fundingincreases Queensland Health’s annual budget this year from $7.15 billion to a new record of $7.2 billion.This is $700 million more than last year and is more than double the 1997-98 budget allocation.

As a government, we remain tirelessly committed to delivering timely and effective quality healthcare to Queenslanders. These significant new funds will ensure that we continue to make furtherinroads to meet the ever-increasing levels of demand on our public health system.

I would also like to take a moment this morning to congratulate the Minister for Health. This is avery difficult area of service delivery and I think the quarterly reports that he will table later are a clearsign that he is a minister who is doing everything in his power to be on top of these issues and tacklethem. But there is a bigger reason to congratulate the Minister for Health: he is 48 hours away from hiswedding. I take the opportunity this morning to wish him and his partner, Caz, a wonderful day on theweekend as they celebrate their partnership and a wonderful, happy life together.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Geothermal EnergyHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.41 am): The search is on for new

geothermal energy in Queensland as these hot rocks are a greener source of energy for powergeneration in Queensland. Ten new areas have now been opened up for exploration. We are looking at5,400 square kilometres of prospective land spread right across the state. We have five areas west ofLongreach, and the others are north-east of Roma, south of Gladstone, south of Charters Towers, onehalfway between Georgetown and Mount Surprise and another east of Aurukun.

Queensland is best placed to capitalise on geothermal energy. We are home to most ofAustralia’s hot rocks. Geothermal energy has no greenhouse gas emissions. It is an ideal energy sourceto combat climate change. It comes from heat deep within the earth’s crust and generates no waste. It isin keeping with my government’s smart energy policy to source more electricity generation fromrenewable energy sources.

I am excited about the prospects of new geothermal discoveries. Initial estimates indicate that thehot, dry rocks beneath the Eromanga and Cooper basins could meet all of Australia’s energy needs formany years into the future. The geothermal industry faces a very bright future in Queensland because ithas the potential to produce more baseload energy than any other renewable source.

Pardon the pun, but this is a hot topic. Late last month, the Queensland based companyGeodynamics announced a joint venture with Origin Energy that will invest $150 million in this excitingdevelopment. Yesterday, the federal opposition leader, Kevin Rudd, announced that if elected he will setup a major new renewable energy fund to develop, commercialise and deploy renewable energytechnologies across Australia, including geothermal energy.

Kevin Rudd is right. We need to do more to harness the enormous potential on offer. As part ofthat effort, my government will establish a nation-leading centre of excellence to ensure Queensland isbest placed to take advantage of the emerging energy source of hot rocks or geothermal energy. Mygovernment will provide $15 million over the next five years to establish the Queensland GeothermalEnergy Centre of Excellence. The University of Queensland will partner us with a contribution of$3.3 million.


This centre will ensure the Smart State leads the nation in developing the skills base and thetechnological know-how to develop large-scale, zero-emission power generation. The centre willestablish a critical mass of scientific and engineering expertise specialising in geothermal powergeneration which will help make Queensland a hub for developing this exciting new technology. Our$15 million commitment to establish the centre will be funded from the Renewable Energy Fund and theClimate Change Fund established as part of ClimateSmart 2050.

Style and Presentation of LegislationHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.45 am): As honourable members may be

aware, in 2004 the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel made changes to the style andpresentation of legislation to improve its readability and consistency with style and presentation in otherjurisdictions. I advise the House today that additional changes will be made to the way legislationappears on each page, specifically to the headers and footers of the legislative page.

Ms Nolan: Hear, hear!Ms BLIGH: The changes are the result of a recent review that involved wide consultation—in

particular by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, which I understand supports the changes. Thechanges will improve navigation information in the headers and footers of a page to enable readers toeasily work out which chapter and part the provisions on the page relate to. These changes are also partof a cooperative move in the majority of Australian jurisdictions to make similar improvements.

The Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel is currently working to modify computeriseddrafting systems. In early 2008 it is hoped that honourable members will begin to note bills and otherlegislative instruments being produced in the new format. I know that the member for Ipswich isparticularly excited and cannot wait to see the new format in action.

Steve Irwin DayHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.46 am): Today we honour a man who

made a very special contribution to conservation and wild animal research. Today is Steve Irwin Day.Among the highlights of a day celebrating Steve’s life will be the unveiling of a brass statue of Steve inthe grounds of Australia Zoo. The Queensland government will be represented by my colleague theMinister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation, who will be joined by the very aptly dressedmember for Glass House. The minister will carry a message from me on behalf of the government toTerri Irwin, and I would like to indicate to the House what that message says. It states—Steve Irwin was a loveable larrikin whose passion for conservation and contribution to the tourism industry are recognisedinternationally. He was one of those rare characters who had the power to influence a nation’s psyche, and his work andachievements live on through his family. Steve was a great ambassador for Queensland, an exemplar of commitment to a cause,a model family man and a larger than life character. His self-belief and determination to succeed set a standard that most wouldstruggle to emulate and produced results that few of us could match.

Steve’s legacy cannot be overstated nor will it be forgotten. Today we all take a moment toremember Steve Irwin.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Public Hospitals, Quarterly Performance ReportHon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (9.47 am): The Queensland hospitals

performance report for the September quarter confirms yet again that our public hospitals are treatingmore Queenslanders than ever before. The September quarter saw quarterly records for the mostnumber of patients admitted and the most number treated in emergency departments. A record 216,000patients were admitted to public hospitals and a record 380,000 were treated in emergency departmentsduring this period. More than half a million people were treated as either in-patients or emergencies, anda record 886,000 patients were seen and treated as outpatients.

I table for members the latest public hospitals performance report which shows that our systemalso performed the highest amount of elective surgery since major reforms to the health system beganin 2005—some 29,400 patients in total.Tabled paper: Queensland Health quarterly public hospitals performance report—September quarter 2007.

Today’s report proves that our public health system continues to meet the challenges of a growingand ageing population. August was the busiest month, setting new monthly records for the most numberof patients admitted to hospital and the highest number treated in emergency departments. Nearly75,000 patients were admitted and 85,000 were treated in our largest EDs. This reflects the significantimpact the flu had on our hospitals, as thousands of parents and their children sought treatment in ourpublic hospitals. Throughout the winter months, the number of Queenslanders with influenza treated inour hospitals was double compared to the previous five years. Over 50 per cent of patients presenting toEDs with the flu were children aged five and under. A further 16 per cent of cases were children agedbetween six and 14 years.


Despite increasing the amount of elective surgery performed, managing waiting lists remains achallenge. Over the September quarter, further improvements in the percentage of patients waitinglonger than the recommended time for elective surgery in categories 2 and 3 were achieved. Whilethere was an increase in category 1 long waits compared to the previous quarter, it is still a better resultthan for the September quarter 2006. Category 1 long waits decreased from 11.9 per cent to 9.6 percent compared to September 2006.

Compared to the same quarter last year, significant increases in elective surgery activity wererecorded at Mackay, up 63 per cent; Caloundra, up 45 per cent; Hervey Bay, up 44 per cent;Caboolture, up 29 per cent; and the Prince Charles Hospital, up nearly 16 per cent. As the Premierannounced earlier, more funding has been secured from the midyear review so our public hospitals canoperate on even more patients on our waiting lists. We still have a long way to go, but these figuresprove yet again that we are making sound progress.

Queensland Police Service, Annual Statistical Review

Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport)(9.50 am): Today I table the Queensland Police Service annual statistical review, together with theQueensland Police Service annual report.Tabled paper: Queensland Police Service Annual Statistical Review 2006-07. Tabled paper: Queensland Police Service Annual Report 2006-07.

I am pleased to advise the House that Queensland continues to be a safe place to live, with thisyear’s statistics continuing a six-year trend in which Queensland has recorded a 19 per cent drop incrime, with the crime rate declining or remaining stable every year since 2000-01.

This year overall crime rates in our state have gone down by four per cent. This is a greatachievement due to this government’s commitment to continuing to increase police numbers andproviding our officers with the tools and resources they need to enable them to do their job. On the basisof these statistics, I believe any fair-minded person must conclude that our police officers are performingoutstandingly in most areas of endeavour. Let me outline to the House some of the impressivedecreases in overall crime rates in the past year calculated by the number of offences per 100,000people.

In 2006-07 there was a combined drop of six per cent in the rate of offences against people andproperty. There was an eight per cent drop in the rate of murder offences and a three per cent fall in therate of assaults, with 145 fewer assaults reported. The number of robberies went down by 11 per cent,with armed robbery falling by 19 per cent. Weapons offences have decreased by five per cent and drugoffences fell by three per cent. When combining people and property offences, the clear-up rate hasremained stable at 37 per cent for the past two financial years.

The good news continues with a seven per cent reduction in total offences against property in2006-07. In fact, all major offence subcategories within total offences against property recorded adecrease. While across the state this is very good news, there will undoubtedly be some areas inisolation that will have increases. In those areas we will look at the statistics and study the trends toensure we continue to do all we can to fight crime in Queensland. We will not become complacent andwe will continue to work with police and the local community to ensure we remain the most liveable statein the country.

This government has always been transparent in the reporting of crime and this year is nodifferent. In the category of sexual offences, there has been an overall downward trend over the last fiveyears. However, in 2006-07 there have been rises in the offences of rape and attempted rape,kidnapping and abduction, with rate increases of 47 per cent and 117 per cent respectively. Althoughthese are significant rises, the spikes can overwhelmingly be attributed to the reporting of historicalcrimes. I was pleased to see yesterday that DNA led to the arrest and jailing of a rapist 12 years afterthe crime. This year 20 per cent of sexual offences and 48 per cent of kidnapping and abductionoffences reported during the past 12 months relate to historical cases. In one case in the north coastregion alone, one offender is accused of 500 sexual offences against two victims occurring over 30years ago.

If we remove the historical reports, we have an actual decrease of seven per cent for sexualoffences and an 18 per cent rise for kidnapping and abduction, with 50 additional reported offences. In77 per cent of kidnapping and abduction offences, no weapons were used. In most of these crimes theoffender was known to the victim. In 2006-07 in the sexual offence category, 77 per cent of the victimsknew their offenders. The good news is that the rate of other sexual offences fell seven per cent in 2006-07 with a decrease of 246 cases on the previous year. We recognise that we cannot becomecomplacent. The police will again look closely at these statistics, using them as a vital tool inestablishing strategies and initiatives for crime prevention in the future.


Water InfrastructureHon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning)

(9.54 am): 2007 has been an historic year in Queensland for building and planning water infrastructure,particularly on the progressive delivery of the $9 billion water grid. Bundamba’s advanced waste watertreatment plant and the pipeline to Swanbank Power Station have been delivered. Construction of theTugun desalination plant is approaching the halfway mark. More than 3½ thousand workers are on thejob across the south-east putting down foundations for the future. Construction of the Cedar Grove Weirand the Bromelton offstream storage are underway. The EIS for the raising of the Hinze Dam is out forpublic consultation, and so, too, is the Traveston Crossing Dam EIS, and as of last week the WyaralongDam EIS was put out for consultation. But still the opposition whinges and whines.

Wyaralong Dam, if approved in a timely fashion by the Coordinator-General and the federalgovernment, could be finished by 2010—a year ahead of schedule. Yet that is bad news according tothe Leader of the Opposition. The media release he put out last week, which I table, says that it is 17years late.Tabled paper: Copy of a media release, dated 7 November 2007, by Queensland Coalition titled ‘Wyaralong Dam should havebeen built years ago’.

Did the coalition start work on it when it was last in office? No. When the coalition does get aroundto building the dam, it is slower than water torture. Here is the proof. Somerset Dam took 24 years tofinish, albeit with a stop-work during World War II. North Pine took eight years to construct. Wivenhoealso took eight years to construct. Compare that to Paradise Dam, which was built in two years during aLabor government. Traveston Crossing Dam is estimated to take three years and Wyaralong Dam twoyears.

What is the message? If you want a dam built in Queensland, call Labor. If the coalition had itsway there would be no Wyaralong Dam until 2012—two years after the Labor. That is the inconvenienttruth of the coalition submission to the Senate inquiry into Traveston Crossing Dam. The submission isdated 2 April 2007—and I will table it—and signed by the Queensland opposition leader.Tabled paper: Copy of a submission, dated 2 April 2007, from Mr Jeff Seeney MP, Leader of the Opposition, to the secretary,Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport relating to additional water supplies for south-eastQueensland.

So what did it say about Wyaralong Dam? It states—A Queensland coalition believes the state government should complete construction of the Wyaralong Dam and the associatedCedar Grove Weir for which planning and land purchases are well advanced within five years. In addition, the Queenslandcoalition believes the government should investigate and develop an offstream storage at Bromelton to boost water supplies fromthe Beaudesert region.

Regarding that offstream storage at Bromelton, I have a news flash: Labor is already building itand it will be finished next year. The message is crystal clear: while Labor is building water infrastructurethe coalition spends its time squabbling and cannot sort its line out. We have the member for Gympie,who does not want the Traveston Crossing Dam. We have the member for Kawana, who does not wantdesalination plants anywhere on the Sunshine Coast. We have the member for Maroochydore, who thisweek revealed her support for the reasons for building the Traveston Crossing Dam—that is, the$5 billion loss if it does not happen, but she does not want any pipe built.

Miss SIMPSON: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The Deputy Premier is deliberatelymisleading the parliament. I do not support the Traveston Crossing Dam compared to the betteralternatives.

Mr LUCAS: She did not support the Beattie government’s ban—

Miss SIMPSON: Mr Speaker, I would ask that the minister withdraw that offending andmisleading comment.

Mr LUCAS: I will withdraw that comment. She did not support the Beattie government’s ban ontree clearing but now apparently wants full carbon offsets for the Gold Coast desalination plant andthinks that will improve the business case of desalination against the Traveston Crossing Dam. Justyesterday in another example of his searing intellect the member for Burnett revealed that he wantsdams built closer to Brisbane, not halfway up the coast. It is on page 4251 of Hansard for anyone whowants to check it out. He wants dams built closer to Brisbane than Traveston and no recycling. Hesaid—We need to build them closer to Brisbane, not halfway up the coast. If we want Brisbane people to drink water and not have todrink their own urine and their own faeces, then we should have had a process of building dams closer to Brisbane which thisgovernment failed to do, as indeed Kevin Rudd failed to do.

Tabled paper: Copy of extract from Hansard, dated 14 November 2007, page 4251.


What about the Wynnum wading pond? What about one at The Gap? What about one on theBrisbane River? What a searing intellect! What about the eel pond in the Botanical Gardens? So wehave the guy who does not want desalination, the guy who does not want the dam, the woman whodoes not want pipes, the bloke who does not want recycling, and the opposition leader who cannot pullthem into line and have one consistent line. And of course we have the Liberals who opposed theWolffdene Dam in the first place when they had a chance to vote on it. The coalition does not have aplan for south-east Queensland’s water. We do; we will deliver it.

Cyclone Guba; House Fire PreventionHon. N ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (9.59 am): I wish to

update the House on the movement of Tropical Cyclone Guba. A cyclone watch is currently in place forcoastal and island communities from Thursday Island to Cape Flattery. The latest advice from theBureau of Meteorology is that Tropical Cyclone Guba, now a category 1 cyclone, is about 385kilometres north-east of the Lockhart River and has been moving north-west at five kilometres per hour.Tropical Cyclone Guba is expected to turn south this morning and intensify over the next two days.Further advice from the bureau is expected at 11 am today.

Emergency Management Queensland has already been in contact with local disastermanagement groups in the area that may be potentially affected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conservation in the chamber and across thechamber. Could members please listen to the Minister for Emergency Services. This is a very importanttopic for far-north Queenslanders.

Mr ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. These groups are being advised in order to be ready toactivate their local disaster management plans should the situation deteriorate. I strongly advise allcommunities to be keep tuned to their local radio for further updates and advice.

On another matter, I want to provide advice to householders on how to reduce the risk of aserious house fire or loss of valuable possessions. That advice is simple: turn your television set off atthe wall or on the set and not by the remote control. According to Queensland Fire and Rescue Servicerecords, 67 fires over the last five years can be attributed to overheating TV sets. Unfortunately, the rateof these incidents has been increasing, with 16 cases recorded last financial year and eight since Julythis year.

Fires started by television sets represent almost 15 per cent of electrical fires recorded by theQueensland Fire and Rescue Service. For increased safety, residents should develop the habit ofturning their television off at the wall and not by the remote control. They should not leave it on standby,even overnight, as this can lead to overheating.

This is a message that I, too, must heed as, like many others, I have slipped into the bad habit ofturning our TV on and off with the remote control. This measure can not only prevent fire but can alsoproduce savings on electricity bills. When it comes to TVs in the home, people should be turning offproperly before turning in.

Taxation ReformHon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (10.01 am): I wish to advise the House of

a taxation administration reform that will decrease business compliance costs and further improve thebusiness environment in Queensland. Recent changes to the Taxation Administration AmendmentRegulations will support the Office of State Revenue’s state-of-the-art management system.

In July 2005 the government moved to have businesses interact with the Office of State Revenuevia the internet. The move was enthusiastically embraced by employers registering with the office. Infact, around 95 per cent of employers who lodged their annual returns for 2005-06 did so electronicallyand a majority of payroll tax clients are using the system to make periodic payments.

The next stage of the Office of State Revenue’s management system will be rolled out from thestart of next year. Again making it easier for business, clients will be able to pay duties, such asinsurance and vehicle registration duties, by electronic funds transfer, direct debt and BPay facilities.The rollout will enable self-assessors to electronically lodge returns of dutiable transactions. This willmake cumbersome paper returns redundant and simplify the lodgement of returns and assessment andpayment of tax. This should in turn reduce the time, effort and cost of complying with the tax regime.

The Office of State Revenue is also undertaking a comprehensive client education programduring the rollout of its new management system. This program includes regional information sessions,one-on-one client awareness sessions with self-assessors and the publication of information on theoffice’s web site. The office is also liaising closely with the Queensland Law Society on implementation.

The program is well underway and has been received positively by self-assessors. These reformsdemonstrate that the government is listening to the business community about the need for regulatoryreform and lower compliance costs. These measures further enhance Queensland’s competitivebusiness environment.


Housing Affordability; Skills Shortage

Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing andInformation and Communication Technology) (10.03 am): Yesterday in this House I spoke about theHoward government’s appalling record in addressing housing affordability in the rental market and itstotal neglect of public housing. I said that there was no choice but to vote for Kevin Rudd and a federalLabor government if we wanted this country’s housing crisis fixed. Only federal Labor has given acommitment to provide 50,000 new dwellings in the private rental market for people on low to mediumincomes.

Another area of federal neglect that I have talked about in this House on many occasions is thelack of commitment at a federal level to training people in the trades. As the minister for public worksI am constantly told by big and small construction companies and builders that their biggest challenge isgetting qualified people to build the things that need to be built.

Just a few weeks ago, for example, I discussed the shortage of skilled workers with the Chairmanand Group Managing Director of the John Holland Group, Janet Holmes a Court and David Stewart,when the company held a board meeting and launched its annual review here in Brisbane. John Hollandand other companies are talking about the skills shortage that the Howard government has spent yearsdoing nothing about, thinking it may fix itself. It has not.

This country desperately needs carpenters, electricians, engineers, surveyors, architects,draftsmen and so on. The Department of Public Works has taken the lead nationally by employing 1,039apprentices since I became minister in 1998. But only federal Labor seems to have grasped that anational approach is needed to address what is recognised by industry leaders across the nation as askills shortage crisis.

Yesterday Kevin Rudd pointed out that the Howard government itself projects that Australia willsuffer a shortage of qualified workers of more than 200,000 workers by 2010. But what has the Howardgovernment done about it? Nothing. Mr Rudd’s announcement yesterday that over the next four years afederal Labor government will fund an additional 450,000 training places across Australia will beuniversally welcomed. So will his plan to support up to 65,000 more apprenticeships over the next fouryears.

White Ribbon Day

Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Women) (10.05 am): Iwould like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a significant day occurring later this month. The dayof 25 November is a very important day recognised around the world. It is White Ribbon Day—theInternational Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. The Bligh government takes the verystrong position that violent behaviour towards women is simply unacceptable. Sadly, the incidence ofviolence against women is still too high.

Recent research indicates that 42 per cent of Australian women have experienced violence by aprevious partner. Of great concern is that eight per cent have experienced violence by a current partner.Shockingly, 46 per cent of women who had experienced violence by a previous partner said that theirchildren had witnessed the violence. It is something workers in the Department of Child Safety seealmost every day. Each day our child safety officers work with children and young people who sufferabsolutely incredible trauma as a result of domestic violence.

International research is clear: when children live in a violent home the dreadful impact on theirphysical, mental and emotional development lasts a lifetime. White Ribbon Day reminds the communityabout the costs of violence against women. It is a strong reminder that everyone is affected by thisissue—from the women and children who suffer as a result, to our communities and right through to thepressure this type of violence places on our police, justice and health systems.

White Ribbon Day provides an opportunity for men to show their commitment to stopping violenceagainst women. The ribbon is a symbol of a personal pledge never to commit, condone or remain silentabout violence against women. On 25 November hundreds of thousands of men and women in Australiawill be wearing white ribbons. I encourage each of my parliamentary colleagues to join me in proudlywearing the white ribbon on that day.

We have delivered to the office of each member a White Ribbon Day pack, including a whiteribbon and some information about what this important event represents. These packs have beensupplied by the Office for Women, working with CEO Challenge. Let us all join together in wearing thewhite ribbon on 25 November as a reminder that eliminating domestic violence is everyone’sresponsibility.


Roadside Drug TestingHon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial

Relations) (10.07 am): Later this morning the police minister, the Hon. Judy Spence, and I will launchthe public education campaign to inform motorists of the start date for the introduction of roadside drugtesting in Queensland. People using illegal drugs then getting behind the wheel of a car are increasinglyinvolved in serious car crashes. Research shows that six per cent of motorists admit to driving afterusing illegal drugs, even if rarely, with the most commonly used illegal drugs being marijuana followedby speed and ecstasy. During 2006 there were 106 fatalities where alcohol or drugs was a contributingfactor in crashes within Queensland. This represented 31.6 per cent of the state’s road toll.

From 1 December this year, roadside drug testing will commence in Queensland. A publiceducation campaign alerting motorists to the introduction of roadside drug testing will begin on 22November. The campaign includes television, radio, online, print and convenience advertising. Thecampaign aims to educate motorists, particularly those who take illegal drugs and drive, that they can beroadside drug tested for marijuana, ecstasy, speed and ice.

The test itself will be a quick and simple saliva test conducted by trained police officers in a similarfashion to random breath testing. The devices will not detect medications such as prescription or over-the-counter drugs such as cold and flu tablets. Queensland has monitored the progress of roadside drugtesting in other states with interest. We are now confident that the accuracy of the tests is adequate andhave no hesitation in introducing roadside drug testing. Queensland police have purchased specialpurpose vehicles which will be fully equipped to be able to conduct oral fluid-testing operations andalcohol testing. Police expect to test approximately 20,000 drivers in the first 12 months of operation,with this number expected to increase in the following years.

Many people are unaware of the effect that illicit drugs can have on their alertness and ability tomake split-second decisions, as is required when driving. We are determined to catch those people whoplay Russian roulette with the lives of others on Queensland roads. There will be zero tolerance for drugdriving. We are committed to sending a clear signal to drug drivers—that is, if you drive on drugs, youare out of your mind.

Local Government Grants CommissionHon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads and Local Government) (10.10 am):

The Local Government Grants Commission plays a vital role in the allocation of Commonwealthfinancial assistance grants to councils throughout Queensland. For example, this financial year thecommission has made recommendations to the government about the distribution of grants totalling amassive $345 million. When we are dealing with large sums of taxpayers’ dollars such as this, it isimportant that we have high-calibre people advising the government about the allocation of thesegrants. I can inform the House of several recent new appointments to the six-member grantscommission, including a new chairperson and deputy chairperson. The new chair is Kelvin Spiller, aformer CEO of Maroochy Shire Council with more than 30 years of local government experience. Thenew deputy chairperson is Gabrielle Sinclair, the Assistant Director-General of the Department of LocalGovernment, Planning, Sport and Recreation, who boasts 30 years experience in the Queenslandpublic sector. Also joining the commission are Mark O’Brien, the mayor of Murweh shire, and Carl Wulff,the CEO of Ipswich city. Both of these men have an excellent knowledge and understanding of localgovernment issues. The new members join the two reappointed commission members—Warren Collins,the CEO of Cherbourg Aboriginal Shire Council, and Anne Portess, the Mayor of Herberton ShireCouncil.

A major task of the commission during the next few years will be to review its fundingmethodology to ensure it aligns with Queensland’s new local government structure. The LocalGovernment Reform Commission has recommended this review be completed within four years. Toprovide the necessary stability during this review, the commission members have been appointed until31 October 2010. I am also pleased to announce that the grants commission’s annual report for 2007was tabled this week. This report details how the Commonwealth financial assistance grants have beenallocated to Queensland councils. I also want to thank those former members of the commission whoseterms expired at the end of October for their contributions. The Local Government Grants Commissionwill play an important role in the modernised local government sector, and I look forward to working withthe commission to help build stronger councils.

Security Industry, LicencesHon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and

Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (10.12 am): Recent cases of alleged violenceinvolving security providers has highlighted the need for strict regulation of those working in the industry.This government is already targeting shonky and unlicensed operators to ensure that they do not get afoothold in the security industry. On 1 October we significantly expanded the scope of criminal historychecks on those people applying for or renewing security licences. Since this time, the Office of Fair


Trading has been checking all applicants for unrecorded convictions and using criminal intelligence andother background information provided by the Queensland Police Service to make decisions aboutapplicants’ suitability. Between 1 October and 9 November the Office of Fair Trading recorded 387adverse criminal history check reports. This is more than double the number recorded in the previousfive weeks.

While an adverse report does not necessarily mean automatic exclusion from holding a licence, itdoes provide the Office of Fair Trading with the ability to take into account a person’s history whenassessing their suitability to hold a licence, thus offering greater protection for the community. Theapplications of nine people identified under these adverse criminal history checks have been refused. Inaddition to the improved background checks, the Office of Fair Trading conducted a statewidecompliance blitz during October targeting entertainment venues and licensed premises that it is thoughtwill be frequented by schoolies during the celebrations. The blitz also targeted premises with a history ofnoncompliance. Officers inspected 155 premises and 764 entities throughout Queensland.

While over half of the security providers and entities scrutinised were found to be 100 per centcompliant with the act, there are still people who either engage or operate as unlicensed securityproviders. Although figures are currently being finalised, as at 9 November 2007 the Office of FairTrading had issued a total of 61 warning or infringement notices totalling $14,850 in fines. Breaches ofthe act ranged from failure to maintain or keep a security provider register, operating as an unlicensedsecurity provider or security firm, and failing to update licence particulars. We are determined to makesure that undesirable people are not working in the security industry. This will help reduce the risk ofsecurity providers being unnecessarily involved in violent incidents. It will allow those patrons of licensedpremises to feel safer and have more confidence that security at a venue is being conducted by licensedprofessionals and not those looking for a reason to be violent.

AurukunHon. LH NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (Minister for Communities, Minister for Disability

Services, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, Minister for Multicultural Affairs,Seniors and Youth) (10.15 am): Last Tuesday I visited Aurukun with the director-general of mydepartment, Linda Apelt, and my parliamentary secretary, Rachel Nolan. We came away feeling verypositive about what is being done to help ensure that the community can look forward to the future.There is no doubt that full-time permanent employment is one of the keys to a harmonious, liveableAurukun. The recently established Aurukun Local Partnership Project has the aim of creatingemployment, encouraging economic development and improving housing, health and educationaloutcomes for residents. Planning for the project has involved the Aurukun Shire Council, the Wik andthe Wik Way people, the Queensland and federal governments and mining giant Chalco. The Director ofGovernment Coordination at Aurukun, Andrew Clarkson, was formerly the police officer in charge there.This fellow is just one in a million. He has earned the respect of the community and is ideally placed forthis important new role.

Construction of office and residential accommodation, which is essential for delivering services, isalmost complete in a development undertaken efficiently and skilfully by a team of local Aurukun men.Their efforts have so impressed the other mining and exploration giant operating in the region, Rio Tinto,that several are expected to land jobs with the company. Andrew Clarkson is hopeful that a great manyyoung Aurukun residents—men and women—will have job prospects with Rio Tinto and Chalco.

While at Aurukun I had the opportunity to get firsthand reaction to the alcohol management plan.There was an acceptance that alcohol restrictions are necessary if Aurukun is to realise its potential andbe a place where women and children can reside without fear of abuse. The modern Koolcan Child CareCentre at Aurukun is a credit to communities anywhere and the children enjoy loving care fromdedicated staff. A challenge is to ensure that these kids and others who follow grow up with jobs to go toand have every opportunity to lead meaningful, fulfilling lives. I believe we are now on the right track forthat to happen.

Solar Thermal Power Station, CloncurryHon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Mines and Energy) (10.17 am): The world is

watching Queensland as it meets the challenge of climate change. The Bligh government’sannouncement of a solar thermal power station in Cloncurry has generated intense international interestfrom countries such as South Africa, Canada, the United States and Germany—all keen to capitalise onthe potential of solar thermal energy and this new technology. Cloncurry is set to become the first townin Queensland to produce solar thermal power capable of supplying all of the town’s electricity needs 24hours a day. The state government is investing $7 million in this $30 million solar thermal power station.The technology that is going to be used in Cloncurry will ensure the 10 megawatt power station keepsgenerating electricity even when the sun is not shining. Some 8,000 mirrors will reflect sunlight ontographite blocks. Water will be pumped through the graphite blocks to generate steam that will operate aconventional steam turbine electricity generator. The heat stays in the graphite, allowing the steam topower on through the night and on overcast days to create 24-hour electricity for Cloncurry.


The project is a winner on several fronts. It will cut greenhouse gas emissions with clean energypowered by the sun and it will save money in the long term with less money being spent on upgrades tothe local electricity networks. The technology to be trialled at Cloncurry will also determine if this clean,green technology can be used in other rural and remote areas that face high costs and transmissionlosses from the state power grid. Ergon Energy will work with consortium partners Lloyd EnergySystems, SMEC Developments and Allco Infrastructure to deliver this project. The power station isexpected to be up and running by 2009-10.

Steve Irwin DayHon. AI McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and

Innovation) (10.19 am): As the Premier has already mentioned, today is Steve Irwin Day. It is the firstannual celebration to remember this visionary Queenslander and to celebrate his achievements. I andthe ‘member for Australia Zoo’—the resplendent Carolyn Male—will be attending the Steve Irwin Daycelebrations as representatives of the government. While there, I will be launching a new communityservice announcement featuring Terri and Bindi Irwin to promote croc safety in north Queensland.

Steve Irwin featured in an earlier community service announcement strongly urgingQueenslanders and visitors to Queensland to be croc wise when in crocodile territory. The EPA andAustralia Zoo are working together to raise awareness of this threatened species and to promoteappropriate behaviour in their wild habitats. Terri Irwin has continued her late husband’s passionatecampaign for crocodile safety and protection, adding her strong support for the new community serviceannouncements. People should treat all waterways in northern Australia as croc territory. They shouldnever swim where crocodiles live, camp well back from the water, keep rubbish secure and never cleanfish at boat ramps.

Steve Irwin’s commitment to conservation was responsible for raising the plight of endangeredspecies around the world. In Australia, he is certainly best known for his work with crocodiles. His workcontinues through the Wildlife Warriors charity that he and wife Terri established in 2002.

Today, people are encouraged to visit Australia Zoo, wear khaki or have a backyard camp-out tohelp raise money for the charity. Australia Zoo is hosting a range of activities today which encompassSteve’s passions in life such as camping, surfing and, of course, animals. All proceeds raised by SteveIrwin Day activities will go to Australia Zoo Wildlife Warriors Worldwide. The charity was initiated as away to include and involve other people to support the protection of injured, threatened or endangeredwildlife, from the individual animal to an entire species. I encourage everyone to get involved to paytribute to this remarkable Queenslander and contribute to his legacy of wildlife conservation.

Primary IndustriesHon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (10.21 am):

Today I am releasing a new report which forecasts an increase in the value of many of Queensland’sprimary industry production and processing sectors. Together, Queensland’s primary industryproduction and agricultural processing sectors are forecast to contribute $12.235 billion to the state’seconomy in 2007-08. The farm gate value of Queensland’s primary industry commodities is forecast at$9.425 billion in 2007-08—two per cent higher than it was in 2006-07—and the value of first-stageprocessing of agricultural commodities is forecast at $2.81 billion. The 2007-08 Prospects releasesignifies a slight change to methodology with some products and services—for instance in lifestylehorticulture and forestry, switched from the farm gate, or GVP total, to first-stage processing. Tabled paper: Report, dated September 2007, by Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries titled ‘Prospects forQueensland’s Primary industries 2007-08’.

At the farm gate, many industries are expected to post higher gross values in 2007-08 than theydid in the previous year. These include livestock industries; fruits such as bananas, pineapples andmandarins; cereal grains such as wheat, barley, grain sorghum and maize; and forestry and fisheries.Queensland’s livestock industries are looking good, with gross value of production forecasts generallyhigher or at least the same as estimates for the previous year.

Queensland’s cattle and calf industry continues to be the state’s largest primary industry, with aforecast gross value of production of $3.73 billion in 2007-08, which accounts for almost 40 per cent ofour total farm gate commodities. Cattle and calf slaughterings are expected to remain about the same at3.9 million, though prices are expected to fall slightly due to the high value of the Australian dollar andUS beef returning to Japan and Korea.

Queensland’s fruit industries also have good prospects. High prices for bananas, pineapples,mandarins, strawberries and apples have boosted gross value of production forecasts from the previousyear’s estimates. Similarly, high grain prices have resulted in higher gross value of production forecastsfor wheat, barley, grain sorghum and maize.

4332 Health Quality and Complaints Commission Select Committee 15 Nov 2007

However, falls are expected in the gross values of sugar cane, cotton, mangoes, avocados,macadamias and cut flowers. The gross value of Queensland’s sugarcane production is forecast at$730 million in 2007-08, which is 32 per cent lower than it was in 2006-07 due to a fall in world sugarprices and the strength of the Australian dollar. Once again, in difficult conditions, this is an outstandingperformance by Queensland’s primary producers, who have once again shown their resilience.

MOTION

Bills Declared Urgent; Allocation of Time Limit OrdersHon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.24 am), by leave,

without notice: I move—(1) That under the provisions of standing order 159, the Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill and the South East

Queensland Water (Restructuring) Bill be declared urgent bills and the following time limits apply to enable the bills to bepassed through their remaining stages at this day’s sitting—

(a) consideration in detail to be completed by 12.50 pm;

(b) third readings by 12.55 pm, and

(c) long titles agreed by 1.00 pm.

(2) That under the provisions of standing order 159, the Local Government and Other Legislation (Indigenous RegionalCouncils) Amendment Bill and the Local Government Amendment Bill be declared urgent bills and the following time limitsapply to enable the bills to be passed through their remaining stages at this day’s sitting—

(a) second readings, including the minister’s reply, by 6.00 pm;

(b) consideration in detail to be completed by 6.20 pm;

(c) third readings by 6.25 pm; and

(d) long titles agreed by 6.30 pm.

If the stage has not been completed by the time specified, Mr Speaker shall put all remaining questions necessary to passthe bills, including clauses and schedules en bloc and any amendments to be moved by the minister in charge of the bill,without further amendment or debate.

(3) That the amnesty motion be moved by 6.30 pm, with the question put by 7.00 pm.

(4) That the special adjournment be moved by 7.00 pm, with the question put by 8.00 pm.

Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to. AYES, 54—Attwood, Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Gray, Hayward,Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr,Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence,Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Jones

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

Resolved in the affirmative.

HEALTH QUALITY AND COMPLAINTS COMMISSION SELECT COMMITTEE

ReportMr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (10.33 am): I lay upon the table of the House the Health Quality

and Complaints Commission Select Committee’s report, Review of the Health Quality and ComplaintsCommission and the Health Quality and Complaints Commission Act 2006.Tabled paper: Report, dated November 2007, titled ‘Review of the Health Quality and Complaints Commission and the HealthQuality and Complaints Commission Act 2006’.

The select committee makes 37 recommendations within this report to help improve the operationof the Health Quality and Complaints Commission and the Health Quality and Complaints CommissionAct. The select committee believes that the implementation of these recommendations will improve thecommission’s performance and make it easier for both consumers and providers of health services tointeract with the commission.

The main objects of the Health Quality and Complaints Commission Act are to provide for theoversight and review of, and improvement in, the quality of health services and the independent reviewand management of health complaints. The commission’s agenda during its first 12 months of operationhas been to establish complaints management processes and introduce standards for health quality andreporting criteria that will help it assess the quality of Queensland’s health systems.

15 Nov 2007 Public Accounts Committee 4333

The select committee was, on the whole, satisfied with the progress made by the commission inits first year of operation. Throughout the review, the select committee gained the impression that thecommission is energised, willing and motivated to improve health quality for all Queenslanders. In thisreport, the select committee makes a number of observations and recommendations to improve thecommission’s engagement with consumers and the community as a whole and with the smaller healthservice provider groups practising throughout Queensland.

The select committee recognises the work the commission has already done to engage providersand other entities about the quality of health services, including the making of standards and qualityimprovement processes. However, there is some way to go before the commission can say it hassuccessfully engaged all providers and stakeholders on these topics.

The select committee encourages the commission to continue to work towards increasing itsprofile with providers and stakeholders, including ensuring these individuals and bodies understand thecommission’s role, functions and powers, their own legislative obligations under the Health Quality andComplaints Commission Act 2006 and, in particular, their obligations in relation to the commission’sstandards for health quality.

In addition, the select committee encourages the commission to continue to find innovativesolutions to enhance the access of consumers. This includes the development of a communication planand ongoing outreach program, continuing to utilise the expertise of other government agencies andgiving consideration to the employment of an individual with specific expertise in facilitating the accessand engagement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

During this review, the select committee considered the current functions and powers of theHealth Quality and Complaints Commission Act and concluded that, in most instances, it is too early tojudge the adequacy or otherwise of the act. The select committee highlights in this report the potentialissues related to the commission’s inability to take disciplinary action against providers or to specificallyenforce providers’ compliance with its standards. However, in the interests of promoting thecommission’s quality improvement agenda, the select committee believes that, for the time being, thecommission’s current functions and powers should be maintained. Instead, the select committee makesa specific recommendation that the commission’s functions and powers again be considered in threeyears time by another parliamentary committee review of the commission.

The select committee hopes that the commission continues to maintain the high level of outputand enthusiasm it has so far brought to its role and embrace the opportunity it has been provided tomake a real difference in the quality of health services in this state.

On behalf of the Health Quality and Complaints Commission Select Committee, I would like tothank all of the people and organisations who contributed to this review by making submissions,participating as witnesses or attending our public hearings or otherwise sharing with us their views andadvice.

I particularly acknowledge the commissioner, chief executive officer and staff of the Health Qualityand Complaints Commission who have cooperated readily with the committee during this review. I alsothank the committee members and secretariat staff for their efforts throughout the review and inpreparing this report for parliament. I commend this report to the House.

MEMBERS’ ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

ReportMs PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (10.37 am): I table report No. 84 of the Members’ Ethics and

Parliamentary Privileges Committee, titled Matter referred by the Speaker on 11 October 2007 relatingto the procedures for considering requests to refer complaints to the committee. I commend the report tothe House.Tabled paper: MEPPC Report No. 84 ‘Matter Referred by the Speaker on 11 October 2007 Relating to the Procedures forConsidering Requests to Refer Complaints to the Committee’.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Discussion PaperHon. KW HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (10.37 am): I lay upon the table of the House the Public

Accounts Committee discussion paper on its inquiry into whether the frameworks and systems used bygovernment in delivering and reporting funding to and from non-government organisations, NGOs, areproviding sufficient information to stakeholders to make informed decisions.Tabled paper: Management of Funding to Non-government Organisations—Discussion Paper, November 2007.

4334 Questions Without Notice 15 Nov 2007

In the last three years the budgeted funding for grants and subsidies to NGOs has increased from$6.3 million to $8.4 million. The Auditor-General, as part of his regular performance managementsystems audits, conducted a review of the management of funding to NGOs. The committee will beconsidering whether the funding process can be streamlined to provide useful information tostakeholders and to assist in best practice. The committee is seeking public submissions on the issuesoutlined in the paper. I commend the paper to the House.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

ReportHon. KW HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (10.38 am): I also lay upon the table of the House report

No. 77 of the Public Accounts Committee, titled Review of Auditor-General Report 1 for 2006—results oflocal government audits for 2004-05—local government investment credit risk.Tabled paper: Public Accounts Committee Report No 77—Review of Auditor-General Report 1 for 2006—Results of LocalGovernment Audits for 2004-05—Local Government Investment Credit Risk.

Local government investment credit risk was an issue raised by the Auditor-General, whorecommended that government prepare a set of policy guidelines to assist councils in ensuring that theirinvestment decisions are sound. The Department of Local Government, Sport and Recreation hasprepared and issued a set of comprehensive guidelines with the assistance of the Queensland TreasuryCorporation. The committee believes that the key to the satisfactory implementation of these guidelinesis training and has recommended that the department also include a training program to ensure thatthese guidelines are understood.

The committee would like to thank the participants at its public hearing. I would also like to thankthe other committee members and the secretariat staff for their contributions in the preparation of thisreport. I would also like to publicly thank the committee’s former research director, Leanne Clare, whohas provided over nine years of excellent service to the committee. I am sure I speak on behalf of allcurrent and former members of the committee in wishing her all the best in her new role. I commend thereport to the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Question time will commence and go through until 11.40 am.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Department of Child Safety; Child DeathsMr SEENEY (10.40 am): My first question without notice is to the Minister for Child Safety. An

annual report about the deaths of children tabled yesterday revealed that 57 children known to theDepartment of Child Safety died in Queensland last year. Why has the minister’s department failed toprevent vulnerable Queensland kids from dying at the rate of over one each week?

Mrs KEECH: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. It is a sad fact that childrenknown to the Department of Child Safety do die. I convey my condolences to those who loved thosechildren. The report by the children’s commission indicates that for the last financial year there were 57children known to the department who have passed away. These figures do need some clarificationbecause there is, I believe, some misunderstanding with respect to the department’s role in the care andprotection of these children. Let me give members some additional information.

Of the 57 children who passed away, 22 died as a result of natural causes. When we considerthat the children who come to the attention of the department are the most abused, most disadvantagedand most neglected in our community who have severe physical, mental and emotional problems, it isnot surprising that that figure of 22 natural deaths is so large. There were 12 incidences of accidentaldeath. This may have been the result of a road accident, for example. There were seven non-accidentaldeaths, which could have been, for example, drowning. There were four deaths as a result of suicide,two as a result of SIDS and 10 deaths where the cause is unknown or is yet to be determined.

When it comes to those children who have been known to the department, unlike otherjurisdictions of child safety, any child who has been known to the department for the previous threeyears must have their death investigated. In some cases this may have been children who we hadreports in relation to, there may have been notifications, or the child may be subject to a child protectionorder, assessment order or intervention with parental orders. This means that they may be children whoare in foster care, in residential care or they may not be. The other concern with respect to these deathsis that in some cases it is a matter of an attempted suicide where the police ring the Department of ChildSafety to ask whether we know this child. The response is no, but given that the police have made thatrequest that child then, unfortunately if they go on to die of their attempted suicide, becomes known tothe department. That figure is included in the 57 deaths.

15 Nov 2007 Questions Without Notice 4335

The assumption by the opposition that all of those 57 children have been in the care of thedepartment is wrong, misleading and inaccurate. One area of concern I do have is the large number ofchildren in those figures who are under two years of age. There were 23 children who were under oneyear of age and 11 were between one and two years. This is of concern to the department and that iswhy, under the leadership of the former Minister for Child Safety, we have implemented the One Chanceat Childhood program.

Department of Child Safety; Child DeathsMr SEENEY: My second question without notice is also to the Minister for Child Safety. The Child

Death Case Review Committee report also tabled yesterday shows that the committee investigated thedeaths of 62 children associated with the child protection system. The committee said it was concernedthat 22 of those children—most of them babies—died while officers of her department were activelyinvestigating and assessing allegations of abuse concerning them. Can the minister outline theinvestigation and assessment process that allows 22 children—mostly babies—to die in Queensland?

Mrs KEECH: I thank the member for the further question. It allows me to follow up on theimportant initiatives that this government is undertaking with regard to the deaths of babies. I absolutelyagree that it is a tragedy in our community that such a large number of babies—23 under one year ofage and 11 who are one to two years of age—are dying. Sadly, in some cases these children have diedat the hands of their own parents. That is not only a tragedy for the department but also a tragedy for ourwhole community. I commend the editor of the Gladstone Observer, Mat Ovenden, who recognises thatthe real issue is that child protection is everyone’s responsibility. Certainly the Bligh government takesits responsibility in protecting babies very seriously indeed. That is why we have trebled the budgetsince 2004 and why we have doubled the amount of front-line staff in that same period. Mr Ovendenvery sincerely and quite passionately says—Domestic violence is at epidemic levels. What is going on? How is it possible for a human being to even consider causing suchdisgusting harm to their own flesh and blood? People are blaming the government for not protecting these kids and maybe theyare right to a point, but why is it the government’s responsibility to protect us from ourselves? If the pressures of the modern worldare so great that we start turning on our own families, then humanity really needs to change. People need to take responsibility fortheir own actions. The government has simply been left to clean up what has become an embarrassing blight on human nature.

I support Mat Ovenden‘s editorial. The government certainly does have a responsibility and wetake that responsibility very seriously indeed. That is why, under Desley Boyle’s leadership, we initiatedthe One Chance at Childhood program. This looks particularly at vulnerable babies and toddlers fromzero to four. In the last financial year the government implemented the program through a commitmentof $12 million over four years. We will be employing 31 specialist staff to work with our vulnerablefamilies to ensure that the babies and toddlers are protected.

Unfortunately no government, whether it is the Queensland government or any government inAustralia or throughout the world, can eliminate violence against children and babies. It is everyone’sresponsibility. We take our responsibility seriously and we will continue to ensure that we provide thefunds and resources to protect the most vulnerable in our community.

EducationMs MALE: My question without notice is to the Premier. Education is the cornerstone of the

government’s vision to help build the Smart State. Can the Premier advise of the government’sinvestment in education and national plans for the future of this vital service area?

Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for her question and for her commitment toeducation. I have visited a number of schools in her area many times and she is a great advocate ofthose schools, as indeed she is of Australia Zoo as we have seen today. It is an iconic part ofQueensland and a great symbol of Australian tourism on the world stage and I am very pleased to see itgoing from strength to strength.

Our government believes that education should be one of the priorities of every governmentbecause it is education that provides every single one of us with our best opportunity. It is at the heartand is the cornerstone of our Smart State vision and that is why we have invested more in this area ofgovernment service than any government before us. This financial year alone we are spending a record$6.6 billion in recurrent funding in education, training and the arts. In addition, we are spending another$530 million on infrastructure, building and improving our schools. Some of the highlights include newnumeracy and literacy initiatives, more training to help school and TAFE teachers improve theirprofessional skills and the creation of more than 4,200 new trade training places across the state.

But we are doing more than that. We are also spending $70 million to ensure that everyQueensland teacher in every classroom in every state primary and secondary school is provided with alaptop computer. We are doing that because we want to link our teachers to the world so they are thenin a position to bring that world to the children in their classrooms. As already identified, the laptop is thetool box of the future and every single teacher needs that tool box.


So it was very refreshing to hear someone on the national stage yesterday start to talk about whatis happening in our classrooms. I was very pleased to hear that with a Rudd Labor government we willsee new computers on the desks of every senior secondary student in years 9 to 12 in every school inthe country. We will also see Australia’s schools connected to a new high-speed broadband network. Iwas particularly pleased to see that the commitment involved getting that broadband network to themost remote schools in Australia, and of course many of them are here in Queensland. I have visitedthem and they are being locked out of the digital revolution because they cannot access broadband.

We also saw a commitment of 450,000 new trade training places and a doubling of the number ofscholarships to Australian universities, including a doubling of the number of fellowships. This will driveQueensland’s research effort even further.

We have a unique opportunity before us for Queensland to be the Smart State in a smart nation.If we are able to take our efforts and have them matched and built on by a federal government that caresabout what happens in our classrooms, then our vision will be realised faster.

Department of Child Safety; Child DeathsMrs STUCKEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Child Safety and Minister for

Women. I refer to page 14 of the Child Death Case Review Committee report which says that thedepartment’s manual specifies that investigations and assessments of abuse must be completed withintwo months. However, the department took on average 97 days to investigate allegations of abuse, andin one instance it took as long as 15 months. Minister, how many of the 22 children who died while beinginvestigated would have survived if the department had done its job in a timely manner?

Mr Schwarten: You’re a disgrace.Mrs KEECH: I thank the honourable member for the question, and I take the Leader of the

House’s interjections. Can I advise the House of the review processes that are implemented when thedepartment is advised of the death of a child who has been known to the department over the previousthree years. Immediately the department is advised of the death of a child who was known to thedepartment a child death review, which is an internal review process, is implemented. An external expertis immediately appointed to chair that assessment. That person could be a psychologist or a socialworker, but it is an external person. That person goes through in great detail the information and thecontact the department had leading up to the death of the child.

Can I say that the death of a child—and we have recently seen a case in the Redcliffe area—isincredibly traumatic obviously for the family involved and those who loved the family, including thefoster-carer. What is little known is that it is also very traumatic for the department and the child safetyworkers themselves.

Mrs Stuckey interjected.Mr Seeney interjected.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just say to the Leader of the Opposition—Mr Seeney interjected.Mr SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I warn you under standing order 253. If you want to

speak over me, you will be warned and you will be out. I also warn the member for Currumbin understanding order 253. This is a serious topic that you have asked about. The House wants to hear theanswer that the minister is giving.

Mrs KEECH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The current review period relates to 57 deaths that werereported by the children’s commission. I want to, firstly, recognise the important role that the children’scommission plays in monitoring very seriously the Department of Child Safety and its review of childrenwho have died. I also indicate that nine of the 57 children and young people were taken into care by thedepartment under child protection interim orders at the same time prior to their deaths.

The department takes very seriously indeed its statutory role of ensuring that the review of childdeaths is done thoroughly and completely. In the majority of cases, the time frame is adhered to. If thereare occasions when the time period does extend further, it would be for good reasons. In some cases, itis because they were tracking down individuals who had other important information to provide. In othercases, the child safety officers may have left the department and may be working in other parts ofQueensland or in other parts of the world. So it is very important that all of the information is providedbefore the report is completed.

Coal IndustryMs JARRATT: My question is to the Premier. Last week I accompanied the Premier and the

Treasurer to the opening of the $116 million expansion of the Abbot Point Coal Terminal, and it was avery significant day for the economy of Queensland. Could the Premier please advise of any otherinitiatives being undertaken that will boost regional development in central Queensland?


Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. She is right; I was very pleased tovisit with her and the Treasurer to open the new capacity upgrade for the Abbot Point Coal Terminal. Iindicated while I was there that I am a great fan of coal ports, because when you go to a coal port youreally get a sense of what is happening in the Queensland economy and it was great to see it in action.

I am sure the member will be very pleased to know that today I am announcing a $27 millionfunding package that marks the green light for one of the most significant rail infrastructure projects tobe undertaken in Australia in the past decade, and that is the Northern Missing Link. The NorthernMissing Link is a green light for the export of millions of extra tonnes of Queensland coal. It is a greenlight for a massive boost to jobs in regional Queensland. It is a green light for a huge investment in theeconomy of the Mackay-Whitsunday region.

The multimillion-dollar Northern Missing Link will significantly boost the coal export capacity tocentral Queensland. It will run between North Goonyella and Newlands and will allow coal trainsoriginating in central Queensland to be directed to the port of Abbot Point near Bowen.

We have already made a commitment to fund $19 million for the project feasibility study and thecorridor land acquisition program. I am sure the member for Whitsunday will be pleased to know—although members opposite do not seem interested in the project—that agreement has now beenreached with all affected property owners for the corridor and sales are in the process of being finalised.

Today’s announcement will see a further $27.12 million to undertake an early works package.The early works will include geotechnical investigations, detailed engineering, design work and trackworks, detailed design costs for the signalling component of the project, and preconstruction works,including line corridor fencing.

I am also pleased to advise the House that on Saturday the national daily newspapers will includeadvertising from Queensland Rail calling for expressions of interest for construction partners in theproject alliance to construct and design the 69-kilometre rail link. The preferred constructor should beselected by the end of 2007 to allow these works to commence as quickly as possible. Subject tocompletion of all the relevant approval processes and contractual arrangements, it is planned tocommence construction of the Northern Missing Link next financial year with completion scheduled for2010. We are now on track to see an expanded coal capacity from 2010, with coal being put onto theNorthern Missing Link. It is great news for the economy of the Mackay and Whitsunday regions, and it isalso a very important part of growing the economy of Queensland and Australia. This is an example ofour government being one step ahead of demand, making sure that infrastructure is leading thatdemand.

Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the member for Gregory, I welcome to the public gallery todayteachers and students from the Guardian Angels’ School in Wynnum in the electorate of Lytton, which isrepresented in the House by the Deputy Premier, Mr Paul Lucas.

Death of Mst. RC SaundersMr JOHNSON: My question is to the honourable Minister for Health. I refer to the tragic death of

young Ryan Charles Saunders. The minister told this House yesterday that the department was going tomeet with the parents of young Ryan. When I spoke with the parents this morning, they knew nothing ofsuch a meeting. Minister, haven’t these parents been through enough without you fabricating a meetingwith them?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I advise the member for Gregory that that question is out of order inrelation to standing order 115. There is an implication in that question with the word ‘fabricating’. I askthe member for Gregory to reword the question or it will be ruled out of order.

Mr JOHNSON: Mr Speaker, I will reword it by saying this: Minister, haven’t these parents beenthrough enough without you misleading them about a meeting?

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just say that there is an implication regarding the minister there.Mr JOHNSON: I think the minister knows what I am saying.Mr ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker, I am happy to answer the question. I am extremely disappointed

in the ongoing activities of the member for Gregory in relation to this particular tragedy. I tried to provideassistance yesterday while at the same time respecting the confidentiality of these matters. I tried toassist him and the House yesterday by providing information that was available to me at that time. I mayhave inadvertently misled the House by saying that a meeting was to occur this week. My understandingis, through further investigation, that that meeting had already occurred. So if there has been somemisunderstanding I apologise for that. It was inadvertent.

The important thing is, however, that the parents of the toddler who tragically died have beencontacted by Queensland Health and there is an open invitation to meet with Queensland Health seniorclinicians and management as the process, in the first instance, of a root cause analysis takes place.The matter, of course, has already been referred to the coroner. It will be up to the coroner to determinewhether a full inquiry will be held or not. That is not something that we can influence.


The third area that can be looked at is an inquiry by the independent Health Quality andComplaints Commission. It is open to the parents to lodge a complaint with the commission. It is, ofcourse, open to me as minister to refer that matter to the HQCC. However, I do not think it is appropriateto do so at this point in time until the root cause analysis process has been completed. I understand thatthat report is to be finalised within the next number of days or next week, so it will be appropriate at thatstage to determine whether the matter should be referred to the HQCC for further inquiry. I have anopen mind in that regard. However, I do think it is unhelpful for the member for Gregory to do as he didon radio this morning. He made quite serious allegations against the clinicians who were involved in thecare of this child. The purpose of having inquiries such as root cause analysis—

Mr Johnson: Read the reports, Minister. You read the reports. Mr ROBERTSON: The purpose of having processes like root cause analysis—which is now in

legislation, which you supported when it went through this House and which you therefore have anobligation to support by supporting the process that is underway—is so that everyone is encouraged tobe open and honest about what they do and how they participate in the care of that child. That is whythat process is so critical. That was understood by your side of politics when that legislation wentthrough only a number of months ago. I think it is incumbent on the member for Gregory not to allege, ashe did, that the clinical staff at Rockhampton, either through laziness or a do-not-care attitude,contributed to the death of this child.

Mr Johnson: Thirty hours! If you had a child would you stand for that?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory.Mr Johnson: I tell you what, I haven’t finished with this. Mr ROBERTSON: That is what you said on radio this morning. Mr Johnson: And I bloody well meant it, too. Mr ROBERTSON: I think it is highly inappropriate and I think it is incumbent upon you, as it is

upon every member—Mr SCHWARTEN: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The member for Gregory just made a

most unparliamentary remark which I think requires your attention. Mr Seeney: Tittle-tattle. Opposition members interjected.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory, I have just been told what you said. I did not hear it

myself; I was listening to the minister. The minister’s time has expired. I have let this go a little bit longer.I know this is a very emotional topic for the family and the member for Gregory and I think the ministeras well. Could we just cool it for a while. I am going to let the minister quickly wrap up and then go on.

Mr ROBERTSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will conclude on this point. I think it is incumbent onall members of parliament to allow due process, particularly given how open and accountable theseinquiries are. We need to let that process conclude before a commentary is made. That is part of ourcommitment to ensure there is transparency in matters such as this. That is my commitment as Ministerfor Health. I encourage all members, including the member for Gregory, to support that process andallow that process to conclude.

Water InfrastructureMr MOORHEAD: My question is directed to the Deputy Premier. Given the amount of work

occurring on the $9 billion south-east Queensland water grid, can the Deputy Premier update the Houseon progress of pipe-laying projects?

Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question, because 2007 has been a year ofdelivery on the south-east Queensland water grid. We have greater than 170 kilometres of it—almost40 per cent of the 450-kilometre pipe that makes up the grid—in the ground. We have laid more than51 per cent of the pipe for the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project and 100 kilometres of thesouthern regional water pipeline connecting Brisbane and the Gold Coast distribution networks. It isalmost 60 per cent complete, with more than 58 kilometres in the ground, and we have started work onthe northern pipeline interconnector stage 1. In fact, the member for Nicklin asked me a question aboutit the other day. That is the reality.

An opposition member interjected.Mr LUCAS: You would not have to worry about it because you did not want to connect any dams

or water infrastructure. There is no-cost plan: do not build it. ‘I saved money. I have not built a pipelineconnecting them.’ Great logic that you have; no wonder you did not get elected.

Let me turn to a fantasy of Harry Potter proportions, written by none other than the Leader of theOpposition, ‘Albus Dumbledore’. Let us look at the media release by the Leader of the Opposition dated2 February. He criticised the state government for slow progress on pipe laying for the western corridor.


He does not understand infrastructure but thinks we can jump straight into construction. Yesterday themember for Nicklin and I talked about what we were doing in terms of that. The Leader of the Oppositionmust not have got much media coverage, because in April he took another swipe, and I table that mediarelease.Tabled paper: Copy of a media release, dated 2 February 2007, by Queensland coalition titled ‘Snail like recycled water pipelineprogress a concern’ and media release, dated 30 April 2007, by Queensland coalition titled ‘Water grid on track—for 2013’.

What did the opposition’s media release say? ‘Water grid on track for 2013.’ He obviously had themember for Maroochydore give him a hand with the logic. He goes on in the media release to state—With 420 kilometres to be laid and only 5.8 kilometres laid in March, it’s going to take 72 months or six years to complete. There now looks to be little or no chance of the grid being completed before winter 2013.

I have some bad news for the Leader of the Opposition. The two dams, if approved, will be builtby the end of 2011 and other key state water projects remain on target for completion by the end of2008. Last year alone more than 25 kilometres of pipe was laid across the entire grid: for the westerncorridor last month, 13.6 kilometres; for the southern regional water pipeline, 9.8 kilometres; andanother 1.8 kilometres of pipeline to connect the Tugun desalination plant.

After having a look at the opposition leader’s sums, I can see that he is no good at maths. It is agreat pity that Kevin Rudd was not able to deliver a laptop to him when he was at school so that hecould become a little more numerate. I do not know if we can organise some remedial maths for him but,sure as eggs, when Kevin 07 comes around the corner in two weeks time he will be there to help therest of us.

Department of Child Safety, Commercial AccommodationDr FLEGG: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Child Safety. In this House

yesterday the minister admitted that she frequently used motel room therapy for at-risk children. This isdespite her department claiming this should be a last-resort policy.

Mrs KEECH: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The member is misleading the House. I did notinfer that we frequently used motel accommodation, and I ask for the comments to be withdrawn.

Dr FLEGG: I will withdraw, Mr Speaker. It was certainly raised in this House that the budget wasdoubled for this sort of accommodation, which speaks for itself. This is despite the minister’s owndepartment claiming this should be a last-resort policy. What is the minister doing to reduce the numberand amount of time vulnerable, at-risk children spend in motel accommodation?

Mrs KEECH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Once again, the Leader of the Liberal Party shows what anabsolute dud he is. Not only does he—

Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the members of the opposition who altogether are interjecting—Mrs Stuckey: She just called him a coward.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Currumbin, I have already warned you. You will be out of the

chamber with your next comment. Mr Copeland interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Cunningham to desist interjecting. There are about

eight or nine of you who all interjected at once there. If it is orchestrated or not, you are not going to bedoing it.

Mr Copeland interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I beg your pardon. I am actually saying what I want to say. You have had

your say. Let us go to the minister.Mrs KEECH: Yesterday in a ministerial statement I answered the Leader of the Liberal Party’s

question. I can understand that he was not listening to my ministerial statement, or anybody else’s,because he has other things on his mind. He knows that come 24 November his career is on the line.He is looking at waving goodbye.

Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your ruling. You have made a point thisweek of not allowing us to make assertions in our questions but you allow ministers when answering tomake personal attacks on the questioners. If you are going to interpret the standing orders in relation toour questions I ask you to interpret the standing orders in relation to the ministers’ answers.

Mr SPEAKER: I have been waiting for the Leader of the Opposition to come out with a point oforder like that. I expected him to and he flagged it in the media. Standing order 118 is a very generalstanding order as opposed to standing 115, which is very prescriptive with regard to a range of differentissues that I raised in this House on Tuesday. If you are asking about the relevance of what the ministeris actually saying, I want to say first of all that the answer a minister may be giving may well be relevantto the question that has been asked from their perspective.

Opposition members interjected.


Mr SPEAKER: If you want to have a go at the authority of the chair do so. What may be relevantto the minister or other members of the House may not be relevant to you. You have asked a questionand I intend the minister to answer it. I call the minister.

Mrs KEECH: Thank you for your ruling, Mr Speaker. Can I say one thing in responding to themember. Yesterday in my ministerial statement I addressed the Leader of the Liberal Party’s question.What are we doing? This government is putting $80 million into our NGO partners to ensure that we canhave a range of out-of-home placements to ensure the safety of children. It is important to ensure thatchildren placed in out-of-home care are in a safe environment.

When it comes to a place of last resort, certainly commercial arrangements are sought. TheLeader of the Liberal Party is the leader of last resort over there. The member for Clayfield will bemoving up.

Dr Flegg: You are a disgrace. You are an absolute disgrace. This is a serious issue and you’retreating it as a joke. You’re the joke.

Mr SPEAKER: I warn the member for Moggill under standing order 253. I would ask you to sitdown. You asked the question. There have been a number of interjections from you and from your sideand you expect the minister to answer the question. I call the member for Bundamba.

Mr SEENEY: I rise again to a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to make a definitive rulingabout the appropriateness of a minister launching a personal attack on a questioner and ask how onearth you can allow that under an interpretation of the standing order that prevents us from asking anyquestion that you believe has an assertion.

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the Leader of the Opposition: on one hand I find it extraordinary that youare asking me that question, because under the standing orders if a member feels offended by whatanother honourable member has said they have the right to jump up and ask for them to withdraw it. Nomember jumped, so I would say sit down, behave yourself and let’s get on with question time.

Public Hospitals, Quarterly Performance ReportMrs MILLER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to the

Quarterly public hospitals performance report that he tabled in the House today and ask: what are themain factors behind the unprecedented pressure on our public hospital emergency departments?

Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the member for the question. Members would recall that this winterQueensland experienced one of its worst flu seasons on record. During the month of August some2,517 confirmed cases of the flu were reported to Queensland Health. That is more than five times theaverage rate over the last five years. This has had a dramatic impact on our public hospital emergencydepartments. In fact, seven per cent of emergency department attendances during the Septemberquarter were people presenting with flu-like symptoms. Of those attendances, 17 per cent were childrenneeding treatment at emergency departments.

These are patients who arguably should be seen by their local GP but cannot because ofAustralia’s chronic shortage of doctors and, in particular, a shortage of doctors providing bulk-billingservices. Our paediatric emergency departments also experienced a sharp increase in activity, withpresentations to Mater Children’s up 21.4 per cent and to Royal Children’s up some 11 per centcompared to the same period last year.

Significant increases were also recorded at Caboolture, up 17.7 per cent; Cairns, up 10.7 percent; Bundaberg, up 12.1 per cent; Redcliffe, up 10.2 per cent; and Townsville, up nearly 12 per cent.Usually around 70,000 attend Queensland’s 21 largest hospital emergency departments each monthbut in August, the peak time for the flu in Queensland, our emergency departments recorded theirbusiest month on record with more than 85,000 attendances.

I am pleased to say that Queensland Health has measures in place to ensure our emergencydepartments cope with this spike in demand. Our winter bed strategy to open up more beds to reduceaccess block ensured that patients were treated as quickly as possible. However, bed block continues tocause pressure in our hospitals and impacts on the timely transfer of patients into hospital wards.

As I said yesterday, one of the major reasons for bed block is the extraordinary number ofpatients being treated in our hospitals who do not belong there. Aged-care patients take up on average450 beds in Queensland public hospitals every day. They belong in aged-care homes but there are notenough Commonwealth funded high-care nursing home places available in Queensland. This is yetanother example of the continuing failure by the Howard government to provide aged-care services inthis state, and who suffers? It is our public hospitals that suffer as a result of the Howard government’sneglect.

This quarter’s hospital performance report shows quite graphically exactly what we are talkingabout—that is, the impact of aged and frail people who stay in our hospitals beyond 35 days becausethey cannot access an aged-care home. What this hospital performance report demonstrates is that ourhospitals are working harder than ever before. It is just unfortunate that we do not get support from thefederal government.

Interruption.


SPEAKER’S RULING

Rules Relating to Questions Without NoticeMr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member for Nanango, I would like to go back to the point

of order that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I understand that some members of theopposition or of the parliament generally may not be fully aware of the difference between standingorder 115 and standing order 118. I would like to expand on what I said.

As I have indicated, standing order 115 has been around in its current form since 1994. It hasessentially been in place since about 1860. It is quite prescriptive and very specific about what is notallowed. Standing order 118 is a general rule that states that answers should be relevant to the question.My approach to standing order 118 is no different from that of a dozen Speakers before me, includingSpeaker Neil Turner, under whom a number of opposition members served.

I know that the Leader of the Opposition and I did not serve a term under Speaker Turner, but anumber of you did serve under him, and my ruling on this question is no different to his. Standing order118 is a general rule about relevance. The reality is that answers are invariably relevant to thequestions. The complaints really boil down to the fact that answers are not being given in a way in whichthe questioner would desire. Just because the questioner does not like the answer does not make itirrelevant.

Secondly, standing order 118 generally states that a minister should not debate the subject—another area that the opposition raised earlier this week. When I was elected as Speaker in October lastyear I indicated that I wanted the parliament to be more robust, allowing members of parliament fromboth sides to reasonably interject. Perhaps the opposition would like me to go back to the days of theprevious term and not allow interjections. I have made the parliament more robust. Some havedisrespected that I have made it more robust. If members of parliament decide to interject while aminister is answering a question, the minister is perfectly within his or her rights to respond to suchinterjections. Let me clearly lay down the intent of standing orders 115 and 118, and they have beenaround for decades and decades and have consistently been applied by Speakers nominated by theLabor Party and by the coalition.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICEResumed from p. 4340.

Kingaroy Court HouseMrs PRATT: My question is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. Conditions are so

bad at the Kingaroy Court House that jurors are forced to walk some considerable distance to othercommercial businesses to seek shelter from extreme heat or from rain and also to avail themselves oftoilet facilities and drinking water. The conditions are such that the presiding judge made mention of theinadequacy of the facilities and apologised accordingly, and I table a juror’s letter to me.Tabled paper: Text of a letter from an unidentified juror relating to Kingaroy Court House.

Will the minister review the inadequate facilities of the Kingaroy Court House with a view toreplacing these facilities, which are well past their use-by date?

Mr SHINE: I have been recently made aware of the comments of Her Honour Judge O’Sullivan inrelation to the Kingaroy Court House. As the honourable member would well know as she is a personwho is rightly concerned about the conditions of jurors at this courthouse, the Kingaroy Court Housewas built in the mid-1960s and is a courthouse of its era. I am aware that there are a number of issues inrelation to its current effectiveness and its functionality and that the building, understandably I think, isnot providing the same sorts of facilities that we expect of a 21st century modern courthouse. TheKingaroy Court House is currently owned by the Department of Public Works, but I understand thattransfer will be sought to the Department of Justice and Attorney-General in the future.

The Department of Justice and Attorney-General has identified Kingaroy for a possible upgrade inthe near future and has given some preliminary consideration to what facilities are necessary. Thehonourable member’s constituent, as I understand it, raised the issues of toilet facilities and refreshmentfacilities in particular. My department would also like to address, however, other issues and othermatters including a jury assembly area, enabling the second courtroom to be more effective for thatpurpose; ensuring the security of rooms that require it, particularly the magistrates’ rooms; thepracticality of the installation of a lift to the first floor; and major improvements to the disability ramp.There is, as the honourable member I am sure would agree, no easy or cheap fix to the jury problem atKingaroy and it is considered prudent to address these other problems that I have just referred to at thesame time as part of a wider project. This will be considered for funding in the next two to three years.


However, this government is spending a record amount of money on courts with new courthousesbeing built at Sandgate, which was opened in August 2007; Pine Rivers, which is under constructionand planned to be opened mid-2008; Ipswich, which is under construction and planned to be open mid-2009; and Mareeba, which is about to go to tender and planned to be opened in 2008. Of course thereare substantial improvements and refurbishments to Maryborough to be completed in mid-2007 and ofcourse Toowoomba scheduled over the next two to three years and starting early in 2008. Also, thecommencement of design work for a possible upgrade and expansion of the Townsville Court Househas begun in addition to the new Brisbane Supreme Court and District Court project. It is important toensure that these projects meet the changing and growing needs of the courts so that changes are notneeded later in the project. The department is doing this through consultation, detailed planning anddesign work.

Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the member for Sandgate, I welcome a further group of teachersand students from the Guardian Angels Primary School at Wynnum in the electorate of Lytton, which isrepresented in this House by the Deputy Premier, Mr Paul Lucas.

Brett Irwin Memorial ShieldMs DARLING: My question without notice is to the minister for police and corrective services.

Minister, I understand police will be participating in a special soccer match at Suncorp Stadiumtomorrow night before the Queensland Roar take on the Melbourne Victory. Can the minister pleaseinform the House who will be involved in this match and why it was organised?

Ms SPENCE: On this day when we look at the police annual crime statistics and acknowledgethe great job that our police have done over the last 12 months in reducing crime in this state, it is timelyto remember that on a daily basis our police officers go out there and put their lives on the line. Earlierthis year, on 18 July, Constable Brett Irwin was killed when executing a search warrant at Keperra. It istimely to remind ourselves that when a police officer loses his or her life it affects all police officers, andmany of Brett Irwin’s colleagues are still mourning his death. People who knew Brett Irwin talk about hiswonderful zest for life. He was very much a sports-loving person and apparently he loved all codes offootball.

His colleagues have put together an inaugural football match called the Brett Irwin MemorialShield. The first match will occur at Suncorp Stadium tomorrow night when Queensland police officersplay against Victorian police officers in a curtain-raiser prior to the Roar playing the Melbourne Victory. Iunderstand that they will be tossing a coin to start this event, and Constable Brett Irwin’s mother,Christine, who is a wonderful lady, will be present to hand the shield to the winning team. I have metChristine on a number of occasions and I know that she expresses support for the police family as shehas been going through the months of sadness over losing her son. She is also very committed andexpresses her support for Police Legacy. One of the main organisers of tomorrow night’s football matchis Sergeant Jim Bellos. Jim Bellos is well known in the Queensland Police Service, particularly on thesouth side of Brisbane.

A government member: A great bloke!Ms SPENCE: He is a great bloke. He is well known for organising multicultural football matches.

He recently organised one for the police to play against the Muslim community in Sunnybank, and that isgoing to be an ongoing exercise. He has also arranged football matches between other multiculturalgroups and the police, and these of course are wonderful ways of breaking down the barriers. SergeantBellos and his team have won a number of awards for organising these football matches. I am suretomorrow night’s match will be very successful and will enable police to remember not only ConstableBrett Irwin but also other fallen colleagues through this kind of tradition.

Townsville Hospital, Cardiac ServicesMr LANGBROEK: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. When will he reopen

cardiac services for the people of north Queensland at Townsville Hospital? Why has he allowed thesituation to deteriorate to this stage for over a year when this is partly due to his employees beingunable to get along with each other?

Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the member for the question. The member would be aware, I wouldhave expected by now, that the decision to temporarily suspend cardiac services at Townsville was nottaken lightly but was taken at the recommendation of senior doctors at Townsville Hospital. Why?Because despite the best efforts of management over a long period of time to resolve the personalconflicts that existed between the cardiac specialists at Townsville, that was not able to be achieved.

In fact, in the letter that came from senior clinicians to management pleading their case tosuspend the cardiac unit the clinicians acknowledged the efforts by management to try to resolve theinterpersonal conflict that existed within that unit. They also acknowledged that the level of dysfunctionwas such that, despite the best efforts of management, no reasonable effort was going to achieve anoutcome and that the only way to move forward was to temporarily suspend services. So this is not a


case, as has been suggested by some, of managerial incompetence. Townsville management cannotbe labelled that, because even the AMA came out in support of the actions of management and thedecision to suspend temporarily operations in Townsville.

However, the statewide clinical network for cardiac services—and let me explain that that issenior doctors engaged in those specialities right throughout Queensland meeting to discuss how torestore services in Townsville and how to build a sustainable unit—have had their first meeting and aremapping out a way forward to restore services in Townsville as quickly as possible. Why do I mentionthat? Because that is the clearest indication that the calls that have been made through the inquiriesthat we have had over the last couple of years that doctors should be put in charge and be responsiblefor running our hospitals have been heeded. We have established the statewide clinical network, whichis made up of senior doctors and senior clinicians, to determine how services should be run and wherethey should be run, particularly specialist services such as cardiac services.

That clinical network, having met, will now map out the way to restore services in Townsville asquickly as possible. However, we need to do that sustainably so that we do not see a repeat of thebehaviours that have existed which caused one unfortunate decision to be made in the first place. Thatis our commitment to the people of Townsville.

Coal IndustryMr FINN: My question is to the Treasurer. I note the Premier’s announcement today regarding the

northern missing link, and I ask: can the Treasurer inform the House of the benefits of the coal industryto Queensland’s economy?

Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Yeerongpilly for the question and for his interest generally inrail infrastructure, which I know is both a local and a statewide issue. Earlier today the Premier indicatedthat, given the optimism that exists in the whole industry at the moment, Queensland Rail, with thesupport of the Queensland government, is in a position to commit to an early works program of some$27 million. That is $27 million of cold hard cash that comes on top of the $19 million that has alreadybeen expended on the development of the northern missing link corridor, which will position QueenslandRail to be set early in the new year to press the button on construction, given the optimism that existswithin the coal industry, with the support of the coal industry into the future.

Of course, the coal industry is a powerhouse in Queensland. It is one that has seen extraordinarygrowth in recent times. It employs some 18,000 people. These days, Queensland Rail is transportingmore than 150 million tonnes of coal, which is about double what was being transported 20 years ago.Of course, we all recall that this is a significant export industry, with 85 per cent of coal leaving ourshores, and that is why a project such as the northern missing link is so significant.

At this point it is worth recognising that Queensland Rail has advised that the requisite level of60 per cent support from the coal industry has been achieved to underpin the government’s ability tocommit to the $27 million in early works to ensure that the northern missing link can be built on themost ambitious timetable that has been put forward by Queensland Rail.

Those companies wrote jointly—not separately—and they were BHP Billiton, Anglo Coal, RioTinto Coal, Xstrata Coal, Peabody Energy, Foxleigh Mining and Macarthur Coal. With the agreement ofthose seven companies, it is likely that the costs incurred will be incorporated into the regulated assetbase of Queensland Rail. That means that Queensland Rail is in a position to make the commercialdecision that it has to to proceed with the early works of the northern missing link.

This is an investment that is based on the optimism that exists in the coal industry. This is aconfident investment by the Queensland government and Queensland Rail in the future. This is the sortof investment that we require to build that export chain for the future. I ask members to contrast that withthe view of the Leader of the Liberal Party, who continues to be lily-livered about debt and buildinginfrastructure in the Queensland GOC. What we can expect from this government is a continuedcommitment to investment. Make no mistake about the policy prescription of the shadow treasurer: it iseither divestment of disinvestment.

SunWaterMr HOPPER: My question is to the Minister for Natural Resources and Water. I refer to the 2006-

07 annual report of the state government’s regional water business, SunWater, which shows that thecorporation made a profit of $28 million. How does the minister justify SunWater making these sort ofprofits when drought-hit irrigators are having to pay thousands of dollars every week for water that theydo not get?

Mr WALLACE: I again correct the record. The shadow minister, who sets his sights on becomingthe minister, is again wrong. SunWater does not charge for water that it does not deliver. Despite anexceptionally tough year climatically, SunWater has continued to deliver water services right acrossQueensland. Water deliveries to customers during 2006-07 were 1.23 million megalitres against a target

4344 Child Protection (Offender Prohibition Order) Bill 15 Nov 2007

of 1.26 million megalitres, which is two per cent behind. In view of the continuing dry conditions and lowwater availability from many of SunWater’s schemes, that was a good result. I congratulate thehardworking staff at SunWater on that.

On 1 July 2006, SunWater commenced a new five-year price path—to June 2011—with its ruralirrigation customers in accordance with a government endorsed price-setting process. That was settledin 2005-06 through a tier price setting process, which included SunWater, a committee of its customersand industry representatives. SunWater also agreed with the Department of Natural Resources andWater on funding for the first four spillway upgrades at the Fred Haigh, Bjelke-Petersen, Borumba andTinaroo Falls dams. Construction of the Fred Haigh spillway was completed and the Bjelke-Petersenstage 1 spillway upgrade progressed as well.

With reference to the SunWater annual report, which the honourable member has raised, the 47-kilometre Eungella eastern extension to the Eungella pipeline from Moranbah to Coppabella wasawarded practical completion in May 2007. This is a great project. The pipeline is capable of delivering5,600 megalitres of water a year.

Mr Horan interjected.Mr WALLACE: The real complaints would be if SunWater made a loss. We are simply following

the national water principles that were outlined by the opposition’s mates in Canberra. The 70-kilometresouthern extension to the Eungella water pipeline installation commenced in October 2006 and was85 per cent complete by 30 June 2007. That pipeline will deliver 2,500 megalitres of water to MacarthurCoal in the Bowen Basin. As the Treasurer outlined, coal is a vital growth industry for our state.

I again congratulate SunWater on the construction of the 218-kilometre Burdekin to Moranbahpipeline, which was largely completed in 2006-07. I have said in this place before that that great project,the Burdekin Dam, was funded by the Hawke Labor government. The last time a federal governmentbecame seriously involved in water infrastructure in this country was when the Hawke Laborgovernment funded the massive Burdekin Dam. I look forward to the election of the Rudd Laborgovernment on 24 November. It was great to hear Kevin Rudd’s commitments yesterday to help withdesalination and to help with water recycling. I know that the members opposite do not believe in waterrecycling. The member for Darling Downs has walked out of the chamber. He does not care aboutirrigators. He does not care about the people of Queensland who are suffering under this drought. Icongratulate SunWater. I congratulate Kevin Rudd for announcing a great scheme. We will be standingup for the water irrigators in our state.

Mr SPEAKER: The time for questions has expired.

CHILD PROTECTION (OFFENDER PROHIBITION ORDER) BILL

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

(11.38 am): I present a bill for an act to provide for the protection of the lives of children and for theirsexual safety, and to amend other acts relating to the protection of children. I present the explanatorynotes, and I move—That the bill be now read a first time.

Motion agreed to.

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

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

I am sure that all members are aware that the topic of paedophiles has figured prominently in theheadlines recently. I am also sure that many parents within the community find the knowledge that thereare paedophiles living in suburban settings, alongside themselves and their children, disconcerting. It isfor this reason that the Bligh government is strengthening the laws dealing with convicted paedophilesonce they are released into the community.

In recent times the Queensland Police Service has been instrumental in sparking an internationaloperation, involving authorities from 28 countries, which broke a global child pornography ring thatresulted in 92 European men being arrested and 23 child victims aged between nine and 16 beingrescued from this vile trade. Closer to home, this same operation resulted in nine Queensland men,aged between 29 and 64, being arrested and charged with 188 offences. Fortunately, a four-year-old girl

15 Nov 2007 Child Protection (Offender Prohibition Order) Bill 4345

was also rescued from further sexual abuse. All members will agree with me when I say that our policeare to be highly commended for their endeavours. Scenarios such as these only serve to bring home tous the fact that children are amongst the most vulnerable members of our society and crimes againstthem create long-term damage, not only to the children themselves but to their families and ultimatelythe community in general.

Moreover, it should be borne in mind that paedophilia is a crime where the offender is driven by astrong compulsion to seek out, or stalk, their child victims. Many paedophiles dedicate much of theirlives to infiltrating their way into places and occupations where they will have ready contact withchildren. Unlike other types of criminals who tend to mellow over time, these sexual predators continueto offend throughout their lifetime. They seem to hold a core belief that their activities are not depraved,immoral and criminal. However, this government and the people of Queensland recognise paedophiliaas vile criminal conduct which has no place in our society. As such I make no apology for introducing abill that will curb the activities of these merchants of depravity.

To address the issue of police being able to monitor the activities of paedophiles when they arereleased back into the community, three years ago the government introduced the Child Protection(Offender Reporting) Act 2004, which provides for individuals who are convicted of a scheduled offenceand who receive a custodial sentence to be automatically required to become reportable offenders. Thismandatory reporting scheme is part of a much larger national model, the Australian National ChildOffender Register, ANCOR, which overcomes dislocation effects by ensuring that offenders cannotavoid compliance by moving from one jurisdiction to another.

Under the provisions of this legislation, offenders who have been convicted of sexual and otherserious offences against children are required to keep police informed of their whereabouts for a periodof time after their release into the community. The legislation facilitates the investigation and theprosecution of any future offences a sexual predator may commit. As effective as this legislation maybe, it does not go far enough. It does not empower police to take steps to prevent a paedophile fromengaging in concerning conduct—that is, conduct that is a precursor to the commission of a furtheroffence.

By way of example, when the notorious paedophile, Dennis Ferguson, returned to thisjurisdiction, he took up residence next door to a child-care centre. Police did not have a legislative basisto prevent Ferguson taking up residence at that location. Members of this House will agree that this is aclassical example of the need to place restrictions on paedophiles to reduce the risk of their re-offending. Their despicable ongoing criminal conduct warrants the state intervening with measures that,although they may restrict the freedom of movement and residence of a sexual offender, will provide forthe protection of our children.

The Bligh government will achieve this outcome by empowering police to apply to a magistrate fora prohibition order that will prohibit particular sexual offenders from engaging in conduct that poses arisk to the lives or sexual safety of children. In all probability, most of these offenders will already be onthe child sex offenders register. However, the possibility has not been overlooked that they are not.

For example, it will apply to an offender who has a string of convictions for child sex offences inSouth-East Asia committed in the 1980s who returns to Queensland and who may decide to re-establisha paedophile ring or even act alone in paedophile activities. Currently, he is not required to become aregistered sex offender because his convictions pre-date the commencement of the Child Protection(Offender Reporting) Act 2004, but his activities are certainly cause for concern to police. Thislegislation provides that once a prohibition order has been made against such an offender, he isautomatically required to become a registrant for a period of five years. At the end of that period, if it isdeemed necessary, another order can be taken out.

There are two criteria to be met before an application can be made for a prohibition order. Firstly,the offender must have a past conviction for a relevant sexual offence committed against a child; and,secondly, he must have recently been engaged in concerning conduct. This conduct can cover a rangeof activities such as loitering at or near a park fitted with playground equipment regularly used bychildren, seeking employment or volunteer work that will involve him coming into contact with children,or taking up residence in a household with children under the age of 16 years.

Although any piece of legislation will not prevent the commission of an offence, this bill will makea difference. It will go a long way towards making the community safer for children. I seek leave to havethe remainder of my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.A proceeding for a full order will be started by police serving application documents on a respondent.

However, if police believe that the person poses an immediate risk to children and the making of an order will reduce that risk, amagistrate may issue a temporary order against the respondent until the full order can be heard and determined.

4346 Child Protection (Offender Prohibition Order) Bill 15 Nov 2007

A temporary order may be made in the absence of the respondent. This reduces the risk of a respondent evading the service ofapplication documents in order to forestall a full order being made. The temporary order need only be supported by information themagistrate considers, on the balance of probabilities, to be sufficient and appropriate. A temporary order may be made for up to 28days with extensions possible if the case is adjourned.

As soon as practicable after the order is made, police will inform the respondent of the prohibitions that have been imposed by theorder and the consequences for noncompliance. At the same time, the respondent will be served with the application documentswhich include a copy of the appearance notice and the application for the proceeding. The hearing for the final order will require the magistrate to consider a broader range of issues than was required for thetemporary order. Such matters will include: the seriousness of the respondent’s criminal history in respect to reportable offences; the period thathas elapsed since they were committed; the ages of both the victim and the respondent at the time the offences were committed;the respondent’s present age; the respondent’s current circumstances; the effect of the order sought in comparison to the level ofrisk the respondent poses; and anything else that is considered relevant by the court. If the respondent is not present in court, the application may be heard in his absence if the court is satisfied that he was informedof the proceeding. As soon as practicable after the order is made, police will serve the respondent with it and explain itsramifications. The respondent will also be told that noncompliance with the order is an offence that carries a penalty of up to two yearsimprisonment.Provision also exists for a prohibition order to be made by consent if both police and an adult respondent agree to it being made. I understand that in other jurisdictions quite a large proportion of the prohibition orders made are by consent. In such cases, themagistrate is not required to consider the range of matters required by an ordinary hearing unless it is considered to be in theinterests of justice to do so. Although it is unlikely that a prohibition order will be taken out against a juvenile respondent, a number of provisions are containedin the Bill that apply to a juvenile. The maximum length of a prohibition order for a minor is two years. If a court decides to make a prohibition order against ajuvenile respondent, the court must obtain a report from the Department of Communities that provides information, assessmentsand reports about the respondent, his family or any other matter the court considers to be relevant. If a juvenile respondent is likely to be removed from his current residence, the Department of Child Safety will be informed so thatalternative accommodation arrangements can be made.It is to be noted that the legislation includes a number of provisions that will enable information to be shared between police andagencies that have a duty of care towards children. In the case of a juvenile offender who, for example, is expelled from schooling in New South Wales and moves to Queensland tocontinue his education, the provisions of this legislation allow sufficient information to be provided to the relevant educationauthorities to identify the respondent and to take appropriate steps to provide an alternative education program. Clearly, in the normal course of events the New South Wales order will be registered in Queensland and therefore apply here withequal force.Although this legislation is tough it is not aimed at encouraging vigilante activities within the community. Therefore, unless there isa definite need to know the contents of a prohibition order against a sexual offender, it will not be published. To prevent unauthorised disclosure of the nature of a prohibition order an application will be heard in a closed court. Additionally,penalties will apply for the unlawful disclosure of any information pertaining to the proceeding. Once an order has been made, an application can be made to either vary or revoke it, however, the respondent may only do sowith the leave of the court. The court can grant leave if it is satisfied that it is in the interest of justice to do so, having regard tochanges in the respondent’s circumstances since the order was last made or varied. If the variation is made at the behest of police, it takes effect immediately if the respondent is present in court, or otherwise whena copy of it is served on the respondent. A revocation granted by a court will take place immediately whether the respondent ispresent in court or not.As I have stated previously, if a respondent is not already a registered sex offender, once a prohibition order is made, he will berequired to become a registrant for the purposes of the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004. This will allow police to monitor the activities of the respondent whilst he is at large in the community. There are other linkages between this legislation and other statutes whose purpose is to protect the community from recalcitrantand recidivist sexual offenders. Those offenders who are subject to orders under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 will not be made subjectto a prohibition order; rather, an application will be made to have the necessary prohibitions included in their existing dangerousprisoner order if they are not already included. An analogous application will be made in respect of forensic patients who are subject to forensic orders under the Mental HealthAct 2000. Both of these categories of offenders are already subject to supervision by State authorities.Appropriate appeal provisions have been included in the legislation so that an appeal can be made against a decision of the court. This Bill will provide another string to the bow of police in their endeavour to curtail the offending behaviour of recidivistpaedophiles. It will enable police to monitor their activities and track their movements with a view to preventing further offencesoccurring. Members of the community may be assured that this Government has taken and will continue to take a tough stance againstpaedophiles as it does in all law and order issues. The Bill I introduce today is evidence of the fact that the Bligh Government is intent on ensuring the safety of the community, andin particular that of our children.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Messenger, adjourned.

15 Nov 2007 Water & Other Legislation Amendment Bill; SEQ Water (Restructuring) Bill 4347

WATER AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILLSOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND WATER (RESTRUCTURING) BILL

Consideration in Detail (Cognate Debate)

South East Queensland Water (Restructuring) BillWater & Other Legislation Amendment Bill; SEQ Water (Restructuring) Bill

Resumed from 14 November (see p. 4283).Resumed on clause 53—Dr FLEGG (11.46 am): I think we partially dealt with this clause yesterday. The budget papers

contain projected receipts from dividends from government business enterprises. Clearly thisgovernment business enterprise is going to contribute and be involved during the forecast periodcontained in the budget. I would like the minister to give us some indication about future dividendexpectations from this business and what impact they will have on the overall budget given that theexisting government businesses have projections in the budget.

Mr FRASER: I thank the Leader of the Liberal Party for the question. Going back to thecomments I made yesterday about the way in which these entities are being placed on a commercialfooting but that there is no expectation on the part of the government to gain any significant dividend orprofit out of these entities—they are being set up on a commercial basis for managerial reasons toensure that that is the best way that the operations of the entities can be directed—there is no need torevise the forward estimates in relation to the dividend, the annual return as it is termed in the bill, fromthe authorities at this point in time.

Given the arrangements that have been spoken about publicly by both me and the formerTreasurer, we are not expecting that these entities will provide appreciable returns to the government, atleast not in the near term. They are being set up under this management structure for reasons ofefficiency and best management of the assets. It is not anticipated that they will provide any financialboon whatsoever. Obviously as the midyear review progresses and then the preparation of the budgetfor next year, that will be formally reported as is appropriate. But I can assure the Leader of the LiberalParty and other members of the House that there is no expected windfall gain to the budget bottom linefrom the setting up of these entities.

Clause 53, as read, agreed to. Clauses 54 to 57, as read, agreed to. Clause 58—Dr FLEGG (11.50 am): Clause 58, and indeed clauses 59 and 60, relates to transfer of assets.

I am quite staggered by the assertion the Treasurer just made in his previous statement that thegovernment is not expecting that these entities would generate returns in the foreseeable future. I thinkthat is quite outstanding. In May 2007 the Water Commission, as the Treasurer would know, made thestatement in relation to government superannuation funds that it would also be possible for the form ofgovernment ownership interest in the assets to be varied over time. For instance, public sectorsuperannuation funds may view equity participation in some assets or entities as attractive investments.

That raises two issues. The first is that I doubt it will be an attractive investment if the governmentis not foreseeing any earnings from it. But it also raises, in relation to this clause where we are looking atpossible transfer of assets, the sale or privatisation of any or all of the assets contained within these fourstatutory bodies. As the Treasurer would be aware, concern has been expressed that these assets mayhave found their way into government ownership for the purposes of later sale. I would ask theTreasurer to make some comments on this clause in relation to the transfer of assets and the potentialfor government sale of any of these assets.

Mr FRASER: I thank the Leader of the Liberal Party for the question. I note from theconsideration of the particular clauses that we are looking at here that we are looking at the assetmanagement of the entities going forward. In that regard it is worthwhile pointing out that there remains,once again, a direct parallel with the way in which the Government Owned Corporations Act operatesthe framework for asset disposal in the context of government owned corporations.

The argument that is attempted to be mounted from different and differing standpoints by theLeader of the Liberal Party is that it would be possible for the government of the day to achieve asignificant return out of the water entities. To do so would require that the entities be placed in a position,given their gearing and their ability to set a price path, whereby there is a very high return to be made.That would come at a direct cost to the consumer of water delivered to the home and to business acrossthe south-east corner. It would go to the bulk water cost that is then acquired by councils for distributionand retail.

4348 Water & Other Legislation Amendment Bill; SEQ Water (Restructuring) Bill 15 Nov 2007

So on the one hand the argument being mounted by the Leader of the Liberal Party is that thereis money to be made here, if only he was in control. As a government we could adopt an approach to putthe settings in place to ensure that a significant asset base such as this did, in fact, achieve a verycommercial and attractive rate of return, but we are not. I said yesterday, and I repeat again today forthe benefit of members who were not here yesterday, that we are constructing these entities and puttingin place this management arrangement to ensure that this is the most efficient way of managing thescarce water resources in the south-east corner at the lowest possible cost. That is the guiding principlethat is operating here.

The member for Moggill, in seeking to suggest that somehow this is inappropriate, says he thinkswe should change the settings so that consumers pay significantly more for their water out of the tap sothat these entities pay a significantly higher return to government so that they could be fattened up fordisposal or divestment. No particular action whatsoever on the part of the government, which isevidenced by the fact that we are not setting up these entities with those settings in place, points to thefact that we have any intention whatsoever to dispose of, divest or in any way privatise the assets thatare being acquired.

Dr FLEGG: I note those comments. I would, however, pull the minister up on one thing: I am notnecessarily talking about windfall profits or attractive profits. I think most reasonable people wouldexpect that a reasonable rate of return would be generated by $10 billion worth of water infrastructureassets. Further, I think that would be regarded as sound practice because businesses of this type havehuge ongoing capital investments to keep themselves up to date and to undertake their maintenance.That will only be achieved in the long run if there is a reasonable rate of return. It also strikes me that ifone is in possession of $10 billion or more of assets that are generating no return the temptation to sellthese assets off would become overwhelming in successive years.

Obviously Queenslanders are well aware that it is not necessary for these assets to be generatinglarge profits to the government in order for them to be highly valuable when they are privatised. They donot have to be fattened before sale. As we have seen with gas assets and Dalrymple and otherprivatised government assets, frequently they are sold off for fattening after the sale process. I am notcertain from the Treasurer’s answer that he ruled out privatisation or sale of any of these assets.Perhaps for my benefit and that of the House the minister might care to say whether he was, in fact,ruling out sale or privatisation of any of these assets.

Mr FRASER: Yes, I do rule it out. Clause 58, as read, agreed to. Clauses 59 to 66, as read, agreed to. Clause 67—Dr FLEGG (11.55 am): Clause 67 deals with transfer of assets. The transfer of assets is by

gazettal by the minister in the form of a transfer notice. This does not come before the parliamentpotentially like a regulation would so, in fact, the level of scrutiny and the potential for debate on thetransfer or sale of these assets is relatively low compared to what it would be if it required a regulation.

Mr FRASER: For the sake of clarity, I affirm the comments that I made in reply which pointed tothe fact that the gazette is obviously published, so it is a transparent way of identifying the actions takenthrough a transfer notice. Other information relating to those transfer notices is also available on thepublic record for inspection. I dealt with the issues raised by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in mysumming-up at the conclusion of the debate, but for the sake of ensuring that there is some particularlight shone on the suggestions being made by the Leader of the Liberal Party, in the hierarchy of theway in which these things could be determined, at the one end there is a legislative regime and alegislative proposal and at the other end one could propose something that was not even gazetted, wasnot transparent and was not available for review such as a scheme of arrangement. I note that that isexactly how the last Liberal Treasurer in Queensland chose to transact the Suncorp Metway sale.

Clause 67, as read, agreed to. Clause 68, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause—Dr FLEGG (11.58 am): I move the following amendment—

1 New clause 68AAt page 38, after line 12—

insert—

‘68A Consideration to be mutually agreed‘The Minister may not act under section 67 or 68 to transfer an asset from a local government to another waterentity unless the consideration for the asset has been agreed between the local government and the Minister.’.


This is a simple amendment. It goes to the heart of what has been a pretty unseemly andunpleasant debate within the community which at one stage even had the Premier here in this Houseaccusing the Lord Mayor of Brisbane of being a liar. In the process of obtaining ownership of assets thatare currently owned by south-east Queensland ratepayers, there needs to be some respect for thevalue and the ownership of those assets. Those assets have been built up by ratepayers and waterusers over a period of time.

An honourable member: And taxpayers.Dr FLEGG: I will take that interjection, because it is a distraction the government has been

running that some government funds have been applied to the construction of these assets. It has beenclearly agreed and understood by the current owners of those assets that any government contributionswould be taken off any value of those assets.

I think any reasonable Queenslander would expect that if billions of dollars in assets are to betaken away from their present owner—and they are the ratepayers of the various local authorities—there should be an independent valuation process and at the very least an agreed price before any suchtransaction takes place. Seizing possession of those billions of dollars in assets on the basis that theprice will be worked our later is not an acceptable way to go about things.

The effect of this amendment is very simple indeed. It requires the government to reachagreement with the councils on the price to be paid for these assets so that going forward ratepayersknow the outcome for their assets. I notice the glib line that the Treasurer has practised and used in themedia a number of times that ratepayers are taxpayers. Ratepayers and taxpayers are not one and thesame. There are a lot more taxpayers than ratepayers and they also contribute to completely and utterlydifferent social functions.

Ratepayers, who are a much smaller group, are paying for the services provided by localgovernment. If those services are not provided by the cash flows that have been built up on their assetsthat they have invested in over a period of time, those services have to be funded from that rate basesome other way. It is a very limited tax base.

There has been an effort by most shires to keep their rate increases down to levels that are waybelow the increases in state taxes. The increases in state revenue from state taxes are in some casesmanifold above the increases that happen in rates. If that funding is taken away from ratepayers, theywill have to pay it again. It is not sufficient to say that those cash flows would then belong to some othergroup of taxpayers.

It strikes me that I should comment here again that the Treasurer has indicated that he does notexpect to earn a return on these assets, which are currently earning a return in their present ownership.Any reasonable person looking at this would say that the government is seizing assets. Before it doesso, it should agree on a price and, as would happen in any commercial setting, if there is adisagreement over that, there should be an independent panel of valuers and the government shouldaccept the umpire’s decision.

Mr FRASER: The government will be opposing the amendment moved by the Leader of theLiberal Party for a number of reasons, not the least of which relates to the way he concluded hisremarks, supposedly in support of the amendment he has moved. I draw the attention of the House tothe wording of the amendment moved by the Leader of the Liberal Party—that is, that no transfer canoccur unless there is agreement.

That would suggest that, in a hypothetical, the Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane—who might look atthe date today and say, ‘It’s 15 November today, so it’s five months until election day on 15 March’—would have a quick look over the latest rates revenue and balance sheet and ask, ‘What am I interestedin putting in my platform for re-election?’ It would be theoretically possible under the amendment movedby the Leader of the Liberal Party—in a hypothetical, I might say—that if someone, say, hypotheticallythe Liberal leader of the Brisbane City Council, posited that his water assets were worth $200 trillion,then there could be no transfer. That would mean there would be no restructure of the bulk waterassets—a point I might add, not hypothetically but in reality, that the Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane infact agrees upon. That is, there should be a bulk water transfer for the sake of regional water securitysupply. It is only the Leader of the Liberal Party who does not hold that view.

In those circumstances, this is a remarkably facile amendment moved by the Leader of theLiberal Party and it will not gain the support of the government in this House. I reiterate for the recordthat this parliament has resolved—as indeed the Brisbane City Council has resolved—that there be fairand just compensation paid for the asset, taking account of future revenue flows. There is a processbeing undertaken in the context of independent advice on the part of both Queensland Treasury and thecouncil of mayors to arrive at the detailed figure that will see these assets transfer in eventuality.

The Leader of the Liberal Party suggests that my remark that ratepayers are taxpayers is beyondthe pale. Taken to his conclusion in the attempt to disembody oneself from paying rates and payingtaxes, he is suggesting that those people who might not pay rates but who arrive at the Inner CityBypass should not drive upon the Inner City Bypass because it is an asset of the Brisbane City Council


and they are not a proper economic stakeholder in the Brisbane City Council’s endeavours. This is aludicrous attempt to try to portray the citizens and public of Queensland as having different economicbeings, as both ratepayers and taxpayers, at a state level and a federal level.

Ultimately, this is a debate that is being conducted in the echelons of government, between twodifferent levels of government, about how to effect a significant public transaction aimed at the publicbenefit. This is not about a grab for cash, this is not about a swindle and this is not about a reclamationof any significant holding against the public interest. This is an entirely appropriate endeavour for thegovernment to be engaged in.

That is why we believe that—as the meetings go on, as the work is undertaken and as the politicsare removed from this—with the benefit of independent advice and the benefit of people who arecommitted to doing the hard yards, rolling up their sleeves and coming to a detailed agreement, therewill be a compensation arrangement entered into that will be appropriate for the benefit of all peopleacross south-east Queensland and not an imaginary number that has been posited out there by thecouncil of mayors, who I suggest have another agenda on their books rather than looking at what is rightand proper for the residents across the south-east corner.

Dr FLEGG: I think the Inner City Bypass was a great example, in fact. It is a great example ofhow a relatively low revenue base for a council provides services for the much broader community. Thenext Inner City Bypass is in fact Northern Link. Once again, council has to contribute a relatively limitedfinancial base to this sort of infrastructure—which, I must say, is important for everybody, not least theTreasurer’s constituents and my constituents. It highlights the fallacy of this argument that ratepayersare taxpayers.

To try to mount an argument in relation to these clauses that, somehow or other, councils askingfor an independent valuation or an agreement on a price is an election strategy is pretty amazing. Theseare the people charged with the duty of care for the assets of the ratepayers. If they did not ask for anindependent valuation or seek an agreement on assets before they were scooped up by the stategovernment, they would be very poor custodians of the assets of their ratepayers. They are doing whatthey are elected to do. If they did any less, in my view there would be a question mark over their duty tothose ratepayers.

Quite frankly, we are going into a local government election which will be quite bizarre, as it turnsout, because of the things that happened in the Treasurer’s previous portfolio. We are going into a localgovernment election with uncertainty about the financial state of many of the councils in south-eastQueensland. There is no evidence that this matter will be resolved today, tomorrow or in the near future.So the Treasurer is asking councils across south-east Queensland, including in some cases Labor Partyrepresentatives, to go to an election and make commitments on what their program will be for the next—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! I would like to remind the Leader of the Liberal Partythat he is getting close to anticipating debate on a bill currently before the House. I would ask him to beextremely careful at this time.

Dr FLEGG: The point I am seeking to make is that, without an established valuation or agreedprice for these assets as envisaged in the amendment which I am speaking to, councils and councillorson both sides will go to the people next March laying out a program without any certainty whatsoeverabout their financial ability to meet that program. I think that is fundamental to the amendment that Ihave moved.

For example, the Brisbane City Council and Campbell Newman had a long commitment toNorthern Link. It was one of the biggest projects that the council has ever undertaken in Brisbane. Whenthey take that to the people and make that financial commitment to Northern Link, they have to know thefinancial state of their council and whether they can meet that. We want councils—in fact, we wantelected people at all levels—to be financially responsible. How can they make a commitment ofhundreds of millions of dollars in the case of Northern Link, or any of the other myriad commitments, ifthere is no agreed value prior to the seizing of these assets? People on both sides—it does not matter ifit is Lord Mayor Campbell Newman or councillors on the other side—do not know the balance sheet ofthe council.

Mr Lawlor: Tell us about what happened in Thuringowa. Did you have a valuation then when youpaid them nothing?

Dr FLEGG: The member for Southport just does not get it. It is the Gold Coast City Council,which his seat is in the heart of—

Mr Lawlor interjected. Dr FLEGG: The member for Southport expects the Gold Coast candidates to go to the people in

a matter of a few months—in March next year—laying out a program without a clue what the balancesheet or the income statement of that council will be. It is as simple as that. It is an irresponsible way todo things.


Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr Wallace interjected. Dr FLEGG: They do not like it when they get caught out.Time expired. Mr FRASER: It is very much the case that the government has been quite clear on this point. We

are anticipating a transfer of SEQWater on a timetable of 1 January. Beyond that we anticipate the othertransfers will be achieved through to 1 July. As the Auditor-General reported this morning in a reporttabled in the parliament, this is a matter that requires the attention of everyone on both sides of thefence in ensuring that people do have an understanding of the position they are in.

We believe that with goodwill—and absent radio campaigns, absent newspaper advertisementswith footnotes or without footnotes, absent ambit claims based upon independent reports that do not infact produce a conclusion as posited—should there be a commitment to the proper civic duty that themember identifies on the part of people involved in this effort, there is every chance that this transactionwill be concluded upon an agreed basis within a time frame that is ahead of the next local governmentelections. So there will be an ability for people to have an insight into these matters as they move intothe next term of local government. Ultimately, this is only going to be resolved by everyone returning tothe civic duty that the Leader of the Liberal Party elevated in his remarks.

Dr FLEGG: I want noted on the record that in that response not only can the minister not tell uswhat the assets are going to be and what compensation is going to be paid but he was unable to evengive us a date. This is a matter of transparency and accountability. I do not see how in the sort ofdemocracy that we want to have in Queensland we can expect all the local authorities to be going into acampaign which will start as soon as the federal election is out of the way without knowing the financialstrength or otherwise of their councils. It is not a matter of the minister saying, ‘Possibly we might havethis matter resolved before the date of the council election.’ The people of Queensland deserve theopportunity to assess the programs put down by all of the councils in south-east Queensland on thebasis of something reliable about their financial state.

It is already going to be difficult enough for electors with council changes as dramatic as hashappened. How on earth can those opposite claim to have any transparency at all when they expectvoters to make a decision on the programs being offered to them by mayors, councillors and candidateswhen there is no clarity about the financial strength, either the balance sheet or the revenue side, ofmany of these local authorities? There is none more particularly affected than the Gold Coast, which willbe one of the hardest affected areas. It is easy to see that the member for Southport does not havemuch of an intention of standing up for his constituents down there. They will be the ones who will footan increased rates bill. They will be the ones who will not be able to make an informed judgement comethe council campaign next year.

Government members interjected. Dr FLEGG: They all like to jump up and down but they have no answer for it. Ms Croft interjected. Dr FLEGG: I hear the member for Broadwater interjecting. She is not going to stand up for her

ratepayers either. She should be standing up for her ratepayers, saying that they are coming into acouncil election and that they deserve to know the financial status of their council when they areassessing the programs that are put before them. If she were standing up for her constituents, shewould be standing here saying what I am saying and she would be voting for this amendment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Leader of the Liberal Party, please direct yourcomments through the chair, not to individual members.

Dr FLEGG: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was tempted beyond belief by the interjections ofthe members from the Gold Coast.

I regard this as a very serious issue. We are talking about billions of dollars of assets—both theassets on the balance sheet and borrowings which will be varied by whatever money becomes availableand council income. It is not a small part of council income. For Brisbane City Council, even allowing forstate contribution to the water assets and making other allowances, it is still about $100 million or about13 per cent of the rate base. It is the equivalent of upping the rates in Brisbane by 13 per cent andsomething similar on the Gold Coast.

The ratepayers and the electors deserve to have some clarity. We have seen right throughout thisdebate how completely and utterly muddle-headed the government is. It has no idea of the cost of thetransaction. It has no idea of any benefits or financial outcomes. It cannot give us any proforma financialstatements and now it cannot give any certainty to electors whether the programs they are going to beasked to vote on are affordable or not. Overwhelmingly, people would see that as unacceptable in ademocracy, and I would urge everybody in this House to stand up for the ratepayers in their electorateand support the amendment.


Mr FRASER: To the Leader of the Liberal Party, I say that the matter of the financials in relation tothe asset transfer will be determined well ahead of the next local government elections. I can provide anassurance to the leader—

Dr Flegg: You are not well ahead now.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Liberal Party! Mr FRASER: I can provide an assurance to the Leader of the Liberal Party, and indeed to the

people whom he seeks to represent as ratepayers but not taxpayers, to those disembodied people andother people who have an interest, that the matter will be concluded in financial terms well before 15January.

Division: Question put—That Dr Flegg’s amendment be agreed to. AYES, 28—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Langbroek,Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey.Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson

NOES, 46—Attwood, Barry, Bombolas, Choi, Croft, Darling, Fenlon, Fraser, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt,Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves,Reilly, Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Wellington,Wendt, Wettenhall. Tellers: Finn, Jones

Resolved in the negative.Clauses 69 to 82, as read, agreed to. Clause 83—Dr FLEGG (12.24 pm): Clause 83, as is one of the later clauses, is the type of clause that is

categorised by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee as a Henry VIII clause. The clause states—A thing may be done under this chapter despite any other law or instrument.

I think it is generally accepted that this is not a desirable way to write laws in Queensland. Thislaw essentially overrides any other laws which may be in existence for very good reason.

Mr FRASER: In relation to the Leader of the Liberal Party’s comments, I dealt with this matter inmy summing-up and I would refer him back to those comments. I note in the way that this debate hasprogressed that he has also sought to gloss over some previous sections in this debate including wherewe declare that the water entities, being councils, are not liable to pay any state taxes or fees relating tothis. That is the sort of thing that I would have thought was worthy of remark by the Leader of the LiberalParty given his stated concerns.

Dr FLEGG: The minister mumbled and I did not quite catch his final comment. I am not certainwhether it required a response. I would remind the minister that we are on a time limit as a result of themotion moved by his side and which we voted against. Since the minister raised it, I did note that thesetransactions were given exemption from state taxes which is not always consistent with a commercialbase.

Clause 83, as read, agreed to. Clauses 84 to 101, as read, agreed to. Clause 102—Dr FLEGG (12.27 pm): Clause 102 exempts these new entities that will control $10 billion or

more of water assets from producing an annual return for the year in which they are created—in otherwords, for the part of the year in which they are in existence. I do find this unacceptable. Earlier, theTreasurer likened these transactions to a library or a school. It is nothing like a library or a school. This is$10 billion or more with possibly a couple of billion dollars in revenues. There should be an annualreport even if they are only in existence for part of that year.

Earlier in this debate I raised the issue that if these changes had been properly and carefullyplanned and considered during this debate we would be able to consider proforma financials and have alook at the asset values, the level of debt, the revenues and the financial wisdom of undertaking this inthe first place. There has not been enough thought or preparation put in to have a set of proformafinancials available. This clause just compounds the crime by providing that for the part of the year forwhich they are in existence they are not required to lodge an annual report. We will be waiting for a verylong time to see whether there was any wisdom in this rearrangement.

Mr FRASER: Let us be really clear about the position of the Liberal Party that is being advancedwithin this debate. Firstly, there is the suggestion that there should be a very high return achieved out ofa significant base. The Leader of the Liberal Party mounts an argument that the water price thatresidents across the south-east corner should pay is higher than would be the case under the settingsunder which the government is proposing to set up these entities going forward.


The second point is that in his remarks previous to those just concluded he suggested that in factan exemption from paying state taxes and charges was not consistent with a commercial basis. That isthe mantra that he returns to. The entities, being local governments, could pay state taxes and chargesin the transfer of these assets. That would contribute to a further burden on the ratepayers that isparticularly identified as his cause celebre in this debate. If he wants to put that position formally, thenthat provides a very interesting insight into the lack of intellectual clarity in the remarks that the Leader ofthe Liberal Party is making.

Finally, in dealing with the particular aspect of this clause, it is the case that the entities will beestablished upon assent of the bill. The assets, however, do not transfer progressively until 1 July nextyear. So we are talking in fact about the present financial year. It is envisaged that the entities would beoperational from next financial year and it is at that point that they should pay an annual return. I amsure the Leader of the Liberal Party is not suggesting that upon setting up the entities and as wetransact the asset transfer within that before they become operational entities on their propercommercial footing it would be appropriate to gain the return.

Dr FLEGG: The minister continues to try to play around with some of the terminology here. Iwould think that somebody who purports to be the Treasurer ought to know better. Nobody here hasever mentioned a high rate of return; we have only ever talked about a reasonable return. It is commonsense and normal business practice that if you do not earn a reasonable rate of return—and I think eventhe minister’s predecessor as Treasurer talked about a reasonable rate of return of about seven percent—you have financially weak businesses which have very high levels of ongoing maintenance,replacement and investment. These are infrastructure assets. They are not there just to milk the cashout of them and fail to invest for the future. When we talk about a rate of return, we talk about areasonable rate of return. It is my understanding that that had already been indicated by the minister’spredecessor.

It is also the case that the assets that are being seized from local councils already earn a rate ofreturn, albeit a reasonable one but a rate of return. So I am surprised that the government does notexpect to earn the return that is already being earnt on the asset. Perhaps the Treasurer gave the cataway with an earlier remark that he made when he mentioned taking into account gearing. What Iunderstood him to say earlier is that council assets at the very least would be acquired with 100 per centgearing, that the government would be borrowing all of the money to acquire those assets. So thereturns that are currently going to ratepayers will in fact be dissipated in interest payments, becausecurrently those assets are only geared—I cannot recall the exact figure—at under 30 per cent.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Again, I have given the Leader of the Liberal Party someleeway, but I would ask you to come back to clause 102.

Dr FLEGG: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Clause 102 relates to the absence of an annualreturn during the initial set-up period. The Treasurer made the comment that I should not expect that thegovernment would be able to provide the details that would be contained in that. I would hate to thinkthat I had high expectations here in this place, but to be quite frank I would have expected a set ofproforma financials ahead of the transaction because that is a necessary part of judging whether this isa prudent thing to do. If one does not know the balance sheet and does not know the returns and doesnot know the ongoing commitments to capex and so forth, they cannot really make an informedjudgement as to whether this a wise transaction. It is all very well for the Treasurer to stand up here andsay, ‘It’s simplifying the ownership structure,’ or something like that. It is not really if you cannot producethose proforma accounts. But at the very least an annual report should be created for any period thatthese businesses operate.

Mr FRASER: It might have been a slip of the tongue but I confirm that an annual report would berequired. In terms of an annual return, we do expect the businesses to operate commercially andproduce an annual return. What we are addressing here is whether in fact that return is payable back tothe government. As the Leader of the Liberal Party would be aware, the alternative to generating theannual return is that it would be retained and go into the capital formation or return into the balancesheet of the entity going forward. What we are talking about here is the transitional period in the firstyear in which these entities are set up, not their ongoing operations.

Clause 102, as read, agreed to.Clauses 103 to 117, as read, agreed to.Schedules 1 to 3, as read, agreed to.

Third Reading (Cognate Debate)Question put—That the Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, as amended, be now read

a third time.Motion agreed to.Question put—That the South East Queensland Water (Restructuring) Bill, as read, be now read

a third time.Motion agreed to.

4354 Local Govt & Or Leg. (Ind. Reg. C’cls) A’ment Bill; Local Govt A’ment Bill 15 Nov 2007

Long Title (Cognate Debate)Question put—That the long title of the Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill be agreed

to.Motion agreed to.Question put—That the long title of the South East Queensland Water (Restructuring) Bill be

agreed to.Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER LEGISLATION (INDIGENOUS REGIONAL COUNCILS) AMENDMENT BILL

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading (Cognate Debate)Local Govt & Or Leg. (Ind. Reg. C’cls) A’ment Bill; Local Govt A’ment Bill

Local Government and Other Legislation (Indigenous Regional Councils) Amendment Billresumed from 30 October (see p. 3864).

Local Government Amendment Bill resumed from 22 August (see p. 2772).

Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (12.37 pm): I am pleased today to speak to the two bills before theHouse—the Local Government and Other Legislation (Indigenous Regional Councils) Amendment Billand the Local Government Amendment Bill, which are being debated together. I want to give a summaryof the whole horrendous episode of local government amalgamations in Queensland in order to clearlyunderstand the problems that communities are facing but which the government does not seem tounderstand. I do not want to take the time of the House to go into a very long description of it becausewe have heard it all before. It is my intention to cover the points and make references to Hansard withregard to the previous debate. I also have a considerable number of amendments that I believe are veryimportant to bring some sanity, some reason and some common sense into this local governmentdebate in Queensland.

First of all, let me just summarise how this bill came into being and the problems associated withit. As members would recall, the Size, Shape and Sustainability process was well underway withcouncils. The government was very supportive of the Size, Shape and Sustainability process. In fact,the minister at the time in the February edition of the local government magazine said—Importantly, there is no set agenda to force neighbouring councils into amalgamation or boundary changes. This is about councilsgetting involved and taking the pulse of their sustainability.

The minister said further—If that becomes a clear option—

that is, council amalgamations—a public referendum must be held.

The minister also said—It is equally critical to understand that local government sustainability is not a matter unique to Queensland.

The minister said those words at a time when, as we have found out since, behind the scenes thegovernment was beavering away to bring in large-scale council amalgamations across the state.Members can imagine the anger in the broader community when this situation became evident. Thegovernment was saying one thing but behind the scenes it was doing something entirely different. Thedeceit and the untruths were certainly borne out—

Mr PITT: I rise to a point of order. I find the terms being used by the shadow minister offensiveand I ask them to be withdrawn.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Darling): Order! Minister, you found the comments personallyoffensive. I thought they were more of a general nature. Member for Warrego, if you could keep yourstatements general, thank you.

Mr HOBBS: I will clarify the point. I will make it quite clear that I was referring to the previousminister; I was not referring to this minister. I am talking about what happened in February. So I am notreferring to this minister, who has come to this portfolio since then. By the same token, this minister hasnot fixed the situation, but let us hope he can do something about it.

15 Nov 2007 Local Govt & Or Leg. (Ind. Reg. C’cls) A’ment Bill; Local Govt A’ment Bill 4355

I also point out that local government is worth something like $80 billion. Queensland Rail is worthabout $10 billion. So local government is a very big organisation. One would think that if a governmentwas going to make any changes to local government it would get some professional advice or engageconsultants to find out how to go about making those changes to ensure it did not make a mess of it. Butguess what? There has been no cost-benefit analysis done. No professional, academic or consultancystudies have been done that come out in support of what the government is doing with forced councilamalgamations. In fact, Dr Mark McGovern—and he is one of many people who have made statementsabout this issue—has written—Having initially reviewed the available documents and your terms of reference, I am very disturbed to note ... Significantinconsistencies between the stated objectives and terms of reference.

Dr McGovern went on further to write—Uncritical and often confused commentary in the documents on offer, with little or no recognition of practical realities, the academicliterature or experiences elsewhere.

In fact, the real outcome is nowhere near what the government was expecting. There is muchevidence in professional documentation that says that this amalgamation process is not going to goanywhere.

One of the main reasons for the council amalgamations that the then Premier gave at that timewas that councils were going broke, the government had to do something about it and there was areport from Treasury in that regard. So what happened? The Local Government Association sent all thefinancial documentation of the councils that were regarded as being in the weak category to aninternational firm of receivers and administers, McGrath Nichol. That firm viewed the financialinformation that had been supplied by those councils that fell into the weak category and came backwith the view that none of those councils was insolvent or heading towards insolvency and that, even ifthey were, because of their reasonable financial position they had ample time in which to trade their wayout of that situation or change their financial arrangements. Interestingly enough, McGrath Nichol alsosaid that, in fact, the financial capability of those councils was higher than some of the major companiesthat are listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. So once again, we found that one of the main reasonsgiven for council amalgamations was simply untrue.

Then when the communities and the councils wanted to have a say about what was happening—they wanted to exercise a democratic right that should exist—the government decided that they couldnot hold a poll. The government said that it would fine councils if they held a poll. In fact, the governmentsaid that it would even sack councils if they held a poll and legislation, which was drafted hastily by theprevious minister, was introduced to that effect. That very poorly drafted legislation was challenged bythe Local Government Association. Eventually the government tried to withdraw a clause in thelegislation by putting in place a regulation. But it was an invalid regulation that tried to take that particularclause out of the legislation. That move also has been challenged and the matter will come before theSupreme Court fairly soon. At the end of the day, it was poor drafting that demonstrated little knowledgeof local government.

The people were very angry. They were particularly so when they found out that on 27 May thefirst drafting instructions were given. We all understand that to a certain degree some work will be doneimmediately a process is commenced. However, version 1 and version 2 of the draft bill went far beyondwhat was reasonable at the time. We would also like to see the drafting instructions, but they have notbeen made available at this stage. But from what we have seen, quite clearly a lot of information was notprovided in detail to the state transition committee. The Premier even said that Councillor Paul Bell waspart of the process, but he has said that he was not part of it at all. In fact, the final draft of the legislationwas seen by the Local Government Association only a couple of hours before it was introduced into theHouse. That move also breaches the government’s protocol to ensure there is consultation in theprocess to ensure there is some understanding of where legislation is going. I am sure the governmentintention is to do that, but the reality is that, once again—and I would say this has been the fourth or fifthtime it has happened over the past year and a half or two years—that protocol was breached.

It is important for members to understand the reason for the anger that exists out there. There isjust simply no trust. I certainly hope that the new minister can fix that because, basically, the feeling oftrust has broken down. The previous minister achieved one thing that no other minister has been ableto: he got 99 per cent of councils totally opposed to him. I could use stronger words to indicate what thecouncils really thought of the previous minister, but I do not think they would be parliamentary. Thisminister would know what I am getting at. It is very important that we head down the track of trying toimprove the level of trust and cooperation, because local government is our third tier of government andit is important that, in a spirit of cooperation and understanding, government and local government canprovide the services that our communities need.

Senate hearings into the council amalgamations were held in locations throughout Queensland.The result was that the councils should be able to hold plebiscites, and that will occur. So finally,700,000 people throughout this state will get an opportunity to vote on whether they think these forcedcouncil amalgamations are warranted, necessary or fair.


Obviously, the time frame for the whole amalgamation process is far too short. Even in Victoria,when councils were amalgamated in a crash-and-burn manner, the process took two years. InQueensland, the process has taken a matter of months. Nothing has been done correctly. We know nowthat the reform commission that was put together did not even view in detail the submissions that weresent in. Sure, quite a few of them were standard submissions, but there were roughly 3,700 significantsubmissions. The commissioners were given a summary, or a version, of those submissions. I really donot think the commissioners did a fair job. From looking at the terms of reference that they were given, itseems to me that there was very little scope for them to come up with much more than what they didbecause they is what they were told to do. They really did not need to be there. All they were doing waslegitimising a crooked process. That is the way I sum it up because that is what it was.

The community outrage obviously has been significant. There have been rallies and marches.There were thousands rallying here in Brisbane and around the countryside. They are still going on. Iwas at Clifton the other night and the hall was full. There is another one at Stanthorpe next Sunday.They are still going on. They will not give up. They will continue to object to this forced amalgamationprocess.

Everything will change. No-one should be afraid of change provided it is good change. At the endof the day, history has shown that there is no evidence at all to back this up. The governmentcommissioned consultant Alan Morton to look at the benefits of amalgamation. He came back and saidthat there are virtually none. When we had amalgamations in the early nineties, rates went up slightly.That is the only conclusion he could come to. Nobody can come out officially and declare what benefitsthere will be across a wide range of services they provide—not just planning but efficiencies andservices to the broader community. There are none. Obviously people are upset.

I have a letter here from the Clifton shire community group against forced amalgamations. I wouldlike to table that letter.Tabled paper: Copy of an ‘open letter’ to the Minister for Main Roads and Local Government from the Clifton Shire CommunityGroup Against Forced Amalgamation headed ‘Regarding: Royal Commission into Local Government Reform’.

It is self-explanatory, but it shows the anger in the broader community. That is just one example ofgood people who had a good shire, a financial shire—a small one but a good one; they were happy withit. That shire has now been forced to amalgamate into a larger one—the Toowoomba Regional Council.An interesting scenario is that Toowoomba city itself will be contributing about 80 per cent of the debt tothat region, yet the smaller councils are supposed to be not financial, as the previous Premier said. Butthey are the ones that have the money in the bank.

Mr O’Brien: Assets. Mr HOBBS: They have assets and they have money in the bank. If they are financial, why should

they be the ones causing the problems? They were not the problem at all. Let me summarise the issue of local transition committees. The membership of local transition

committees also includes union officials. In the past, local government went through an election processin the same way that we do as members of parliament. That provides the community with an opportunityto elect people they want on their councils. We have a situation where there are three union officials onevery transition committee. The community generally speaking do not want them there. They have noright to be there. Union membership in the majority of councils, particularly in the western councils, isprobably down to almost zero or two per cent at the most—maybe 30 per cent maximum.

Mr Reeves: You just said 30 per cent down to two per cent! Mr HOBBS: Between two and 30 per cent. Mr Reeves: You have got no idea. Mr HOBBS: In some cases there is one union member in a whole council. Maybe there could be

two union members in a whole council. Mr Gray: How do you know? Mr HOBBS: I am telling members that is exactly what the situation is. Then it may get up as high

as 30 per cent in some areas. I have nothing against having a union because I think it is essential forworkers to have somebody they can rely on as their advocates. I am not opposed to that, but I amopposed to the dictatorial takeover tactics that have been applied here. It is mainly to do with trying toprevent WorkChoices from spreading, which is what is happening in local government. More and morelocal governments across Queensland are taking out WorkChoices agreements, and they are happywith the arrangements. They make more money. They have more flexible times. That is the main reasonwhy this is occurring.

Not only do we have three union officials on each local transition committee; some of those unionofficials are on up to 10 committees—some are on eight, six, five, four, three and two committees. Thatis quite extraordinary. A councillor could not be on eight or 10 councils, but here we have one person on


that many committees. At the end of the day, having three union officials on each committee is becauseyou do not trust your membership, you do not have the capability in your membership, or you just wanttotal control. That has not gone down well at all. I am just passing on exactly what the community issaying.

Then there are the employment subcommittees, which the minister and I have talked aboutbefore. Even he agreed that when they first started they were out of control—not out of control but therewas a misinterpretation by some unions. In one case up to 54 union members turned up to a transitioncommittee employment subcommittee meeting. Let us hope that has been resolved. I am not entirelysure whether it has. I appreciate the fact that the minister did write to those transition committees on thatissue. We will wait and see what happens.

At the end of the day, it is the community and the councillors who are elected that have theresponsibility to determine how that council runs and to determine the employment arrangements. Ifthose councils do not get it right, then they have to face their community, they have to face theirworkforce. That is what they should be doing. They should be going out there and doing that and thenreporting back to their council workers: ‘This is the arrangement that we have come to. Are you happywith that?’ Say, for instance, 54 or 30 or even 20 union members turn up to a meeting. If that number ofpeople were taken out of the workforce for any length of time—some of them would be grader driversand truck drivers and probably key personnel—they would have to be replaced or work would slowdown or stop for that period of time. That causes interruptions, it costs money and I do not think it is asensible way to go about it. It could have been done in another way.

I refer members to the debate on the Local Government Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2007.Rather than cover the same ground again, I refer to what I said in Hansard on 5 September 2007. I wentinto detail about the invalidity of that government regulation, and that is one of the reasons we aredebating the Local Government Amendment Bill today. I am sure the government realises that it has areal chance of losing the case in the Supreme Court. That is why this bill is before the House today.

We are talking about two pieces of legislation today. The Local Government Amendment Billremoves the provisions which prevent local government from conducting polls about local governmentreform. Obviously we will be supporting this piece of legislation. However, I will be moving numerousamendments to this bill that we believe would be far better for local government, and those amendmentswill flow through to the master legislation.

The second bill we are debating here today, the Local Government and Other Legislation(Indigenous Regional Councils) Amendment Bill, is basically wiping out all of those island councils andreplacing them with a regional council.

Mr O’Brien: No, it’s not. It’s not doing that at all. That is what the original bill did. Mr HOBBS: Mate, you live up there. Of course you do not live there; you live in Cairns, a nice

little squat there. They even hunted you off the island. They would not have you on the island. Youlanded there—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Palaszczuk): Order! Member for Warrego, you will direct yourcomments through the chair, please.

Mr HOBBS: Through you, madam chair, the member for Cook went to one of the islands andthey turned him around and said, ‘Get out of here. Get on the plane and go.’ I do not think he can makean accurate contribution with any support from his community.

Mr Wettenhall: He’s back.Mr HOBBS: I know he is back. He is probably too frightened to go back up there. That is the

reason. The council of mayors have been down here to see us. We have been up there. We have talkedto the people. There are numerous changes. We will be totally opposing this bill in every form simplybecause it does away with those individual councils. There is no need at all to do away with thosecouncils.

Sitting suspended from 1 pm to 2.30 pm. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): I acknowledge in the gallery the presence of students and

teachers from St Peter Chanel Primary School at The Gap in the electorate of Ashgrove, which isrepresented in this House by Ms Kate Jones.

Mr HOBBS: As I was saying before the lunchbreak, this legislation has certainly caused a lot ofproblems in the community, and the Torres Strait is no exception. The member for Cook, who will bespeaking in the debate, is a very strong supporter of this legislation. It is hard to understand thatsupport. I have seen him at public meetings and the community is certainly not behind him on thisparticular issue.

Mr O’Brien: That is not true. Mr HOBBS: The member says that it is not true. If that is the case, why were they abusing you at

that public meeting that we went to—


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): I would ask the member to address his commentsthrough the chair.

Mr HOBBS: As I said before, they kicked him off the island. I cannot understand how someonecan go out and thumb their nose at their electorate. That is his choice.

The communities in the Torres Strait are located in one of the most remote areas of the state,which impacts greatly on their cost of living, their access to services and their employment opportunities.Unlike other communities in Australia, the individual Torres Strait Islander communities are culturallyunique and diverse despite the relatively close proximity of the islands to each other. There is currently adeep sense of fear within the island communities. They fear the loss of their cultural heritage and alsothe devastating social, economic and environmental impacts that will arise as a result of amalgamating15 unique communities into one centralised council administration.

Councils in the Torres Strait are responsible for far more issues and services in the communitythan other local governments in Queensland. The loss of local governance to a central administration faraway will mean that leadership, Public Service and community controls will be lost and this will have adevastating social and cultural impact. The councils carry out many activities over and above thosecarried out by local councils on mainland Australia. There is community policing, alcohol managementprograms, community housing, immigration and quarantine controls, economic development andcommunity enterprise development, employment programs such as the Community DevelopmentEmployment Program—the CDEP—cultural heritage and land tenure and management issues. Theisland councils undertake an enormous number of functions. They like doing it, too. They are our frontline, particularly in relation to immigration.

At the end of the day, we are very strongly opposed to what this government is doing. I make itquite clear to the people in the Torres Strait that when we get into government, the Queensland coalitionwill automatically reinstate the 17 Torres Strait island councils as individual local governments with asingle joint local government central financial management and accountability system. This will enablethe local councils to have the autonomy of decision making and retain a single central financial controlarrangement. It can be done. I do not believe that the government is fair dinkum when it is trying to doaway with councils in those regions.

Every morning here in parliament the Speaker makes a statement acknowledging the traditionalowners of the land that we are standing on. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flag is displayed inthe chamber. But the government is taking away the rights of those people. The way I see it, it ishypocritical.

The Queensland coalition will engage the 17 Torres Strait island councils to implement joint localgovernment financial arrangements. The joint local government arrangement proposal will ensure theaccountability that ratepayers demand and still allow for the independence of local councils to managetheir community needs.

The DOGITs are important. The Torres Strait region will lose control of the management of its ownissues. There will be community forums and meetings with the chairman, a particular person who is amember of the regional council. However, at the end of the day, they do not have that directresponsibility themselves; it has been taken away and given to someone else in another place. We willreturn the authority to manage the DOGITs to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait island councils. Theidentity of the trustees of the DOGITs is inextricably intertwined with the identity of the people of eachisland. The trusteeship of the DOGITs is currently with the island councils and this ensures thatdecisions made about the land are made by members of the community, not by someone who is onanother island somewhere else.

Another very important factor is the community enterprises. This government is allowing theownership of those enterprises to be taken away and given to another group to manage. The assetscannot be shifted, but the government is taking away what they have worked for all those years to makethem more independent. I have never heard of anything so foolish. On the one hand the governmentwants people to manage their own affairs and businesses and, on the other, it is taking away their rightto manage their own affairs. We would return those community assets to the island authorities.Community infrastructure should be owned by the island authority that has built and maintained it.Community infrastructure is by and large situated on DOGIT land and the trustee of the DOGIT landshould be the local authority. Therefore, it follows that community infrastructure should be owned by thelocal authority.

One of the most important aspects of this debate is that we need to have recognition of localgovernment in the Australian Constitution. I understand that the federal coalition has made it quite clearthat it would be prepared to have a constitutional debate on this issue.

Mr O’Brien: Why didn’t it have one 11 years ago?


Mr HOBBS: Because as things evolve these things become apparent. It is only whengovernments like the one opposite come along and threaten the very livelihood of the people on theseislands that this becomes necessary. Who would have dreamt that anyone would come in and take overall of the councils in this state the way this government has? No government in this nation has ever donethat, and with such vehemence and without any compassion at all.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Perhaps we could get back to the Indigenous legislation. Mr HOBBS: I am talking about what is happening in the Torres Strait. It does not matter whether

it is mainland Australia or the Torres Strait; these people do not deserve this. They deserve to havesome recognition in the Constitution and that process will be put in place by a coalition government. Wewill not just go and do it; we will ensure that there is a full discussion in relation to the way localgovernments should be recognised in the Constitution. We cannot just go out and say that we are goingto do it; that would just be a glib statement. We need to understand exactly what it is the localcommunities want. Once we know what they want, we can set about putting that in place.

This legislation will impact on those communities in numerous ways. We do not believe thegovernment has thought this through at all. I am sure the government thought it through, but it is doing itfor all the wrong reasons. All the government is doing is adding a fourth tier of government by havingcommunity forums underneath a regional council.

This legislation does not really cater for the regional custom of community decision making. Itdoes not cater for the clan system on Saibai Island, for instance. Where land has not been surveyed—which is the case on a lot of DOGIT land—has the cost of surveying the land been taken into account?Who will bear the cost? Who will look after the CDEP arrangements of each island on a day-to-daybasis? That is a particularly important issue for the people up there, as are the public housingarrangements for each island on a day-to-day basis. There will be only one person who will be the so-called councillor for that region. I mentioned the immigration and quarantine arrangements before.There are numerous parts of this legislation which are of great concern.

As I said when I commenced my address, I will not use all of my time today for my speechbecause it is the last day of parliament for the year and I intend to make sure that my amendments areincluded—and there are about 49 of them altogether. They are important amendments and they will helpmake this legislation workable, because it is presently unworkable. We strongly oppose the LocalGovernment and Other Legislation (Indigenous Regional Councils) Amendment Bill and we will befighting it every inch of the way. We support the other piece of legislation, but we will be movingnumerous amendments to it.

Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (2.41 pm): I am pleased to rise to make acontribution to the debate on these two pieces of legislation—the Local Government and OtherLegislation (Indigenous Regional Councils) Amendment Bill and the Local Government Amendment Bill.In the limited time I have available, I will focus my comments on the first of those cognate bills.

Earlier this year, I was able to visit the local governments in the Torres Strait that will be directlyaffected by this bill. That trip was at the behest of the councils themselves. I took up an invitation theymade to me and my shadow ministers when they visited Brisbane earlier in the year in an attempt to gettheir message heard. It was remarkable that when they did visit Brisbane nobody would meet them—none of the ministers or even their own local member would meet and listen to their concerns.

Mr O’Brien: I met them in Brisbane. So did the minister.Mr SEENEY: It was my pleasure to accept their invitation and visit them. The member for Cook

likes to interject. Can I say to all members of parliament that in all the years I have been in parliament Ihave visited most parts of Queensland and I have never been to a part of Queensland that despisestheir local member as much as the people in the Torres Strait despise their local member. I have neverbeen to a part of Queensland where the local member is held in such contempt, and the member forCook is held in contempt on this issue in particular.

That was one of the notable things from my visit to those Torres Strait island communities—thatis, the contempt they have for the local member. They were delighted to tell me how they had bannedhim from going to certain places and run him off islands.

Mr Hobbs interjected.Mr SEENEY: As my colleague said, that is his choice. I hope those people get an opportunity to

express their democratic right at the next election.The communities of the Torres Strait are undoubtedly very unique. As part of the Bligh Labor

government’s forced council amalgamation agenda, the Torres Strait island councils are to be replacedby community boards, and a single local government authority will be established to replace the IslandCoordinating Council. On 18 June 2007, as I said, members of the Queensland coalition met withrepresentatives of 17 Torres Strait island councils to listen to their concerns about the stategovernment’s forced amalgamation plans for the region. The Torres Strait Islanders expressed concern


that the local government model had been forced upon them rather than negotiated with them and thatthe model this bill puts in place does not give sufficient recognition to their cultural values, their uniqueway of life on the island and the services administered by the island communities.

One significant factor that is misunderstood by the government is that the Torres Strait islandcouncils serve as one-stop shops when it comes to service delivery on the islands. They provideservices including housing, employment, health, immigration, customs and social security. That was thepoint the councillors made to me when I met with them here in Brisbane, and it became very obviouswhen I visited those communities how significant those issues are.

Like Queensland councils on the mainland, the Torres Strait island councils are also concernedabout the unrealistic time frame for change and the local government minister’s inability or refusal toanswer the questions about what the future holds for their communities. The Queensland coalition, asmy local government spokesman indicated, has given them an assurance that we will reinstate the 17Torres Strait island councils as individual local governments with a single, joint local government centralfinancial management and accountability system. This will enable the councils to have autonomy ofdecision making and retain a single, central financial control arrangement.

That is what the councils wanted. That is what they were working towards. They had made a lot ofprogress towards that model that would have provided the solutions to the problems that had beset theregion. I believe the joint local government financial arrangements would have been an important steptowards improving the financial management of the public funds in the Torres Strait.

In July 2006 the Island Coordinating Committee reviewed the government’s options for the TorresStrait island councils. The review arose from reports of both the Department of Local Government,Planning and Sport and the Local Government Association of Queensland, suggesting that the modelwas unsustainable leading to funding uncertainty for the ICC and the assets being sold.

In November 2006, the ICC adopted a draft proposal for joint local government, or JLG, financialarrangements for the region. This model was a way forward for the island communities to improve theirfinancial accountability practices. Unfortunately, this model was not even considered by the minister forlocal government or the commission when reviewing changes to local government.

The JLG model included the following aspects. Membership of the joint local government wouldconsist of 17 Torres Strait island local governments with the opportunity to extend the arrangement toinclude the northern peninsula communities. The joint local government would assume responsibility forall matters of service provision where, firstly, resource and financial efficiencies could be obtained byregional service providers or, secondly, the current lack of internal capacity within the individual councilsrequired regional management.

Individual members of the JLG would have been able to retain local government status, includingfull financial accountability and grant control for the member councils. The joint local governmentarrangements would be established under its own act of parliament and would be attached to the LocalGovernment Act 1993. Councils would not have a choice to opt in or opt out.

The new JLG model would have provided regional infrastructure services for water, sewerage,stormwater and drainage, housing, regional waste management and other functions as the councilsrequested. It would have provided regional financial control and management in terms of grant control,internal auditing, the management of external expertise including accounting, auditing and tailoredfinancial services, monthly auditing reviews, and broader education and support on good governanceaffecting financial viability. It is a model which I believe would have provided what the communitiesthemselves needed and would have improved the management and financial viability of thosecommunities.

Consequently, we have given the Torres Strait island councils an assurance to implement jointlocal government financial arrangements. A JLG proposal will bring the accountability that ratepayersdemand and still allow for the independence of a local council to manage their community needs. Thatwould have been a much better model than the model which has been put forward in the bill before thisparliament.

That is the model that the communities themselves had developed. That is the model that Ibelieve would have best served the communities in the Torres Strait and the taxpayers of Queenslandand Australia who contribute public money to that area of the world.

The model that is before the House sets out a single regional council. The concept of a singleregional council to take control over almost everything within current council areas is causing enormousconcern and enormous fear within the Torres Strait in a whole range of areas, but none more so than inthe management of the island land. The management of island land is particularly important because ofthe close linkages that exist between the island people and the land itself. That was recognised manyyears ago by a National Party government. The National Party took the lead and introduced a land titlethat became known as a DOGIT, a deed of grant in trust.


I well remember when I was first involved in politics—I was in the Young Nationals at the time—when the deed of grant in trust was first set up, back in the early 1980s. The land title was described tous as being community freehold. It was described to us as the equivalent of freehold title that was heldby a community. I think that is a very good description that I have always remembered. It is a conceptthat becomes very relevant when you visit the Torres Strait island communities and understand just howapplicable those DOGIT land titles are to those communities.

Under the proposal before the House, the trusteeship of those DOGITs will transfer from thecouncils that currently hold them to regional councils. Land management in island communities differssubstantially from that in mainland communities because of the clan system. The distribution of land andthe land boundaries are very difficult for us as outsiders to understand. In September 2007 councilswere informed that, irrespective of what existed at that time, trusteeships for the deed of grant in trustwould be taken away from local communities and passed to the regional council. That means that thelocal community’s involvement in land management of their islands will now only be in an advisory role.This is totally unacceptable to those people and those communities.

I have seldom seen an issue cause more angst, fear and frustration than this issue is causing tothe people of the Torres Strait. The cultural values of the island people prohibit an outsider from makingdecisions about their island land that they do not hold kinship with. The identity of the trustee of theDOGIT is inextricably linked with the identity of the island community. Accordingly, the appropriate entityto be the trustee for the deed of grant in trust land is the entity that has the ongoing connection to theisland. That is the system that was set up, and that is the system which I have given an assurance thata coalition government in the future will return to the people of the Torres Strait. Under this bill thetrusteeship of the deeds of grant in trust will be held by regional councils. They will always be removedfrom the local control of the communities.

The other issue that was raised extensively with us during our trip through the Torres Strait, andwhich will be completely impacted on by this proposal before the House to make all of those councilsinto one regional council, is the future of the business enterprises which currently play an important partin the island communities and the economies of those island communities. Several of the current islandcouncils own and operate business enterprises in addition to discharging the functions of localgovernment. Some of these council enterprises are operated by independent entities. There is adifficulty with the financial viability of some of those enterprises because of the cost issues attached tothe enterprises affected by the remoteness of the islands, especially those islands that service a lowpopulation base.

Despite financial difficulty, these enterprises provide high social benefits to the community in thedelivery of relevant business services and essential employment. Some examples of council enterprisespresently operating within the islands include ecotourism resorts, building services, charter boats andeven hotels. The business enterprises provide another form of income for the island council and buildthe skills capacity of the community through training opportunities. The income these enterprisesproduce will allow the community to invest in assets that they determine are needed by the local people.

The ownership of business enterprises by a regional council—which would be the end result ofthe passage of this bill—would impact on that community investment by distributing the wealth producedaway from the island that produced it. That is a grave concern to people, many of whom have put anenormous amount of effort into the establishment of those business enterprises. The continuingoperation of enterprises on many islands is integral to maintaining employment and trainingopportunities as well as the provision of critical services.

The broader social impact of closure of these enterprises must be considered when businessperformance is measured. Enterprises could potentially be sold by their regional council, which will beset up under this legislation, to external developers and the control of the community assets taken awayfrom the Indigenous island people. There are no safeguards once the control of those businessenterprises becomes held by the regional councils.

Under the government’s plan these community assets such as business enterprises would betransferred to the regional council. The transfer of assets to a regional council would leave the decision-making process on the future of the enterprises in the hands of the regional council bureaucrats, withthe island community itself only represented by one sole councillor. This agenda would no doubt lead, Ibelieve, to the closure of some of these facilities and certainly would not provide the safeguards that thecommunities require.

An island authority with financial controls of a joint local government financial arrangementholding the ownership of community enterprises would return community control of the entities and yetallow the financial scrutiny that is demanded by public enterprise. That is an important part of theassurances that we have given to the people of the Torres Strait. Even if this bill is passed and theircouncils are amalgamated into a single regional council, they can look forward to the day when they willonce again get control of their land and the business enterprises that they have established upon them.


Possibly the most important message that was delivered to us during our trip to the Torres Straitwas that people were concerned about the preservation of their cultural identity when determiningqualifications for candidates for election to the councils. The Torres Strait islands have a unique culturalheritage that I think we all should take an interest in preserving. It is important for anyone in governmentto ensure that the Torres Strait islands are represented by people who can properly and adequatelyrepresent their unique interests and ensure the preservation of their cultural identity. It is an incrediblyimportant thing to those people.

While they are identified as a single autonomous group—as Torres Strait Islanders—there arevery strong subgroups within that island community and a very different cultural identity. There are anumber of very different cultural identities. Currently, the qualifications for election to an island councilare included under the Community Services (Torres Strait) Regulation 1988. That regulation providesthat a person is qualified to become a councillor of an island council in all cases except Saibai Island ifthe person has lived continuously in the island council area for not less than two years. The stategovernment has, through its forced amalgamation agenda, changed the qualification to the islandcouncils to recommend that that be reduced from two years to one year, and that is causing someserious concerns to the people in the Torres Strait.

How that whole issue is eventually played out I believe will have an enormous impact on how theregional council eventually discharges its responsibilities, because it is easy to accept the argumentsthat are put forward by the people of the Torres Strait about the importance of determining thequalifications of candidates for election to that regional council and the horrendous situations that mighteventuate if under the regional council model a disproportionate number of non-representative peopleare elected. Those council communities have a very grave fear of losing the representation they mighthave on that regional council. It is disproportionate when it comes to the size of some of thesecommunities. Getting any sort of fair representation on the regional council which will be put in place bythis legislation is something of grave concern to them.

I thank all of those council and community members in the Torres Strait who hosted us during ourvisit. I assure them that the messages they gave us certainly have been heard. As part of this debatetoday we will attempt—as I and the shadow minister have done—to put their concerns on the record.

We will oppose the legislation before the House because it is opposed by the people whom it willaffect. It has also produced an enormous degree of upset and an enormous degree of fear andfrustration amongst those communities. Until there is an acceptance of this by the people I fear thatwhatever the outcome of the legislation it will not be good for the people of the Torres Strait.

It is a basic concept in government or public administration anywhere that whoever is makingthese changes needs to get a degree of acceptance from the people affected by them. That is certainlynot the case in the Torres Strait. It is certainly not the case in the Torres Strait island communities. It iscertainly not the case with the councils that I visited on my trip there.

Time expired.

Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (3.01 pm): It is a great pleasure to stand and speak in support of thetwo bills currently before the House, in particular the Local Government and Other Legislation(Indigenous Regional Councils) Amendment Bill 2007. I will restrict most of my comments to that bill.This is one of those Cook bills—one of those bills that we have three or four times a year in theparliament that pertains directly and solely to matters in my electorate.

As I often put it, that is because the laws of physics do not apply in my electorate. What I amtrying to say is that what happens in my electorate is different from what happens not only in the rest ofQueensland and the rest of Australia but also throughout the rest of the world. It is a place that has adifferent environment, different language and different culture. It is very difficult for people from outsidethe region to understand those differences. I am happy to admit here in the parliament that I am stilllearning. I am still trying to cross the cultural divide that exists every day between the Indigenous peopleof both Cape York and the Torres Strait and visitors, bureaucrats, politicians—whoever visits the region.It is like going to a different country. I do feel that sometimes.

This bill attempts to recognise those differences. The exact intent of the bill before the House is torecognise those differences and incorporate them into local governing structures. It does this in anumber of key ways. It ensures that only Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders can be members of theTorres Strait Regional Council.

The Leader of the Opposition demonstrated earlier that not only has he not read the bill but he didnot listen to the minister’s second reading speech. The minister talked about the time a person needs tohave lived in the region before they can run for the council. They must either be an Aboriginal or TorresStrait Islander before they can be on the Torres Strait Regional Council. They must have lived on theisland of the council they are running for for at least two years.


I am not sure whether it was deliberate but the Leader of the Opposition misled the House onthat. He got that wrong. He demonstrated that he simply has not done his homework on this bill. Whathe said was not true. The bill also continues the provision of the community services act, which allowsthe council to establish local laws and determine who can enter local land. It establishes local forums toadvise matters of custom, tradition and practice on the delivery of services.

An important role of those community forums will be the land panel function. The land panelfunction sees the election of community representatives onto the community forum. The communityforum has the land panel function. That will deal with matters pertaining to the DOGIT. If there are thingsthat the regional council wants to do on the DOGIT—for example, if it wants to put a sewerage line inhere or a subdivision in there—then it must go to the land panel with those plans and it must consult withthe land panel. If the regional council chooses to override the recommendations of the land panel it mustgive reasons to the land panel through the community forum as to why it decided to do that. The landpanels do not have a veto. The divisional councillor who sits on the land panel will have the power tomake those decisions.

The regional council can only override the land panel if there is an absolute majority on theregional council which means that there is agreement of the majority of councillors and the support ofthe divisional councillor. For the regional council to override the land panel the divisional councillor mustagree. I think that is an important power that the divisional councillor will have. They will have to goagainst the recommendations of their own forum, their own land panel on the floor of regional council inorder to override the recommendation of the land panel.

I think that is an important power. I think it is a significant step towards meeting the aspirations ofthe Torres Strait Islander people and ensuring that they have control over their land. What I think ishappening here is that there is a real blurring of the waters. What the shadow minister said is thatpeople’s rights are being taken away. It has been said a number of times during the course of thedebates we have been having on local government reform that native title rights are not affected by thislegislation or any legislation that we have moved with regard to local government matters. The NationalParty is telling untruths and spreading misinformation regarding these matters. It is simply untrue. It is adeception that they have placed on the leadership up there and they should be condemned for doing it.

Another important provision of this bill relates to businesses. I listened very carefully to what thetwo previous speakers had to say about Torres Strait businesses. This is a very complicated matter. Isupport the view that there should be local control over these businesses. The bill allows that to happen.It does not allow the state to tell them that it must happen. The regional council will decide this. It willdecide to do this at the time that is appropriate, at a time when the business is viable and at a time whenthe business is ready to be transferred to local control.

We have to make sure when we transfer it back to local control that there is still a communityresponsibility and that those assets which have been paid for with public money service the wholecommunity and not just individuals within that community. I think that is the trap that the National Partyhas fallen into here. In allowing those businesses to go back into community control as they want—andI want that as well—we have to make sure that the community’s interest is upheld and that thosebusinesses do not get handed back to an individual when they have been paid for with public moneyand only an individual gains from the transfer of those assets. In the long run we want to see individualownership of those businesses. We want to see individuals own land freehold. That is the other trap thatthe National Party has fallen into.

The DOGITs were a great idea in 1986. They were a fantastic step in the right direction and theyhave served the Torres Strait well for 20 years. Bob Katter brought that legislation into this parliamentwhen he was the minister. It was forward thinking and it was very good legislation, but the aspirations ofthe people have changed. The DOGITs do not give them essential freehold, as the Leader of theOpposition said; they are a collective ownership. We are moving into a different time. People are movingaway from that sense of collective ownership and into a sense of individual ownership. Themanagement of land in these areas is going to be mainstream and very similar in the long run to whatwe see across Queensland.

More and more Torres Strait Islanders are aspiring to have freehold ownership over their ownland to free them from the control of the council. The difficulty in places like the Torres Strait andAboriginal communities is that people are slaves to the council, to the state government and to thefederal government, and they are slaves to those levels of government because of land tenure. Therehas to be a way to break that nexus so that people can stand on their own two feet as individuals and asfamilies and thrive and prosper without having to have the council tell them what they can do, withouthaving the state government tell them what they can do or without having the federal governmentthrough CDEP tell them how much they are going to get each fortnight. We are at the beginning of thattransition at the moment. By locking themselves to the past the National Party is missing an opportunityto progress this debate and to give people individual power. I would have thought that the Liberals in thecoalition caucus would be very supportive of that sort of individual ownership, individual control andindividual responsibility. That is the way we need to go, and these reforms are the stepping stone to takeus in that direction.


There were a number of things that the shadow minister and the Leader of the Opposition saidwhich were simply not true. The trap that they have fallen into is that they have gone into those areasand spoken to the leadership. There are different views in those areas between the councillors, whohave a vested interest in the status quo, and the community, and the community is not stupid. It knowsexactly what is going on. It knows about the nepotism. It knows about the loans made by councillors tothemselves that never get paid back. It knows about the theft. The opposition has come in here todayand advocated for thieves. It has come in here and advocated for corruption. Why should anybody besurprised that that is what it has done? With regard to the people that the opposition sat down with, oneof them owes their council $40,000 in loans. That is whom the opposition has come in here andadvocated for today.

Those opposite stand here and represent thieves, and they should be condemned for it becauseit is wrong. I will not stand here and represent thieves because we want those services—that money—driven down to the community. That is what the structure that we are putting in place does. You cannothave an island of 100 people with its own council, with three or four councillors, with a CEO and with afinancial controller—with all of the rigmarole that comes with having a council—and expect that thepeople on the ground will get decent services. That level of local authority serves us, serves the auditorsand serves the department, but it does not serve the people. It does not provide them with a singleservice. It does not provide them with a single asset to assist them in their day-to-day lives. It doesnothing.

What we have to do is cut into that level of government and drive that money down—make surethat councillors cannot loan themselves the money to go and buy themselves cars, make sure that thatmoney is providing those people with services. That is the point that the National Party and the LiberalParty have missed here today. They have played base political games with this issue and they havestepped away from what I think is fundamental Liberal ideology—individual responsibility in ownership,clear accountable lines and making sure that people get the services that they deserve.

A government member interjected.

Mr O’BRIEN: Perhaps I am still naive in that I would not think that in this day and age thoseopposite would come in here and stand for corruption, but that is what they have done. Let us make nomistake about it. Honourable members, this is important legislation. It does have the support of manycommunity members in the Torres Strait. Do not be fooled. I know that there are leaders up there whodo not support it. I know that there are leaders up there who are deliberately trying to white-ant theprocess. They will be overcome. This process is a good process. It is going to deliver better localgovernment for people on the ground in the Torres Strait. It is going to provide better services for thosepeople. Any right-thinking person will support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (3.15 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on theLocal Government and Other Legislation (Indigenous Regional Councils) Amendment Bill and the LocalGovernment Amendment Bill which are being debated today as cognate bills. I intend to largely confinemy remarks to the provisions of the Local Government and Other Legislation (Indigenous RegionalCouncils) Amendment Bill. On 27 July 2007 the report of the Local Government Reform Commissionwas released. The report recommended that 15 island councils in the Torres Strait be amalgamated tocreate the Torres Strait Island Regional Council and that five councils on and near the tip of the cape beamalgamated to create the Northern Peninsula Area Regional Council.

The Local Government Reform Implementation Act 2007 gave effect to the report’srecommendations for the establishment of the Torres Strait Island Regional Council and the NorthernPeninsula Area Regional Council. The Torres Strait Island Regional Council will be comprised of 15divisions, one for each island in the council area, and a mayor elected at large across the islands. TheNorthern Peninsula Area Regional Council will be comprised of five divisions, one for each formercouncil area, and a mayor elected at large across the former council areas.

The objectives of the bill are to provide the governance framework for the new regional councils.The bill will apply the Local Government Act to the new Indigenous regional councils except to theextent provided for in a specific new part in recognition of the unique circumstances of these two newregional councils. Amongst these objectives is the continued provision in the bill for candidates forelection to the Torres Strait Island Regional Council to be an Aborigine or Torres Strait Islander and tohave resided in the council area for two years before nominating. It will be retained in accordance withcommunity wishes expressed during consultation. This provision is currently in place and will continueto apply in recognition of the unique cultural issues in the Torres Strait.

It is remarkable that this state government took so much notice of the strong feelings of thepeople of the Torres Strait with respect to this particular aspect of their local government representationand not the strong feelings of the same people about another aspect of their local representation—thatbeing a total opposition to the forced amalgamation of their individual island councils in the firstinstance. I cannot imagine that autonomy between and amongst individual islands in the Torres Strait


was any less important in a cultural sense to Torres Strait Islanders than this provision, which requirescandidates to be an Aborigine or a Torres Strait Islander. It is arrogant and inconsistent for this stategovernment to have been prepared to make a value judgement about which unique cultural issues willbe taken into consideration and which will not in the application of this bill and the Local GovernmentReform Implementation Act before it.

The Torres Strait islands are a unique area as far as their environment and their culture areconcerned. I was lucky enough to visit the Torres Strait earlier this year. I really enjoyed my time there. Ifound it to be a very beautiful place with lovely people. In my electorate of Hinchinbrook there is a veryhigh number of Torres Strait Islander people in the community and I have grown up with them—interacting closely with them, listening to their stories and observing their obvious affection for thoseislands.

Both the Torres Strait Island Regional Council and the Northern Peninsula Area Regional Councilwill be required to establish community forums to further preserve and protect the unique Indigenouscustoms, culture and traditions inherent in that area. The community forum will be comprised of the localcouncillor, three to seven elected community members and a convenor. The community forums willperform distinct advisory roles to the Torres Strait Island Regional Council and the Northern PeninsulaArea Regional Council.

So the bill will provide for community forums to be established on each island and in eachIndigenous community to reflect the views of the community on important local issues. I wonder if it isjust me or is it that the similarity of this proposed structure with the current island councils creates asense of irony about the reform process. It is simply an upside down version of the current localgovernment requirements in that region, whereby individual and autonomous island councils exist andundertake appropriate collective effort on issues of common concern through the Island CoordinatingCouncil. Currently, the Island Coordinating Council is the peak body for 17 island councils and it will beabolished after the Torres Strait Island Regional Council and the Northern Peninsula Area RegionalCouncil are established. This framework will now be turned upside down, with centralised authoritieshaving satellite committees operating on decentralised islands and in decentralised communities. Thatis a confirmation of Labor’s overriding desire with respect to all things: to centralise and concentratedecision-making processes to facilitate control by bureaucracies. It is no different with respect to thisissue and it is being done to the detriment of the communities involved in the Torres Strait and on the tipof the cape.

I think that the impact on the communities in the Torres Strait of these forced island councilamalgamations and the centralisation of their governments will be serious and detrimental. What ismore, so do Torres Strait Islanders. It is interesting and appropriate to note that the interim evaluation ofthe Hands on Parliament report by the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee ofthe parliament of Queensland was tabled in this place yesterday. It was an evaluation that I wasinvolved in as a member of that committee. It is an important document and I commend it to allmembers.

The interim evaluation dealt with the issue of the participation of Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander people in Queensland’s democratic process. As part of that evaluation, members of thecommittee travelled to a number of communities throughout Queensland to conduct public meetings.Those public meetings were held in Rockhampton, Palm Island, Abergowrie, Yarrabah, Mareeba, BaduIsland, Thursday Island, Mount Isa and Brisbane. I attended all the meetings except for the one that washeld in Brisbane.

The participants in these public meetings were asked to provide feedback and make comment ona number of issues to do with the democratic process in Queensland. At the meetings on Palm Island,Badu Island, Thursday Island and at Yarrabah, the committee found it more difficult than at theremainder of the public meetings to secure feedback and encourage discussion about the specifictopics to do with its inquiry because there was only one issue that those communities really wanted totalk about, and that was the forced council amalgamations and how that policy was going to affect theirrespective island councils or community councils. The committee had to work hard to draw discussionback to the specific issues that were directly relevant to its interim evaluation of the Hands onParliament report.

Those communities feared the results of the amalgamation process and were angry about theway in which the policy had been implemented, just as the wider community across Queensland hadarticulated precisely the same fears and the same anger. The concern related to the outrageous lack ofconsultation prior to the announcement of the reform process and the local community being deprived ofthe opportunity to have their say on forced amalgamations through referendums.

On pages 5 and 6 of the tabled interim evaluation report it briefly recognises the extent and thestrength of those concerns. Although the issue of forced council amalgamations did not really relatedirectly to the material on which the committee was seeking feedback, it took such a prominent place in


the expression of what Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people articulated to the committee asimportant to them and their community that it would have been impossible to submit the report to theparliament without acknowledging the influence that this issue had on the inquiry that the committeeundertook. The report had this to say on page 6—

The committee heard concerns that the reduction in the number of local government areas and councillors may reduceopportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to participate as elected representatives in local government. Thecommittee also heard concerns that reforms will impact on the size of local government constituencies and potentially reduce theconnection between the community and elected representatives and different communities in one local government area.

That is certainly putting it politely. Although the language that we use in parliamentary reportstabled in this place is measured and moderate, the directness and the unambiguousness of thelanguage that was used by Indigenous people in those communities was clear and unable to bemisconstrued. The truth is that the anger and the concern expressed by the communities that we visitedwhere forced amalgamations threatened their councils—Palm Island, Badu Island, Thursday Island andYarrabah—was very clear and it has continued to manifest itself clearly following the forcedamalgamations and the very dramatic impact that has had on the local government arrangements of thecommunities that are the subject of this bill.

The fears and concerns of the Indigenous people that the committee spoke to with respect to thereduction in the number of local government areas and councillors reducing the opportunities forAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to participate as elected representatives in local governmenthave proven to be well founded. In the case of the proposed Northern Peninsula Area Regional Council,the current five council areas have 24 local government representatives between them. After the stategovernment’s forced amalgamations have been implemented, the local council representation of thesecommunities will be reduced to six. In the case of the Torres Strait Island Regional Council, the current15 island councils have a total of 33 local government representatives. After the state government’sforced amalgamations have been implemented, representations of those communities will be reducedto 15. So it is absolutely true that available opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peopleto participate as elected representatives in local government will be reduced as a result of the forcedcouncil amalgamations that will create the Torres Strait Island Regional Council and the NorthernPeninsula Area Regional Council.

The committee also heard concerns that reforms will impact on the size of local governmentconstituencies and potentially reduce the connection between the community and electedrepresentatives and different communities in one local government area. That will occur with respect toall islands within the Torres Strait Island Regional Council, with the exception of Badu Island. In manycases, the elector per councillor ratio will more than triple and, in some cases, it will increase more thansixfold. That also clearly compromises the capacity of councillors to provide quality representation toresidents in these communities, given the unique cultural, geographic and demographic circumstancesthat prevail in the Torres Strait or on the tip of the cape.

Therefore, I think that the impact of the state government’s forced local council amalgamationswill hold back the progress of levels of participation by Indigenous Queenslanders in the democraticprocess of the state. Previously, local government provided a number of opportunities to Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander people to become local councillors, to obtain experience in public office and todevelop a range of skills as a representative of their community. Under this state government’s policy offorced local council amalgamations, those opportunities will now be curtailed.

Lastly, with respect to the Local Government Amendment Bill, the passing of this bill will see oneof the more disgraceful parts of this state government’s forced council amalgamations legislationremoved from the statute books. The bill does contain provisions with respect to the arrogant threat bythe state government to fine and sack mayors and councillors who offered their local communities anopportunity to have their say through referendums on forced local council amalgamations to beremoved. The state government should be ashamed that such provisions were ever law in this state.

Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (3.27 pm): The decision to force councils to amalgamate isone of the greatest attacks on a democratic tier of government that has ever occurred in the history ofQueensland. The agenda of council amalgamation, which was pushed so avidly by this government,has the potential to—and will—destroy the unique character of small communities. The Torres Straitisland communities are not only unique; they are culturally distinct. This legislation does not recognisetheir individuality and will result in a loss of diversity in the region.

The role of councils is varied and differs from shire to shire. No longer do councils have the soleresponsibility of looking after roads, water, buildings, garbage and rates. They have been proactive toensure the future of their communities and to protect the qualities that differentiate them fromsurrounding shires. The management and the day-to-day delivery of services requires the input of localpeople. Councils in the Torres Strait are responsible for far more services in their communities than anyother local government in Queensland.


It is fundamentally wrong to assume that the decision made by the external administrators will beaccepted, tolerated or respected by local people. Forced amalgamation in these areas will, as in manyareas across the state, result in the loss of community leadership, ultimately resulting in the degradationof smaller local communities and services. Smaller local councils contribute to the social, cultural andsporting lives of each and every citizen within the council boundaries. Amalgamations will directly affectthe liveability of these communities.

Torres Strait councils were working with the local government department for more than 16months to investigate and discuss options for the future of their councils and the issues that relatespecifically to their communities. This was the Size, Shape and Sustainability process. The modelproposed in this legislation has been imposed rather than collaboratively agreed upon and does nothingto recognise the inherent differences between councils. Position appears to be the only determiningfactor throughout the entire amalgamation process.

Local councils have been the engine driving Queensland communities. They have been providingthe infrastructure, the jobs, the administration. Local decisions have been made through localgrassroots knowledge. In many communities councils are by far the largest employer and the forcedmerging of local councils will rip the heart out of not only the communities across Queensland but alsothe Torres Strait communities. The decision by the state government is centralisation at its worst. Localresidents are being denied the opportunity to determine the future of their community.

There are more important issues around Queensland than forcing council amalgamations. As anexample, a 75-year-old lady collapsed in Charters Towers and a fire brigade turned up to pick her up.Can you imagine the family of that 75-year-old lady seeing a fire truck come to pick her up! Anotherexample is that a man severely damaged his leg in a machinery accident. One ambulance turned up, sothey had to call the fire department—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! I ask the member to come back to the bill. Mr KNUTH: But these are very important issues, Mr Deputy Speaker, that need to be addressed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! They are not relevant to the bill. I ask the member to come back

to the bill. Mr KNUTH: When the Premier handed down this decision in April not only could we not believe it

but also the backbenches could not believe it. The backbenches could not believe—Mr Finn: Your backbenches?Mr KNUTH: The government backbenches could not believe that such a bad decision and a

great attack on the people of Queensland could possibly occur. They could not believe the decision, wecould not believe the decision and the people of Queensland could not believe the decision. There aremore important issues out there than forcing councils to amalgamate in Queensland.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Charters Towers, I would ask you to direct yourspeech through the chair and bring your speech back to the bill.

Mr KNUTH: I believe that this decision is the wrong decision. This government needs toapologise to Queensland for gutting these communities. I believe that it needs to go back—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Charters Towers, I have warned you twice. Bringyour discussion back to the bill or I will sit you down.

Mr KNUTH: The government needs to go back to the Torres Strait Islanders and go back to theoriginal process which was Size, Shape and Sustainability and give back the community its say.

Hon. KR LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (3.32 pm): Personally, I hope very, very sincerely thatwhat the government is doing in the Torres Strait islands and the northern peninsula works out for thepeople of those areas. I now realise that it is more than 30 years ago that I went and lived in the TorresStrait islands as an administrator. I enjoyed the company and the life of those magnificent areas. When Iwent there in 1975 what was happening on the northern peninsula is exactly what the government isnow promoting. Adikuiam Adidi was the leader. Whilst everyone thought that it would work,unfortunately, it did not work. Similarly with the Torres Strait islands, having a central council is not a newidea; it is an old idea. As the member for Cook would know, unfortunately, that also failed.

I have heard the member for Cook speak passionately here today and I have also heard the twomembers I travelled with to the Torres Strait islands speak passionately. I know they are passionateabout their ideas. One thing that always happened in these particular communities is that, whilst youmight have a very definite idea as a person who goes to the islands or the northern peninsula aboutwhat is necessary, if the people of those areas are not supportive then the idea has absolutely no hopeof being a success. Whilst I appreciate the member for Cook’s very many definite ideas—and whilst Iappreciate that he has worked with Steve Bredhauer in the northern areas and that he has been therefor a long time as well—I would have to say to the member for Cook that the people of the Torres Straitislands themselves are not supportive of what is happening. Until they are supportive it is going to bevery, very difficult for these ideas to grab and to be successful.


I heard the member for Cook’s attitude about whether it was the leaders. Yes, certainly theleaders are opposed, but the old elders are also opposed. Sometimes we do not understand theirculture completely. One thing we do have to understand about their culture is that if their leaders andtheir elders are not supporting it then the whole community will not support it. Somehow or other if thisgovernment is going to make this work, it has to go back to the islands and convince the islanders andtheir leaders that this is going to be a success. I have heard the member for Cook say that the NPA issupportive of it. For those other people who do not understand what the NPA—

Mr O’Brien: Seisia. Mr LINGARD: No, I was not even going to mention Seisia. What we have to realise is that those

five communities, which were set up by Pat Colloran in the early sixties and seventies, were a modernattempt to bring Aboriginal and Islander communities together. It was also a place to bring the people ofSeisia when their island flooded and they would be successful there. It was an idea to build anagricultural community. When I was there, every child from the Torres Strait islands came to Bamaga foreducation. It was the centre of education. But all of that has failed. There is no agricultural section therenow at Bamaga and in the NPA. The high school is not considered to be the only school that they can goto because they go to all other parts of Queensland. Those ideas have failed. Whilst I was amazed atthe success of Bamaga as it stands now, I was concerned that still they do not accept that their fivecommunities must be brought back in as one.

Mr O’Brien: Yes, they do. That’s not true. Mr LINGARD: They are happy to say, ‘Yes, we will support it because we believe this is what the

government is doing. We have to go this way and we are going to get something out of it.’ Mr O’Brien: They had a community meeting and supported it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Cook, you have already spoken. Mr LINGARD: They are happy to say, ‘If this is what the government is going to push and if you

as a coalition are saying that you will take it back, we have to accept that this is obviously thegovernment that will be in power for a long time because of the fact of its numbers, so we will go with thepresent government.’ That is their attitude but it is a negative attitude; it is not a positive attitude. So thegovernment has a lot of work to do if it is going to have the NPA and the Torres Strait island communitieson side.

People here have to appreciate the difference between the islands—you have to live there for along time, as the member for Cook said. We still think that, because Murray Island and Darnley Islandare next to each other and the eastern islands and Yorke and Stephen are fairly close to each other,their culture should be the same and the people should be the same. They are not the same. They areentirely different. Similarly with the NPA, one would think that with an Aboriginal community and anisland community living together they would have assimilated and intermarried, but they have not. Thereare people at New Mapoon who want to move back to old Mapoon and all of that sort of movement.Certainly within the Torres Strait islands the government has to appreciate, as members on this sidehave been saying here today, that the people are not accepting this. Their cultures are so different thatthey do not want to give up control to a central body.

I appreciate the member for Cook’s concerns. I know exactly what he is talking about in relation toDaunan Island and the people who owe money. There are people on Yam Island who also owed moneyback in the old days simply because the culture is that when a very important person dies a lot of peoplecome to the funeral and that is paid for by someone—they do not pay for it themselves. Generally theytake the money out of community funds and they use it.

There are other reasons why they do it. They accept that they have made mistakes and that themoney must be controlled from a central body. We accept that and that is why we have said that the jointlocal government central financial management and accountability system will be brought back. Theyaccepted that. We did not find one person who did not accept that and I was quite amazed that theyaccepted the financial management. It is simply because in a control of councils there are manycolumns. Unfortunately I think sometimes the island people go to the bottom line and see how muchmoney is there and say, ‘Yes, there is enough money to run a magnificent funeral’, and they forget thatthere are specific columns. Then when they need money for roads that money has been taken forsomething else. It needs to be centrally controlled and we accept that.

The unfortunate thing is that the CDEP programs have been successful. I say again to themember for Cook that I was amazed at how beautiful and fantastic the islands of Sue, Coconut and Yorkare. The people who went with me were amazed as well. I tell people down here that they wouldbe amazed at how clean and beautiful these communities are. I had sometimes to step into a bucket ofwater on the bottom step, wipe my feet on the next step where a towel was and then step up into thedwelling. We saw people on Coconut Island raking their private allotments making sure there were noleaves there. That is how beautiful and tidy some of their houses are. People down here could notappreciate it. What we are seeing is some of the other communities in Queensland which are nowhere


near what these Torres Strait islands are. They have to be admired for the way they look after theirislands. We also have to admire the way that some of the elders have run the CDEP programs. It is theirown personal idea, but they say that if a person does not do this today they will not get any money. Theyrun it very strictly within their islands. If we take their power away from them, as I believe we are—Iheard the member for Cook say it will be returned—we are taking away a massive power that thesecouncils have.

Mr O’Brien interjected. Mr LINGARD: Give me a chance. Similarly, when it comes to control of the houses, if we do not

allow the elders to control who gets the next house then an amazing power has been taken away fromthose people. I heard the member for Cook speaking positively about DOGITs. I was on Bob Katter’scommittee in 1983-84 where we had a definite idea that we should give the land of the islands back tothe people. People have to realise that in giving land back to, we will say, York Islanders, there are a lotof people who have left York Island because they have been upwardly mobile and have come to live inour own community. If we start giving land away from York Islanders then these people who have movedaway would say, ‘Hey, that is our family land. We are entitled to that land.’ So we could not just give itback to those people living on it at present, we have to give it back to the councils and say, ‘Youdistribute that land, because you know—because of where such-and-such tree is and where such-and-such stone is—who owns that land.’ That is why we failed. We gave it all back until we hit the MurrayIsland land case and the argument in the Mabo case which was, ‘You can’t give away that land becauseit belonged to my ancestors.’ Mabo was successful. It was not an argument against the Queenslandgovernment; it was an argument about the fact that we had given to it the councils and the councils weregiving it away to someone who Mabo said should not be given it because he wanted it. As people whohave been to the magnificent Murray Island know, it is a long, long way round to Mabo’s block. It is not asignificant block.

We believe that the control of DOGIT and land tenure should come back to the peoplethemselves. What we have said here today is that we believe the cultures of the Torres Strait islands areso strong on the individual islands that to take any of that away from them will be the wrong thing to do.I would hope that in 20 years time I might be able to come back and say that the government has doneit well. I would say to the government that at this stage—the member for Cook might argue—it does nothave the support of the island councils or the island elders and in the NPA there is a negative attitudewhich basically says, ‘We may as well accept it and try it because the opposition will not be in power fora while. We will go along with the government.’ Therefore, we would oppose what is being done withthese 17 island councils.

Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (3.44 pm): I rise today to provide a short contribution in supportof the Local Government and Other Legislation (Indigenous Regional Councils) Amendment Bill 2007. Ispecifically want to concentrate on the new part 10 of the bill and intend to discuss a number of theclauses involved. Initially I want to confirm that clause 82 of the bill will provide for the transitionalprovisions for a name change for Aboriginal police officers and Island police officers to community policeofficers under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait act. It is important to note that following the name changethese police officers will still work at the same place and have the same responsibilities as they didbefore the commencement of this bill. In addition, clause 83 also provides for transitional provisions forthe Island Industries Board to ensure that the repeal of the Torres Strait act does not affect membership.

As such, every member and the chairperson will continue to serve for the term for which theywere elected and the same conditions will remain in place. As such it is important to note that all mattersunder the repealed Torres Strait act relating to the Island Industries Board will not be affected by therepeal of the act.

Moving on to clause 84 of the new act, part 10, we find that it also provides for transitionalarrangements for the Aboriginal community justice groups. These include Injinoo, New Mapoon, andUmagico and, further, all of the areas that are covered by the Northern Peninsula Area Regional Councilare also provided for which include the justice groups of Bamaga and Seisia. These transitionalarrangements ensure that all people who are members of the community justice group when the TorresStrait act is repealed will continue to be members of the new community justice group under theAboriginal and Torres Strait act. As such this means that they will continue to be members until the endof their term of employment unless the appointment is revoked or the office vacated. Further thecoordinators of the community justice groups will continue to be the coordinators under the Aboriginaland Torres Strait act.

Moving on to the other sections of the bill, it is noted that there will also be amendments made tothe Bail Act 1980. Specifically, part 4 clause 67 of this bill inserts new sections into the Bail Act. Thesenew sections will ensure that representatives of community justice groups can continue to perform theirwork by having access to information relevant to making submissions under the act. The communityjustice groups are subject to obligations and protections in performing their roles and these arecontinued under the act. However, there is a new section that allows the court to direct that informationthat may be relevant to making a submission before an offender can be obtained. Basically speaking,this means that this material can be obtained by a representative of a community justice group in an


Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community and, as such, they will be able to inspect or obtain a copyof a court file or document in a court file. Further, confidentiality obligations in relation to informationgained by members of community justice groups who are performing under provisions of the act arecovered in section 34D.

Finally, section 34E will provide protection to members of the community justice groups from civilliability. This will have the effect of protecting them from acts done or omissions that are made honestlyand without negligence when making a submission about a defendant to the court or to a police officer. Icommend the bill to the House.

Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (3.47 pm): I rise to speak on the cognate Local GovernmentAmendment Bill 2007 and the Local Government and Other Legislation (Indigenous Regional Councils)Amendment Bill 2007 and I speak only to the former. The main objective of this bill is to removeprovisions which prevent local government from conducting polls on local government reforms, and thatcan only be a good thing and I support that. In the previous act, section 159ZY was deliberately insertedto ensure local governments could not conduct polls or referenda in relation to currentrecommendations of the Local Government Reform Commission. Clause 3 of the bill before us todaywill omit section 159ZY and clause 6 goes further and provides that a person cannot be prosecuted foran offence under section 159ZY as it is intended that no-one be prosecuted for actions that may haveconstituted a breach of that section while it was in operation.

The mass amalgamation of local councils across Queensland, cutting them from some 156 to just82, was a shameful ALP act. The ALP ignored its own—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Member for Tablelands, I have made the ruling to themember for Charters Towers that the terms of the bill relate to section 159ZY and I would ask you aboutthe relevance of your present comments.

Ms LEE LONG: The councils were amalgamated because the government said it would makeweak councils stronger, but that was not true on so many levels. It was only the huge majority ofgovernment numbers that allowed the ALP to pass that it into law. The latest proof of how weak thatfinancial argument is has emerged from New South Wales, which went through a similar amalgamationprocess only a few years ago.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind the member for Tablelands of my comment aboutrelevance.

Ms LEE LONG: One of the greatest risks about amalgamations is that the four tablelands shiresface the cost of that transition into amalgamation. Just merging their IT systems alone is expected tocost nearly $3 million, yet the entire transition assistance package that they will receive is likely to beonly some $780,000. In the House on 22 August, the then Deputy Premier said—When those councils do take into account their financial requirements in the next six months—in the next six years—they will haveto take account of many of their financial circumstances. When they do they will be looking—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Tablelands, I have reminded you about relevance. You aredealing with the removal of a specific section.

Ms LEE LONG: With the removal of that, it is only common sense that people should be able tospeak their minds. We hear this government speaking about democracy all the time in this House. Theprovisions of the bill are certainly not what we could call democratic.

Mr ELMES (Noosa—Lib) (3.51 pm): I rise today to speak to the Local Government AmendmentBill 2007. This is the first time since this whole local government reform process came into being thatI am in a position to actually agree with the government on one particular point—that is, the abolition, ifyou like, of this particular part of the legislation.

This bill was introduced on 22 August, so it has been around for about three months. People inmy part of the world, in the electorate of Noosa, have been looking at this legislation. They have knownthat it has been sitting on the Notice Paper for a long time. They have been looking forward to mehaving an opportunity to get up on their behalf and let the House know how they feel about thelegislation and the way in which this government has behaved through this whole so-called reformprocess.

The thing that absolutely astounds me, though, is that we come into this House today, on the lastsitting day of the year, and find that debate on this particular bill will be gagged. Regardless of what wedo, it will be closed down. Once again—it has happened through this entire process, from the day localgovernment reform was first introduced into the Queensland parliament—no-one will have an adequateopportunity to debate this issue and put forward their particular point of view.

Noosa has not forgotten and will not forget what this government has done to our community. Wehave lived under the threat of this particular part of the legislation for over three months. Our council,councillors and mayor—as well as the councils, councillors and mayors across all of Queensland—havelived under the threat of this particular part of the legislation. Nevertheless, as a community, led by our


council, we have gone about making sure that our protests have been heard, regardless of the threatsand regardless of the way we have been treated. Some 31,000 people made a submission to the LocalGovernment Reform Commission.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): I would ask you to be relevant to the bill. It is the sameruling as was made in relation to the member for Tablelands.

Mr ELMES: I wondered how long it was going to take you to get to that point, Mr Deputy Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the member to withdraw that statement. That is a reflection

on the chair.Mr ELMES: I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I said, my community has lived under the threat of

this particular part of the legislation for a long time now. Regardless of this particular part of thelegislation, we have made sure that all of Queensland has been able to hear our protests. The councilhas not been in any way ashamed or scared to do anything it could, and I have certainly offered thecouncil my help and support.

I find it very unfortunate that on the last day this parliament will sit for the year we are in a situationwhere we are gagged. We are in a situation where—and I say this with the greatest respect, Mr DeputySpeaker—we are not given a little bit of latitude to expand on the way we feel as representatives of ourcommunity. To me, that is just another example of how out of touch this government has become, withthe way it has treated local government generally and my community of Noosa in particular.

As I said at the start, I am in the unique position that for the first time I am able to support thegovernment on this particular point. Obviously, the legislation will be passed through the parliament andI certainly endorse that. In closing, I would also hope that the new minister—

Mr Lucas: You are not going to talk about desalination again, are you?Mr ELMES: No, strangely, I am not.A government member: He is being relevant.Mr ELMES: I am being very relevant and I am being very careful. I would hate to speak about

desalination plants or anything else anywhere on the Sunshine Coast, including in my electorate! With anew minister—at least he is someone with whom our mayors and representatives can sit down and talkwith—I do hope that at some point down the track there might be some hope for not only Noosa but alsoaffected local authorities across the state. I support the bill.

Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (3.57 pm): I rise to speak briefly on the Local GovernmentAmendment Bill, which will take out the disgraceful part of legislation that allowed this government tosack mayors and councillors who proposed a referendum on the local government legislation thatpassed through this House in August. I obviously support that. The only real way I believe this legislationcan be fixed is if all that local government legislation is taken out of the parliament. That is my view, andit is also the view of a lot of other people throughout Queensland.

One of the unfortunate issues that came to light as that legislation went through the parliamentwas that a lot of people throughout Queensland—mayors, councillors, council workers and othersassociated with local government—were reluctant to raise concerns in their general community becausethey feared there would be a backlash against them from this government. Indeed, there were very fewprotests in my neck of the woods simply because council workers in particular were concerned.

As I said, I do not wish to speak at any length because the opposition is supportive of thatamendment to the Local Government Act. Certainly, the smaller councils in my electorate are veryfearful of the services that they will be provided with as they move to regional councils. There has beenquite a bit of dissension, particularly from the employees. Now what we are seeing is that, even thoughtheir jobs were guaranteed, it does not necessarily mean that their pay is guaranteed. I am aware of atleast one council in my electorate—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! I would remind the member of my previous rulingsin relation to this. Please come back to the terms of the bill.

Mr MALONE: I am speaking to the amendment to the Local Government Act and I am talkingabout local government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! In relation to the removal of section 159ZY, there is no relevancein relation to people losing their jobs. I ask you to come back to the terms of the bill.

Mr MALONE: My real concern is that we have a situation here in the parliament where we areremoving a piece of legislation from head legislation that reflects on all of the legislation. The whole billthat went through which was amended in August made a definite change to the legislation as a whole.The amendment was part of the legislation, and therefore I believe that we should be allowed to speakin general terms as the legislation was passed through the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The matter has previously been debated in this House and thesection to which you are referring is a section of the Local Government Amendment Bill. I would ask youto come back to the bill in terms of relevance.


Mr MALONE: The situation in my electorate, quite frankly, is that the imposition of the sacking ofcouncillors and mayors has had a negative impact on the relationship of the legislation to the generalcommunity. It had a stifling effect and it was only the very brave who spoke out against the legislation.Right throughout the community a number of people have spoken out against the legislation withrespect to that amendment, which was swiftly drawn up and in panic mode was passed through thechamber late at night. It reflects entirely on the legislation that passed through this House. The whole ofthe legislation, I believe, can be put in the same category as that amendment was put into thelegislation—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Mirani, I have already explained about relevance.You have gone further and further and I have been tolerant. Please come back to the bill.

Mr MALONE: Every second phrase I am using is talking about the amendment to the bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Mirani, I will not debate this. I have made a ruling in

relation to relevance. Mrs KIERNAN (Mount Isa—ALP) (4.02 pm): It gives me pleasure to contribute to the debate on

these two bills this afternoon, and particularly to the Local Government and Other Legislation(Indigenous Regional Councils) Amendment Bill 2007. There is little doubt that land, cultures andcustoms are key priorities to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I despair somewhat for thefuture of the children, particularly for the two communities in my electorate—Mornington Island andDoomadgee.

The landscape of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander aspirations has changed greatly since thecommunity services act, which was passed in 1984. The opposition keeps saying that there is nosupport from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for what we are trying to achieve through theintroduction of this reform. It is significant to say that on 24 July 2007 mayors representingQueensland’s Aboriginal and mainland Torres Strait Islander communities signed a historic partnershipagreement. I think that that in itself confirmed that they indeed were looking for change. Through thisagreement there was a real commitment to work together to make a practical difference to the lives ofpeople in the state’s Indigenous communities.

Having now visited on a number of occasions communities such as Doomadgee and Mornington,I know from working with the people who work there and the people who live in those communities thatthey desperately want to see change within their communities. The agreement that was signed was apartnership between the Queensland government and 19 nominated Indigenous communities. Two ofmy communities were part of that historic agreement. It carries our shared—and I repeat ‘our shared’—aspiration that Indigenous people achieve the same standard of living, economic prospects and generalwellbeing as other Queenslanders.

There is little doubt that we need to make change, and I think that Torres Strait Islander andAboriginal people and others generally know that this should occur. I am very aware that Minister Pitt inhis previous role as Minister for Communities has remained passionate about assisting our Indigenouscommunities and wanting to help them move forward. There is little doubt that it is very much the time toimprove services and facilities, and there is little doubt the communities themselves need to accept ashared responsibility to do so.

The landscape of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs has changed greatly since thecommunity services act was passed in 1984. I have heard the opposition alluding to the fact that this iswhat people want. I do not know if they are listening to the same people that the member for Cook and Iare listening to. The government, through agreement, has indicated its preparedness to look atalternative approaches to Indigenous service delivery through its support of the Cape York partnershipprocess instigated by Noel Pearson, who is well respected in the Torres area.

It is imperative that there are effective frameworks for Indigenous community governance inQueensland in the 21st century. We cannot hanker for the years gone by. We have to now help themmove forward. We have to keep trying to work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in theircommunities to assist them in continuing to work towards better outcomes for their residents and, mostimportantly, the children.

This legislation that we are debating now is to provide a governance framework and recognisesthe unique circumstances of the two newly proposed regional councils. Further to providing thegovernance framework for the Indigenous regional councils, it ensures that, after the elections, systemsand procedures will be in place to ensure a smooth transition to a more accountable, transparent andefficient system of local government for the Torres Strait Islander and northern peninsula areas.

Whatever the cause, a key policy issue over the last decade has been the constant struggle forAboriginal and Islander councils to meet the standards of accountability expected by the stategovernment for the use of state funds. Having been in local government for many years, I think if I hadnot ended up in this House I quite possibly would have gone to work in local government in either thecommunities of Doomadgee or Mornington simply because I was very aware, firstly, in local government


and certainly acutely aware over my years in close association with state government of the difficultiesthat they are confronted with on a daily basis. We have to keep working with them. They themselveswant to reach standards that are to the benefit of all the people in the community.

A number of key components of the act are that the Torres Strait Islander Regional Council andthe Northern Peninsula Area Regional Council will be appointed as trustees of any land held as deed ofgrant in trust and some nearby land. I started off by saying that we do recognise that land is so veryimportant. We are talking about governance. We are not taking away their rights to land. We are talkingabout finding better ways of governance and for people to aspire both personally and as a community.

The Torres Strait Islander Regional Council will have responsibility for 14 separate deeds of grantin trust, noting that the Mer Island reserve is held in trust by the Department of Communities. TheNorthern Peninsula Area Regional Council will have responsibility for five separate deeds of grant intrust. I know that DOGIT, particularly in the community of Doomadgee, has been quite problematic. I canonly say that there were a number of steps that were possibly jumped when the DOGITs were broughtinto place, and probably surveying and determining where the DOGIT begins and ends would havebeen a good start. But these are some of the things that can now be corrected.

The Indigenous regional councils will effectively manage these lands and any assets upon theselands. A requirement of the act is that the Indigenous regional councils will hold separate publicmeetings in their role as trustees when making decisions about these lands. The new Indigenousregional councils must, in their capacity as trustees, establish and maintain a land panel for each deedof grant in trust for which they are the trustee. When the regional councils are making these decisionsthey must have significant regard to the advice of the land panel. These land panels comprise aconvener, the elected representative of the relevant community, such as a councillor for the division, andat least three and up to seven community members.

I, like many of my colleagues, read what is proposed. I had a number of questions. For us it was amatter of going back and speaking to the minister or his advisers to clarify the issues in our minds. Theopposition does not hold a monopoly on seeking out and making sure that things are correct. We dooppose things. In a great democracy we have the right to continue to question our own reforms. I thinkwe on this side of the House do a pretty good job of making sure that the interests of the people werepresent are being looked after. I thank the minister and his officers for that assistance.

The land panel for a community holds the same membership as a community forum for thatcommunity but constitutes itself separately as a land panel for the purpose of providing advice to theIndigenous regional council regarding land matters. It is my pleasure to commend the bill to the House.

Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (4.11 pm): I rise to participate in the cognate debate on theLocal Government and Other Legislation (Indigenous Regional Councils) Amendment Bill and the LocalGovernment Amendment Bill 2007. I will confine my remarks to the Local Government Amendment Billbecause that is the one that directly affects the people in my electorate.

The local government reform process undertaken by this government has been a disgrace fromday one and remains a disgrace today. As one of my colleagues said, the original debate that we hadwhen this was pushed through in the early hours of a Friday morning some months ago was guillotined.I did not get the opportunity on that occasion to speak in the debate and represent the views of thecommunities in my electorate. I was well down on the speaking list. I waited all day to participate in thedebate but unfortunately, because of the government’s arrogant move to cut the debate on that bill, Iwas not able to speak.

We have seen the same action again today. This bill has been on the Notice Paper for some time.We could have had a debate on it. We should have had a debate on it because it is a major issue in thecommunities in the electorates that we represent. What do we see? On the last sitting day of 2007debate has been brought on with strict time frames. That has restricted the number of members who areable to participate in the debate. There are more people who would have liked to speak in the debatebut who will not because they want to give those of us who were unable to participate last time theopportunity to participate this time. The members who have made contributions today have deliberatelykept them short to make sure others can participate in the debate.

The whole local government reform process has been an absolute travesty. It is affecting thecommunities that I represent. I have said before in the House that the communities and the shires thatare being put into the Toowoomba Regional Council are probably the worst affected of any inQueensland, with the exception of the Indigenous councils in the Torres Strait islands. They have beenvery badly done by in this whole process.

Seven shires and a city council are being rolled into the Toowoomba Regional Council.Toowoomba City is clearly dominant when it comes to numbers and clearly dominant when it comes tovoters.

A government member interjected.


Mr COPELAND: I take that interjection about relevance. I do not know where on the back benchit came from. It is relevant. We are talking about a bill that takes away the provisions that see mayorsand councillors sacked if they have a poll about the local government reform process. If we cannot talkabout the local government reform process then this whole parliament becomes an absolute sham. Weshould be able to talk about that reform process. The minister said in his second reading speech—Smart councils have started the transition to more stable, more sustainable and more streamlined local governments. These councils are to be commended for taking a lead in transitioning local government arrangements for the communities ...

It is all right for the minister to talk about this in his second reading speech but it is not all right formembers of the opposition to talk about this in the second reading debate. That is an absolute joke. Itshows that the members of this government, the members of the backbench, do not want this to bedebated. They do not want these issues raised. They try to shut us down at every opportunity. This is amajor issue in our electorates. It is a major issue in the communities that I represent. To havegovernment backbenchers try to shut us down is disgraceful. It is an absolute disgrace.

We quite often hear—and the minister and the government are particularly good at this—thatpeople are just getting on with the transitional committees. Yes, they are, because they do not have anychoice. It does not matter that they hate this process. It does not matter that they hate forced councilamalgamations. It does not matter that they are absolutely terrified about what this means for thecommunities that they represent. They know that the only thing they can do to try to get the best out of adreadful situation is represent their communities on those transitional committees. That does not make itright. That does mean that they are enjoying it. That does not mean that they are getting on with the job;it means that they are doing what they were elected to do—that is, trying to the best of their ability torepresent those communities. I know that that is what the mayors in my electorate are doing.

There is a lot of comment that the heat has gone out of this. I can tell members that wherever I goin my electorate it is the only issue that people are talking about. Notwithstanding there is a federalelection, notwithstanding any of the other issues going on, it is the only thing that people are talkingabout.

There was a public meeting in Clifton last week which I attended with my colleague the shadowminister for local government and my federal colleague the member for Maranoa. There were 150 to200 people at that meeting and I can say that the anger that was expressed there was palpable. Theyknow what this is going to do to their community of Clifton. They know what it is going to do to theircommunities.

Mrs Reilly: Well, tell us! Mr COPELAND: I am absolutely happy to tell the member. We know that jobs will go out of those

communities. We know that jobs will disappear. We know that people are already leaving their jobs withthose councils because they are so unsure about the future.

We have had a guarantee from the government that people’s jobs will be protected from forcedredundancies for three years. That does not mean that they are protected from voluntary redundancies.It does not mean that people will be replaced when they retire. It does not mean that they will bereplaced when they resign. What we will see—no doubt about it—is that over time jobs will disappearfrom those smaller communities.

Through natural attrition jobs will be transferred into the larger centre of Toowoomba. That willhave a devastating effect. I have no doubt that in the short term there will be some goodwill from theoriginal council and they will try to keep people in the existing offices to provide services. But there is nodoubt in my mind that that will diminish over time. There is no way in the world that the council will beable to continue to do that.

We will see jobs diminish over time in places such as Pittsworth, Clifton, Millmerran andGreenmount. When those jobs disappear from those small communities it will have a flow-on effect onthings like schools in terms of class sizes and teacher numbers. It has an effect on things like the StateEmergency Service. It was quoted to me that prior to amalgamation of the four councils into the WarwickShire Council in the early 1990s there were four SES groups in the smaller communities of those shires.What has happened? All of those have centralised into one SES group in Warwick with the equipmentand personnel based in Warwick. That is what will happen in communities right across Queensland withthese amalgamations.

What will happen to the small businesses when there is no longer a local purchasing policy—where people buy from the small businesses in their town, they support the businesses in their town?There is no way in the world that the larger councils are going to continue to do that over time. They willsimply put in place a system whereby they will put a supply of clothing, a supply of shoes, a supply offuel, a supply of mechanical parts or whatever it is out to tender and it will be supplied at one spot andhave no regard to the health of those businesses in those small communities. When I was in Millmerranon Thursday before the public meeting we went into a small business that sells clothing and shoes, andwho was in there? An employee of the Millmerran Shire Council buying three pairs of steel-cappedboots. That is where that council gets all of its clothing and shoes from. Is that going to continue? I doubtit. It might continue in the short term, but it certainly will not continue in the medium to long term. Whatdoes that mean to that small business?


Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Palaszczuk): The member should come back to the bill.Mr COPELAND: Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said, it is directly relevant to the local government

bill that we are debating. As I pointed out—Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have given you a fair degree of latitude. Can you please now

come back to the bill.Mr COPELAND: Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek your ruling. In the minister’s second reading

speech when he introduced this bill he said—Smart councils have started the transition to more stable, more sustainable and more streamlined local governments.

These councils are to be commended for taking a lead in transitioning local government arrangements for the communities theywere elected to serve.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am speaking directly about the transition to that local governmentreform in the new council and the transitional committees. Surely I am able to talk about that during thesecond reading debate when that is what the minister said in his second reading speech.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have given you a fair degree of latitude. Please come back to thebill. I have given you my ruling, so please come back to the bill.

Mr COPELAND: So I am no longer able to speak about those issues, Madam Deputy Speaker?Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you can talk about those issues but please confine them to the

bill.Mr COPELAND: And that is what I have been doing, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you.Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We can continue this, but there is a long list of speakers from your

side. The longer you want to continue this, the less time they have. Please get back to the bill.Mr COPELAND: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are taking up the time of your own colleagues.Mr COPELAND: I am simply pointing out the fact to the backbenchers of the government that

these issues are relevant. They are relevant to our communities, and this shows the disdain that thisgovernment and those backbenchers have for the communities that are directly affected by thisprocess. This has been a black mark on government in Queensland. I have never felt more frustrated orangry about a government decision since I have been in this parliament. It will not work in a lot of ourcommunities. It will not be of any benefit to those communities that I represent, including Toowoomba. Iactually believe that Toowoomba will be disadvantaged by this because of the decisions that will have tobe made by both the transitional committee and the new council.

The arrogance and disdain that has been shown in this whole process was typified by a commentmade by the member for Indooroopilly when he was attending a ministerial community forum or suchlikein Toowoomba. He was interviewed on WIN TV and he said something along the lines that the onlypeople who are upset about this are pumped-up politicians or two-bit politicians more concerned withtheir fat meeting allowances and council-supplied cars. That was offensive then and it remainsoffensive. It absolutely typifies the whole approach that this government has taken to local governmentand local government reform. I will continue to fight this as long and as hard as I can on behalf of thosecommunities in my electorate, because I can see no good—no benefit, nothing—that can help them outof this whole process. It is a dark, dark mark on the record of this government and one on which it will beheld in very bad judgement by the people of Queensland.

Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (4.23 pm): I rise to speak to this cognate debateconcerning local government in Queensland—the Local Government and Other Legislation (IndigenousRegional Councils) Amendment Bill 2007 and the Local Government Amendment Bill 2007. Much of thedebate in the House this year has been consumed with local government issues sparked by the Laborgovernment’s move to dismantle local councils across Queensland in favour of a centralisedbureaucratic system. The Queensland coalition is vehemently against forced council amalgamations, asI am sure Queenslanders are well aware. It is also quite clear where Queenslanders stand on the issueof council mergers. They do not want these sweeping changes to local government. Despite this, theformer Beattie and now Bligh government have conquered local councils, endangering community inQueensland.

One of the bills before the House today reforms the Local Government Reform ImplementationAct 2007 passed in this House in August. It is interesting that we find ourselves addressing theseamendments, because if we were to have believed the former Premier the clauses this bill amendswould have simply fallen off the statute books. On 21 August this year then Premier Peter Beattieattacked the opposition leader and member for Callide when he raised the issue with the government.Mr Seeney asked the Premier the legitimate and very relevant question of whether he would remove


these provisions from the statutes of Queensland. Rather than answering the question truthfully andrespectfully, the former Premier unleashed his attack on the opposition founded on inaccurate andmisleading information. I refer to page 2641 of the Hansard where the former Premier said—

We have made it absolutely clear that that part of the legislation will not be enforced. It will fall off the statute books ... by itself byMarch next year. So it is over, it is finished, it is gone, it is done ...

The only thing over, finished, gone, done is the former Premier himself. The dictatorial provisionsthreatening councils which took any action to request, arrange, assist, facilitate or cause a poll to beconducted—a clause introduced at the eleventh hour by this arrogant government—survived thisscandalous legislation and live on today in statute. Law does not fall off the statute books. You can falloff a horse, which metaphorically is what this government did in codifying these bullyboy clauses, butlegislation does not fall off the shelf and that is why we are now being forced to revisit these laws. It wasshoddily done and hastily cobbled together and now we are here rectifying the mistakes. Thegovernment has had to get back on the horse again.

The Local Government Amendment Bill 2007 will remove the offending provisions preventinglocals governments from conducting polls about local government reform. This is obviously somethingthe Queensland coalition strongly supports. The fact that these provisions were even contemplated by asupposedly democratic government defies belief. In Queensland and indeed Australia we live in anegalitarian society, one where people are encouraged to form and express their own opinions. Weactively encourage citizens to convey their political thoughts on polling day. In fact, unlike somecountries, one of which we will be discussing during the Amnesty motion later tonight, Australiademands that its citizens exercise their democratic right to vote. The provisions this bill seeks to disposeof assault that very right, and the members opposite should be ashamed for advocating it in the firstinstance. You cannot outlaw democracy, which is what this Labor government tried to do. You cannotdefend and promote a democratic system by taking away the very freedoms that make it a democracy inthe first place. Thankfully, this bill restores the balance and reinstates for the record local governments’right to stand up to such an abominable assault on our democratic freedoms.

The second bill, the Local Government and Other Legislation (Indigenous Regional Councils)Amendment Bill 2007, seeks to amend a raft of acts to facilitate the forced amalgamation of Indigenousand Torres Strait Islander local councils. Allegedly, the objective of the bill is to strengthen governance inthe Torres Strait and northern peninsula and improve the efficiency and accountability of localgovernment in far-north Queensland. The Queensland coalition refutes this claim. My colleagues and Ido not believe that local government should be dismantled to achieve these objectives. I am fortunateenough to be on the Public Accounts Committee and at many meetings have listened to and shared theAuditor-General’s concerns about the financial management of Indigenous councils. I share theseconcerns with the Auditor-General, the committee of the last parliament and this parliament and othermembers in this House, but I do not believe the problem is best fixed by getting rid of local governmentaltogether in this area.

The problem with this bureaucratic, centralised, ‘one size fits all’ solution is that it completelyignores the inherent nature and culture of each of the individual communities in the Torres Strait andnorthern peninsula. I would suggest that we need a combination of support for them as individualcommunities but also to support them with people with suitable skills so that they can have soundfinancial management. These are the issues that the Auditor-General had constantly raised at ourmeetings. Other regional councils that were not Indigenous councils have also had troubles with audittime frames due to problems recruiting staff, and they are things that these Indigenous councils havehad to deal with. When we debated the principal act I mentioned then that there are no two towns thesame over the length and breadth of Queensland, and as shadow health minister I have been luckyenough to travel to more and more parts of the state and I can attest to the truth of this statement.

It is particularly true of far-north Queensland, where so much of our Indigenous culture andhistory is amassed. This bill, which facilitates the regionalisation of local government in thesecommunities, ignores completely the individual, unique, historical and cultural aspects of thecommunities that will be affected by this bill. I acknowledge that those factors have to be balanced byrigorous fiscal arrangements, but I do not believe that that means dissolving or amalgamating all 17councils.

As I mentioned before, the Queensland coalition is concerned about local government reform. Weare passionate about bringing a sense of community back to Queensland. The Queensland coalitionhas a comprehensive policy on forced council amalgamations, particularly those affecting Torres Straitislands. Our local voice, local choice paper presents a considered, pragmatic, effective solution forbetter managing regional Aboriginal communities in far-north Queensland. A couple of these solutionsdeal with fiscal arrangements. If those councils had joint local government financial arrangements, itwould bring the accountability that is so necessary to these communities but without amalgamatingthem completely and taking away so much of their identity.


I want to acknowledge the member for Warrego and my other coalition colleagues for the jobthey have done. They have been very vocal on this issue. The kind of thinking that we need inQueensland is the idea that government does not make Queensland the great place that it is but ratherit is the people in the communities who make up this great state. Taking the axe to local communities willdestroy some of Queensland’s uniqueness, particularly in the culture-rich areas of the Torres Strait. Forthis reason, I cannot support this bill.

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (4.30 pm): I rise to speak in this cognate debate. Firstly, Iwish to make a couple of comments about the Local Government and Other Legislation (IndigenousRegional Councils) Amendment Bill. I want to put on the record that I acknowledge that the councils thatare predominantly covered in this bill—or perhaps wholly covered by the bill—lie within the electorate ofCook. However, the comments that I want to make are based on the material that I have read and thatwhich has been emailed to me.

I would be interested in the minister’s comments in relation to the feelings of the Indigenouscouncils to the proposed changes. I may have outdated information—and I acknowledge that that maybe the case—but I received some information from some of the councils which indicated some concernabout the changes that were proposed in this legislation. I would be interested in the minister’scomments in relation to more recent consultation with those councils.

I have had the privilege of being in the Torres Strait islands only for the LCARC ‘Hands onParliament’ consultation process. But I have relatives who are Torres Strait Islanders and I know thatthey have a strong connection to the region. Irrespective of that, many Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander people have very discrete groups of relatives, friends and clans. Sometimes they find thatlosing that identity is a challenge and one that they find difficult to accept. So I would be interested tohear from the minister of any recent comments by the Islanders in relation to this legislation and theiracceptance, or the acceptability, of the proposed changes.

The other matter that I want to deal with relates to the Local Government Amendment Bill. I amgoing to use as my terms of reference the minister’s second reading speech. I will do this because Ihave listened to the debate, both in the chamber and on the monitor, since it commenced after lunchand I have been very cognisant of the fact that a number of speakers have been challenged on therelevancy of their contributions. I would like at least to endeavour to remain relevant to the secondreading speech.

The second reading speech states—The bill seeks to remove provisions preventing local governments from undertaking polls about local government reform. This isconsistent with the position formally on the record in this House that the government—together with the great majority ofQueensland councils—is moving on and making local government reform happen.

Much of the import of the Local Government Amendment Bill was carried by regulation with theimperative that any councils that ran plebiscites in relation to boundary changes and amalgamationswould be dismissed summarily. I opposed that. I still remain of the view that we in great measure lost animportant part of our democracy through these local government changes.

There were members in this chamber who stood up and argued for the local governmentamalgamations and the format that the government proposed. As a former local government member, Ifound the proposals reprehensible and repulsive for no other reason than they refused the opportunityfor the community to comment on the proposals. Local government, by its very nature, is close to thecommunity. It is the community, in concert with state and federal governments, that funds the localgovernment process. State governments give grants to local councils. The federal government, throughFAGs, gives grants to local councils. Fundamentally, I believe that, in the main, councils administerthose funds well and responsibly.

Additionally, I believe that a lot of the debate that was carried on in relation to the amalgamationswas done so on the basis of misinformation. Had the polls been allowed to be held, I believe they wouldhave showed overwhelmingly that the community wanted the status quo. I know that the then ministerfor local government would have had the view that he was looking to be progressive and that he waslooking towards the future. But I believe that that fails to take into account the mindset of many in thecommunity. They want progression—they are not troglodytes; certainly not in my region—but they wanta connection with their local councils and that will be retained if the local councils are able to relate totheir local communities. The Local Government Amendment Bill removed the provisions that allowedlocal councils to consult with their communities. I believe that bill is one of the most significantindictments on this government in relation to the democratic process that we have seen in the recentpast.

As I said, the second reading speech stated—This is consistent with the position formally on the record in this House that the government—together with the great majority ofQueensland councils—is moving on and making local government reform happen.

I have a great deal of regard for the current local government minister as a person and for hisadministration of previous portfolios. So I do not make this comment in relation to the current minister.Local councils throughout Queensland are moving on in relation to the local government reform simplybecause, while not fatalistic, they recognise the reality of the situation. The three councils that are to be


amalgamated in my region are the Gladstone, Calliope and Miriam Vale councils. The Gladstone councilhas a significant debt load. The Calliope council and its constituency had rated itself into a positionwhere the debt had been reduced to zero. The debt that was accumulated past that was for majorinfrastructure, and it was about $4 million. I think the Gladstone council’s debt is about $26 million. I amless familiar with the Miriam Vale council, but I believe that that council carries some debt. Certainly, thatcouncil has accrued debt in relation to its desalination plant.

Despite the urgings of many in the community, the Calliope council did not take up the federalgovernment’s offer for a plebiscite on the forced amalgamations and, as the minister said, is moving onand making local government reform happen simply because it did not want to expend money on aplebiscite that would achieve nothing. The message was clear from the previous local governmentminister that nothing would change: the forced amalgamations were going to go ahead and that, despitethe money that would be expended through the plebiscite, the council could achieve nothing other thanput on the record the opposition of the majority of the community in Calliope. Let me say here veryclearly that I have not heard from anyone in Calliope shire who is in support of this forcedamalgamation. They wanted, however, to have their say.

The second reading speech goes on to say—The laws have been passed, the boundaries are in place and we are looking to the future.

I believe that that future will be one of disadvantage in a number of areas for local councils, bothnewly created and amalgamated. Those disadvantages will include minor things. I wonder whetherprevious local government ministers and their bureaucrats recognise that local councils will nowcertainly incur greater payroll tax debt. I believe that the Calliope council and the Miriam Vale councilwere under the payroll tax threshold. The Gladstone City Council was over the threshold. With theamalgamations, the new council will be over that payroll threshold. Therefore, that council will pay morein payroll tax.

Calliope Shire Council and Miriam Vale Shire Council were able to access the regional lendinglibrary facilities, so they did not have to buy a bank of books. The lending library provided them with titlesand they were regularly turned over. Gladstone City Council, because of its population base, was overthat threshold and they had to buy their own titles. Now with the amalgamated council they will have toprocure their own books, albeit after that transitional period.

For those who think councils are getting on with it they are, but it is not because they have achoice; it is because they have been legislatively obligated to do so. Unlike the state government, theyare mature enough to recognise the needs of their community and they do not want to be seen to bewasting money. It reflects not the maturity of government but the maturity of councils, councillors andtheir staff. The minister’s second reading speech goes on to say—Smart councils have started the transition to more stable, more sustainable and more streamlined local governments.

I wonder what ‘more stable’ means. Certainly they will be larger councils. They will be moreimpersonal. We have gone from three councils with all the councillors who represented theircommunities knowing their communities to a mega council with eight councillors and a mayor. When Iwas on the Calliope council—and it has not changed since I left—when it came to rates time the ratesnotices would be sent out and the councillors would sit down a month or so later to have a look at thoserates bills that were in arrears. If councillors knew of extenuating circumstances that could havecontributed to the non-payment of rates, they were raised at the council meeting and those names werepulled off lists where perhaps collection facilities were going to be implemented, and those individualswere given an extra amount of time. For example, an individual may have a family member who hadrecently become deceased. It could be the mother, the father or the child. No doubt that family wasdiverted from the normal run-of-the-mill issues that had to be dealt with. Councillors who knew of abereavement or of extenuating circumstances in a family could raise those circumstances at a councilmeeting and the collection on those outstanding rates would be delayed for another month to give thatfamily time to cope with their circumstances.

With these mega councils I believe a lot of that personal touch will be gone. It may be morestable, it may be more efficient in terms of cold, hard efficiency, but whether it is closer to the communityand reflects community ideals and values is, I believe, something up for debate. I am not sure what theminister means by ‘more sustainable and more streamlined local governments’. In most councils ‘morestreamlined’ means less personable. The minister’s second reading speech goes on to say—These councils are to be commended for taking a lead in transitioning local government arrangements for the communities theywere elected to serve.

They should be commended. In spite of the politics that should surround these changes, in spiteof the abhorrent method that was used to institute the changes, these councils, the councillors and thestaff in particular have said, ‘We are not going to change the status quo and, for the benefit of thecommunity that we represent and work for, we will go ahead and we will make the changes that arenecessary.’ In most councils throughout Queensland that are affected by major council amalgamations,staff are leaving. It is very difficult for them to retain a core staffing level with the skills base to properlyoperate councils. If you are one of three CEOs and you can see the writing on the wall potentially for


your position and another position comes up in New South Wales or Victoria or somewhere, you wouldtake it. They are jumping ship hell, west and crooked, and the councils and the community are the losersfor that. I have spoken to a number of people in councils and they are saying the same thing: their abilityto retain qualified and capable staff is diminishing simply because of the changes and the way that thosechanges were implemented.

Councils will continue to serve their communities because they have a heart for them. A lot of thedebate that occurred when the original bill was introduced was about councillors who had their snouts introughs who were there for the dollars and that was really related to only the very major councils, andperhaps only the councils in the south-east corner. Certainly with the rural and regional councils,particularly the non-political councils, the councillors may have received a meeting fee and they mayhave received out-of-pocket expenses but they certainly did not receive anything that was close to awage that reflected the time that they put into the job. They are transitioning local governmentarrangements for the communities they were elected to serve not because they adhered to oracquiesced to or agreed with the previous local government minister’s aspirations for local government.They are doing it because they care. The minister’s second reading speech says—This bill confirms the stated position of the government and I commend it the House.

I think that says it all. It is the stated view of the government, not of the community, not of localcouncils and councillors, because the bill that we are debating did not allow the councils and thecouncillors to have a say. It just says that it reflects the ‘stated position of the government’. The statedposition was to get rid of a lot of councils that operated well, that represented their communities well,that represented individuals well. This bill reflected the demise of democracy in the sense that previouslegislation said communities would have a say in amalgamations, that amalgamations would not beforced, that they would only occur with the concurrence of the communities affected, that there would beconsultation and, indeed, that there would be a vote on whether the amalgamation would occur.

This bill that we are now debating, the Local Government Amendment Bill, took all of that awaybecause it took away the rights of local governments to undertake polls of their communities whom theyrepresent to find out their views, and at the time the penalty was the dismissal of the council. I believethe minister who presented this bill to the parliament should over time hang his head in shame. I believethat in local government circles he will be remembered not with affection and respect but for the movethat he made on the democracy in local council.

Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (4.47 pm): I rise to make a short contribution to the LocalGovernment and Other Legislation (Indigenous Regional Councils) Amendment Bill before the Housetoday. I start by congratulating the shadow minister on his contribution to the debate and endorse hiscomments in relation to this bill. The bill arises from changes required for Aboriginal and Torres Straitisland communities on the amalgamations of councils in the Torres Strait and northern cape region.There are in fact some 17 unique communities based in that region that will be affected and combinedinto the one centralised council administration.

The concept of this government amalgamating these communities does tend to run contrary tothe government’s belief stated on many occasions that these communities are unique, that they havetheir own integrity, that they are fiercely independent and that they are proud of their individual heritage.I ask the minister in his reply to address the issues that I raise about that point. There is a real concernwithin these communities that they have behind them hundreds of years of individuality and hundreds ofyears of cultural and heritage background that by way of amalgamation are going to seriously run therisk of being eliminated. We know that individual heritage and cultural background is a critical element inthese regions, and the loss of self-worth and self-esteem to these communities is coming through veryclearly from the shadow minister and also from the communities themselves. They have a very strongsense of who they are; they have an individual sense of what their heritage is, what their future is andwhat their culture is. The amalgamation that we are looking at here today runs the real risk of takingaway from them so much of what they hold dear.

The concerns are in relation to not just the culture and heritage of the individual organisations andcommunities but also how the communities deal with unique situations that exist in these regions. Theyinclude such issues as community policing, alcohol management programs, community housing,immigration and quarantine controls, economic development and community enterprise development,employment programs such as the Community Development Employment Program, cultural heritage,land tenure and management issues.

Each of these concerns and programs within these communities have been dealt with subject tothe individual concerns and requirements of the local people on the ground. If we attempt toamalgamate these through a regional council there is, in my opinion, a real risk that we will destroy a lotof those on-the-ground solutions based upon the individual concerns within the communitiesthemselves. In my opinion, there is a real issue that they are neither sustainable nor practical giventhose differences.


Of particular concern is the loss of local involvement in decisions by the traditional owners of theland who have lived there for generations. We know that these 17 communities of Queensland do havea unique cultural traditional land ownership tenure. We know that these individual groups andcommunities have for generations considered land tenure and land ownership far and away unique fromwestern society. I ask the minister to outline in his reply whether the government has taken into accountthe risk of the loss of so much heritage and so much individual input by the communities in solving theirproblems. They cannot be amalgamated in one go with the hope that it works out. They have takenyears to develop their own systems, policies and solutions. The shadow minister alluded to these duringhis address. I simply ask the minister to turn his mind to those questions, because a real concern I haveis that by amalgamating we will destroy the fabric of so many individual societies and groups.

Hon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads and Local Government) (4.52 pm), inreply: I wish to thank all members for the contributions that they have made to today’s debate, eventhough some of the claims that we have heard are more anchored in fantasy and fiction than in fact. Iintend to respond to matters raised by honourable members in today’s debate, and I commence byaddressing a number of points raised by the member for Warrego.

The member for Warrego claimed that the government acted in an underhanded and deceitfulway by planning to undertake local government reform. For the benefit of the honourable member,planning is part and parcel of what normally happens. The government does think about what it is goingto do and it does plan. It does not wake up one morning and think to itself, ‘Today we are going toannounce our plans to overhaul local government in Queensland.’ Of course this matter wasconsidered, and that happened over the period between late February, when this matter was on theagenda of a strategic cabinet meeting, and 17 April, when it was announced.

In March 2007, the minister for local government wrote to all mayors asking them to assessprogress of the Size, Shape and Sustainability program and set out what they believed the Triple Sreform agenda could achieve and in what time frame. Responses were due by 25 March 2007. Theseresponses showed that Triple S was not going to deliver timely or significant reform and confirmed to thegovernment that it needed to take a different approach. The government did not involve local councils inits decision to move away from the Shape, Size and Sustainability course and to proceed down adifferent track because it knew what the position of councils would be. That does not mean it acted in anunderhanded or deceitful way. Rather, it acted in a practical and realistic way.

Of course the government expected its intended course of action to be opposed. That is whatnormally happens when a government seeks to change the status quo and seeks to displaceentrenched interests. But if encountering strident and bitter opposition was to be the price of reform—the price of establishing a stronger, more capable and more sustainable local government sector—thenthis was a price the government was prepared to pay. On 17 April the government announced anddeclared its intentions to the world—what it was going to do and how it was going to do it.

I particularly want to refute another extraordinary claim made by the member for Warrego thatunions have no right to be members of local transition committees or their employment subcommittees.Nailing his anti-union prejudices to the mast, the member said at page 4360 of Hansard—They have no right to be there.

I say to the honourable member, I say to the opposition and I say to others who share thismisguided view that the unions have every right to be there. For the information of the member forWarrego, their right to be there is provided for in legislation. It was included in the Local GovernmentReform Implementation Bill. And even if there was not this legislated provision, let me state categoricallythat the unions certainly do have the right to be there.

The opposition may be ideologically opposed to the idea that the workforce deserves to berepresented through unions and the opposition may be philosophically opposed to the inclusion ofunions on the local transition committees and their employment subcommittees; however, thisgovernment takes the view that unions have every right to be present to represent their members and torepresent the interests of employees and the workforce generally.

The member for Warrego has chastised the government for not including the Local GovernmentAssociation of Queensland in consultations and negotiations on the draft legislation that was beingprepared to enable the local government reforms. This, he claimed, was in breach of the protocol thatestablished the need for such consultation. What this conveniently overlooks is that the very protocol themember refers to was torn up by the LGAQ three months earlier.

The member for Warrego continued to promote the false claim that the outcome of the LocalGovernment Reform Commission’s consideration of the number of councils and their boundaries waspredetermined. What the member and other opponents of the reform process have failed to do, andfailed miserably to do, is say how this occurred. It seems they think they can merely assert that thewhole process was rorted—that it was ‘rotten to the core’, as has been claimed—and that thegovernment somehow colluded with the commission or dictated to the commission what its findingsshould be and that asserting these things gives them substance. These groups want the government toagree to set up a royal commission. They want the CMC to launch an inquiry. The Friends of Noosa and


the other groups beating the conspiracy drum and claiming there has been a fix and the process hasbeen fraudulent have the unqualified support of the opposition leader and the opposition generally.There is, however, one crucial thing missing: they do not have a scrap of evidence to support theirclaims. So what does that leave us with? A wild goose chase. These people do not have a feather to flywith, yet they want to have a royal commission and a CMC inquiry.

I take this opportunity to again dismiss as arrant nonsense the so-called smoking gun claim, theone that says the date of 25 May contained on the cover of the draft legislation—two months before thecommission’s report came down—proves the government improperly had prior knowledge of the reformcommission’s recommendations and proves the process was fraudulent. The 25 May date on thedocument in question proves no such thing. It indicates the date at which drafting commenced. The billwas not created in its entirety on 25 May. As happens frequently, the bill was created progressively, inthis instance over a period of months.

The more important date is the document’s version date, which is updated with each new version,while the original creation date remains the same. Version 3, the final version of the bill at the centre ofthe claim of wrongdoing, did not come into being on 25 May, as claimed. It came into being on 7 August2007, the day the bill was introduced into the state parliament. The date 7 August 2007 is shown clearlyon the draft bill. Some parts of the bill had been under discussion and development from 25 Mayonwards. However, no part of the bill which related to enacting the actual findings and recommendationsof the Local Government Reform Commission was drafted prior to the government receiving thecommission’s report on 27 July.

I understand that certain people opposed to the local government reforms have stated theirintention to seek information under FOI relating to the reform process. These people apparently believethat this will prove their claim that the whole local government reform process was fraudulent and thatthe changes recommended by the commission and agreed by the government were predetermined. Ofcourse, people have every right to seek information under FOI. That is why we have FOI laws and anFOI process. Any FOI applications will be considered as they are received. If information is able to bereleased, then it will be released in line with FOI provisions and procedures. Obviously there is alsoinformation that is exempt from release under FOI, and this includes cabinet matter.

Let me emphasise that there is a wealth of information on the public record relating to the LocalGovernment Reform Commission, and in particular to its consideration of public submissions. Membersonly need to read the commission’s report for evidence of this. For each of the 72 local governmentareas proposed for Queensland, the commission considered the submissions received. Evidence of thisconsideration can be found throughout volume 2 of the commission’s report, which contains referencesto ‘details of suggestions received’ and the ‘commission’s comments on suggestions’. I table thatinformation.Tabled paper: Document detailing the Local Government Reform Commission’s consideration of public submissions.

In total, 47,267 submissions were received. These comprised: 3,796 individual publicsubmissions; 36,570 copies of 45 different form letters, proforma submissions, surveys and postcards;3,624 signatures on 21 different petitions; and 3,277 referrals of correspondence from members ofparliament, councils, web sites and government departments.

Additional information concerning the Local Government Reform Commission’s consideration ofpublic submissions is presented in the commission’s report at chapter 4, volume 1, pages 43 to 50 andappendix A, volume 1, pages 85 to 87. Copies of all of the individual submissions, form letters, proformasubmissions, surveys, postcards and petitions were published as part of the commission’s report andalso have been published online.

In response to points raised by the member for Warrego, the councils of the Torres Strait andnorthern peninsula area have been consulted throughout this entire process dating back to 2005. Sincebecoming minister for local government, it has been personally important to me to ensure that this billexplicitly preserves recognition of island custom and Aboriginal tradition in the performance of thefunctions of the two new Indigenous regional councils. It also preserves qualifications of candidature forthe Torres Strait Island Regional Council.

The green paper released in October 2005 was used as the basis for extensive communityconsultation in 2005 and 2006 on the legislative framework under which Torres Strait island councilsoperate. This process was conducted in collaboration with the reference group nominated by the IslandCoordinating Council. The white paper was released in early 2007 and formed the basis of thecommission’s consultation with the affected communities.

In August 2007, the former Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport visited the TorresStrait and northern peninsula area communities to discuss key policy considerations of the reformprocess and made a commitment for further consultation. Between 5 and 7 September 2007,representatives of the Torres Strait island and northern peninsula Aboriginal communities wereconsulted on the proposed legislative model, together with proposals for community forums and the landtenure model, during workshops held in Cairns by the Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport


and Recreation. On 23 September 2007, I personally met with representatives and councillors of theTorres Strait on Thursday Island and did not encounter any sense of fear. In fact, I was welcomed by thepeople.

As a result of the feedback received during both the Cairns workshops and my visit to ThursdayIsland, a number of amendments to the legislation were made to satisfy the concerns of the community.Of significance is the creation of land panels and the double majority system for decisions pertaining toany DOGIT lands, which had ensured community participation in decisions regarding trust land. Inaddition, the mayors of all councils are provided with a draft of the legislation prior to its introduction intothe House.

In response to the points raised by the member for Callide, the Local Government ReformCommission indicated that these reforms for the two Indigenous regional councils would providebenefits similar to that which would accrue from a joint local government but without any of thedisadvantages, such as the costs associated with the administrative and organisational support neededfor the 20 separate councils. In fact, the commission stated at page 332 of its report—... that the continuation of separate local governments would not facilitate optimum service delivery for the region and would impaireach local government’s ability to develop capacity to address social, environmental and economic development issues facing theregion. In addition, significant communities of interest exist in common amongst all Island councils.

The member for Callide’s comments about the qualifications for candidature are simply incorrect.The bill maintains the current requirements for island councils for the new Torres Strait Island RegionalCouncil—namely, two years residency and must be of Torres Strait or Aboriginal descent. These can beextended by regulation to ordinary members of community forums. As a result of consultation, therequirements under the Local Government Act apply to the new northern peninsula area. This is whatthe people of communities wanted. In addition, the normal process of democracy will apply and thepeople will vote for who they want.

The island councils have not been replaced by a single community forum. This is wrong. The billexplicitly creates 20 separate community forums, one for each of the island and Aboriginal communities.The community forums will sit as land panels. As the member for Cook mentioned, they have a veryimportant role in the communities. They have a say in each decision of the Indigenous regional councils,sitting as trustee, regarding the use of land. This ensures localised control of land is maintained and norights have been taken away. The councillor for each land panel will chair that panel and, when voting atmeetings of the trustee for the DOGIT, must agree with the decision for it to proceed.

In relation to the transfer of enterprises to the Indigenous regional councils, there will be noremoval of community income. In fact, it will be quarantined. The transition arrangements for the twonew Indigenous regional councils will be managed in a manner similar to that for all other amalgamatinglocal governments, utilising the transition structure established by the Local Government ReformImplementation Act 2007. They both already have a local transition committee and an interim chiefexecutive officer.

The assets and liabilities, including enterprises and social housing, currently owned by theexisting island councils and the three Aboriginal councils comprising the northern peninsula area will betransferred to the two new Indigenous regional councils. Over time, some of these assets that do notrelate to the normal municipal functions of local government may be divested back to the localcommunities. The government will over time facilitate this process, creating local ownership ofenterprises and land which in turn will create greater self-determination. There are a number of optionsfor the type of ownership under the Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991 or as foreshadowed in theexposure draft of the Aboriginal Land and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. Another option islong-term leasing arrangements for up to 99 years.

I thank the member for Cook for his comments acknowledging that the bill provides for theseparate cultural differences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in these communities,especially in regard to land panels. The member for Cook understands that the bill establishes aworkable and equitable power balance between the Indigenous regional councils and the localisedpower for the community forum and land panels.

In response to the comment made by the member for Hinchinbrook that I have ignored oppositionto the amalgamation of island councils, I refer him to my earlier comments about the recommendationsof the Local Government Reform Commission. In response to the points raised by the member forBeaudesert, it is simply not true that the bill does not provide recognition of the unique culture of theTorres Strait and northern peninsula area. It does, and I refer him to my earlier comments about therecognition of island custom and Aboriginal tradition.

I also point out that the councillors for Bamaga were part of the proposal to the Local GovernmentReform Commission for the formation of the Northern Peninsula Area Regional Council. The memberfor Beaudesert indicated that CDEP projects have been a success. This is ironic, given that his federalcolleagues are rolling back this funding. In response to the points raised by the member for IpswichWest, he understands the logical way these councils will transition into the reform structure. I appreciatehis shared interest in the strength this bill lends to community justice groups in Queensland.


I reiterate the point that the regulation of 31 August effectively rendered the power granted by thelegislation null and void. The capacity to take action against councils was nullified by that regulation.However, at some point it was necessary to remove the nullified provision from the act—what you mightcall a piece of legislative housekeeping. There was no particular time imperative attached to this, and itwould have occurred in due course. The government has, however, decided to proceed at this point toremove the particular provision—section 159ZY—from the act for a number of reasons other than thefact that the debate on the Local Government and Other Legislation (Indigenous Regional Councils)Amendment Bill presents an opportunity for this to be done. The further reasons we are proceeding totidy up this aspect of the act are as follows: to remove any grounds for doubt as to the government’sposition and intentions, to remove any grounds for confusion as to effect of these provisions stillexisting, and to remove any grounds for misrepresentation of these provisions still remaining.

I would like to respond to the comments made by the member for Gladstone, for whom I alsohave a great deal of respect. I need to confirm with her that there is no negative effect on connectionbetween Aboriginal and Islander people and their land, and there is continued recognition of Islandercustoms and traditions. The community forums and land panels will do exactly that. Contact withgeneral citizenry—and that is what I have had over a period of time—as well as with councils is basedsometimes on the expressed views that are at odds with elected representatives who have a vestedinterest in the status quo.

I want to remind the member that when she went up in April with LCARC there wasunderstandable concern. I have had the opportunity to meet with the MPA councils and the communityin August, and with the Torres Strait island councils and community in September. Some questions wereasked, but I have taken a great deal of patience in making explanations to people and taking on boardtheir concerns. I believe that they have developed from that process a far better understanding. Theyare not all enthusiastic but every one of them is focusing on the job at hand, and many now see somepositive outcomes that can come from this process.

We heard a typical scaremongering rant from the member for Cunningham, trumpeting doom andgloom and darkness all round. You would think from listening to the member that the end of the world iscoming for local communities; that the end of the world is nigh. The member for Cunningham’scomments could have been taken straight from those full-page advertisements we have seen predictingthe death of communities and the destruction of towns as a result of these forums.

In response to the points raised by the member for Mount Isa, I agree with her comments thatthese communities want the same opportunities that we all have, including effective frameworks forgovernance. This bill achieves that whilst explicitly providing for the unique circumstances of thecommunities of the two Indigenous regional councils. The Local Government Reform Commissionpresented the government with recommendations that will guide local government towards a future—afuture typified by councils with real strength and real influence. The recommendations of thecommission extended to our Indigenous communities and their governance arrangements, and this billcompletes the implementation of those recommendations.

This bill is evidence of this government’s commitment to improving and strengthening the localgovernance for the Torres Strait Island and northern peninsula area communities and to enhancing theviability and the accountability of the local governments that serve those communities. The bill will applythe Local Government Act—the main instrument for the local government system in Queensland—to thetwo new Indigenous regional councils, bringing consistency to local government across the state.

Importantly, this bill has a focus on maintaining cultural identity and representation for the peopleof the Torres Strait and the northern peninsula areas by recognising and allowing for the uniquecircumstances of their communities, with provisions recognising this inserted in a separate part to beincluded in the Local Government Act. The bill is a major step towards the fulfilment of the Queenslandgovernment’s goal that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have their cultures affirmed, heritagesustained and parity achieved with other Queenslanders in terms of their prospects for health, prosperityand quality of life.

This bill is essential to the successful conduct of the 15 March 2008 local government elections.Further, in providing the governance framework for the Indigenous regional councils it ensures that,after the election, systems and procedures will be in place to ensure a smooth transition to a moreaccountable, transparent and efficient system of regional local government for the Torres Strait andnorthern peninsula areas. I am confident that the new Indigenous regional councils will respond to thesechallenges positively. I note the positive gains already made towards the practical implementation of thenew council arrangements by the two local transition committees. Understandably, the people of theTorres Strait island and northern peninsula communities are nervous about the changes ahead. Theyare passionate, too, about preserving their rich cultures that they have enjoyed for centuries within theircommunities.

As I have already mentioned, and as I detailed in my second reading speech, the bill providesmechanisms to protect these rich cultures and the individual identity of each community. The billprovides a governance structure tailored for the two new Indigenous regional councils that ensures


increased accountability and sustainability, improved decision making and efficient service delivery. Astrong local government system working in partnership with the state is this government’s vision toachieve social and economic development in a state as diverse as ours.

Queensland local governments have the widest jurisdiction and the most flexible powers torespond to community needs of any local government in Australia. This broad jurisdiction and high levelof autonomy within their respective areas enables local governments to respond locally to their specificand unique economic, social and environmental challenges. This bill confirms the government’s positionthat it will not take action against any council holding a poll in relation to local governmentamalgamations.

The amendments proposed by this bill will remove all references to reform related polls to put inplace the commitment declared here in August by the former Premier and then minister for localgovernment that no action would be taken against councils holding polls. Local government reform ishappening on 15 March 2008. The state’s stronger councils will then commence. The government iscommitted to establishing stronger councils for Queensland and will focus its efforts on making surethere is a smooth transition to the new arrangements. Councils and Queenslanders are getting on withthe job of ensuring stronger councils for a growing Queensland.

All throughout Queensland a total of 34 local transition committees have been formed to developand coordinate a smooth transition to the new arrangements. This new era for Queensland localgovernment is being supported by the state government, with $9.35 million to be provided to localtransition committees prior to the March elections. As of last week $8.62 million of this had already beenprovided. A further $17.75 million will be provided to new councils following the local governmentelections to assist with the new arrangements.

On 15 March 2008 Queenslanders will have a new system of local government—a system thatreflects growth and changes to the way we live; a system that will allow councils to be organisations thatcan deliver for their communities. This government does not believe there is any benefit in focusing itsresources on meaningless polls of communities who have already voiced their opinions on localgovernment reforms. Polls are not held in the independent determination of state or federal electoralboundaries, and nor should they for the determination of an independent commission to ascertain localgovernment boundaries.

Any polls undertaken in response to the new arrangements will have no bearing on the effortsbeing made by many in the local government area to establish Queensland’s stronger councils. In mysecond reading speech I noted that a financial controller has been offered to each council in LockhartRiver, Pormpuraaw and Napranum. I am pleased to announce that a financial controller was recentlyappointed to Pormpuraaw and commenced on 10 August 2007. Additionally, a financial councillor wasappointed for Napranum last week, on 8 November 2007.

The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has raised five questions with respect to the membershipof community justice groups and the requirement that, in the event a person does not consent to acheck of their criminal history, he or she will not be able to become a member. The committee has alsoraised a question regarding the composition of justices of the peace in Magistrates Courts when they sitin the Torres Strait and northern peninsula areas with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderrepresentation. As well, the committee has asked a question with respect to the Island Industries Boardand the frequency with which it will be making referrals for investigations, reports andrecommendations. The committee has also raised a question with respect to the use of the term‘reasonable’ in section 159ZW governing the processes between the Indigenous regional councilssitting as a trustee of community deeds of grant in trust land and the land panels for each trust. Finally,the committee asked a question with respect to the inclusion of the existing power of island councils tocharge levies for the two new Indigenous regional councils.

Firstly, I would like to thank the committee for its comments. In particular, I note that thecommittee ‘considers that generally the provisions of the bill significantly enhance Aboriginal customand Island tradition’. The committee also noted the provisions of the bill ‘should ensure protection ofIndigenous cultural values and allow Indigenous peoples in the Torres Strait and northern peninsulaarea regions to actively participate in local governance’.

When I respond to the committee I will be addressing each of the questions it has raised and I willbe drawing to its attention the following matters. In relation to membership of community justice groups,a prospective member must give their written consent for the chief executive to request information fromthe police commissioner under the new section 21(2). This requirement ensures that a person makes aninformed consent and is aware of the important obligations of being a member of a community justicegroup, particularly in working with offenders and victims in the criminal justice system and taking part incourt hearings and sentencing and bail processes.

Given the nature of the functions of community justice groups it is important that informationabout a person’s criminal history is available to enable the minister to make a proper assessment of aperson’s suitability for appointment as a member of a group. Section 21(5) provides that if a persondoes not give their consent it is taken that the person is not considered suitable for appointment and


cannot become a member of a community justice group. The amendment in clause 21 updates theexisting provision in a manner consistent with similar legislative provisions dealing with the assessmentof a person’s suitability for appointment to a position.

There are a number of controls in place for this process and I will mention some of them. Thedecision by the chief executive to request information from the police commissioner under clause 21and to ask a person for their consent to request such information would be reviewable under the JudicialReview Act 1991. Also to ensure natural justice, fairness and consistency clause 19 inserts a newsection 21A into the act. This section provides for the chief executive to make guidelines regarding thehandling of information obtained under new section 21. New section 63A of the act to be inserted byclause 40 of this bill will ensure the confidentiality of information obtained by the chief executive underthis section.

I would now like to turn to the issue of island courts. Island courts no longer sit in the Torres Straitand have been replaced with the Justices of the Peace (Magistrates Court) which are magistrates courtsconstituted by two or more justices of the peace. The Justice of the Peace and Commissioners forDeclarations Act 1991 does not require the Justice of the Peace (Magistrates Court) to identify anAboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. However, in practice only elders and respected people from theremote communities are appointed. The jurisdiction of the Justices of the Peace (Magistrates Court) isfully contained in the Justices Act 1886 and has the same appeal rights as any Magistrates Court.

The Justice of the Peace (Magistrates Court) qualification allows a justice to constitute aMagistrates Court and hear breaches of the community by-laws, bail applications, domestic violenceapplications and minor summary offences. To date there is a Justices of the Peace (Magistrates Court)operating in Cherbourg, Kowanyama, Mornington Island, Doomadgee, Pormpuraaw, Woorabinda, HopeVale, Wujal Wujal, Yarrabah, Aurukun, Lockhart River, Badu Island, Thursday Island, Old Mapoon,Murray Island, Napranum, Bamaga and Palm Island.

In most cases these Indigenous justices convene the court. This practice means that a justice canstand down from a particular matter if required due to a conflict of interest and the remaining two cancontinue with the court. Having three justices of the peace convene court also provides the justices ofthe peace with greater confidence and a show of cross-representation from the various clan groups ineach community. Having local justices constitute court improves the capacity of the defendant tounderstand the court proceedings and sentencing as the justices interpret in the local dialect. Inaddition, the Justice of the Peace (Magistrates Court) uses growling and shaming as a means of penaltyand deterrent. Having a regular Justice of the Peace (Magistrates Court) means that the community hasownership of and access to a relevant justice system and has greater capacity to deal with the localjustice issues which otherwise might escalate into more serious matters if they are not dealt withexpediently.

I turn now to the Island Industries Board and the use of the phrase ‘from time to time’ in clause 28in relation to the frequency of the board making referrals for investigations, reports andrecommendations to the chief executive.

Time expired. Division: Question put—That the Local Government and Other Legislation (Indigenous Regional

Councils) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. AYES, 54—Attwood, Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe,Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan,O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone,Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, JonesNOES, 25—Copeland, Cunningham, Elmes, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard,McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Cripps, Dickson

Resolved in the affirmative.Question put—That the Local Government Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to.

Consideration in Detail (Cognate Debate)Local Government and Other Legislation (Indigenous Regional Councils) Amendment

BillClause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2—Mr HOBBS (5.32 pm): Clause 2 is probably the most offending clause of the lot. This provides for

commencement, on assent, of the establishment of two Indigenous regional councils and the creation ofthe community forums and land panels. This establishes those regional councils to which we are totallyopposed. And it is not just we who are opposed to them. The communities are opposed to them. Theydo not want regional councils. They want to have their own councils. This establishes the Torres StraitRegional Council and the Northern Peninsula Area Regional Council and it establishes the communityforums.


We do not need a community forum if we have individual councils. We are saying that we do notneed to have them. This legislation downgrades the representation that they already have. They alreadyhave their own councils and the government is taking those councils away from them. Uponcommencement of this provision the role of the trustees will actually move to regional councils. Thecommunities do not want that. Anyone in those communities will tell you that they want to manage theirown affairs.

Can the minister explain to this chamber exactly what the benefits of a regional council are goingto be, for example, for the residents of Yam Island or Sabai Island? Can the minister give us some reallygood examples of where this regional council will help the people on those islands? Also, how will theSabai people, for instance, be able to have representation for their seven individual clans on thoseislands?

Mr PITT: I am not going to respond to each and every question asked by the member opposite. Iwill say that clause 2 provides that the bill will commence on proclamation, except for the part11 amendments to the Local Government Act which will commence on assent but with someexceptions. In addition, those amendments to the Judicial Review Act 1991 and the Local Government(Chinatown and The Valley Malls) Act 1984 will commence on assent. Those clauses in part 11 whichare not commencing on assent but on proclamation are sections 93, 95 to 97, 108, 109, 113, 114, 120and 122 to 125. Those clauses in part 11 which are commencing on assent concern the establishmentof the two new Indigenous regional councils, the creation of community forums, land panels and the roleof the trustee. While they are commencing on assent, they will not have any effect until after changeoverday, when the Indigenous regional councils are formed. In addition, some minor amendments to theremuneration tribunal and adjustments to some local government boundaries will also commence onassent. That is what clause 2 refers to and that is my response.

Mr HOBBS: Well, there you go! This bill has 132 pages. I just asked the minister what benefit thisbill would have to the people of the island communities and he could not give me one example—not oneexample of how this bill is going to benefit those people. So why on earth are we doing this? Why are wedebating this bill if there is no benefit to the community? I ask the minister to once again explain to thisHouse what benefit there will be to those communities.

Mr PITT: I fully understand what the member opposite is trying to do. He is trying to prosecutearguments in relation to the local government reform process in general. We are now dealing with theclauses. We are dealing with specific clauses. The member heard my response as to this clause itself.That is my response. The member may ask that question again, but my response will be the same.

Mr HOBBS: I certainly will ask the question again. I do not think the minister knows. You do notknow, do you? You do not know what benefits there are, because there are none! There are no benefits!

An opposition member interjected.Mr HOBBS: I am not sure whether he has been up there or not, but the point is this: surely there

must be something that the minister can think of. Can he ask his advisers? There must be something inthis legislation—in these 132 pages—that will be of some benefit to them somewhere. Surely!

Mr PITT: Quite frankly, I just do not know where the member is coming from. We are talking abouta particular clause, and the member is trying to expand this into a general discussion as to the merits ornonmerits of amalgamation. The member has my answer.

Division: Question put—That clause 2, as read, stand part of the bill. AYES, 56—Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Foley, Fraser, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe,Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan,O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Pratt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence,Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, Wallace, Weightman, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, JonesNOES, 23—Copeland, Cripps, Elmes, Flegg, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle,Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Tellers: Dickson, Gibson

Resolved in the affirmative.Clause 2, as read, agreed to.Clauses 3 to 100, as read, agreed to. Clause 101—Mr HOBBS (5.44 pm): This clause takes particular entities out of existence. It clarifies that a local

government whose area is fully abolished by the amalgamation goes out of existence when the abolitionof the local government area is complete. In other words, this clause takes away all of those individualisland councils.

Every morning of every sitting day we come into this chamber and we acknowledge the traditionalowners. That flag that is standing behind the Speaker’s chair has 17 councils proudly displayed on it.What explanation will the minister give to those people in the Torres Strait for why they have to changetheir flag? For some ideological reason, the members opposite want that area to become a regionalcouncil. Why do those people have to change their flag?


Mr PITT: As the member indicated, clause 101 inserts a new section 159YHA, titled ‘Particularentities go out of existence.’ This clause clarifies that a local government whose area is fully abolishedby the amalgamation goes out of existence when the abolition is complete. That is what the clausedoes. It does nothing to flags.

Mr HOBBS: That flag has the names of those island councils on it. They are not councilsanymore. Those councils named on that flag will be changed into one regional council. Why is it thatthose opposite think that they are so great—that the whitefella knows all? Why are the membersopposite taking away the democratic right of those people to have their own councils when they do notwant, or need, for that to happen? I think the minister needs to come up with some sort of reason—surely he can come up with some reason—as to why this is to occur so that we can explain it to thosepeople when we see them.

Mr PITT: I know the member opposite sometimes finds it hard to grasp things, but the flag is not acouncil flag; the flag represents those communities. I am sure that, on 16 March when the sun risesagain, all of those communities will still exist.

Division: Question put—That clause 101, as read, stand part of the bill. AYES, 52—Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan,Jarratt, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien,Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers,Sullivan, Wallace, Weightman, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Jones

NOES, 26—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Elmes, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lingard,McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Dickson, Gibson

Resolved in the affirmative.Clause 101, as read, agreed to.Insertion of new clause—Mr PITT (5.53 pm): I move the following amendment—

1 After clause 101—At page 70, after line 24—

insert—

‘101A Amendment of s 159YJ (Operation of sch 1A, pt 2)‘Section 159YJ(2)—

insert—

‘(da) if the entry in schedule 1A, part 2, column 4 states division numbers—

(i) its local government area is divided into divisions that have the division boundaries shown in thearea map stated in schedule 1A, part 2, column 3; and

(ii) it has the number of councillors assigned to each division as stated in the entry in schedule 1A,part 2, column 4;’.’.

I table the explanatory notes.Tabled paper: Explanatory Notes for Amendments to be moved during consideration in detail by the Honourable Warren Pitt MP.

This first amendment involves inserting clause 101A to amend section 159YJ, operation ofschedule 1A, part 2. This is to clarify that those adjusted local governments listed in part 2 of schedule1A can be listed by divisional boundaries consistent with those new local governments listed in part 1 ofschedule 1A.

Amendment agreed to. Clauses 102 to 105, as read, agreed to. Clause 106 (Insertion of new ch 3, pt 1C)—Mr PITT (5.54 pm): I move the following amendment—

2 Clause 106 (Insertion of new ch 3, pt 1C)—At page 76, line 19, after ‘members’—

insert—

‘, qualified as prescribed under a regulation’.

The second amendment is to clause 106, insertion of new chapter 3, part 1C. It involves atechnical amendment of the clause by inserting ‘qualified as prescribed under a regulation’. Thepurpose of this amendment is to give flexibility to Torres Strait and northern peninsula area communitiesin terms of stipulating over time the qualifications for candidature for those people who wish to run in theelection of ordinary members of the 20 community forums.


Mr HOBBS: Clause 106 contains particular provisions for implementation of reform matters forIndigenous regional councils. The new part 1C deals with matters that are specific and unique to thenew Indigenous regional councils. The explanatory notes talk about what is specific and unique to thesenew Indigenous regional councils. Can the minister tell us exactly what is unique that he is referring to inthis particular piece of legislation?

Mr PITT: For the information of the shadow minister, I spoke to councillors and members of thecommunity of the Torres Strait when I was on Thursday Island in September. They were concerned thattheir traditions and their culture would find no way into the governance process. They indicated to methat they needed some method by which they could express those views and ensure that the individualcouncillor was aware of what they felt about things. This gives expression to that. It allows them tocreate the forums, which can act as a land panel in such a way that it will represent the wishes and theinterests of people who inhabit that island so that the new governance processes that will create aregional council will in no way diminish the capacity for them to have the influence they want anddeserve.

Mr HOBBS: This is actually so repugnant that it overrides other aspects of the clause. This is alarge clause and some of the provisions in it are quite reasonable if you have a regional council. Whilewe are not totally opposed to all of the provisions in this clause, we are certainly opposed to a regionalcouncil. Can the minister advise how under the new regional council the CDEP schemes will operateand exactly what the community housing arrangements will be under the new structure?

Mr PITT: Firstly, let us ponder the future of CDEP and, whether or not the colleagues fromCanberra of those opposite are to be returned on 24 November, whether it would be continued and inwhat form. There is constant discussion going on between the bureaucrats from the Commonwealth andleadership in many Indigenous communities including the Torres Strait.

The other issue that the member raises is housing. That is what will happen. Once a regionalcouncil is put in place, it will determine these matters in consultation with these community forums. Thatis the reason we have community forums so that they can discuss these issues and not only inform theirlocal councillor but provide the community with the communication process that is necessary to ensurethat they get good outcomes from both of the areas that the member mentions.

Mr HOBBS: In relation to the CDEP scheme, I was not referring to what may or may not happen.Let us assume that it will continue the way it is now because if it is not there something else will have totake its place. How will that operate? Presently the individual councils run all of those. They have theirown operations and management. Will there be the same number of people in the office running it butjust not being called a council? In relation to community housing, those councils presently make all ofthe arrangements. If the minister is saying that the community forums are going to do that, why is therea need to get rid of the councils?

Mr PITT: Let us go to the second part of your comment first in relation to housing. The stock ofhousing will transfer to the regional council, but, as has been indicated, there is a great need for directcommunication between not just the councillor on the island and the regional council but also thecommunity, represented through its community forum, and that particular councillor. The member knowsas well as I do that the councillor who represents that island will vigorously lobby or speak on behalf ofhis or her constituents. It will be their responsibility, as it is the responsibility of any electedrepresentative in any area, to ensure that the people in their community get a fair go. I have no doubtthat the regional councils will be cognisant of the need for those communities to have confidence in theway in which the public housing operates.

As for CDEP, I do not want to make any assumptions. I do not know what will happen on 24November. I have my money on a certain horse. However, work depots—and that is what they are—operate in a number of shires throughout mainstream councils in Queensland. They operate centrallyand they just go on. What the member is really talking about is the nature of the workforce, not whetheror not the works will continue. Of course they will continue and things will be done. I am sure that thatwill be effectively discharged by the regional council. When it comes to the workforce and how they drawtheir workforce, the outcome of the federal election will have some bearing on how that goes in terms ofhow a new or existing government handles the ongoing relationship between CDEP and communities.

Amendment agreed to. Division: Question put—That clause 106, as amended, stand part of the bill.

AYES, 48—Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech,Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce,Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, Wallace, Wells, Wendt,Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, JonesNOES, 25—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Elmes, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lingard, McArdle,Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Gibson, Dickson

Resolved in the affirmative.Clause 106, as amended, agreed to.


Clauses 107 to 126, as read, agreed to. Mr PITT (6.08 pm): I seek leave to move my remaining amendments en bloc. Leave granted. Mr PITT: I move the following amendments—

3 Clause 127 (Amendment of sch 1A (Local government reform implementation))—At page 106, line 10—omit, insert—‘LGRB 7 edition 3’.

‘(2A) Schedule 1A, part 1, entry for Scenic Rim, column 4, ‘divided’—omit, insert—‘division 1—1division 2—1division 3—1division 4—1division 5—1division 6—1’.’.

4 Clause 127 (Amendment of sch 1A (Local government reform implementation))—At page 106, line 17—omit, insert—‘LGRB 35 edition 3’.

‘(4A) Schedule 1A, part 2, entry for Ipswich, column 4, ‘divided’—omit, insert—‘division 1—1division 2—1division 3—1division 4—1division 5—1division 6—1division 7—1division 8—1division 9—1division 10—1’.’.

5 Clause 133 (Amendment of s 22 (Appointment of financial controller))—At page 108, after line 8—insert—‘by gazette notice’.’.

6 Before clause 134—At page 108, before line 9—insert—

‘133A Omission of s 38 (Power of community government to lend an amount to an adult resident)‘Section 38—omit.

‘133B Amendment of pt 8, div 2, hdg (Other transitional provisions)‘Part 8, division 2, heading, ‘provisions’—omit, insert—‘provisions for Local Government (Community Government Areas) Act 2004’.

‘133C Insertion of new pt 8, div 3‘Part 8—insert—

‘Division 3 Transitional provisions for Local Government and Other Legislation (Indigenous Regional Councils)Amendment Act 2007

‘85 Amounts loaned to individuals‘(1) On the commencement of this section—

(a) any adopted lending policy of a community government under repealed section 38 ceases to have effect;and

(b) all amounts payable, or that would have become payable, to the community government because of aloan made to a person under the section become payable to the community government.


‘(2) This section does not apply to an adopted lending policy of, or an amount payable to, a community government forany of the following community government areas as in existence immediately before the day that, under theLocal Government Act 1993, chapter 3, part 1B, is the changeover day for the new local government area ofNorthern Peninsula Area—(a) Injinoo;(b) New Mapoon;(c) Umagico.’.’.

Mr PITT: The third and fourth amendments are to clause 127, ‘Amendment of sch 1A (Localgovernment reform implementation)’, and involve technical changes to boundary references. This is toensure that the revised local government area is described and the correct divisional boundaries areestablished for the 2008 quadrennial local government elections.

The fifth amendment involves clause 133, ‘Amendment of s 22 (Appointment of financialcontroller)’. It involves a technical change to the appointment of financial controllers to Aboriginalcouncils under the Local Government (Community Government Areas) Regulation 2004. It can be madeby Governor in Council with notification by gazette notice. This replaces the current requirement tomake a regulation. This is consistent with the bill in that this process will now apply to all localgovernments including Indigenous regional councils.

The sixth amendment involves the repeal of section 38 of the Local Government (CommunityGovernment Areas) Act 2004. The bill provides for a new section 501G in the Local Government Act1993 that prohibits a local government from providing loans to individuals. Section 38 of the LocalGovernment (Community Government Areas) Act 2004 states that a community government Aboriginalcouncil may lend an amount to an adult resident. These are conflicting sections as the intention is toapply a no-loan policy across all local governments including Aboriginal councils. Therefore, section 38of the Local Government (Community Government Areas) Act 2004 is to be repealed.

There are two transitional amendments provided by clauses 133(b) and 133(c) for the no-loanspolicy. Clause 133(b) changes the heading of part 8 division 2 so that it can be distinguished from thenew part 8 division 3 which is inserted by clause 133(c). Clause 133(c) inserts a new part 8 division 3into the Local Government (Community Government Areas) Act 2004 to provide a transitional provisionfor any existing loans that Aboriginal councils under the act may have provided to adult residents. Thepurpose of the provision is to provide for the repayment of loans. None of these amendments involve achange in policy.

Amendments agreed to.Question put—That all remaining clauses and schedules, as amended, stand part of the bill.Motion agreed to.

Local Government Amendment BillClause 1, as read, agreed to.Clause 2, as read, agreed to.Insertion of new clause—Mr HOBBS (6.12 pm): I move—

1 After clause 2—At page 4, after line 6—insert—

‘2A Insertion of new s 88A‘After section 88—insert—

‘88A Requirement to apply communities no disadvantage test for amalgamations‘(1) This section applies if the reviewable local government matter is a reviewable local government matter mentioned

in section 64(1)(a)(i) or (ii) or (f) (the amalgamation matter).‘(2) The commission must apply a test (the communities no disadvantage test), as provided for in this section, to

the amalgamation matter.‘(3) The amalgamation matter passes the communities no disadvantage test only if the commission is satisfied that, if

the matter is implemented in accordance with its recommendations, there will not be, as the direct or indirectresult of the implementation—(a) any rise in local government rates payable by any person in the affected area; or(b) any withdrawal of local government services as enjoyed by persons in the affected area before

implementation; or(c) any loss of employment for local government employees providing local government services in the

affected area before implementation; or(d) any decrease in the overall percentage of local government employees providing outdoor local

government services in the affected area before implementation; or


(e) any increase in the distance any person is required to travel to gain access to any local governmentservices.

‘(4) Also, the amalgamation matter passes the communities no disadvantage test only if the commission is satisfiedthat, if the matter is implemented in accordance with its recommendations—(a) there will be no need for any small businesses or other services, including for example any bank, post

office, hospital or school, to be closed, or to be relocated, because of the relocation of any centre of localgovernment administrative activity; and

(b) the levels and types of developments permitted under planning schemes in any particular part of theaffected area before the implementation will continue to be the only levels and types permitted in that partafter the implementation.

‘(5) The underlying purpose of subsection (4)(b) is to ensure that the identities of local communities are preserved.‘(6) If the amalgamation matter does not pass the communities no disadvantage test, the commission must, under

section 89, determine that the amalgamation matter not be implemented.‘(7) In this section—

affected area means each local government area or part of a local government area that, on the implementationof the amalgamation matter, will form part of a new or adjusted local government area.local government services, enjoyed by persons in the affected area before implementation, includes servicesless commonly provided by local governments.Examples of services less commonly provided—

health clinics, aged and child support services, community and sporting club support, support of any typefor rural fire brigades.’.’.

2 Before clause 3—At page 4, before clause 3—insert—

‘2A Amendment of s 93 (Making final determination and preparation of report)‘Section 93—insert—

‘(7A) If the matter is an amalgamation matter under section 88A, the reasons for the commission’s determination mustinclude the commission’s reasons why the amalgamation matter passed the communities no disadvantage testunder that section.’.’.


‘2C Insertion of new ch 3, pt 1, div 8A‘Chapter 3, part 1, after section 151—insert—

‘Division 8A Reviewable local government matters from SSS reviews‘Subdivision 1 Preliminary‘151A Definitions for div 8A

‘In this division—minor matter means a relevant reviewable local government matter the implementation of which has beenagreed to in writing by—(a) all local governments whose areas, or parts of whose areas, are the subject of the matter; and(b) all owners of land that is the subject of the matter.minor recommendation means an SSS review recommendation, if it is for the implementation of a minor matter.relevant reviewable local government matter means a reviewable local government matter—(a) mentioned in section 64(1)(a), (c), (f) or (l); and(b) that involves 2 or more local governments.relevant SSS review, in relation to an SSS review recommendation, means the SSS review out of which the SSSreview recommendation arose.significant recommendation means an SSS review recommendation, other than a minor recommendation.SSS review means a review that—(a) examines governance and service delivery arrangements in relation to 2 or more local governments; and(b) is carried out under a review framework—

(i) put in place by the Local Government Association, local governments and the department; and(ii) generally referred to using the expression ‘Size, Shape and Sustainability’.

SSS review recommendation means a recommendation, arising out of an SSS review, for the implementation ofa relevant reviewable local government matter.


‘Subdivision 2 Referral and certification‘151B Referral of SSS review recommendation to commissioner

‘(1) A local government may ask the Minister to refer an SSS review recommendation to the commissioner.‘(2) Alternatively, the Minister may decide, without being asked by a local government, to refer an SSS review

recommendation to the commissioner.‘(3) The Minister may require a request under subsection (1) to be made in an approved form.‘(4) A request under subsection (1) may be made jointly by some or all of the local governments that are the subject of

the recommendation.‘(5) In deciding under subsection (1) or (2) whether to refer the SSS review recommendation to the commissioner, the

Minister may require the local governments that are the subject of the recommendation to give the Minister allinformation about the conduct of the relevant SSS review the Minister reasonably requires.

‘151C Certification by commissioner‘(1) If the Minister refers the SSS review recommendation to the commissioner, the commissioner must decide

whether or not to certify the consultation for the relevant SSS review.‘(2) For subsection (1), the commissioner is only required to decide whether the nature and extent of the consultation

forming part of the relevant SSS review was, in substance, at least equivalent to the nature and extent ofconsultation required of a commission—(a) under section 88, in relation to the reference of a reviewable local government matter; and(b) under section 90, in relation to a proposal to determine that a reviewable local government matter be

implemented.‘(3) In deciding whether or not to certify the consultation, the commissioner may require the local governments the

subject of the recommendation to give the commissioner all information about the conduct of the relevant SSSreview the commissioner reasonably requires.

‘(4) The commissioner must advise the Minister of the commissioner’s decision under this section as soon aspracticable after the decision is made.

‘Subdivision 3 Certified minor recommendation‘151D Dealing with minor recommendation

‘(1) This section applies if—(a) the SSS review recommendation is a minor recommendation; and(b) the commissioner certifies the consultation for the relevant SSS review.

‘(2) The Governor in Council must implement the reviewable local government matter the subject of therecommendation as soon as practicable after the Minister receives the recommendation under subsection (1).

‘Subdivision 4 Certified significant recommendation‘151E Application of sdiv 4

‘This subdivision applies if—(a) the SSS review recommendation is a significant recommendation; and(b) the commissioner certifies the consultation for the relevant SSS review.

‘151F Requirement for referendum‘(1) A referendum must be held in relation to the SSS review recommendation.‘(2) Division 7 applies, with any necessary changes, to the referendum as if the referendum in relation to the SSS

review recommendation were a referendum to be held in relation to a commission’s proposed determination of areviewable local government matter.

‘(3) Without limiting subsection (2), the necessary changes mentioned in subsection (2) include any necessarychanges to words defined in schedule 2.

‘151G Advice to Minister and local governments‘(1) As soon as practicable after the final result of the referendum is known, the commissioner must give the Minister,

and all local governments the subject of the SSS review recommendation, a report that includes the details of theresult of the referendum that the Minister reasonably requires.

‘(2) The Minister may require a report under subsection (1) to be given in an approved form.‘Subdivision 5 Implementation of significant recommendation‘151H Referendum question approved

‘(1) This section applies if the report of the commissioner under subdivision 4 indicates that the referendum questionhas been approved by the affected area for the reviewable local government matter that is the subject of the SSSreview recommendation.

‘(2) The Governor in Council must implement the reviewable local government matter the subject of therecommendation as soon as practicable after the Minister receives the commissioner’s report.

‘151I Referendum question not approved‘(1) This section applies if the report of the commissioner under subdivision 4 indicates that the referendum question

has not been approved by the affected area for the reviewable local government matter that is the subject of theSSS review recommendation.

‘(2) The Minister may, within 7 sitting days after the Minister receives the report, table in the Legislative Assembly—(a) the commissioner’s report; and


(b) a copy of the material that the Minister considered in deciding whether to refer the SSS reviewrecommendation to the commissioner for certification of the consultation for the relevant SSS review.

‘(3) Within 7 sitting days after the Minister tables the commissioner’s report and other material under subsection (2),the Legislative Assembly may resolve that the Governor in Council be asked to make a regulation implementingthe reviewable local government matter.

‘(4) If the Legislative Assembly resolves that the Governor in Council be asked to implement the matter, the Governorin Council must implement the matter as soon as practicable after the resolution is passed.

‘Subdivision 6 Implementation‘151J Implementation of reviewable local government matter

‘(1) This section applies if the Governor in Council is to implement a reviewable local government matter under thisdivision.

‘(2) Division 10 applies to the implementation.‘(3) However, for applying section 158(1), the reference to the commissioner’s and the commission’s compliance with

this Act is taken to be a reference to the commissioner’s and the Minister’s compliance with this division.‘(4) If a regulation is made to implement the matter and the regulation is to commence on a later day fixed in it, for this

division, the matter must not be taken not to have been implemented as soon as practicable only because of thelater commencement.Examples of subsection (4)—

1 Because of the holding of quadrennial elections under this Act, or fresh elections under theregulation, the regulation may commence after its notification.

2 Because of financial implications, the regulation may commence at the start of a financial year.’.’.4 Before clause 3—

At page 4, before clause 3—insert—

‘2D Omission of s 159X (Review of particular decisions and actions)‘Section 159X—omit.


‘2F Amendment of s 159YA (Application of pt 1B)‘Section 159YA(2)—omit.’.


‘2G Amendment of s 159YD (Definitions for pt 1B)‘Section 159YD, definition major policy decision, paragraph (a)—omit.’.


‘2H Amendment of s 159YD (Definitions for pt 1B)‘Section 159YD, definition major policy decision, paragraph (b)—omit.’.


‘2I Amendment of s 159YD (Definitions for pt 1B)‘Section 159YD, definition major policy decision, paragraph (c)—omit.’.


‘2J Amendment of s 159YD (Definitions for pt 1B)‘Section 159YD, definition major policy decision, paragraph (d)—omit.’.



‘2K Amendment of s 159YD (Definitions for pt 1B)‘Section 159YD, definition major policy decision, paragraph (d)—omit, insert—‘(d) to enter into a contract, other than a contract between the local government and the State or the

Commonwealth, the total value of which is more than the greater of the following—(i) $500000;(ii) 20% of the local government’s net rate and utility charges as stated in the local government’s

audited financial statements included in the local government’s most recently adopted annualreport.’.’.


‘2L Amendment of s 159YD (Definitions for pt 1B)‘Section 159YD, definition major policy decision—omit.’.


‘2M Amendment of s 159YD (Definitions for pt 1B)‘Section 159YD, definition transferring area A—omit.’.


‘2N Amendment of s 159YD (Definitions for pt 1B)‘Section 159YD, definition transferring area B—omit.’.

15 Before clause 3—at page 4, before clause 3—insert—

‘2O Amendment of s 159YD (Definitions for pt 1B)‘Section 159YD, definition transferring area C—omit.’.


‘2P Amendment of s 159YD (Definitions for pt 1B)‘Section 159YD, definition transferring area D—omit.’.


‘2Q Amendment of s 159YD (Definitions for pt 1B)‘Section 159YD, definition transferring area E—omit.’.


‘2R Amendment of s 159YD (Definitions for pt 1B)‘Section 159YD, definition transferring area F—omit.’.


‘2S Amendment of s 159YD (Definitions for pt 1B)‘Section 159YD, definition transferring area G—omit.’.



‘2T Amendment of s 159YD (Definitions for pt 1B)‘Section 159YD, definition transferring area H—omit.’.


‘2U Amendment of s 159YD (Definitions for pt 1B)‘Section 159YD, definition transferring area I—omit.’.


‘2V Amendment of s 159YD (Definitions for pt 1B)‘Section 159YD, definition transferring area J—omit.’.


‘2W Amendment of s 159YD (Definitions for pt 1B)‘Section 159YD, definition transferring area K—omit.’.


‘2X Amendment of s 159YD (Definitions for pt 1B)‘Section 159YD, definition transferring area L—omit.’.


‘2Y Amendment of s 159YD (Definitions for pt 1B)‘Section 159YD, definition transferring area M—omit.’.


‘2Z Omission of s 159YE (Changeover day)‘Section 159YE—omit.’.


‘2ZA Omission of ch 3, pt 1B, div 2 (Establishment of new local government areas and adjustments of localgovernment areas)

‘Chapter 3, part 1B, division 2—omit.’.


‘2ZB Omission of ch 3, pt 1B, div 2, sdiv 2 (New local government areas)‘Chapter 3, part 1B, division 2, subdivision 2—omit.’.


‘2ZC Omission of ch 3, pt 1B, div 2, sdiv 3 (Adjusted local government areas)‘Chapter 3, part 1B, division 2, subdivision 3—omit.’.



‘2ZD Omission of ch 3, pt 1B, div 2, sdiv 6 (Division boundaries for new, adjusted and continuing local governmentareas)

‘Chapter 3, part 1B, division 2, subdivision 6—omit.’.


‘2ZE Omission of s 159YP (Review of commissioner’s decision)‘Section 159YP—omit.’.


‘2ZF Omission of ch 3, pt 1B, div 3 (Implementation of reform matters)‘Chapter 3, part 1B, division 3—omit.’.


‘2ZG Omission of ch 3, pt 1B, div 4 (Local transition committees)‘Chapter 3, part 1B, division 4—omit.’.


‘2ZH Amendment of s 159YR (Establishment and composition of local transition committees for new localgovernments)

‘Section 159YR(2)(b) and (5)—omit.’.


‘2ZI Omission of ch 3, pt 1B, div 4, sdiv 1 (Local transition committees for new local government areas)‘Chapter 3, part 1B, division 4, subdivision 1—omit.’.


‘2ZJ Omission of ch 3, pt 1B, div 4, sdiv 2 (Transferring area local transition committees)‘Chapter 3, part 1B, division 4, subdivision 2—omit.’.


‘2ZK Omission of ch 3, pt 1B, div 5 (Transition action plans)‘Chapter 3, part 1B, division 5—omit.’.


‘2ZL Omission of ch 3, pt 1B, div 6 (Interim chief executive officers)‘Chapter 3, part 1B, division 6—omit.’.


‘2ZM Omission of ch 3, pt 1B, div 7 (Employment matters)‘Chapter 3, part 1B, division 7—omit.’.



‘2ZN Omission of s 159ZQ (Giving of directions under div 9)‘Section 159ZQ—omit.’.


‘2ZO Omission of s 159ZR (Directions by chief executive)‘Section 159ZR—omit.’.


‘2ZP Omission of s 159ZS (Powers of Minister)‘Section 159ZS—omit.’.


‘2ZQ Omission of s 159ZT (Compliance with direction)‘Section 159ZT—omit.’.


‘2ZR Omission of ch 3, pt 1B, div 9 (State intervention powers)‘Chapter 3, part 1B, division 9—omit.’.


‘2ZS Omission of s 159ZW (Prohibition on major policy decision in transition period)‘Section 159ZW—omit.’.


‘2ZT Omission of s 159ZX (Invalidity of major policy decision in transition period if decision revoked)‘Section 159ZX—omit.’.

There are numerous amendments to this bill and I will not be able to go through them all becauseof the time. One of the main amendments is the provision of a new section on the communities nodisadvantage test for amalgamations. This section introduces a provision where, for each matter that isa reviewable local government matter, the commission must apply the communities no disadvantagetest. An amalgamation matter will only pass a communities no disadvantage test if the commission,looking into the reviewable matter, is satisfied that the amalgamation of two or more councils will notcause several direct or indirect effects.

So as a result of implementation, for instance, these effects would be: rates will not rise; councilservices will not be withdrawn, including those usually not offered, such as health clinics, age and childcare support, support for community and sporting clubs and rural fire brigades; there will be no joblosses for council staff delivering services; the percentage of council staff delivering outdoor services willnot decrease; the distance needed to travel to access council services will not increase; smallbusinesses and services, such as banks, post offices, hospitals and schools, will not have to close downor relocate due to council administrations moving to other centres; and the same level or type ofdevelopments allowed under the old town plans are maintained in new town plans to ensure that thelocal identity of communities is preserved.

Amendment No. 2 relates to making a final determination and preparation of a report to include anew subsection so that the commission must give, as part of its report to the minister, the reasons whyan amalgamation matter passed the communities no disadvantage test.


There are numerous other amendments there, and I will mention amendment No. 26. Thereshould not be a changeover date without the following: firstly, establishing the need for local governmentareas to be amalgamated; secondly, establishing that a community will not be disadvantaged byamalgamation; and, thirdly, giving the people of the community the opportunity to have a say on whetherthe community wishes to implement changes to the local government structure.

Presently, the communities have not had a say. The only say they will have will be through thefederal plebiscite that will be put in place through the Australian Electoral Commission. People need tohave a say. I ask the government why it is afraid of letting the people have a say on whether theircouncils should be amalgamated.

The amendments also relate to conducting an open and transparent inquiry into the pros andcons of change. Amendment No. 31 seeks to omit section 159YP, which is the review of thecommissioner’s decision. Basically, the decision of the commissioner under this division is final andconclusive and cannot be challenged et cetera. This is an unacceptable measure, as it removes judicialscrutiny from the decision of the reform commission. It has come to light recently that the reformcommission was not given the submissions of councils to review individually before making decisions; itwas given a precis of submissions by the state government.

That is a summary of the amendments that I have moved. There are quite a few amendments;they are too numerous to mention them all.

Mr PITT: It is passing strange that the member for Warrego talks of a no disadvantage test. Itwould have been nice if his colleagues in Canberra when they dreamed up WorkChoices had thoughtthe same about it. The member also made much of the will of the people and referenda. Again,WorkChoices, to quote an example from his colleagues in Canberra, was introduced without any will ofthe people or referenda as well. There was no mandate for it at all.

It is somewhat appropriate on this last sitting day of parliament in 2007 that the opposition haschosen to introduce a raft of amendments that offer no new ideas or strategic thinking about the futureof local government in Queensland. Rather than use this day to demonstrate some forward thinkingabout local government, opposition members have chosen to rehash amendments, most of which werealready considered and rejected by parliament in August this year. This demonstrates a group which isbereft of ideas, stuck in the past and unable to provide a vision for local government in Queensland.Opposition members want nothing to change and believe the world does not turn.

We in government do not have the luxury to remain in a cocoon from the realities of life. Instead,we act to deal with the changing face of Queensland—a Queensland that is being driven by populationand economic growth. We are providing for local government an increased capacity to deal with thechallenges of the 21st century.

The amendments moved by the member for Warrego seek to omit almost every division of thechapter that provides for reform implementation and the establishment of a modern local governmentsector in Queensland. The majority of the amendments proposed by the shadow minister are redundantand should be seen as a cynical waste of time. It is 40-odd pages, when a single sentence would haveachieved the member’s intent—that is, to turn back the clock on necessary local government reform inQueensland.

The amendments are poorly written, ambiguous and extremely confusing for members of theHouse. There are numerous occasions when an overarching amendment provision seeks to omit theentire division of the act dealing with those matters where previous amendments had sought to omit asection at a time.

These amendments are contradictory and confusing. Many are duplicated through the bill and areessentially the same as those amendments previously sought by the member for Warrego in August.The amendments propose to remove the process allowing local governments to participate in and takeownership of the change process in their own communities. Local transition committees have madegreat progress to date implementing the reforms. All 34 committees have been formed. All 31 requiredthat CEOs—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Under the provisions of the resolution agreed to by the Houseand the time limits for the consideration of the bill having expired, the question is that the member forWarrego’s amendments be agreed to.

Division: Question put—That the member for Warrego’s amendments be agreed to. AYES, 26—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Elmes, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lingard,McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Dickson, GibsonNOES, 50—Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Darling, Fenlon, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech,Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk,Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan,Wallace, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Finn, Male

Resolved in the negative.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Any future division on these bills will be of two

minutes duration.Clauses 3 to 6, as read, agreed to.

15 Nov 2007 Parliamentary Amnesty Group 4399

Third Reading (Cognate Debate)Division: Question put—That the Local Government and Other Legislation (Indigenous Regional

Councils) Amendment Bill, as amended, be now read a third time. AYES, 48—Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Darling, Fenlon, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech,Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce,Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, Wallace, Wells,Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Finn, MaleNOES, 26—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Elmes, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lingard,McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Dickson, Gibson

Resolved in the affirmative.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind honourable members that future divisions will be of two

minutes duration.Question put—That the Local Government Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Motion agreed to.

Long Title (Cognate Debate)Question put—That the long title of the Local Government and Other Legislation (Indigenous

Regional Councils) Amendment Bill be agreed to.Motion agreed to.Question put—That the long title of the Local Government Amendment Bill be agreed to.Motion agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY AMNESTY GROUP

International Day of Action, PakistanHon. DM WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (6.31 pm), by leave, without notice: It has become a

tradition of this parliament that before we rise to prepare for the season of peace and goodwill we turnour minds and ply our resolutions to those for whom peace is impossible and goodwill merely anaspiration, and therefore I move— That this House—(a) Notes—today, Thursday 15 November, is International Day of Action on Pakistan.(b) Notes the current state of emergency established by the government of President Musharraf with deep concern.(c) Condemns the extra-constitutional activity which imposed the current state of emergency.(d) Notes that the current state of emergency breaches international human rights standards enshrined in Pakistan’s

constitution including:a. The right not to be arbitrarily deprived of liberty; andb. Key elements of the right to a fair trial.

(e) Condemns the current use of mass arbitrary arrest to censor opposition and prohibit freedom of expression.(f) Urges urgent return to constitutional rule, democracy and press freedom.

This parliament of course respects the rights of parliaments elsewhere and of people elsewhereto their own self-determination, but what this parliament is entitled to stand up for is the fundamentalhuman rights of citizens everywhere. I urge honourable members to join me in supporting the people ofPakistan.

Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (6.33 pm): I second the motion moved by the memberfor Murrumba, a man who has very passionately held views. Whilst I may not always share them Iappreciate the way that he delivers them in this House. The point is that he has a right to make his viewsknown. I respect his right to deliver his views. I note that he is obviously not very well tonight becausenormally he would have spoken for far longer than he did tonight. I enjoy listening to the honourablemember for Murrumba.

We should not forget that politics is a contest of ideas and that no side has a monopoly ormortgage on any issue, whether it is human rights or social issues. The issue that is the subject of thismotion tonight was brought home to me a couple of weeks ago at an admission ceremony for a solicitorwho was a former staff member of mine. The Chief Justice, Paul de Jersey, referred to the issues inPakistan at this very nice ceremony last Monday morning.

It was very interesting to hear the Chief Justice refer to those issues. He was pointing out thatthere is a stark contrast between what is happening in Pakistan at the moment and what happens here.An article I read in The Economist magazine summarised the things that are happening in Pakistan. It is

4400 Parliamentary Amnesty Group 15 Nov 2007

very tragic and it is something that we do not experience here because of our separation of the judiciary,the executive and the parliament. The article in this week’s issue of The Economist stated—In Pakistan the Supreme Court and the provisional high courts have been suspended, dozens of dissident judges have beenpurged, political gatherings are banned, at least 2,000 lawyers, political activists, human rights workers and journalists have beendetained.

The Chief Justice in this very nice ceremony pointed out just how great a country we live in andwhat a great state we live in. I note that last year the honourable member for Ashgrove mentionedBurma. I think that is another country that could have been included in this motion given what she saidlast year. We are very aware of what is happening under that military junta in Burma.

People like Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters will know from the motion that we are movingtonight that they have support for their struggle. Some 25 years ago when I was working in Englandthere was a great movement to free Nelson Mandela. I would never have believed at the time that hewould now be considered one of the world’s greatest statesmen. It shows the struggle of the people whotried to free Nelson Mandela and the great success they had. It did work in that case. It shows us thatthere are different ways to achieve the things we need to. Most importantly, people should have the rightto express their views.

In Australia and Queensland we have a commitment to freedom of speech and freedom ofassociation and freedom of assembly. This takes me back to my induction ceremony. I am sure theSpeaker and the Clerk of the Parliament are happy to realise that some of us do remember some of ourinduction. I remember someone coming to us and telling us that many people who come from othercountries find it perplexing that our system works without enforcement by the police or the armed forces.It is something that we can be very proud of. Even though we come in here and the debate is veryrobust most importantly it is about ideas. We are very proud of our civil society. Long may it continue. Itdoes work.

I am happy to second the motion. I pay tribute to someone in my family. My father was aconscientious objector in the Netherlands in the 1950s. He refused to serve in the armed forces. He isnow 75 years old and lives in Melbourne. But in a country like the Netherlands where he refused to dohis national service he was jailed for six months. He stood up for what he believed in. People have theright to do so. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (6.38 pm): In 1946 the United Nations held its first meeting of theGeneral Assembly. The decision then reached was that all peoples of the world should enjoy certainfreedoms. Those freedoms have been accepted freely in this country. It is often with a great degree ofabhorrence that we see what happens in other countries.

The member for Surfers Paradise mentioned Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma. Today we show oursolidarity for those people in Pakistan who are being downtrodden and denied those freedoms. Pakistanwas formed after a split with India in 1947. The original Pakistani constitution did not commence and thefirst president was Iskandar Mirza in 1956. He lasted about two years and he tried the same thing that isnow happening. He abrogated the constitution and declared martial law. Only a couple weeks later hefell foul of Ayub Khan. Ayub Khan subsequently fell foul of Yahya Khan which led us to the currentgroup. Yahya Khan was dethroned by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1971. As many of us will recall—some mightnot be old enough to remember; I apologise for that—Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was, according to internationalstandards, not a very good ruler because he took the same steps that Musharraf has done now.

Benazir Bhutto is his daughter, but Bhutto himself fell foul of Zia-ul-Huq and he was subsequentlyexecuted. We now have Pervez Musharraf who claims to be a great friend of the United Nations and agreat friend of the free world, but he has imposed these restrictions on the people of Pakistan. I note thattoday’s paper reports that Imran Khan, who has been strongly opposed to the imposition of martial law,has been arrested. He was in hiding for a couple of days but when he came out to lead a group ofstudents he was arrested. It is noteworthy that although she has returned to Britain his wife JemimaKhan last weekend led a march in support of the Pakistani people. These are people who are probablysome of the poorest on earth. The military rulers rule with an iron fist and get the benefit of all of thevalue in the Pakistani economy. If the truth be known, they hold their position purely and simply to getthe financial benefit out of it. As indicated by the member for Surfers Paradise, this country has apolitical system of which we can be proud. There has never been a change of government by militaryaction such as there has been in Pakistan. I seek the support of all members in this House to condemnwhat has happened in Pakistan and to yell loud and long in support of the Pakistani people so that theycan return to freedom.

Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (6.41 pm): I, too, rise to support the Amnesty Internationalmotion moved by the member for Murrumba. Today marks a global day of action to support the pursuitof democracy in Pakistan. Thousands of lawyers, judges and journalists in Pakistan today delivered apetition to the High Commission for Pakistan to demand justice in the troubled country. AmnestyInternational said that the petition, addressed to President General Pervez Musharraf, demands fullrespect for freedom of expression in Pakistan, the release of all of those arbitrarily detained under thestate of emergency, the reinstatement of the independent judiciary, justice for the victims of enforceddisappearance, and no introduction of military tribunals for civilians.

15 Nov 2007 Parliamentary Amnesty Group 4401

Demonstrations of support are also taking place today in Australia, Canada, India, Nepal,Norway, Paraguay, Switzerland, Turkey and the US. Governments around the world have also beencalled on to suspend all forms of security cooperation, including military assistance, until Pakistan liftsthe emergency measures. Opposition leader Benazir Bhutto has called on President General Musharrafto quit and the Commonwealth has given General Musharraf 10 days to lift the state of emergency orface the expulsion of Pakistan from the Commonwealth. The fight for democracy in Pakistan has been along and protracted one and one which began long before the return of former Prime Minister BenazirBhutto to Pakistan on 19 October when suicide bombers again used terror to try to thwart democracy,killing 139 people in Karachi. It began even before General Musharraf took power in a military coup in1999 when Pakistan was suspended from the Commonwealth, only to be reinstated in 2004.

The struggle for democracy and justice in Pakistan has been continuing for decades and hasbeen pursued by many, including international cricket icon Imran Khan, who was arrested leaving hishouse yesterday to attend a rally. In the early 1990s I read a book which was to have a profound effecton me. It was Benazir Bhutto’s 1989 autobiography, Daughter of Destiny. I cannot recall now thesections of the book, the particular parts or the part of her story which struck me most. It was an entirefeeling I had after reading her story. I know I will certainly never forget the feelings I had when I read ofher life and I had the overwhelming sense then—and still do now—that this woman was and is a beaconfor democracy and an inspiration for all women.

Benazir Bhutto was at age 35 the youngest and the first woman Prime Minister to lead a Muslimnation in the modern age. She was elected in 1988, after having already spent six years in jail and twoyears in exile. As leader of the Pakistan People’s Party, she started the People’s program to lift theeconomic standards of the masses, lifted a ban on student and trade unions and spoke out aboutwomen’s social and health issues, including the issue of discrimination against women. She announcedplans to establish women’s police stations, courts and women’s development banks—separate butnecessary measures to ensure access to these services for women in this strict Islamic country. In 1990she was dismissed by the president and was re-elected in 1993. Her government was again dismissedby the president in 1996 on corruption charges and she left Pakistan in 1997 on self-imposed exile.

Many things have been said about Benazir Bhutto, including that she initially supported theTaliban before its terrorist activities became evident. And then there are the allegations of corruption—allegations never tested in a court of law. But the uncontestable truth remains: this is a woman who waselected by her political party and by her people and deposed by military rule. In that, she followed in thefootsteps of her father, former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was also dismissed by a militarypresident general. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was charged with corruption and then conspiracy to murder—accusations widely doubted both at home and abroad—and was sentenced to death and hangeddespite international calls for clemency in 1979.

Today Benazir Bhutto is herself under house arrest in Lahore and supporters who have tried tosee her have been beaten back by military police. Military ruler General Musharraf has suspendedPakistan’s Constitution, sacked the Chief Justice, imposed strict media controls and ordered the arrestof opposition activists, human rights activists and other supporters. As we consider this motion tonight,which I am sure all members of the House will support, I would like honourable members to reflect onthe wonderful treasure that we honour in this place—the free, just and safe democracy we werefortunate to be born under and to which our children are born. It is easy to take it for granted and toforget that people die fighting for it every day. My own father fought Communist forces in Hungary in1956 for democracy, fleeing his home country to avoid arrest and trial as a traitor of the state. So todayI am extremely grateful—I am thankful for it—and very thankful for the opportunity to participate in thisdebate and are most thankful for the company of all of my parliamentary colleagues, particularly thoseon the opposite side of the House, because tonight we can do something that many politicians in manyother parts of the world cannot do: we can celebrate together, we can wish each other a MerryChristmas and we can do it with genuine goodwill and genuine good cheer. I commend the motion to theHouse.

Mr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (6.47 pm): I rise to support the motion moved by the member forMurrumba, who has long been a champion of human rights in this parliament. I found an interestingquote by Richard Branson who said that he does not mind the idea of a benevolent dictatorship as longas he is the dictator. There has long been this kind of misnomer about benevolent dictatorship. Today inPakistan democracy itself is on trial in the court of public opinion. Today is an international day of actionwhich has been called by Amnesty International, representatives of the legal profession and theInternational Federation of Journalists in response to the alarming actions of the dictatorship ofPresident Musharraf. That is certainly no benevolent dictatorship.

Protest marches have been organised in many capital cities including London, Paris, New Yorkand it is expected that tens of thousands of people will gather throughout the world to protest at theviolence which has certainly escalated, particularly in the last week. Mass arrests and detention ofpolitical activists from opposition parties have taken place over the past three days across the country.

4402 Parliamentary Amnesty Group 15 Nov 2007

Police have used batons and tear gas to disperse peaceful protests before arresting them. In Lahore onWednesday 37 women political activists belonging to the opposition Pakistan People’s Party have beenremanded in custody for six days by an anti-terrorism court.

Police have filed charges under the Anti-Terrorism Act. Former cricket star and opposition partyleader, Imran Khan, who went into hiding after the declaration of emergency, was arrested this morningat Punjab University, Lahore, where he was participating in a student demonstration. He remains inpolice custody, having been served a 90-day detention order. It is believed that the former world-classcricketer was mobbed by Jemaah Islamiyah extremists and dragged into the university where he washeld for almost an hour before being handed over to local police. His supporters hold grave fears for hissafety whilst in custody. According to media reports, the Lahore police chief is reported to have statedthat Imran Khan will charged under the Anti-Terrorism Act for allegedly making inflammatory speeches,including inciting people to take up arms, calling for civil disobedience and, in their words, spreadinghatred.

President Musharraf has condemned all constitutional activity in Pakistan, which includes theright to protest or gather in public places. This action is in direct violation of not only internationalstandards but also Pakistan’s constitution itself. Article 9(1) of the ICCPR states—Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall bedeprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law.

Obviously, President Musharraf, in his desperate bid to cling to power, has completely flouted his ownconstitution.

Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states—Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of hisrights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

I commend this motion to the House. I think people of goodwill all over the world are screamingfor change as democracy in Pakistan is being absolutely flouted by a desperate dictator. Many membersin this parliament have spoken of the great privilege that we enjoy in being able to meet in freedom likethis and to express our ideas without fear of unlawful arrest. On that basis, I commend the motion to theHouse.

Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (6.52 pm): It is my privilege to speak in support of this motion. I wantto begin by commending the member for Murrumba for establishing this convention whereby thisparliament ends every year with a motion devoted to the higher principles of human rights anddemocracy. I think that is an extremely fitting note on which to finish what are always constructive butsometimes difficult years. I think that those values are important and I think that the member forMurrumba’s continuing role, in some ways as the conscience of this place, should be acknowledged andcommended by all of us.

I am pleased to rise to speak in support of the member’s motion, which condemns the Pakistanmilitary regime’s installation of emergency rule, the suspension of its constitution and the continueddenial of the human rights of the citizens of Pakistan. The average Australian would view with dismaythe news that comes daily from that country. As the member for Mudgeeraba has outlined, they seescenes of murder, maiming and the unlawful detention of citizens such as Imran Khan. Why? For theirefforts to restore democracy to their country through their calls for a free and lawful election process—hardly too much to ask.

The installation of emergency rule by Pakistan’s army chief, President Pervez Musharraf, inresponse to what is clearly a move from the pro-democratic forces to end the military—and now clearlyunenforced by the court—rule by the general is an affront to all Australians and the value of democracyitself. The arrest of pro-democracy activists and opposition leaders, such as the Sharif brothers andformer Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, along with hundreds of judges and lawyers under the guise ofterrorism activities is clearly nothing more than a duplicitous attempt by the military regime to silence thevoices of Pakistan’s people.

Here in Australia there has been substantial debate about the use of anti-terrorism laws. Indeed,we have seen the appalling abuse of those laws—not just incompetently but, I fear, with genuine ill willin the Haneef case. What is happening in Pakistan today with the clear abuse of its anti-terrorism lawsgives us pause to think about why we should oppose very strongly and passionately that slippery slope,as many of us here did in the Haneef case.

Quite rightly, a country such as Pakistan cannot take its place among the world’s decision makerswhile it continues to deny its citizens the basic right of democracy. We understand that, in turn, denyingthose people democracy and the rule of law has genuine effects on the people of that country. Forinstance, corruption affects the distribution of income in the country. It leaves women and childrenunable to take the opportunities that a free and democratic society should provide, such as educationalopportunities and other opportunities in life.

15 Nov 2007 Valedictory 4403

Pakistan is an important player in the world with respect to its geographical proximity to countriessuch as Afghanistan, Iran, China and India—countries that share borders with Pakistan. Pakistan is thesecond largest Muslim country in the world. It has the sixth largest population. It is experiencing a periodof intensive economic growth and it is a rapidly developing nation.

The health of Pakistan’s democratic process is fundamental to ensuring Pakistan’s place as agenuine player in world events. We need Pakistan to show that it has an accountable anddemocratically elected and transparent government so that it can, with confidence and with the supportof countries such as Australia, the US and Britain, work to ensure that terrorists are unable to takerefuge in the border communities between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Pakistan as a country is critical in the fight against terrorism, but the path away from terrorism isthe path to democracy. That Pakistan should at this critical time be moving away from democracy and toa more fundamentalist and anti-democratic regime genuinely threatens not only the human rights of thecitizens of Pakistan but also the security of the world. In that sense, this motion is important—not just forthe compassion that we hold for the people of Pakistan but for the principle of democracy there and inthe world broadly. With that, I sincerely endorse this motion and commend it to the House.

Ms JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (6.56 pm): As a member of Amnesty International, I am very proudto speak in support of this motion. At the outset, I want to take this opportunity to thank the members ofThe Gap branch of Amnesty International, who work tirelessly to support the human rights of peoplearound the world.

However, I, like many of the other members speaking tonight, am very saddened and distressedthat this motion is before the House. As I stated in the motion, today is the International Day of Action onPakistan. Like all members of this parliament, I am deeply concerned about the events that have beenunfolding in Pakistan recently, particularly the current state of emergency declared by PresidentMusharraf. This decision of the Pakistan president contravenes international human rights standardsenshrined in international law and even in the country’s own constitution.

On 3 November, General Musharraf suspended the constitution. He also banned independentmedia, sacked much of the judiciary, jailed many secular politicians and sent his troops into the streetswhere they have bludgeoned protesting lawyers, human rights activists and innocent civilians.Worryingly, the impunity with which the Pakistan authorities have been operating for the past six yearsthreatens to become entrenched with the amendment that General Musharraf passed on 11 Novemberto the Army Act 1952. The amendment to this act gives military courts the power to try civilianssuspected of a range of alleged offences, including terrorist activities, treason or sedition, and for casesdating back as far as 2003.

The rule of law and human rights cannot be ignored under the pretext of the war on terror or astate of emergency. General Musharraf blamed militant violence in the country for imposing emergencyrule. In speaking here in this parliament as part of a Western democracy, I think there is an importantlesson to be learned by all of us from the current situation in Pakistan. In that regard, I agreewholeheartedly with the comments that were made by the member for Ipswich. We must remain mindfuland vigilant and must never allow the war on terror and the rise of extremists to lead to the erosion ofdemocracy, an independent judiciary and a free and open media, either in Pakistan or here at home. Iurge Pakistan to return urgently to constitutional rule and democracy. I support this motion and Iencourage all members of the parliament to support this motion.

Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENTHon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (6.59 pm): I move—

That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until 9.30 am on Tuesday, 12 February 2008.

VALEDICTORYHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (6.59 pm): Mr Speaker, 2007 has been a

great year for Queensland and a great year for Queenslanders. The excitement and the optimism in thisstate is palpable—after all, we lead the nation in economic growth, job creation, business investmentand major projects. Fuelling that excitement, Queenslanders have also won national and internationalacclaim in many fields. We have seen Townsville based scientist Professor Chris Cocklin, as a memberof the intergovernmental panel, who with scientists from 130 nations shared this year’s Nobel PeacePrice. We have seen Alexis Wright, a Queensland author, win the Miles Franklin award for her novelCarpentaria. Gold Coast’s Mick Fanning won the world surfing title, the first Australian to do so since1999, and young Aboriginal advocate Tania Major won the Young Australian of the Year.

Mr Wallace: We won the State of Origin.

4404 Valedictory 15 Nov 2007

Ms BLIGH: I am coming to that. University of Queensland researcher Simon Linke wonRiversymposium Young Water Scientist of the Year, and our own Libby Lenton won five gold medals atthe World Swimming Championships in Melbourne. QUT’s Nicholas Wilsdon won the AustralianGraduate of the Year. At the Arias former Elanora—on the Gold Coast—State High School student bandOperator Please Just a Song About Ping Pong won the best breakthrough single. We also recognisedAshley Cooper, Leneen Forde AC, Doug Hall AM, Professor John Hay AC and Sir Leo Hielscher AC asQueensland Greats for 2007.

This year our population has risen from 4,126,299 to 4,220,431 Queenslanders. There were morethan 56,600 babies born in Queensland this year.

Ms Jones: We’ll have one more soon. Ms BLIGH: Thanks to the member for Broadwater we will see a few more next year—at least

one. Well, we do not know. In 1977 men were living on average to 70 years and woman to 76. This year,30 years later, those averages have seen men living to 79, and in many cases beyond, and women onaverage to 83.

In the 12 months to the end of October we had just over 1.1 million people visit Suncorp Stadium,the Gallery of Modern Art welcomed 562,400 visitors since its opening on 1 September and the StateLibrary of Queensland has had 1.2 million visitors since it opened on 25 November last year.

Of course we retained the State of Origin. My local favourites, the Gold Coast Titans, in theirdebut season came 12th and were just one win off the eight. The Cowboys were third on the NRL tableand the Broncos eighth.

I share these interesting successes and statistics to highlight that we are doing okay here. In thehurly-burly of this House we sometimes forget that Queensland and Queenslanders are shining andstarring on the national and international stage.

Mr Speaker, at this point in the parliamentary year it is important that we place on record ourappreciation of and our gratitude to a number of people. I would like to start tonight by thanking you, MrSpeaker, for the role you have played this year in ensuring that we deal in this House with some degreeof decorum. That has been a more challenging role for you on some days than on others. I alsorecognise the work that your deputy and the panel of temporary speakers have done in that regard.

I would also like to thank my deputy, the member for Lytton, the Minister for Infrastructure andPlanning, the Hon. Paul Lucas. I know what a difficult job being a deputy is, unlike the previous Premier!I do appreciate the role that the Deputy Premier plays. It has been very important to me in the earlytimes of my premiership that I have had his support, and I appreciate it.

I would also like to recognise the work of the Leader of the House in running this place. Again,unlike the previous Premier, I have been a Leader of the House and I know exactly what is involved. Ithink people often do not appreciate just what it takes, every single sitting day, to make sure that thisplace keeps ticking, that it proceeds smoothly and that legislation that is important in the interests ofQueenslanders gets through when it needs to get through. I want to acknowledge the work that themember for Rockhampton does in that regard. He is a great Leader of the House, and I am pleased tohave him in that role.

I would like to put on record my appreciation for the work of all of my ministers. These are verytough jobs. I have a number of people in the ministry who are still relatively new. They are doing a greatjob. I also welcome Andrew McNamara as the newest minister. I think they know the high standard I setin terms of hard work, and they are all living up to that and I thank them. As well is the work that hasbeen done by all of the parliamentary secretaries. I am also very pleased to welcome Rachel Nolan as anew parliamentary secretary.

I would also like to place on record my thanks and appreciation to the Leader of the Opposition, tohis frontbench and to his senior team. The role of the opposition in a healthy democracy is an absolutelycritical role. While I may—a lot—disagree with some of the things that they say, I think it is important torecognise the importance of respecting the role and having an understanding of the importance of therole. In fact, you will know that the more you bother me, the better you are doing the job—which is not agreat thing for me, but it is a good thing for democracy.

I would also like to thank the whips on both sides of the chamber. Again, it is an important part ofthe functioning of this parliament that we do have people who are playing that role as well as the peoplewho are in that current role on both sides of the House are. I thank and recognise the work of allmembers of the House—government, non-government and Independents, who play a strong role in thisparliament—especially those who come from regional Queensland. To all members, whether you are inthe opposition or the government or on the frontbench or on the backbench, for those of you who comefrom regional Queensland I place on record my special appreciation for the role that you play inrepresenting the regions of this state and recognise the personal sacrifice that means for many of youon many occasions.


This year we have met on 43 days for a little more than 500 sitting hours. So if you are feeling alittle like it is time to finish, that is why. The parliament has considered 69 bills—55 government bills and14 private members’ bills have been introduced. We have passed 58 bills—57 government bills and oneprivate member’s bill. We saw a conscience vote in the parliament this year—a very rare and unusualevent in Queensland politics. We saw 682 questions without notice answered and 1,979 questionsplaced on notice of which 1,585 have been answered to date.

I also note the change to sessional orders this year which provides all ministers with anopportunity to advise the House of matters relevant and important to their portfolio. This changeincludes a new session, from 11.30 to noon on Wednesdays, which is now dedicated to privatemembers’ business, guaranteeing that government and non-government members have a chance tomake private members’ statements and to introduce private members’ bills and speak to those bills in amuch more fulsome way than they were given any assurance of in the past.

I think it is a very healthy sign of our democracy that the number of tabled paper petitions this yearwas 170 from 152,061 petitioners. Added to this were 35 e-petitions tabled from 102,213 e-petitioners.In total, that is more than 254,000 people petitioning this parliament about issues that are of importanceto them. I think that is a sign, as I said, of a very healthy democracy, and I hope that we all continue tosee that happen. We still have 12 e-petitions open, and I would expect that we will start the New Yearwith many more paper petitions being tabled.

Here at the parliament our work is made possible by a great many people. I would like torecognise the very dedicated and hard work of the Parliamentary Service. That service is led by theClerk of the Parliament, Neil Laurie, who I think does an outstanding job as our Clerk. He is called uponat short notice to give all sorts of advice on weird and whacky ideas. He is very careful and very rigorousin his advice and he is someone whose advice I have confidence in. I am sure that Neil would be thefirst to recognise that he is lucky to lead a very dynamic team of managers and staff who make thisparliament work as seamlessly as it does.

I would like to acknowledge his deputy, Siwan Davies, in the committee office; the Director ofCorporate and House Services, Michael Hickey; Community Engagement Manager, Glenda Emmerson;the Chief Hansard Reporter, Lucinda Osmond, and all of her staff who do a marvellous job of recordingwhat we like to believe are our words of wisdom—her staff might have different views about it from timeto time. I acknowledge the work of our Chief Librarian, Mary Seefried, and all of her staff. The researchdone by the Queensland Parliamentary Library is outstanding and is relied upon to ensure that thedebate in this place is well informed and that those of us who are working in developing policy, programsand ideas can have that underpinned by thorough research.

I recognise the work of the Table Office, which is managed by the First Clerk Assistant, LeanneClare, who is doing a sterling job; Property Services Manager, Jason Gardiner; and the CateringServices Manager, Jaako Ponsi. Jaako does a great job. I speak for many of us when I say we wish hewould do a slightly less good job so we would be tempted less and we would all go home at the end ofthe year a little lighter than we are likely to this year.

Mr Mulherin: I recommend the crumbed cutlets.

Ms BLIGH: I take the interjection from the member for Mackay, who is recommending thecrumbed cutlets. I also thank the Manager of Human Resources, Peter Morris, who does a great job ofmaking sure we all get paid and we appreciate that—long may it continue; the Manager of Finance,Craig Atkinson; the Manager of Information Technology Services, Mike Coburn; and the Manager ofSecurity and Attendants and Sergeant-at-Arms, Kevin Jones. We have seen many parliaments aroundthe world suffer because they have not been able to secure the centre of their democracy. Security doesa great job. I also recognise the Executive Officer in the Speaker’s office, Stephen Gay, for his work.

I especially thank the attendants of the House. We have had two retirements this year fromParliament House: long-serving staff members Ian Thompson and John McDonough. I make a specialmention of the executive service and all of the switchboard staff.

While it has been a good year for Queensland, like any year it has had its sad moments. We verysadly this year said farewell to Queensland police officer Constable Brett Irwin, who was shot and killedserving a warrant on a home in Keppera on 18 July. Constable Brett Irwin was a fine officer and heserved Queensland with courage. We should also remember Queensland soldier Trooper David Pearcefrom Oxenford, who was killed while serving in Southern Afghanistan on 8 October 2007. We also keepin our prayers Private Ashley Baker from Gladstone, who died last week in East Timor. We alsoremember Special Air Force Regiment Soldier Sergeant Matthew Locke, who, while from Perth, wasserving all of us. We may not agree always with war or comprehend its violence, but it is important thatwe pause to remember those who serve and who sacrifice, and we spare a thought for all of thoseQueenslanders and Australians who are serving overseas right now, many of whom will not be home toshare Christmas with their families.


It was not only those who were serving and protecting us who we saw fall this year. This yearQueensland lost two of its great political characters. In the past year we lost Tom Burns and Sir JamesKillen. These two great Queenslanders, who in different ways and in different levels of governmentserved their state for many, many years and both did so exceptionally well, have this year joined theheavenly parliamentary debate where they will both be happy because that is the one where there is noopposition and where Luciano Pavarotti is the new choirmaster.

On the development front, and in terms of what has been happening in this parliament and in thebroader Queensland political environment, there have been a number of standouts. In January we sawa new $950 million coalmine announced for Clermont. We saw the prep year for Queensland’s youngstudents roll out in every state, Catholic and independent primary school for the first time. We saw fournew schools open their doors at Burpengary Meadows State School, Isabella State School south ofCairns, Springfield Lakes State School and a new middle school at Redlynch in Cairns.

In February we saw work begin on a $120 million development of the former police barracks onPetrie Terrace; in Atherton we celebrated our 100th community cabinet; and Queenslanders got to havetheir say on a proposed riverfront revitalisation project for the north bank stretch of our river here in thecity.

In March we announced a new footbridge between Tank Street and South Bank at a cost of$63.3 million and the $1.88 billion Gateway duplication began construction.

In April our government announced reform of local government; in Gladstone, the RG Tanna coalterminal $200 million third shiploader was commissioned; and free Gardasil vaccinations began foryoung Queensland girls in our schools for the first time.

In May, Dyno Nobel Asia Pacific got a green light for a $520 million Moranbah ammonium nitrateproject and we saw green lights for the $3 billion Airport Link, and the $728 million northern buswayhere in Brisbane.

Mr Reeves: Hear, hear!Ms BLIGH: We always get an interjection on a busway from the member for Mansfield, our best

customer. In June we saw the state budget which delivered big investments in infrastructure, ineducation and in health with capital outlays hitting more than $14 billion—a record and the largest in thecountry. We launched a $414 million plan to cut Queensland’s greenhouse gas emissions with therelease of the ClimateSmart response from the state to climate change.

In July, Rio Tinto announced a $US1.8 billion expansion of Yarwun alumina refinery in Gladstone. Mrs Cunningham: Hear, hear!Ms BLIGH: I take the interjection from the member for Gladstone. It is a great project for her area.

Santos announced a study into a $5 billion to $7 billion LNG plant at Gladstone. This gas plant will besourced by coal seam methane gas. It is the first of its kind in the world. An independent reportrecommended the reduction of Queensland’s councils from 156 to 72, and our government held its firstcommunity cabinet in an Indigenous community at Yarrabah. We announced the establishment of a newbody to free up land across the state for new housing projects and the Urban Land DevelopmentAuthority is the centrepiece of our housing affordability strategy.

In August we saw metropolitan racing in Brisbane shut down for the first time as equine influenzastruck Queensland. We saw a commission of inquiry launched into the $125 million that is not ending upin the pockets of Queensland’s motorists out of our $541 million fuel subsidy. We passed the dangeroussexual offenders legislation, which is among the toughest in the nation.

Then, of course, in September the winds of political change swept through the parliament with theresignation of the former Premier, Peter Beattie. Chalco was granted a mineral development licenceover Cape York bauxite deposits and we commissioned a panel to review freedom of information laws.

In October the government settled the daylight saving question. Tarong Energy signed a$500 million deal with Thiess for a new coalmine to supply its nearby power station. The $95 millionLady Annie coppermine officially opened and Bovis Lend Lease committed to a $3 billion industrialestate at Bromelton. Most notably, we welcomed a new member to the House in October with theelection of Grace Grace to the seat of Brisbane Central, and what a great addition she has been. Weannounced the Andy Warhol exhibition and the landmark agreement between IndigenousQueenslanders, environmentalists and pastoralists. That landmark agreement was passed intolegislation with the passage of the Cape York Peninsula Heritage Bill.

We are only halfway through November but already we have turned the sod on a $780 milliongas-fired power station site 40 kilometres west of Dalby and we have seen the $116 million Abbot Pointcoal export terminal expansion opened.

But without a doubt in 2007 it was water and the subject of water that dominated the politicallandscape. Here in the south-east the construction of our water grid has been the constant politicalissue that has hit the front page of our newspapers and has been ever present in the minds of ourresidents.


The year began with big doubts and many questions. As the year closes, we have deliveredpurified recycled water to the Swanbank Power Station, which now saves 13 megalitres of drinkingwater every day. We have laid more than half the pipe required for the entire western corridor project.We have laid almost 60 per cent of the southern regional pipeline linking the Gold Coast to the grid. Intotal, we have seen more than 170 kilometres of pipeline laid, which is just on 40 per cent of the entirewater grid.

Construction of the Gold Coast desalination plant is approaching halfway. More than 160,000homes have been retrofitted with water-saving devices as part of the Home WaterWise Rebate Scheme,smashing our target of 150,000 homes by 31 December this year. Cedar Grove Weir remains on targetfor operation by the end of the year, and construction of the Bromelton offstream storage has beenbrought forward by 18 months and will be completed in the middle of 2008.

We have seen comprehensive, detailed and important environmental impact statements releasedfor both the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam and the Wyaralong Dam. We have assisted businessesto the tune of almost $40 million which has seen them save more than 14 megalitres a day, whichexceeded their target of eight megalitres a day.

Without a doubt, the most extraordinary achievement in relation to water that we have seen inQueensland this year is the remarkable achievement of the residents of south-east Queensland. Theirresponse to the Queensland Water Commission’s Target 140 campaign has seen them for 16 weeks ina row achieve or exceed the target of 140 litres a day per person. Prior to this target being set, residentswere using 171 litres per person per day and using more than 300 litres per person per day before wewent into the higher level water restrictions 2½ years ago.

Collectively, we have some 3,500 workers building our water grid in 45 different locations acrosssouth-east Queensland. They have clocked up more than five million hours of work. South-eastQueensland residents have done an outstanding job. On behalf of the government and in fact allQueenslanders I say thank you.

It is not only in south-east Queensland, however, that we have seen water dominate thelandscape. In fact, 62 per cent of Queensland is drought declared and we have seen many ruralproducers and many people living in our rural areas doing it very, very tough this year.

In October we saw the opening of the pipeline from the Burdekin Falls Dam to Moranbah toensure water supply to the Bowen Basin coalmines and their communities. In September we releasedan historic water plan that will ensure that far-north Queensland’s water needs are met for the next 50years. The draft strategy includes a large new dam on the Walsh River and the development of a majorgroundwater aquifer south of Cairns.

A thriving democracy depends on many things, but one of the most important planks of a healthy,thriving democracy is a free press. On behalf of all members of the parliament and the people ofQueensland, I would like to thank the Queensland press gallery for their efforts. I would like to thank thepresident of the press gallery, Spencer Jolly, and all of the current members of gallery who have a toughjob. They have played their role exceptionally well this year.

We are lucky to live in a country that has a free media. This year, we have seen in a number ofcountries around the world the consequences of having the media stifled and gagged. We have seenpeople risking their lives to bring us stories of oppression and, in many cases, political travesties. Wemay not always agree—in fact, I can absolutely tell members that I do not always agree—witheverything that is written and said by members of our press gallery, but I will always be at the front of thecharge in defending their right to say it and the importance of the work they do. I know that many of themare likely to have their minds on their own special valedictory event tomorrow night, and I wish them allwell as they celebrate the annual press gallery ball and recognise that the funds raised go to a verygood purpose.

I would also like tonight to briefly thank my own staff. This has been a very turbulent year for mystaff. There have been all of the water projects, a budget to bring down and a very significant change inmy role. In the past two months, we have also blended the former Premier’s diary with my own diary andit has been very hectic to say the least. Each and every one of my staff has chipped in and helped tomake the transition to a new premiership seamless.

I would like to recognise a couple of people in particular. I would like to recognise my chief of staff,Murray Watt. Murray became the father of a beautiful baby called George on St George’s Day earlierthis year. He made a decision in the interests of his family to leave my staff after a number of yearsbecause of the pressures that these jobs put on young families. He has agreed to come back to my staffduring the transition, and I thank him, his partner, Cynthia, and George very much for the sacrifice theyhave made.

I would also like to recognise my office manager, someone who has been with me for a very longtime, and that is Dana Jackson. It is actually Dana’s birthday today and I take this moment to thank herfor the extraordinary work that she does. She is a very important member of my staff.


I have a number of policy advisers, including my deputy chief of staff, Stephen Beckett. I wouldalso like to thank Stuart, Don, Damian, Aldo, Nick, Nicole, Sarah, Shane and Jessica—all of whom do agreat job.

I have a great media team. I would like to recognise two people I brought with me into thePremier’s office—Scott Dickson and Steve Keating. I would like to pay special tribute to Steve Keating.Steve is very well known to people on both sides of the House. I believe he is well respected by all sidesof politics. For a very critical period in the six weeks leading up to this year’s budget, Steve was the onlymember of my media team because of illness involving other staff. It was a very difficult time and Steveand his family really rose to the challenge. I tonight take the opportunity to thank him personally for that.

Since coming into the Premier’s role, I have also been very pleased to have on my staff PaulCronin, Belinda Taylor, Wendy George and currently Lorann Downer, who are all doing a great job.

I thank all of my support staff, particularly my driver, Peter. Peter is the longest serving member ofmy staff. He has been with me longer than anybody else. He is actually part of the Lloyd family, whosingle-handedly keep the parliament alive and functioning. I pay tribute to Peter.

I would also like to recognise some people who are not on my or the Premier’s staff anymore,particularly Rob Whiddon. Rob Whiddon has been an institution in Queensland politics for a very, verylong time. I will not embarrass him by putting on record the number of years, but he is someone who hasserved Queensland very well. I wish him well in his future endeavours.

I would like to recognise the work of Ross Rolfe. Ross has really driven development inQueensland for a number of years. He has moved on to other pastures. Unbelievably, he has gone toNew South Wales but I hope that is a temporary aberration. Ross has done a sterling job.

I would also like to thank my own director-general, Ken Smith. He has equally fit into the new anddemanding role of director-general of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet exceptionally well. Ialso thank all of the directors-general who serve not only the government but also the people ofQueensland.

I cannot outline a list of people who have made a difference to Queensland this year without alsorecognising someone whom I am sure the Leader of the House will join with me in acknowledging iscritical to the effective functioning of this place, and that is Shelley Francis. Shelley Francis assists boththe Leader of the House’s job and my own while I am here as Premier in the parliamentary role. Thereare few officers who are as across what happens in this place as Shelley is and it is great to have her onthe team.

Mr Schwarten: She’s an absolute angel.Ms BLIGH: Let me repeat this again: she works very closely with the Leader of the House so

members would know her burden and she accepts it cheerfully.Without a doubt, 2007 has been a year of change. We have seen in the United Kingdom Prime

Minister Blair transition to Gordon Brown, we have seen in Victoria Premier Steve Bracks transition toMr Brumby, and of course we have seen here in Queensland a transition from Premier Beattie toPremier Bligh. There is obviously something with Bs going on; I cannot quite gather what it might be. Itmay be that we will see more change in the wind for Queensland and Australia on 24 November.

This is the first valedictory in this parliament since 1989 for which Peter Beattie has not been herewith us in the House. It is the first since November 1998 that has not been delivered by him as Premier.Peter and Heather Beattie have given this state exemplary service and we are a better state for thecontribution they have made.

For more than nine years, Peter led this state and he led the parliamentary Labor Party for 11½years. Despite political differences, even those opposite, I believe, would respect Peter’s energy and thecontribution that he made. No-one could doubt his passion as a Queenslander. Our nation-leadingresearchers, our superior economic position and the higher regard we are held in nationally andinternationally are due in very large part to his personal vision and his endless and tireless drive forQueensland. His exit from the political stage in September was dignified, befitting the truly great servicehe gave to both the Labor Party and the state of Queensland. He had the departure that I think allpoliticians yearn for—one that is on their own terms, at a time of their own choosing rather than at thechoosing of the electorate. He went out as a winner with an envied reputation. I do not think we shouldlet this very first valedictory without Peter go past without recognising that Rusty has also moved on to anew life.

I would like to also recognise in my valedictory tonight all of the families of every single member ofthis House. This is a job that places very high demands on those of us who do it, but it places equallyalthough somewhat different demands on our families. I recognised earlier that, for those of us whocome from regional Queensland, it is an even higher demand. To all of our families, I thank you for thework that you do supporting the jobs that we have in this place. I would like to particularly thank my ownfamily—my husband, Greg, and our sons, Joseph and Oliver. I would like to also thank my mother, whois a great support to our family.


Mr Lucas: And your puppy.Ms BLIGH: I think it is time to introduce a new first dog, and the new first dog is Zeddy, our

labrador-retriever puppy. Frankly, if I had known that my life was going to change as it has, I would neverhave given in to the pleas of my 14-year-old son and got a puppy six months ago, because in addition toall of the new responsibilities I am dealing with a small toddler at home.

Can I conclude tonight by encouraging all members to take some much-needed time thisChristmas and over the holiday period to spend time with their loved ones, with their family and withtheir friends. I wish each and every one of you a joyous time. To all members of the parliamentary staffand to all members of the House, I look forward to you all coming back refreshed next year. It promisesto be another year of challenge and opportunity just like 2007 has been. Can I also conclude byencouraging you all to drive safely over the Christmas period.

Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (7.31 pm): Mr Speaker, as this parliamentconcludes the final day of sitting for 2007, on behalf of all members of the coalition can I extend to youand your family the compliments of the season. Can I ask you to extend to all of the parliamentary staff,who are under your direction, our gratitude for the great job that they all do in their various rolesthroughout the year to ensure that this parliament functions. Many of them do their tasks in a way that isnot seen and not noticed, but we as members of the parliament appreciate the fact that this parliamentwould not function without the efforts of so many parliamentary staff for whom you are responsible. I amsure that you will convey to them on this occasion our appreciation for those tasks that they completeright throughout the year.

To my colleagues in the opposition, first of all, I put on the record my thanks for your efforts inwhat is an enormously difficult role. I wish all of you the compliments of the season as well. I lookforward to working with you again next year to ensure that there is an effective opposition in thisparliament.

To the Premier, to the ministers and to the members of the government, I extend to you also thecompliments of the season. I hope that you can all enjoy a break over the Christmas period and spendsome time with your families and friends. That is what I believe Christmas and the festive season shouldbe about—spending time with family and friends. I think that is particularly important in the role that weall play when we spend more time then we should away from our family and friends. I extend my bestwishes to all of you.

The Premier chose to use this valedictory address to outline what she believed to be thegovernment’s success throughout the year. I will resist the temptation to outline what I believe to be thefailures of the government throughout the year, because I think we would be here for a long time.Rather, I would simply say to every member of the parliament that I hope you have a merry Christmasand a happy New Year, and I look forward to resuming vigorously the debates that we have in this placewhich ensure that our democracy is a healthy one and that our communities are best served.

Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (7.34 pm): Mr Speaker, I am pleased to join with the Premier and theLeader of the Opposition in extending the compliments of the season to you and to the members of theHouse, particularly the members opposite. I hope, as the Premier and the Leader of the Oppositionhave already said, that they have a pleasant time with their families. Their families have given up a lotfor them to do this job.

At this stage, rather than reflecting on the achievements of the government, I think one of thethings that is very easy for us to forget is that there are a lot of people in our community who do it prettytough. The Christmas season is often the period of time that is the toughest for them. We have seenmany people in Queensland affected by drought. We see many people who, because of mental orphysical disability, or because of damaged family circumstances, will really do it tough personally andeven more so because it is Christmas time.

I think we should be mindful that one of our roles is to lend people support at the times in their lifewhen they need it. I think particularly of three members of this House who have passed this year—TomBurns, Ted Row and Bill Kaus, and their families who will be spending their first Christmas without thoseloved ones—families who gave up a lot when their partners and parents were members of the Houseand have now lost them during the year.

As the Premier said, there are quite a number of people who have contributed a lot to this statewho passed away during the year: Trooper David Pearce; Sir Jim Killen, who was a constituent of mineand a man for whom I had a great deal of respect; and Constable Irwin and Detective Sergeant Kerlin,who lost their lives in defence of the people of this state and in doing their job. We have all seen thetragedy that has been visited on these families, but once again entering into the Christmas periodwithout your father, husband, partner or loved one is a very difficult time and we would think of them aswell at this time.

A very close friend of mine passed away a number of days ago, Roma Lipsett. Her family, Kerryand Noel Irvin, Kylie and Selena, will sadly miss their mother and grandmother. My thoughts go out tothem during this season as well.


I would like to thank my Liberal Party colleagues who have been wonderful to work with over thecourse of the year. To ‘Plucker’ and ‘Dicko’, Tim, Ray, JP, Jann and, in particular, my deputy, MarkMcArdle, who has stepped in for me on quite a number of occasions, I would like to express my thanksfor the excellent year we have had together and for the fellowship that we have enjoyed here.

I would express my thanks and my best wishes of the holiday season to our colleagues in theNational Party, to Jeff Seeney and Fiona Simpson, and all the other members of the National Partywhom we have had a great time working with this year. I hope you have a very safe and pleasantholiday with your family. To the government and the Independents, I would express the same wishes fora very safe and happy festive season.

The staff in Parliament House do a great deal for us. I join with the Premier and the Leader of theOpposition in expressing our thanks to Mr Speaker and his staff, Neil Laurie, Siwan and the other staffwho look after us. I express our thanks to the attendants in the chamber, the Hansard staff, thecommittee staff and the security staff particularly because I am the guy who keeps forgetting to bring hispass and they have to keep letting me around the building. I have appreciated that help. I thank thegardeners and the staff in Property Services, members’ support, Bills and Papers, the Table Office andthe Parliamentary Library. We put quite a demand on people like Bob Bradbury, Lyndel Bates and MarySeefried, who look after us so well. This is an appropriate time to express our thanks to them on behalfof all members.

I always like to specially thank the catering staff. I join with the member for Mackay in thanking thecatering staff. The staff in the cafeteria have looked after us very well. Margaret, Ellen, Helena andColleen are always willing to—

Mrs Sullivan: Do they still keep your fruit slice under the counter? Dr FLEGG: They have looked after us very well in the cafeteria. I think the member for

Pumicestone has been looked after pretty well there as well. The staff do go the next mile for us. Theyare always extremely pleasant. My children come to the cafeteria. My children love to go there and runup my bill and the staff have always been wonderful to them.

I thank Mary and Bob who supervise in the Strangers Dining Room. I seem to spend a fair bit oftime in there as well. They do a wonderful job. They make our guests feel very welcome. I was here theother day with a former Liberal member, Lyle Schuntner, who was here many years ago. He walked inand recognised Mary straight away after all those years. She has been there a long time. To Jaakko, themanager of catering services, I say thanks.

I would like to thank the electorate office staff, particularly the electorate office staff of memberson this side. We depend very heavily on them. We are absent on other matters quite frequently. I wouldlike to extend our thanks and best wishes to them. I particularly thank my office staff—Leonie Shepherand Sue Burke. I say thanks to my staff on level 6—Francis Quinlivan, Hayley Coultis, Geoff Howie,Georgina Tait, Michael Bancroft. I make particular mention of James Hastie whose nickname is ratboy.James has a great brain, a great head for radio and an enthusiasm that we are all envious of. I hope heis not listening. I thank the volunteers who come in to assist—Dorreen Farrell, Leigh Warren and PhilBooth in particular.

Finally, I would like to express my thanks to my family—Anthony, Mark, Stephen and Jon. Like thefamily of the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and other members here my family make a lot ofsacrifices for me to do what I do. It is right and proper that we should understand the sacrifice they makeand thank them for it. I wish everybody a very safe and happy Christmas. I hope that you drive safely.

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (7.44 pm): On behalf of the Independents and One NationI endorse the comments made by the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of theLiberal Party. In relation to all staff in the parliamentary precinct we wish to say thank you. I put on therecord that not all who work here see much public recognition but each role played by staff is soimportant to us all.

To those in the Speaker’s, the Clerk’s office, the Table Office, Bills and Papers, security, protocoland the attendants who are here every day that we sit and provide us with all of our needs, committeestaff, Hansard staff who record so valiantly at times the proceedings of this chamber, library andeducation, corporate and house services and people like the cleaners—we walk out of our bedroomsand we come back in and it is all put back right; we appreciate that so much—HR, catering, financial andadministration, IT, Property Services and the gardeners who make this precinct so enjoyable we recordour appreciation for all of your efforts.

To all members and staff, we wish you peace. In our lives we navigate many challenges includinghealth, emotional and other challenges. To all who have faced challenges this year we wish you courageand victory. Some members and staff have had to say goodbye to loved ones this year and we pass onour prays and words of support and sympathy as you celebrate a Christmas with that person notphysically present for the first time. It is always extraordinarily difficult.


Christmas is a time, as has been said before, for family reunions, a time to rebuild and reinforcethose relationships that support us as members of parliament throughout the year in our absences andin our returns. To all we trust you will enjoy a safe, happy and holy Christmas. May the celebrations youexperience recognise the reason for the season. Again, on behalf of the Independents and One Nation,may 2008 bring each member of parliament, each parliamentary staff member and all family membersof everyone represented in this precinct a happy and joyous occasion. Merry Christmas and God’sblessing to each one.

Mr SPEAKER: At the end of my first full year as Speaker of the Legislative Assembly I am verypleased to place on record the appreciation I have for the staff of the Parliamentary Service who supportall members in our roles as parliamentarians. I know that I speak on behalf of all members in stating thatwe feel privileged and honoured to serve here on behalf of all Queenslanders.

The 52nd Parliament of Queensland is notable for many reasons, not least the record number ofwomen who are members of this place. This parliament has produced the state’s first female premier inthe member for South Brisbane. This is a milestone that was 147 years in the making and one that Isincerely hope inspires women, especially young women, across the state of Queensland to continue toaspire to reach the top in whatever their chosen field may be.

Also during this parliament a live webcast of our proceedings has been introduced and delivers areal time broadcast of our debates into the homes, schools and universities across the state. Thismorning I unveiled a new parliamentary symbol—the wind yarn didgeridoo. In Aboriginal culture, thedidgeridoo is an integral part of ceremonial life. Like the Mace, which is an integral part of the history, thesymbolism and the ceremony of the Westminster parliamentary system, I hope that this didgeridoo willbecome an important symbol of the Queensland parliament, appreciated by all Queenslanders. I amdetermined as Speaker to bring about a meaningful and lasting engagement with the first peoples of thisstate to ultimately develop a natural and unquestioned mutual respect between all Queenslanders.

This parliament has also seen Auslan—Australian sign language—used on the floor of thechamber and recorded in Hansard for the first time during Deafness Awareness Week last month, a firstfor any Australian parliament. Initiatives such as these and those still to come over the life of the 52ndParliament very much enhance our reputation amongst Queenslanders, and I am proud of all membersfor taking this journey with me. In singling out a few members for special mention, I place on record mythanks to the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the House, the Manager ofOpposition Business and the whips and deputy whips for their assistance in the running of theLegislative Assembly. My highest praise is reserved for the Deputy Speaker and the temporary chairs,without whose assistance I could not fulfil the role of Speaker.

Of course the strength of this parliament comes as much from its staff as it does from itsmembers. As those who have spoken before me tonight have placed on the record, the professionalismand dedication of Parliamentary Service staff and other professionals from government departments,ministerial offices and the opposition office who are closely associated with this parliament do us allproud. The staff of the Queensland Parliamentary Service ensure the smooth running of ParliamentHouse and the 94 electorate offices every day. The Clerk of the Parliament, Neil Laurie, is a greatsource of support and advice to me in both the procedural and administrative roles that I discharge, asare the Deputy Clerk, Siwan Davies, and the Director of Corporate and House Services, Michael Hickey.

A highlight of the year for me was the successful creation of the new Community EngagementUnit within the Deputy Clerk’s division of the Parliamentary Service. The parliament and the people ofQueensland are very well served by the new community engagement manager, Glenda Emmerson, andher highly capable team. Another new manager to come on board this year was Jason Gardiner, thenew Property Services Manager. Jason is doing a great job in his new role following the departure of theformer long-serving and very capable manager, John McDonough, earlier this year. Thanks to Jasonand all of your team for the continuing high standard of work that you do. A further addition to themanagement team of the Parliamentary Service this year has been Leanne Clare, our new First ClerkAssistant who manages the Chamber and Procedural team very ably. Thank you, Leanne, for taking onthis new role after the departure of Ian Thompson earlier this year and to your team for the continuedsmooth delivery of procedural services.

I cannot miss the opportunity to mention and thank the other vital sections of the Queenslandparliament, specifically: Jaakko Ponsi’s catering services team; the security and attendants teamheaded by Kevin Jones, who has also assumed the role of Sergeant-at-Arms and escorts me into thechamber each morning and of course in a little while I will be following him out of the chamber when theadjournment is moved; the Parliamentary Library team headed by Mary Seefried; the Hansard staffmanaged by Lucinda Osmond; Craig Atkinson’s team in Financial and Administrative Services; ourcommittee research directors and our staff; Mike Coburn’s Information Technology team; Peter Morrisand the Human Resources staff; and the electorate office staff who serve members and constituentsright across the state of Queensland.

4412 Attendance 15 Nov 2007

Special mention must be made this year of the staff of the Cook electorate office who endured aterrible incident in March this year. Thank you for your loyalty to your member, Jason O’Brien, and forthe work that you do for the people of Cook.

I also thank President of the Press Gallery, Spencer Jolly, and members of the parliamentarymedia gallery for their reporting of the parliamentary sittings, and I am sure that many of you are lookingforward to the Parliamentary Media Ball here in the parliamentary precinct tomorrow night.

On a personal level, I wish to thank my own electorate staff, Lyn Kelly and Alec McConnel, forcontinuing to support me in my role as the member for Townsville and for the work that they do for thepeople of our electorate and north Queensland generally. As others have similarly said tonight, as abusy Speaker I could not do without the help I receive from Lyn and Alec and I am very muchappreciative of it. I also record my strong appreciation for the work carried out by my Speaker’s officestaff—my executive officer, Stephen Gay, my executive assistant, Julie Wiggins, and my driver andassistant, Eddie Thornton. They are a really great team. I would also like to thank my wife, JaniceMayes, for the tremendous support she gives me in both of my roles as Speaker and as a local member.

I will conclude my remarks tonight by extending my very best wishes to all members—membersof the governing party, the members of the coalition and Independent members of the House—their staffand the Queensland Parliamentary Service for a happy, safe and healthy festive season. Please takecare and enjoy the time you will spend with family and with loved ones. And now for my most importantannouncement of the night: I invite all members and staff, the parliamentary media gallery and otherpersons who are regularly and closely associated with the parliament to join me for a couple of hours atthe end-of-session function which is being held tonight in the Premiers and Speakers Hall.

Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENTHon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (7.55 pm): In moving the

motion of adjournment, on behalf of the country members who use this parliament as their home, as Ido, for the most part of the year, I thank the people who work on the floors in the Annexe for the sterlingjob that they do to make our lives easier. I do not want to add anything further to what has been saidhere tonight to complement all of the other members who have made excellent contributions except tosay congratulations to the first female Premier in Queensland’s history on this occasion of her excellentvaledictory address to this parliament in that it was the first time that that has ever occurred in the historyof this state. Congratulations, Premier! With those few words, I move—That the House do now adjourn.

Motion agreed to.The House adjourned at 7.56 pm.

ATTENDANCEAttwood, Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Copeland, Cripps, Croft, Cunningham, Darling,

Dempsey, Dickson, Elmes, English, Fenlon, Finn, Flegg, Foley, Fraser, Gibson, Grace, Gray, Hayward,Hinchliffe, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Hopper, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Knuth,Langbroek, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee Long, Lee, Lingard, Lucas, McArdle, McNamara, Male, Malone,Menkens, Messenger, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Brien,Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Pratt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, Rickuss, Roberts, Robertson,Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers,Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson

GOVERNMENT PRINTER, QUEENSLAND—2007

Hansard Home Page: E-mail: Phone: (07) 3406 7314 Fax: (07 ...

Documents

Transcript of Hansard Home Page: E-mail: Phone: (07) 3406 7314 Fax: (07 ...