FS SIMPSON SPEAKER

NJ LAURIE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT

LJ OSMOND CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER

PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Hansard Home Page: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/work-of-assembly/hansard

E-mail: hansard@parliament.qld.gov.au Phone (07) 3406 7314 Fax (07) 3210 0182

FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT

Wednesday, 5 June 2013

Subject Page PRIVILEGE ..........................................................................................................................................................................1917

Alleged Deliberate Misleading of the House by a Member ............................................................................1917 PETITION .............................................................................................................................................................................1917 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ..............................................................................................................................................1917

Budget ..............................................................................................................................................................1917 State of Origin ..................................................................................................................................................1918 Great Barrier Reef ............................................................................................................................................1918

Tabled paper: Letter, undated, from the Deputy Premier, Hon. Jeff Seeney, to the federal Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Hon. Tony Burke, regarding the Great Barrier Reef......................................................................................................1918

Health Services ................................................................................................................................................1919 Great Teachers = Great Results ......................................................................................................................1920 Agriculture Strategy .........................................................................................................................................1920 Disability Services, Budget .............................................................................................................................1921 Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Budget ......................................................................1921 Department of Justice and Attorney-General, Budget ...................................................................................1922

Tabled paper: Bar graph titled ‘Supreme Court Clearance Rates (%) covering the periods 2008-2009 and 2012-2013’. .............................................................................................................1922

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE ................................................................................................................1922 Report ...............................................................................................................................................................1922

Tabled paper: Finance and Administration Committee: Report No. 29—Portfolio subordinate legislation tabled between 12 February 2013 and 30 April 2013. .....................................................1923

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE .........................................................................................................................................1923 Budget ..............................................................................................................................................................1923 Budget ..............................................................................................................................................................1924 Budget ..............................................................................................................................................................1924

Table of Contents – Wednesday, 5 June 2013

Budget, Taxes and Charges............................................................................................................................ 1925 Budget .............................................................................................................................................................. 1926 Budget, Unemployment .................................................................................................................................. 1926 Budget .............................................................................................................................................................. 1927 Gladstone, Firefighters ................................................................................................................................... 1928 Budget .............................................................................................................................................................. 1928 Atherton Hospital ............................................................................................................................................ 1929

Tabled paper: Tablelander article, dated 4 June 2013, titled ‘Cuts put “lives at risk”’. ...................... 1929 Schools, Federal Funding ............................................................................................................................... 1930 Southport, District Court ................................................................................................................................. 1931 Tourism, Visitor Surveys ................................................................................................................................ 1931 Agriculture Industry, Assistance .................................................................................................................... 1932

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 26 March 2013, from the Premier, Hon. Campbell Newman, to the federal member for Kennedy, Mr Bob Katter, regarding flying foxes. ............................................... 1933

Budget, Roads ................................................................................................................................................. 1933 State Schools, Closures .................................................................................................................................. 1934 Speaker’s Ruling, Question Out of Order ...................................................................................................... 1934 Budget, Social Housing .................................................................................................................................. 1934 Budget .............................................................................................................................................................. 1935

TREASURY AND TRADE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL..................................................................... 1935 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1935

Tabled paper: Treasury and Trade and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. ............................ 1935 Tabled paper: Treasury and Trade and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes. .......................................................................................................................... 1935

First Reading ................................................................................................................................................... 1938 Referral to the Finance and Administration Committee ................................................................................ 1938

EDUCATION AND CARE SERVICES BILL ......................................................................................................................... 1938 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1938

Tabled paper: Education and Care Services Bill 2013. .................................................................... 1938 Tabled paper: Education and Care Services Bill 2013, explanatory notes. ...................................... 1938

First Reading ................................................................................................................................................... 1940 Referral to the Education and Innovation Committee ................................................................................... 1940

ENERGY AND WATER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL .............................................................................................. 1940 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1940

Tabled paper: Energy and Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. ............................................... 1940 Tabled paper: Energy and Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes. ................. 1940

First Reading ................................................................................................................................................... 1941 Referral to the State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee ............................................... 1941

QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL ......................................................................... 1941 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1941

Tabled paper: Queensland Building Services Authority Amendment Bill 2013. ................................ 1942 Table paper: Queensland Building Services Authority Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes. .... 1942

First Reading ................................................................................................................................................... 1943 Referral to the Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee ....................................................... 1943

JUSTICE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ............................................................................................... 1943 Message from Governor ................................................................................................................................. 1943

Tabled paper: Message, dated 4 June 2013, from Her Excellency the Governor, recommending the Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. ................................................................. 1943

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1943 Tabled paper: Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. ................................................ 1944 Tabled paper: Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes. .................. 1944

First Reading ................................................................................................................................................... 1945 Referral to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee .................................................................. 1945

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATIONS) AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL ..................................................................................................................................... 1946

Declared Urgent; Allocation of Time Limit Order .......................................................................................... 1946 Division: Question put—That the question be now put. ................................................................... 1950 Resolved in the affirmative. ............................................................................................................. 1950 Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to. .................................................................... 1951 Resolved in the affirmative. ............................................................................................................. 1951

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATIONS) AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL ..................................................................................................................................... 1951

Second Reading .............................................................................................................................................. 1951 Tabled paper: Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 31—Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2013, government response. ................................................................................. 1952 Tabled paper: Extract from Liberal National Party Constitution. ....................................................... 1971 Tabled paper: Extract of biographical details of Hon. Tim Nicholls MP. ........................................... 1971 Tabled paper: Extract of biographical details of Mr Reg Gulley MP. ................................................ 1971 Tabled paper: Extract from the Courier-Mail, dated 15 April 2013, titled ‘Leaked email shows Together Queensland union split over $100,000 spent on opinion poll’. .......................................... 1979 Tabled paper: Extract from the New York Post, dated 29 May 2013, titled ‘Labor big a real heavy sleeper’................................................................................................................................. 1980

Table of Contents – Wednesday, 5 June 2013

Tabled paper: Media statement, dated 30 April 2013, titled ‘Red Tape Untangled for Building Contractors’. ....................................................................................................................................1991 Tabled paper: Media release, dated 1 May 2013, of WorkCover Queensland titled ‘Proposed worker definition changes to reduce red tape’. .................................................................................1992 Tabled paper: Media release, dated 5 June 2013, of HIA, titled ‘HIA urges government to push through WorkCover changes’. .........................................................................................................1992 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 24 May 2013, from Mr Stephen Tait, CEO, Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland, to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Hon. Jarrod Bleijie. ......1992 Tabled paper: Email, dated 24 May 2013, from Mr Tony Goode, LGAQ, to Mr Nathan Ruhle titled ‘Discussions—IR Transparency Bill’. .......................................................................................1992 Tabled paper: Article from the Courier-Mail, dated 7 September 2011, titled ‘Australian Workers Union funds paid Bill Ludwig’s bills’. ................................................................................................1993 Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. ....................................................1995 Resolved in the affirmative. ..............................................................................................................1995

Consideration in Detail ....................................................................................................................................1996 Cause 1, as read, agreed to. ...........................................................................................................1996 Clause 3, as read, agreed to. ...........................................................................................................1996 Insertion of new clause— ................................................................................................................1996 Tabled paper: Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes to Hon. Jarrod Bleijie’s amendments. ......1996 Amendment agreed to. ....................................................................................................................1996 Clause 4— ......................................................................................................................................1996 Division: Question put—That clause 4, as read, stand part of the bill. ..............................................1997 Resolved in the affirmative...............................................................................................................1997 Clause 4, as read, agreed to. ...........................................................................................................1997 Insertion of new clause— ................................................................................................................1997 Amendment agreed to. ....................................................................................................................2003 Clause 5— ......................................................................................................................................2003 Division: Question put—That clause 5, as read, stand part of the bill. ..............................................2003 Resolved in the affirmative...............................................................................................................2003 Clause 5, as read, agreed to. ...........................................................................................................2003 Insertion of new clause— ................................................................................................................2003 Amendment agreed to. ....................................................................................................................2004 Clause 6— ......................................................................................................................................2004 Division: Question put—That clause 6, as read, stand part of the bill. ..............................................2005 Resolved in the affirmative...............................................................................................................2005 Clause 6, as read, agreed to. ...........................................................................................................2005 Clause 7— ......................................................................................................................................2005 Division: Question put—That clause 7, as read, stand part of the bill. ..............................................2007 Resolved in the affirmative...............................................................................................................2007 Clause 7, as read, agreed to. ...........................................................................................................2007 Clauses 8 and 9, as read, agreed to. ...............................................................................................2007 Clause 10—.....................................................................................................................................2007 Division: Question put—That clause 10, as read, stand part of the bill. ............................................2007 Resolved in the affirmative...............................................................................................................2007 Clause 10, as read, agreed to. .........................................................................................................2007 Clause 11, as amended, agreed to. .................................................................................................2008 Clause 12, as amended, agreed to. .................................................................................................2008 Clause 13—.....................................................................................................................................2008 Division: Question put—That clause 13, as read, stand part of the bill. ............................................2008 Resolved in the affirmative...............................................................................................................2008 Clause 13, as read, agreed to. .........................................................................................................2008 Clause 14, as amended, agreed to. .................................................................................................2008 Clause 15—.....................................................................................................................................2008 Division: Question put—That clause 15, as read, stand part of the bill. ............................................2009 Resolved in the affirmative...............................................................................................................2009 Clause 15, as read, agreed to. .........................................................................................................2009 Clause 16—.....................................................................................................................................2009 Division: Question put—That the amendments be agreed to. ..........................................................2010 Resolved in the affirmative...............................................................................................................2010 Clause 16, as amended, agreed to. .................................................................................................2010 Clause 17, as amended, agreed to. .................................................................................................2010 Clause 18, as amended, agreed to. .................................................................................................2010 Clauses 19 and 20, as read, agreed to. ...........................................................................................2010 Clause 21—.....................................................................................................................................2010 Division: Question put—That clause 21, as read, stand part of the bill. ............................................2012 Resolved in the affirmative...............................................................................................................2012 Clause 21, as read, agreed to. .........................................................................................................2012 Clause 22, as read, agreed to. .........................................................................................................2012 Clause 23, as amended, agreed to. .................................................................................................2013 Insertion of new clause— ................................................................................................................2013 Amendment agreed to. ....................................................................................................................2015 Clauses 24 to 26, as read, negatived. ..............................................................................................2015 Clauses 27 and 28, as read, agreed to. ...........................................................................................2015

Table of Contents – Wednesday, 5 June 2013

Clause 29— .................................................................................................................................... 2015 Amendments agreed to. .................................................................................................................. 2017 Division: Question put—That clause 29, as amended, be agreed to................................................ 2021 Resolved in the affirmative. ............................................................................................................. 2021 Clause 29, as amended, agreed to. ................................................................................................ 2021 Clause 30— .................................................................................................................................... 2021 Tabled paper: Extract from the Courier-Mail, dated 25 May 2013, titled ‘Put it on the plastic— What else would you do with a taxpayer-funded credit card than buy tickets to watch a Bee Gee and don a novelty dog costume’. ..................................................................................................... 2026 Amendments as circulated— .......................................................................................................... 2027 Division: Question put—That clauses 30 to 76 and the Attorney-General’s amendments be agreed to. ....................................................................................................................................... 2040 Resolved in the affirmative. ............................................................................................................. 2040 Clauses 30 to 76, as amended, and amendments agreed to. .......................................................... 2040 Clause 2— ...................................................................................................................................... 2040 Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to. ........................................................... 2041 Resolved in the affirmative. ............................................................................................................. 2041 Clause 2, as amended, agreed to. .................................................................................................. 2041

Third Reading .................................................................................................................................................. 2041 Division: Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time................................... 2041 Resolved in the affirmative. ............................................................................................................. 2041

Long Title ......................................................................................................................................................... 2041 Amendment as circulated— ............................................................................................................ 2041 Division: Question put—That the long title of the bill, as amended, be agreed to. ............................ 2042 Resolved in the affirmative. ............................................................................................................. 2042

ADJOURNMENT ................................................................................................................................................................. 2042 World Environment Day .................................................................................................................................. 2042

Tabled paper: Poster titled ‘The Greenest Government in Queensland History?’. ........................... 2042 Tabled paper: Poster depicting a trophy named ‘Golden bulldozer award 2013, winner Mr Andrew Cripps’. ......................................................................................................................... 2042

Townsville Triathlon Festival .......................................................................................................................... 2043 Pumicestone Passage ..................................................................................................................................... 2043 Rockhampton Electorate, Alcohol Abuse ...................................................................................................... 2044 Midge Point, Shoreline Erosion ...................................................................................................................... 2044 Broadwater Electorate, National Sorry Day ................................................................................................... 2045 Harlaxton State School ................................................................................................................................... 2045 Cattle Industry ................................................................................................................................................. 2046 Mount Coot-tha Electorate, Traffic Congestion ............................................................................................. 2047 First Contact Memorial Project ....................................................................................................................... 2047

ATTENDANCE .................................................................................................................................................................... 2048

5 Jun 2013 Legislative Assembly 1917

WEDNESDAY, 5 JUNE 2013 _______________

The Legislative Assembly met at 2.00 pm. Madam Speaker (Hon. Fiona Simpson, Maroochydore) read prayers and took the chair.

PRIVILEGE

Alleged Deliberate Misleading of the House by a Member Hon. JH LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Minister for Education, Training and

Employment) (2.01 pm): Yesterday in the House I was asked a question without notice by the member for South Brisbane in which she asserted that I had asked for a consultation meeting regarding Fortitude Valley State School to be moved. I can advise the House that there was no request to change the date of this community consultation meeting. I would ask members opposite to present factually accurate questions in future.

PETITION The Clerk presented the following paper petition, lodged by the honourable member indicated—

Kuranda District

Mr Trout, from 985 petitioners, requesting the House to allow a local government boundary change that will enable Kuranda District to separate from the Mareeba Shire Council [2821].

Petition received.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Budget Hon. CKT NEWMAN (Ashgrove—LNP) (Premier) (2.02 pm): Yesterday the Treasurer tabled

the Queensland budget for 2013-14. I want to acknowledge and thank the Treasurer and his team for their hard work. This state budget is focused on growing our economy, rebuilding Queensland and making our communities more resilient for the future. It is a no-nonsense, responsible budget delivering front-line services that Queenslanders expect while also fostering economic growth.

Significantly, government expenses have been brought under control and we will see only a 1.1 per cent increase on 2011-12. This contrasts with average rates of expenses growth of 8.9 per cent over the decade to 2011-12. We have made and are still making the sensible, grown-up decisions that the Labor Party could not make. Some of these decisions are not easy to make. However, long-term financial mismanagement has forced us to make them.

Recent natural disasters saw 2,000 residents evacuated from the Bundaberg region, more than 4,300 properties damaged and 22 per cent of state controlled roads damaged. Aside from the personal toll this has taken on weary and battered Queenslanders, this also left a $2.5 billion damages bill and $500 million to $750 million in lost production. Add to that expected falls in revenue of over $4.5 billion since March 2012.

These are tough conditions but the responsible decisions we have made put us in a position to stop the spiral of debt and still deliver for Queensland. It may not be an exciting budget, but it is the right budget for the circumstances that we face. It delivers for Queensland and it is focused on delivering and improving services including $12.3 billion for the Health budget, up 4.5 per cent; $8.8 billion for Community Services including $868 million towards DisabilityCare Australia, or the NDIS; $11.4 billion for Education, up 6.6 per cent; a record $2 billion for the Queensland Police Service; $4.2 billion for recovery and reconstruction work; and $5.5 billion for Transport and Main Roads. In addition, the government will also deliver $5.2 billion in concessions including in the areas of electricity, water, transport, housing, health, and education and training.

1918 Ministerial Statements 5 Jun 2013

This is a budget that sets the right foundations to fix the state’s finances, deliver front-line services and grow Queensland’s economy. This budget is a responsible, no-nonsense state budget, but it delivers on these key things that Queenslanders rightly expect and demand from our state government so that we remain a great state with great opportunity.

State of Origin Hon. CKT NEWMAN (Ashgrove—LNP) (Premier) (2.05 pm): One of the solid and enduring

sources of pride for this great state is our State of Origin team, the mighty Maroons. Over the 33 years that State of Origin rugby league has been contested Queensland has won 21 titles including, as we all know, the last seven series in a row. Queenslanders want to see the maroons win eight in a row, then nine in a row and 10 in a row. We already have a record that Queensland can be proud of and that our southern neighbours can only wish for.

Queenslanders can be especially proud of their Origin team this series as players recently visited Bundaberg communities devastated by flooding earlier this year. Along with their coach, Queensland great Mal Meninga, the players spent their day with locals listening to their stories and lifting their spirits in what has been a challenging year. The determination, mateship and perseverance shown by the residents of Bundaberg are traits that all Queenslanders should aspire to. I am sure that this visit has provided increased motivation for a gutsy performance from the Maroons in this year’s Origin series, which kicks off with game 1 in Sydney tonight. I think I speak for the entire House as I wish Mal Meninga, Cameron Smith and the Queensland Maroons another successful 2013 State of Origin series. We are 100 per cent behind them in their quest for an eighth straight series victory.

Great Barrier Reef Hon. JW SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development,

Infrastructure and Planning) (2.06 pm): The state budget presented yesterday by the Treasurer indicated considerable ongoing funding for the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. It is critically important that the efforts that our state government is making to protect the Great Barrier Reef are properly recognised by international observers such as UNESCO. Regrettably, it has become apparent that we cannot rely on the Commonwealth government or federal environment minister Tony Burke to provide unbiased, accurate assessments of the many actions the Queensland government is taking to protect the reef. Cabinet has, therefore, taken the decision that our government will engage directly with UNESCO on matters relating to the Great Barrier Reef to protect the international reputation of Queensland and protect the international reputation of the reef. I have written to Tony Burke advising him that we do not have confidence in the Gillard government or him as the federal minister to properly represent the efforts our government has made, and continues to make, to protect the Great Barrier Reef, and I table a copy of that letter. Tabled paper: Letter, undated, from the Deputy Premier, Hon. Jeff Seeney, to the federal Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Hon. Tony Burke, regarding the Great Barrier Reef [2822].

I will quote just one paragraph from that letter. It states— The protection of the Great Barrier Reef as Queensland’s most precious icon will always be our primary concern and we are determined to ensure its international standing and reputation are not damaged by your inaccurate and irresponsible statements.

The Gillard government is obviously beholden to the Greens and their radical agenda to remain in power. Too often Mr Burke has taken up that radical agenda for those who hold his government to ransom against the best interests of this state and this nation. For the past year he has continually made false assertions about the Queensland government’s actions and he has used alarmist claims about the Great Barrier Reef for blatant, partisan political purposes. It is to the detriment of every Queenslander that the federal environment minister has been prepared to engage in scaremongering and to trash our state’s international reputation for his own political purposes.

Our record in relation to protecting the Great Barrier Reef will stand up to any reasonable scrutiny. For example, shortly after we were elected we halted progress on the huge development being progressed by the former Labor government that was proposing five new coal terminals and a multicargo facility at Abbot Point. We halted it. In complete contrast, we are progressing a much smaller, balanced, incremental development. Yet time and time again Minister Burke has sought to denigrate our efforts on the international stage.

5 Jun 2013 Ministerial Statements 1919

The reef’s future and the World Heritage Committee’s consideration later this month of its monitoring mission’s recent report on the reef are too important to be left to a minister who is attempting to score cheap political points rather than provide a sober assessment of the long list of actions being taken to protect this iconic natural wonder. Queensland will engage directly with UNESCO to ensure the true story about the Great Barrier Reef is told. The most complete picture possible of the state’s protective regime to ensure its future will be presented.

I will be seeking an appointment to meet directly with UNESCO. I will invite a delegation to be the guests of our government here in Queensland so that we can show them the real situation and repair some of the damage done by Tony Burke’s inaccurate and irresponsible claims. Our government will protect our state’s international reputation, just as we will protect the internationally recognised Great Barrier Reef.

Health Services Hon. LJ SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Minister for Health) (2.10 pm): The Newman

LNP government is unashamedly pro-growth. Our goal is to rebuild Queensland, to repair the damage caused by natural disasters like Cyclone Oswald and to repair the wounds and scars of unnatural disasters such as the Health payroll debacle and the impact of the federal Labor government’s Health funding cuts to Queensland.

Yesterday the second LNP government budget was delivered—a budget which earmarks an extra $1 billion in annual funding for Health since the last budget of our predecessors. It is a budget that invests in health care with a record allocation of $12.3 billion in 2013-14, representing an 11.6 per cent increase on the last budget of the previous government. Importantly, in this year’s budget the LNP also plugs the funding holes that were caused by federal Labor’s snap midyear health cuts, which took effect just six months ago and which jeopardised more than 1,500 public sector health jobs in Queensland. The budget papers reveal that the state government was able to minimise the impact of federal Labor’s cuts within the hospital and health services. In other words, we softened the impact of federal Labor’s cuts at the front line, where it matters most.

In 2012-13, our hospital and health services finished the year with an estimated 57,332 full-time-equivalent employees. Having stemmed the damage of federal Labor’s cuts in 2013-14, the LNP will invest in growing our front-line jobs from here on in. We plan to increase the number of full-time equivalents in our HHSs from 57,332 in 2012-13 to 58,937 in 2013-14. That is an increase of 1,605 full-time equivalent jobs—overwhelmingly front-line jobs that we will be funding across the health sector.

By investing in health careers, we invest in health care for Queenslanders. By investing in health careers, the LNP will create employment in response to federal Labor’s employment cuts. Never let it be forgotten that not a single union anywhere in Queensland joined the LNP in its fight to protect health jobs and health services from Wayne Swan and federal Labor’s health cuts. Never let it be forgotten that each Labor MP opposite was prepared to put the job security of Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan ahead of the job security of front-line health workers.

This LNP government delivers on increased health employment and better health care. We deliver greater transparency and accountability, and we will deliver less waste and bureaucracy than was the case under the Labor Party and union bosses. Already we are starting to see that increasingly in emergency access and elective surgery targets. Of more than 65,000 Queensland nurses, only 47 per cent are public sector employees. Of 17,600 medical staff, the majority do not work for Queensland Health. The LNP believes that partnerships should exist across all sectors of health. We believe in investing in health careers across all sectors of health to deliver greater choice and better outcomes for all Queenslanders—patient and health worker together.

The Newman government has completely changed the focus of healthcare delivery from measuring inputs to focusing on outcomes and results. The Newman government encourages local boards and clinicians to be innovative as they redesign current practices and their hospitals. New ventures such as the Sunshine Coast University Hospital and the Queensland Children’s Hospital will operate more efficiently based on a value-for-money assessment of administrative options. As the Newman government increases its investment in the public hospital system, expect those improvements to be increasingly delivered in partnership with the community, not-for-profit and private sectors.

1920 Ministerial Statements 5 Jun 2013

Great Teachers = Great Results Hon. JH LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Minister for Education, Training and

Employment) (2.15 pm): Yesterday I said in this House that this year’s budget shows clearly that a government which knows education and plans for education will deliver for education. Those who listened to the Treasurer’s speech can be left in no doubt that we are true to our word. The education budget is up by 6.6 per cent this year.

Remember that the Commonwealth, throughout its big song and dance about education funding, has been preaching doom and gloom and that the states will not increase their budgets by three per cent. How does the Prime Minister look now? This year we will be increasing the number of independent public schools by adding to the 26 schools which are currently revelling in additional freedom and autonomy. We will continue to attack the $292 million maintenance backlog left by those opposite with an extra $100 million, which is in addition to the $200 million we announced last year. The biggest commitment over the forward estimates is Great Teachers = Great Results, a $537 million initiative over the next five years. The Newman government has a clear vision for education. We are committed to improving teacher quality and boosting school autonomy.

I have often said that I am the minister for all schools, and this was underlined yesterday with a 5.5 per cent increase for the non-state sector. The Catholic Education Commission said ‘thank you’ for the extra recurrent funding for Catholic schools. They recognised that this will help keep school fees down, and that is in keeping with our promise—underscored by the Premier yesterday—to keep the cost of living down. The Catholic Parents and Friends agreed and said they are thrilled that the government has prioritised education and the future of Queensland in these tough economic times. Independent schools recognised the increase in education spending, in particular pointing to the funding allocation for Great Teachers = Great Results, which would help them to focus on professional excellence in teaching.

Of course, the praise was not uniform. Our old friends at the Queensland Teachers Union were as predictable as that old oscillating fan. President Kevin Bates was running around telling anyone who would listen that we have decreased teacher numbers. I put on the record that this year we will be increasing the number of teachers, teachers aids and staff by 724. To be fair, at least it was better than last year’s budget response, when he said that he and the QTU feared that P&Cs would pilfer money from the school maintenance fund if they got their hands on it. Unlike the Gillard government’s Gonski reforms, all three sectors are in favour of our budget, and that is a resounding endorsement.

Agriculture Strategy Hon. JJ McVEIGH (Toowoomba South—LNP) (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry)

(2.18 pm): Today at FarmFest in the beautiful city of Toowoomba I released Queensland’s Agriculture Strategy. This marks a major milestone in the Newman government’s plans to revitalise and expand the industry. While many talk about opportunities, the Newman government is taking action. We are determined to become a major high-quality food producer of choice for Asia’s growing middle classes. This strategy will help deliver the goods. I would particularly like to thank the agricultural industry’s leaders for supporting our government’s plans in this regard.

We all know that farm industries make a huge contribution to Queensland and are integral to the state’s long-term economic prosperity. The government’s 2040 vision for agriculture is for an efficient, innovative, resilient and profitable farming sector. By releasing Queensland’s Agriculture Strategy we are outlining a vision and a framework for growth based on four key pathways: securing and increasing resource availability; driving productivity of growth across the supply chain; securing and increasing market access; and minimising production costs.

The strategy outlines 60 initiatives across government, 31 of which my department will lead directly, including: continuing to strengthen biosecurity systems to make Queensland, amongst other things, the best prepared state to prevent and combat foot-and-mouth disease; workforce development plans to improve agricultural skills and career pathways; industry action plans to address the pathways to growth in key industries; and implementing the agricultural research, development and extension plan, focused on beef, horticulture, sugar and broadacre cropping to support world-leading subtropical and tropical agriculture.

This will ensure the sector’s needs are considered in future policy and investment decisions, including the Queensland Plan—a 30-year vision for this state. With an increasing global population and an expanding middle class in Asia, the coming decade represents an unprecedented opportunity for growth. With a reputation for safe, clean, quality produce, Queensland is ideally positioned to take

5 Jun 2013 Ministerial Statements 1921

full advantage of this opportunity. The growth of our sector will be driven by both increases in volume and in value, depending on the industry. Action must be taken to help industry become more resilient as it has faced challenges this year, not least being the weather issues, the high Australian dollar and of course declining terms of trade. We understand the significance of these challenges and the Newman government will stand alongside industry to ensure we embrace every opportunity that presents itself. This strategy will guide our efforts as we work towards doubling Queensland’s agriculture, including food production, by 2040, and this is vital given that agriculture is one of the four pillars of the Queensland economy, it underpins tens of thousands of regional jobs and contributes billions of dollars to our economy.

Disability Services, Budget Hon. TE DAVIS (Aspley—LNP) (Minister for Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services)

(2.20 pm): The 2013-14 budget shows that the Newman government is committed to improving the lives of Queenslanders with a disability, along with the lives of their families and their carers. It is with great pleasure that I can say that in 2013-14 my department will be spending $1.43 billion in disability services across Queensland. As the Treasurer said yesterday, this is a 4.7 per cent increase in disability spending. Of this, my department is spending $960 million just on specialist disability services. This is the largest ever funding commitment in specialist disability services by a Queensland government. We know that there are some particular areas in the disability sector that experience increased pressure to meet critical needs. We understand that young people with a disability who are on the cusp of entering adulthood face particular pressures. That is why we have allocated $172.5 million over four years to assist young people with a disability. Of this funding, $117.2 million over four years has been allocated specifically to support young people with a disability who are exiting the care of the state. This is a critical time in the lives of these young people—a time when they are transitioning from one phase of their lives to another. This can be very overwhelming for any young person and especially so for a young person who has specialist disability support needs. The supports provided through this initiative are vitally important in assisting these young people to begin their lives as adults in the community.

We are also investing $55 million over four years to provide assistance for young people with a disability who are leaving school. We know that the transition from school can be a time of great anxiety for young people with a disability and of course their families, so it gives me great pleasure to say that through the provision of this funding the Newman government will be supporting up to 1,200 young people leaving school to develop their life skills and find pathways to help them with the transition to life after school. The Newman government is planning for the future. No longer will these young people have to put up with a haphazard and ad hoc system, which is how support for these young people with a disability has historically been delivered. The Newman government is providing much needed certainty to young Queenslanders with a disability, their families and their carers. We are working to get the disability service system back on track following years of neglect under the Labor government. This is a great state with great opportunity, and the Newman government is committed to helping to enable Queenslanders with a disability to be well supported into the future.

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Budget Hon. AC POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection)

(2.23 pm): I am pleased to stand before the House today on World Environment Day, excited about what the year ahead holds. The Newman government is unashamedly focused on economic growth, rebuilding Queensland and making our communities more resilient. As I said yesterday, as the environment minister my focus is on helping grow the economy whilst ensuring the state’s environment is protected and maintained. In the coming financial year the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection will have an operating budget of $171 million and a capital budget of $30 million, and we will continue to do more with less. Unlike those opposite, we do not believe a bloated government is the way forward. Whilst they operated under the premise of being a Smart State, as an example, there was nothing smart about an Office of Climate Change that clearly demonstrated their bloated approach to running the public sector—an office with a budget in 2011-12 of $64.7 million that employed 141 staff. That is $64.7 million that not only duplicated the carbon tax but that could have been spread across conservation and the delivery of front-line services. Now that would have been smart!

1922 Finance and Administration Committee 5 Jun 2013

The LNP’s way is about strategic thinking, careful planning, a committed approach and putting resources where they are needed the most. By redirecting funding to practical, common-sense programs that provide positive outcomes, we not only improve Queensland’s natural and built environment but we continue to deliver front-line services and continue to act as a strong environmental regulator supporting long-term economic growth. This coming financial year we have committed $10 million to the reef protection program, which is part of the Newman government’s $35 million per year commitment to the Great Barrier Reef plan—a project aimed at ensuring the reef continues to be among the best managed protected areas in the world. We have put an extra million dollars on the table for the second round of Everyone’s Environment grants projects, with a total of $4 million set aside to fund projects in communities across the state. We have committed $11.7 million to continue to increase available koala habitat through the acquisition of suitable land under the Koala Habitat Program. We have dedicated $10.7 million for protected land acquisitions which support the government’s Investing in Our Environment for the Future commitment. We have invested $3.7 million for the regulation of the coal seam gas industry. We have announced $2.5 million as part of a two-year $4 million commitment to the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership to maintain and continuously improve harbour health. We will spend $2 million per year for water quality improvement projects in South-East Queensland.

Like every other department, we too have to meet the state’s financial challenges. By adopting a number of cost-saving measures, by focusing on outcomes and not prescriptive conditions for approvals, by concerning ourselves with green outcomes and not green preferences, we will meet these challenges head-on. The Newman government will continue to build a stronger state and, by implementing policies aimed at fostering a more resilient environment, we will work together for the good of all Queenslanders from here and into the future.

Department of Justice and Attorney-General, Budget Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (2.27 pm): This

government is committed to continuing the fiscal repair task aimed at bringing government debt under control. We are about supercharging this economy. Actions speak louder than words. I draw honourable members’ attention to a graph relating to Supreme Court clearance rates in Queensland. The red bar is the first year of the Bligh Labor government, when the Supreme Court had a clearance rate of 99.6 per cent in criminal trials. In the first year of the Campbell Newman government, we have seen a clearance rate of 125 per cent. During the first year of the Bligh Labor government there was a clearance rate of 87.5 per cent in civil matters. The clearance rate in the—

Madam SPEAKER: Minister, are you tabling that document? Mr BLEIJIE: Indeed. The civil clearance rate is 107 per cent in the first year of the Campbell

Newman government, and I table that graph for the information of honourable members. Tabled paper: Bar graph titled ‘Supreme Court Clearance Rates (%) covering the periods 2008-2009 and 2012-2013’ [2823].

That is in direct contrast to those opposite in their first year of government. We are also doing many things in the department of justice. We are providing $3.1 million for boot camp trials right across Queensland. We are giving $530,000 of a $2 million funding commitment over four years to victims of support groups. We are starting the new Building and Construction Compliance Branch which will stop militant union behaviour on construction sites in Queensland from 1 July. Some $16 million will be provided for the expansion of the Cleveland Youth Detention Centre. We have given $3 million to the Health payroll inquiry to once and for all find out what went wrong and who was incompetent. Of course, $21 million will also be provided to maintain and upgrade other assets. This is about ensuring that we are supercharging the economy. I congratulate the Treasurer on yesterday’s budget—the second best budget in this generation.

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

Report Mr CRANDON (Coomera—LNP) (2.29 pm): I lay upon the table of the House report No. 29 of

the Finance and Administration Committee. This report covers the portfolio subordinate legislation tabled between 12 February 2013 and 30 April 2013 considered by the committee. The subordinate legislation has a disallowance date of between 6 June 2013 and 22 August 2013.

5 Jun 2013 Questions Without Notice 1923

The committee did not identify any significant issues regarding consistency with fundamental legislative principles or the lawfulness of the subordinate legislation. I commend the report to the House. Tabled paper: Finance and Administration Committee: Report No. 29—Portfolio subordinate legislation tabled between 12 February 2013 and 30 April 2013 [2824].

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Budget Ms PALASZCZUK (2.30 pm): My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier please outline all

the new initiatives in this year’s budget that will ease the cost-of-living pressures on Queensland household budgets?

Mr NEWMAN: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question. Before I get to the specifics of my answer, I would like to make some remarks in relation to what the opposition’s position is and what it would have done alternatively to the budget, because there were some very interesting quotes that we heard yesterday from the shadow Treasurer. I have just three of them to get the debate going today.

Ms PALASZCZUK: I rise to a point of order. The question was clearly about new government initiatives. The Premier is not answering the question.

Madam SPEAKER: Please take your seat. The Premier has time on the clock. I ask the Premier to answer the question.

Mr NEWMAN: With great delight, Madam Speaker. They do not like hearing their words back to them. On 612ABC the shadow Treasurer said this— I’m not going to take any suggestion that this LNP government is doing one thing and that we should have to provide an alternative.

So the alternative government does not want to provide an alternative. But that is not all. There is more. Later on Chris O’Brien of ABC Radio asked— But you must have something in mind to do things differently if you think today’s budget was so wrong?

The shadow Treasurer said— What we know is that we wouldn’t have done last year’s budget the way it was done.

But it gets even better. This is probably the quote of the day. This is a question by Steven Austin on 612ABC Brisbane— So you don’t have a desired debt level for Queensland, you don’t have a desired number of public servants. It makes it difficult for the voter to compare the opposition’s policy with the government’s actions.

The shadow Treasurer said— Well, I didn’t say that we didn’t have that. I just didn’t give you a number.

The party of no position! The bottom line is that people are benefiting significantly from the initiatives that we have put in place. If we look at just one initiative, I understand that for a commuter travelling in from the electorate of the Leader of the Opposition, the public transport savings from her electorate is over $600 a year—over $600 a year! But the unions are saying that we are costing an extra $600 a year and the Labor Party is saying, ‘No, no, $1,000.’ So they cannot work out their dodgy figures let alone be prepared to give any sort of policy response to the budget. The bottom line is that on one initiative alone—and that is for providing concessions for public transport when the former transport minister would not—that saves over $600. That is the gift that keeps on giving.

Ms PALASZCZUK: I rise to a point of order. The Premier has refused to answer the question. What are the new initiatives? He is not answering the question.

Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, take your seat. The Premier is answering the question.

Ms Palaszczuk: He isn’t. Madam SPEAKER: I warn the Leader of the Opposition. The interjections are not helpful. Mr NEWMAN: They do not like the answer. They do not know that we have frozen motor

vehicle legislation. They do not like the fact that we have taken $7,000 in tax off the family home. They do not like the way that we have budgeted this year to double the Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme.

1924 Questions Without Notice 5 Jun 2013

Budget Ms PALASZCZUK: Madam Speaker, I will try again. My question is to the Premier. I refer— Honourable members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I know there was a bit of a preamble to your

question. However, I ask members—and remind them—not to interject during the question. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to put the question.

Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Premier. I refer to this year’s budget, which contains increases in power prices, increases to insurance premiums, increases in the emergency levy and no rebates for water and no rebates for electricity. I ask: does the Premier stand by his statement today that families are massively in front under his government?

Mr NEWMAN: I stand by that statement. If those opposite had stayed in office, with 14,000 more public servants than the mums and dads of Queensland and the small businesses could have afforded, people would have been massively worse off, and they know that is the case. Maybe they can even understand these maths: 14,000 public servants cost a lot of money. I challenge the members opposite to do the math. That is the extra tax revenue—well over $1 billion, probably well over $1.5 billion with all the add-on costs—just to employ those people spread over 4.5 million individual Queenslanders. I ask the members opposite to do the math. Surely, even the Labor Party can work out that Queenslanders have been paying and paying and paying and paying.

We have provided cost-of-living relief: a $7,000 reduction in tax on buying the family home, the public transport fare concessions that I outlined before, the freezing of family car registration, the removal of the waste tax and the removal of licence fees for environmentally relevant activities on smash repairers. I could go on: the doubling of the Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme. I will go back to my answer to the earlier question and refer to the massive increase in concessions for the disadvantaged in the community to deal with high electricity prices, which are a direct result of the former Treasurer writing to the Australian Energy Regulator and Martin Ferguson. I raised this matter in a previous session of parliament this year and pointed out that Andrew Fraser had argued for a higher weighted average cost of capital—in other words, higher profits for the government owned corporations.

Queenslanders could not have afforded to re-elect those opposite—they could not have afforded to at all. Even now those opposite have no policies. Even now they have no answers. They got rid of the fuel subsidy after a solemn promise not to. They sold assets after they said that they would not. Then we have the shadow Treasurer on the radio yesterday, when asked by journalists such as Chris O’Brien and Steve Austin the perfectly reasonable question, ‘What would you do?’, he had no answers. In fact, quite indignantly he said, ‘What? We? The Labor Party? We should provide an alternative?’ They have no policies. The secret is out. It is out of the bag. Everyone knows now that the shadow Treasurer has not got a clue. He has not got an alternative. He does not have an answer for debt. He does not have an answer for the cost of living. He does not have an answer to getting back the AAA rating. He continually denies the debt and deficits that they put in place. That is what they stand for. Queenslanders are miles in front with this government compared to Labor.

Budget Mr GULLEY: My question without notice is to the Premier. Will the Premier please outline for

the House the efforts being made in the budget to make the cost of living lower for Queenslanders and how this compares to the efforts of previous governments?

Mr NEWMAN: I thank the honourable member, because I want to talk about the cost of living. I am happy to answer the opposition’s questions as well. A simple comparison of our public transport costs versus Labor’s policy—the 15 per cent fare hike—shows that we are working very hard to drive down the cost of living for Queenslanders. I want to make a few comparisons with transport fares based on taking nine journeys per week over 48 weeks. Remember, though, we made the 10th and subsequent journey each week free as part of our election commitments.

If you are a commuter living in Camira, which is in the Inala area and which is a zone 6 journey, in 2014 you will be $639.36 better off than you would have been under the Labor Party. That is $639.36 of extra financial pain that the Leader of the Opposition—

Ms Palaszczuk: You just cut a bus service.

5 Jun 2013 Questions Without Notice 1925

Mr NEWMAN: I am talking about public transport—the go card system. That is $639.36— Honourable members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! The interjections are becoming tiring and are not being taken. I call

the Premier. Mr NEWMAN: That is $639.36 of extra financial pain that the Leader of the Opposition, as the

former transport minister, would have inflicted on her residents. It is the same figure for people from Redbank Plains—that is Bundamba—and Marsden in Woodridge. For people in Highgate Hill, zone 2 commuters will be $375.84 better off than under Labor. From The Gap in my electorate, a zone 3 journey, the saving under this government is $444.96. Am I answering their former question as well? What about their plan? What was their plan? Their plan was to give away the fuel subsidy, introduce a waste levy and gold plate the infrastructure because they had not a clue about what was going on with electricity. They increased registration and stamp duty, and they splurged on a water grid that is costing $76 million per month to run.

In contrast, we have turned the ship around. We are fighting to drive down the cost of living for Queenslanders. This budget, going back to their earlier question, provides $5.1 billion in concessions in 2013-14. That is 3.7 times the concessions compared to Labor’s last budget. For example, $1.2 billion in public transport subsidies, $615 million for the Uniform Tariff Policy, $144 million for the livestock and regional freight contract and $409 million for the government managed housing rental rebate. We are increasing the Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme by $97.7 million over four years, the Home Energy Emergency Assistance Scheme to $10 million in 2013-14 and we have delivered again on our cost-of-living commitments like freezing family car rego, reinstating the last stamp duty rate for the family home and delivering a water rebate of $80 per household in South-East Queensland. In summary, it is a big challenge. We are up to it. We have plans and policies, unlike the Labor Party that has no position.

Budget, Taxes and Charges Mr MULHERIN: My question is directed to the Treasurer and Minister for Trade. I refer to the

Treasurer’s previous comments that insurance duty is a windfall on misery and note that residents in flood and cyclone affected areas have copped massive increases to their insurance premiums recently, and I ask: will the Treasurer confirm that the $990 million insurance tax increase in this year’s budget will hit people in disaster affected areas of Queensland the hardest?

Mr NICHOLLS: I thank the member for Mackay for his question. I am not sure if the member for Mackay was listening when I delivered the budget speech yesterday, but I made it clear that states have a limited number of taxes and revenue measures available to them and I acknowledge that they are unpopular and, indeed, I acknowledged that any increase in them was rarely popular. But I also remember a government, Premier and Treasurer in this place not too long ago who came in and knocked regional Queensland for six when it cut the fuel subsidy after faithfully promising the people of Queensland that, make no mistake about it, there would be a fuel subsidy scheme.

Ms Palaszczuk interjected. Mr NICHOLLS: Matched only, of course, by their glorious leader in Canberra who said, ‘Make

no mistake about it, there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.’ When it comes to knocking regional and rural Queensland around, there are none better than

those over there. Let us just look at some of the things that we are doing for regional and rural Queensland in this budget, including the continuation of the Royalties for the Regions program, something that was never put in place by those opposite, over $400 million being administered by the Deputy Premier’s department seeing facilities provided in towns and regions that have needed them for a long time. Let us look at what the health minister is doing in terms of his repairs to regional and rural hospitals where the maintenance backlog meant we had toilets that did not flush, windows that did not close and air conditioners that did not work. Under the education minister we have put an extra $300 million into the maintenance backlog that was left behind by a Labor government that was more interested in shiny baubles than doing the hard yards to deliver services to Queenslanders.

I heard the Leader of the Opposition say, ‘Well, what about concessions?’ Let us have a look at concessions. Let us look at Queensland Health. I commend to the Leader of the Opposition the Concessions Statement booklet, if she gets the opportunity to read it that we have so conveniently published for her that sets out everything that this government is going to be providing. The oral health scheme goes from $130 million a year to $165 million a year to provide oral health services for

1926 Questions Without Notice 5 Jun 2013

Queenslanders. The majority of those people will be in rural and regional Queensland. For how long did we on this side of the House say there needed to be an increase in the Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme? It goes from $70 million up to $95 million. The Medical Aids Subsidy Scheme, for those people who through no fault of their own require the assistance of the state, has gone from $39 million to over $41 million. We have the Spectacle Supply Scheme and we have the funding put aside to get rid of the cochlear implant backlog. We have delivered it all. What do those opposite offer us? They offer us no alternative position. All they say is, ‘We don’t know what to do. It just shouldn’t be done by the LNP.’

Budget Mr MINNIKIN: My question without notice is to the Treasurer and Minister for Trade. Can the

Treasurer inform the House how the 2013-14 budget strikes the right balance for Queensland between revenue, expenditure and putting Queensland in a sustainable fiscal position?

Mr NICHOLLS: I thank the member for Chatsworth for his question. He is someone who ran his own small business who knows that you cannot continue to spend more than you earn and stay in business; you cannot continue to see your expenses increase like this and your revenue increase like that and expect the gap to be magically filled by Norman Lindsay’s magic pudding. That is the economic theory of those opposite. It was the economic theory of those when they were on this side of the House and what did it lead to? It led to over $45 billion worth of deficits since 2006. That is the economic legacy that we have had to deal with. We have had to deal with the fact that there was no gas left in the tank.

What have we done in this budget? It shows that for the first time in nearly a decade a responsible government has been able to control its expenses and to live within its means. It is the lowest rate of increase in government expenses since accrual accounting was introduced in 1998-99 with growth of only 1.1 per cent. It would have been nice to have been the Treasurer between 2001 and 2008 when annual growth in transfer duty averaged over 22.6 per cent year on year annual growth in revenue. It would have been nice to have been the Treasurer in 2004-05 and 2005-06 when royalties revenue grew in excess of 50 per cent and peaked in 2008-09 when coal prices hit record highs. And it would have been nice to have inherited a budget in a stable position with debt substantially in control. But that is not the position the LNP inherited and, as I said yesterday, we may lament Labor’s legacy but it is our job to find the solution to get the balance right and that is what this budget is all about.

The budget papers show that the key revenues have been written down by $4.2 billion since 2012-13, with $2.6 billion of the decline since the midyear economic forecast and update. In this environment there are only three choices available. Those opposite do not seem able to make a choice. You can do one of three things: you can increase taxes, you can cut services or you can incur debt. Those are the choices that you have. To ensure the government has the funds necessary to rebuild after the 2013 floods, to ensure that we can continue to invest and deliver core services in education, in health, in law and order and to bring to book a new DisabilityCare Australia scheme looking after the people who require that assistance, we had to put some revenue measures in. We have been upfront and told the people of Queensland about that. But, more importantly, we did the hard work on the expenditure front first. We actually made $7.8 billion worth of savings over the forwards. We have done the hard yards, as opposed to those opposite who have no idea and have no position.

Budget, Unemployment Mr PITT: My question without notice is to the Treasurer. In Budget Paper No. 2 unemployment

is forecast by Treasury to be 5.25 per cent in 2016-17, and I ask: will the Treasurer today recommit to the LNP’s target of four per cent unemployment over six years knowing that a massive 1.25 per cent drop in unemployment is needed in 2017-18 in order to meet it?

Mr NICHOLLS: I am delighted to reconfirm the LNP government’s commitment to a four per cent unemployment target over six years. In the last election campaign, ours was the only party that was prepared to say that we will put our money where our mouth is and we will say what we think should be done, as opposed to those opposite who ran like fury. Let us look at the history of the last Labor Treasurer in this place, Mr Andrew Fraser. When he was appointed in 2007, the unemployment rate was 3.5 per cent. When he left, the unemployment rate was 5.5 per cent. All he did was to preside over four years of deficit budgets and unemployment numbers going up each and every day. We also remember the promise made by Anna Bligh to find 100,000 new jobs for Queenslanders over

5 Jun 2013 Questions Without Notice 1927

the term of their government. They failed to do it. She said they would deliver 100,000 full-time jobs, that is, breadwinners jobs. As soon as they were elected, the breadwinners jobs went out the window and they started counting employees who worked as little as one hour per week.

And then the weasel words started. First of all, they were not going to sell assets, and guess what? They sold assets. Then they were not going to get rid of the fuel subsidy, and guess what? They got rid of the fuel subsidy. Then they were going to maintain their AAA credit rating, which was in their Q2 plan, and guess what? They lost the AAA credit rating, they rewrote the Q2 plan, we did not see the AAA credit rating again and they promised 100,000 jobs for 100,000 breadwinners, but they fell short of the mark. The litany of failure of the former Labor government is unmatched in the modern history of this state. On the way through, the cost of living continued to spiral and they continued to incur debt.

Even one of their own, one of the luminaries, the soon-to-be new member for Woodridge—if the stories I hear coming out the ALP are true—the former member for Greenslopes, is moving on. I do not know what machinations are occurring over there, but my word is Woodridge is looking good for the former member for Greenslopes. What did the former member say? The noted luminary said— I do think Labor fell into error or seriously miscalculated and underestimated the desire for Queenslanders to hold on to the AAA credit rating and I think the concern Queenslanders had generally about government debt and deficit ...

Who had been in power for the past 15 years when that debt and deficit was being incurred? Who was responsible for the waste and the mismanagement that has been exposed by the Queensland Audit Office and the Auditor-General? Who was responsible for the $1.25 billion health payroll bungle? It was the party of no position, the Labor Party.

(Time expired)

Budget Mr MALONE: My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier and Minister for State

Development, Infrastructure and Planning. Can the Deputy Premier highlight what yesterday’s budget indicated about the importance of ongoing port development for the future of Queensland’s economy?

Mr SEENEY: I thank the member for Mirani for the question. Yesterday’s budget gave the clear message that the Queensland economy needs to grow. We need to do more of the things that we are good at. It is obvious from the figures in the budget that one of the important things that we are good at is exporting to the world the resources that the world wants. An important part of achieving that for generations of Queenslanders to come will be developing our ports. We must develop our ports so that we can export the coal from the Galilee Basin; we must develop our ports to export the increased production from the Bowen Basin; indeed, we must develop our ports so that we can export the increased primary production that my ministerial colleague spoke about earlier today.

It is noteworthy that each and every time any sort of new port development is proposed, alarmists who decry any attempt to build new infrastructure on Queensland’s coast try to run scare stories about how we are going to kill the Great Barrier Reef. They always use the Great Barrier Reef as a political ploy to stop the construction of the infrastructure that Queenslanders will need in the future to ensure that we can deal with the terrible financial legacy of the Labor Party and, more importantly, that we can build the schools and the hospitals that generations of future Queenslanders will need.

Since coming to government, we have done a whole range of things that the previous government failed to do. We have embarked upon a port strategy that will constrain future port development to existing port precincts. It is a port strategy that nobody in the federal government or in any of the agencies that like to comment on these things in an alarmist fashion have given us any credit for or even recognised. We have put in place a port strategy when the previous government failed to even address the issue. At Abbot Point we have also seen a community impact assessment that was over and above any requirement under any statute or law, to establish beyond doubt that that port could be further developed. Yet we still get alarmist claims from people such as Tony Burke, the federal minister, whom I referred to earlier in a ministerial statement. He likes to play politics with these issues. He likes to suggest to an international audience that the Queensland government is somehow threatening the Great Barrier Reef.

We believe we can ensure the future of the Queensland economy and the future of generations of Queenslanders, and we can protect the Great Barrier Reef as well; and we will. The two things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, we can do both of those things and do them to a world’s best practice

1928 Questions Without Notice 5 Jun 2013

standard. That is the commitment that the Queensland government has given to the people of Queensland. It is the commitment that we will give to the people of Australia and the people of the world.

Gladstone, Firefighters Mrs CUNNINGHAM: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police and Community

Safety. I ask: through their union, local firefighters have expressed concern at a lack of crews available for our population and risk profile. Will the minister review satisfying levels at the Gladstone station and meet with firefighters as a matter of urgency to discuss their concerns?

Mr DEMPSEY: I thank the member for Gladstone for the question and for her obvious commitment to the safety of her town. Gladstone is a very vibrant and growing city that is very important to Queensland. It is very important that we have the emergency services in place in that area, not just for now but also for the future. I have spoken to all the commissioners in relation to their particular areas in our great state.

The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service constantly monitors staffing requirements across the region. The Fire Commissioner has informed me that Gladstone is currently staffed at best practice levels. Staffing levels are based on a formula of 19 rostered staff for a 24-hour station. That allows for four officers per shift plus extra staff to cover annual and long-service leave.

Currently, Gladstone Fire Station has a complement of 23 rostered staff, as well as an additional operational officer based at the station during business hours. Additionally, there are two senior officers based in Gladstone who can provide high-level support to those rostered staff. There are also 15 auxiliary staff positions to support operational responses to structural fires and other incidents in the Gladstone area. I compliment the auxiliary officers in Gladstone and throughout the rest of the state for their high standard. They set the bar high in terms of how they support our urban firefighters, particularly in their own communities.

I would also like to highlight to the honourable member that the fire union boss recently went to the local Gladstone media claiming that if two incidents occurred in Gladstone the area would not be covered by fire crews. There is no evidence of two emergencies occurring at the same time and not being attended to appropriately. That is not only because there are good staffing levels at Gladstone but also because there are further auxiliary firefighters based at Calliope and Boyne Island stations. Furthermore, if required, a response can be made by auxiliary stations at Miriam Vale and Agnes Water, which are a fair way away but they do cover that area. The Gladstone electorate also has three iZone and village rural fire brigades, with additional operational and support staff. That is on top of 20 well-resourced rural brigades in the remainder of the electorate.

As the honourable member also knows, my door is always open to her and other members to further discuss the matter. In fact, I will be in the Gladstone region very soon to open the new Calliope Ambulance Station and inspect the progress on the refurbished Gladstone Ambulance Station. While I am there, I am more than happy to meet with local emergency services staff to thank them for the great job that they do serving their community and making sure that people can sleep safely in their beds knowing that they are protected and have the security of the services.

(Time expired)

Budget Mr RUTHENBERG: My question without notice is to the Treasurer and the Minister for Trade.

Can the Treasurer please update the House on how the Newman government’s 2013-14 budget is delivering for Queenslanders and are there any alternative views?

Mr NICHOLLS: I would be delighted to update the House on the Newman government’s 2013-14 budget. I would be delighted to explore whether there are any alternate views out there. Of course, in our first year in government we implemented a change in the way the government goes about its business to save residents money. We said we would save people in the first year up to $330. In our first year we actually did better than that. We saved people $337.19. We froze the electricity tariff saving people $120. We reduced the cost of water bills for families by $80. We froze family car registration saving people nearly $8. We halved the scheduled increase in public transport fares saving people additional funds. We reintroduced the stamp duty concessions for the principal place of residence. We will continue with many of those things this year.

5 Jun 2013 Questions Without Notice 1929

I will now turn to alternate views. During my round of engagements yesterday—I was a little busy as members will appreciate—I did happen to pick up on the shadow Treasurer’s comments on Tim Cox’s drive program on radio 612ABC. I think that it is important that we look at what the alternative government puts forward. Let us not forget that this is the most resourced, best funded opposition in the Queensland parliament’s history. For the seven of them there are 22 staff members to get them around, to do their work for them, to think about policies, to actually come up with suggestions.

Imagine my surprise on listening to the opposition Treasury spokesman—I thought I would listen to him and find out if there was anything worthwhile that he had to say because I have not heard anything in the parliament in the last 14 months—when asked what he would do differently to hear him say— I’m not going to take any suggestion that this LNP government is doing one thing and that we should have to provide an alternative.

There we have it in a nutshell—an opposition in Queensland that does not have to provide an alternative. But then Chris O’Brien asked him on television last night— But you must have something in mind to do things differently if you think today’s budget was so wrong.

The shadow Treasurer said— What we know is that we wouldn’t have done last year’s budget the way it was done.

I think you’ve got to go back—this budget and the last one—to actually see what our approach would have been.

Let us go back to the last one. The Premier quoted it—the Premier may have had the date wrong. Steve Austin asked him— So you don’t have a desired debt level for Queensland, you don’t have a desired number of public servants. It makes it difficult for the voter to compare ....

The shadow Treasurer said— Well, I didn’t say that we didn’t have that. I just didn’t give you a number.

He has had nine months to come up with a number. (Time expired)

Atherton Hospital Mr KNUTH: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. Patients at the Atherton

Hospital have expressed deep concern about overworked nursing staff and the shift to a flexi-bed system, coupled with a reduction in support staff, including wardsmen, clerks, administration and key operational services, having impacted on the quality of services to patients. I table a document highlighting these concerns. Tabled paper: Tablelander article, dated 4 June 2013, titled ‘Cuts put “lives at risk”’ [2825].

Madam SPEAKER: Member, I have warned you before about long preambles. Put the question or I will sit you down.

Mr KNUTH: Will the minister investigate these concerns to ensure the best quality care at Atherton Hospital?

Madam SPEAKER: I reissue my warning to members about long preambles. I call the Minister for Health.

Mr SPRINGBORG: I thank the honourable member for his question. Of course, we are vitally interested and vitally concerned when it comes to any issue of health care in Queensland and are moving to ensure that we have enhanced health care right across the state of Queensland. I will look at any individual circumstance, but what I would say is that the honourable member should not fall into the trap of the rumour mill of conspiracy that we see from so many opposite, particularly those who gravitate around his side of politics.

If we look at the Cairns and Hinterland Hospital and Health Service—and I commend them on the wonderful work they have done; the Atherton Hospital is within the Cairns and Hinterland Hospital and Health Service—we see from the last budget of the Labor Party in Queensland to this budget of the LNP government in Queensland an additional $50 million for that service. That is an increase of 8.82 per cent. That is going to be shared to make sure that we have enhanced health services right across the northern part of Queensland. If we look at the Cairns and Hinterland Hospital and Health Service we see that it is also a major service when it comes to repatriation and providing extraordinary health care to people right across the cape and up to and including Papua New Guinea.

1930 Questions Without Notice 5 Jun 2013

The unfortunate thing is that the Cairns and Hinterland Hospital and Health Service is $10 million out of pocket this year because the Commonwealth Labor Gillard-Swan government is not prepared to provide us with the money that we actually allocate to treat patients from areas outside our borders, particularly PNG nationals. If the honourable member wants to reflect upon the commitment of this government, he needs to go no further than the $51 million which we flagged last year to do significant upgrades and service enhancements to a number of rural hospitals around Queensland—12 rural hospitals around Queensland; one of those being the Atherton Hospital in the honourable member’s electorate. It was run down by the previous Labor government. They had a secret report which was sitting in the bowels of the health department, which I discovered, that indicated that bare bones maintenance needed be done in a number of hospitals, including Thursday Island, Atherton, Mareeba hospitals and another nine hospitals across Queensland. That added up to $51 million. The cost of the overall refurbishment and upgrade of them could cost some $600 million or $700 million. We are rebuilding service capability in our hospitals across Queensland, including in the honourable member’s electorate, because we are committed to rural and remote healthcare.

(Time expired)

Schools, Federal Funding Mr STEWART: My question without notice is to the Minister for Education, Training and

Employment. Could the minister update the House on the status of discussions with the federal government on funding reforms for schools?

Mr LANGBROEK: I thank the honourable member for the question. Unfortunately, I cannot respond with the same alacrity as the Treasurer did to the member for Kallangur’s question just a few moments ago. But I can advise the House that the Australian Education Bill has passed the House of Representatives in the Commonwealth parliament. It was rushed through the federal parliament in two hours. There was two hours of debate for a $14½ billion issue. Every second of the debate was worth $2 million. What are they scared of? Why ram it through like this?

It will establish the school funding reforms that the Prime Minister has outlined in response to the Gonski review. Any member who voted for this bill should take a long, hard look at themself because they voted for reforms that punish some schools to give to others, they voted for repackaging old money in Gonski wrapping, they voted for pillaging kindergarten funding and university funding.

Some 300 schools in Queensland will be worse off under Gonski. These schools are across Queensland in the state, Catholic and independent sectors. They are primary schools and high schools. The list includes special schools, Indigenous schools and flexible learning schools. The way Gonski is being funded is deceitful. Not only are they taking from some schools, Senator Penny Wong admitted under questioning from Queensland senator Senator Mason in Senate estimates last week that more than 70 per cent of the federal government’s contribution to the reforms is recycled money taken from existing initiatives. This is in addition to the $1.15 billion Treasurer Wayne Swan stripped from kindergartens in the federal budget and the $2.3 billion he stripped from universities.

The Prime Minister’s proposal is a cruel hoax that is designed to increase bureaucracy, increase red tape and increase Canberra’s role in education. The cost of the extra regulation is so burdensome that only 10c of every dollar spent by the federal government will reach classrooms. In the end, Gonski amounts to little more than a brand. Schools deserve better than political slogans and focus group tested lines.

The Newman government has consistently said we want a real debate about improving student outcomes through ensuring the quality of our teachers and boosting school autonomy. We delivered on this commitment by increasing education spending just yesterday in the state budget by 6.6 per cent. The future of education is more important than the political future of any government. I encourage senators, when they get their chance, to stop this ill-conceived proposal when the Australian Education Bill comes before the Senate later this month. If they want to represent all students in all schools they should vote against this bill.

Some of the other detail we have seen in that bill today is that indexation will decrease for states that do not sign up. A PS to the Premier in a letter that the Prime Minister wrote yesterday said, ‘You should sign up in Queensland because your schools don’t do as well as New South Wales.’ Does that not show the Prime Minister has no idea about the differences that beset Queensland schools?

5 Jun 2013 Questions Without Notice 1931

Southport, District Court Dr DOUGLAS: My question is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. In light of

concerns by the Gold Coast Law Society that lengthy delays in the Planning and Environment Court are obstructing recovery of the Gold Coast building industry and the region’s economy in general—

Madam SPEAKER: Member for Gaven, I am going to ask you to start again. I cannot clearly hear you. Please speak clearly.

Dr DOUGLAS: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. In light of concerns by the Gold Coast Law Society that lengthy delays in the Planning and Environment Court are obstructing the recovery of the Gold Coast building industry and the region’s economy in general, can the minister please outline when a third judge will be appointed to the Southport District Court?

Mr BLEIJIE: Let me answer the question quite simply: we will not be appointing another District Court judge to the Southport court. The reason is that I have recently had a conversation with the Chief Judge of the District Court who has told me that one is not warranted or needed, and we are not about to go and spend money on resources at courts and so forth when the Chief Judge, who is responsible for the administration of the judges and making sure that the clearance rates and so forth continue to rise, advises me that one is not necessary.

Over the last 12 months in the newspaper I have seen articles from the Gold Coast District Law Association. I have visited the Southport courthouse. Earlier today—the honourable member was in the chamber I understand—I actually tabled documents showing that the clearance rates of the District Court both in criminal and civil matters are the best they have been in many, many years—well over 100 per cent. The clearance rates across the state in some particular jurisdictions in some regions are not as good as they ought to be or should be. But the administration of the courts in terms of where a judge is necessary is a matter for the Chief Judge, and the Chief Judge can move a judge to that area on a rotating basis, just as they do in Southport.

I know there is conjecture at Southport, and in particular one of the judges has gone public about the need for another judge, but I very much rely on the advice of the Chief Judge. That is why we have the independent administrators of the courts—the Chief Justice and the Chief Judge. I have every confidence that they have the ability to run their courts as they see fit. In the event that clearance rates decline in any particular region—for example, Southport—then the Chief Judge will send a District Court judge on circuit to clear the matters up. That is what has been happening. The clearance rates at the Southport courthouse are really no different from those in the majority of regions across the state. In fact, Southport is performing better than some of the other regions across the state. So I categorically tell the parliament now, because it has been in the media, there will not be another judge appointed to the Southport District Court.

I also make the point to the honourable member that Judge Fleur Kingham’s position on QCAT expired. She was from Southport. The Chief Judge could have moved Judge Kingham back to Southport but chose not to, and Judge Kingham now serves in Brisbane. There is capacity there. I am completely satisfied with the clearance rates and, if members of the Gold Coast Law Society and the Gold Coast District Law Association wish to raise their concerns, I am more than happy to meet with them the next time I travel to the Gold Coast.

Members on the Gold Coast continually—and I thank them—draw these particular matters to my attention. But, as I said earlier today when I tabled the documents, in the first year of the Bligh government the clearance rates were under 100 per cent and just over 100 per cent. In the first year of the Newman government we have had clearance rates in the Supreme Court topping 125 per cent. That is because we have appointed an additional Supreme Court judge, we have appointed three new magistrates and a Central Queensland coroner. We will continue to make sure that people have swift access to justice right across the state, including Southport, and it is the Chief Judge’s responsibility to ensure that that happens.

(Time expired)

Tourism, Visitor Surveys Mr TROUT: My question without notice is to the Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Small

Business and the Commonwealth Games. Can the minister please inform the House of the results of any recent visitor surveys?

1932 Questions Without Notice 5 Jun 2013

Mrs STUCKEY: I thank the honourable member very much, and what a fantastic job he is doing in Far North Queensland to grow tourism and create jobs for our small businesses. He, like many members in this House, has seen us reap the benefits through our government’s strategies for tourism but none more particularly so than in aviation, and of course for Far North Queensland our China Eastern services continue to grow our passenger numbers. But this morning Tourism Research Australia released the results of the International Visitor Survey for the year ending March 2013. And guess what, honourable members? It is more good news. The overall numbers reflected in this survey for Queensland are positive, with both visitor numbers and expenditure increasing. In fact, it was such exciting news that the Treasurer beat me to the punch at his luncheon today by letting all of our business community know this great news.

International visitors to Queensland increased five per cent to 2.1 million and total visitor nights increased 11 per cent to 45.5 million. Our international expenditure in Queensland increased four per cent to $3.9 billion. Queensland has seen higher increases in visitor numbers than the national average across several international markets. Let me share these. China is up 23 per cent; the United States, up 11 per cent; Japan, up seven per cent; Germany, up 12 per cent; and Singapore, up 34 per cent. And that is not all. The European markets have also seen a strong return to Queensland. Germany is up 12 per cent; France, up five per cent; Italy, up 20 per cent; and Switzerland, up 20 per cent. Expenditure from our Chinese visitors has increased 27 per cent to $511 million.

This International Visitor Survey shows an increase in international visitor numbers across Queensland in certain areas. Let us look at Brisbane, where international visitors increased nine per cent to just under one million. On the Gold Coast our international visitors increased three per cent to 764,000. Expenditure in Tropical North Queensland increased 12 per cent to $877 million. Let us not forget our Whitsundays of course, where international visitors increased five per cent to 174,000 visitors and expenditure increased to $124 million. There are plenty more good news stories here showing a lot of faith in this government that our tourism strategy is working and bringing benefits to all of Queensland—a great state with great opportunity.

Agriculture Industry, Assistance Mr KATTER: My question without notice is to the Premier. The federal government has offered

$60 million in low interest loans to farmers and graziers in Queensland. Will the Premier commit to immediately resolving whatever the issues are to accessing this offer to help any of those in dire need of this assistance?

Mr NEWMAN: I thank the honourable member for the question. Come in spinner! What does the federal government offer? More debt. Just what struggling farmers need! For the member for Mount Isa to come in here and advocate the same flawed, ill-considered policies of the Labor Party shows just how close Katter’s Australian Party and the Labor Party are. We see them run backwards and forwards in this place, with Jo handing out the questions and asking ‘How did that go?’ and working out the tactics. Then we see it happening at the federal level as well.

Let’s be very clear. Let’s be absolutely crystal clear: the Katter party keeps Julia Gillard and this dud federal government in office. That is very, very clear. This government is providing practical relief to people in the cattle industry. We announced $11.2 million worth of relief and assistance measures only last week in Richmond. We know what happened when the leader of Katter’s Australian Party was at the crisis meeting several weeks ago, again at Richmond. What did he do? He slunk further and further out of the room after making a false and misleading statement about Minister John McVeigh.

When you go up there and talk to the constituents of the member for Mount Isa, you know that they are starting to get it. They know that the Katter party can talk about the problems but they can never give them an answer. They are also starting to work out—which I hope all Queenslanders work out—that the Katter party keeps Julia Gillard in office. Only the other day the KAP had the opportunity in the federal parliament to vote on a motion of no confidence and kick Julia Gillard out, to send a message to the Governor-General so that we could have had the parliament prorogued and we could have had an election. But, no, it continues. Why? Because Bob Katter Sr is all about political power. He wants to hang on and he knows his power is where he is at the moment. So what did he do today in the big education debate in the federal parliament? I do not know. I have not heard yet whether he voted.

Mr Langbroek: Was he there?

5 Jun 2013 Questions Without Notice 1933

Mr NEWMAN: Was he even there? He had the opportunity today to stand up for Queensland kids, and I hope that he did. I do not believe that he did. I hope that he did though, because he should have stood up—

Mr KATTER: Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order, member for Mount Isa? Mr KATTER: The Premier strayed from the question. He still has not answered the question. Madam SPEAKER: Order! Please take your seat. I call the Premier. Mr NEWMAN: What did he do today? Did he vote against cuts to education for Queensland

schools? Did he use the balance of power that he likes to revel in—that spotlight he likes to bask in? Did he do the right thing? While on the subject of the Katter party, I table a letter about bats to the Hon. Bob Katter MP. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 26 March 2013, from the Premier, Hon. Campbell Newman, to the federal member for Kennedy, Mr Bob Katter, regarding flying foxes [2826].

I have a PS at the bottom— It’s a pity you have been so ineffective in the Federal Parliament in getting the EPBC Act sorted out so we can act more freely. I note sadly that you helped maintain the current Govt who inflict such misery on your constituents.

The only way to get rid of this government is to vote for the LNP. (Time expired)

Budget, Roads Dr FLEGG: My question is to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. Can the minister

please outline for the House how the Newman government is putting roads front and centre in this budget?

Mr EMERSON: I thank the member for Moggill for his strong advocacy for roads in Queensland. The budget is a great result for roads in Queensland. There is so much to talk about, but I will limit it to a few areas. I will talk about the Bruce Highway to begin with, because I know that is important to everyone in this chamber except for a limited few. The reality is that this budget documents the fact that we will be spending $690 million on the Bruce Highway in 2013-14. That includes $153 million of state money going to the Bruce Highway. Twenty-two per cent of the money being spent on the Bruce Highway next year will be state money. This is a federal road. We know that the federal government should be spending at least 80 per cent on that road but it has walked away from the Bruce Highway, unlike the state government which is spending $153 million on the Bruce Highway.

This budget puts aside $340 million over the next four years as part of our $1 billion pledge of additional money for the Bruce Highway as long as the federal government puts in additional money—again, that 80-20 split. But all we have heard from Albanese and Labor’s mates in Canberra is zero additional money. There is no additional money; it is old money they are putting in. They are not even meeting that commitment of 80 per cent to that road. They are trying to walk away from that road. We are spending $153 million of state money, but we know that if our opponents were in power at the moment there would be zero state money for the Bruce Highway because they do not think it is worth spending money on.

Mr Cripps: That is one policy they do have. Mr EMERSON: That is their one policy on roads: that state money being spent on federal

roads is misspending of state money on roads. Zero would be spent. Our $153 million is on the table and there is more to come. Let’s see our Labor opponents start to fight for our state. Talk to Swannie, that so-called Queenslander, and tell him to start looking after his own home state rather than walking away.

In terms of QTRIP, over the next two years we will spend $10.3 billion. How much would Labor have spent on QTRIP? It would have spent $2 billion less in these two years on QTRIP. Our plan is to spend $2 billion more—$10.3 billion. Let’s not forget, Deputy Premier, particularly in terms of Roads to Resources and Royalties for the Regions, $72 million will be spent in this budget through the Roads to Resources policy in areas like Toowoomba and on Townsville’s Blakey’s Crossing. What a great result for Queensland in this budget for our roads. Let’s not forget the Bruce Highway. We are backing the Bruce Highway. We support the Bruce Highway. Labor hates the Bruce Highway.

1934 Questions Without Notice 5 Jun 2013

State Schools, Closures Mrs MILLER: Madam Speaker— Madam SPEAKER: Order! I am waiting for your colleagues to be quiet. I call the member for

Bundamba. Mrs MILLER: My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Employment. I note the

minister was too busy to attend a meeting at the Fortitude Valley State School and that he has declined meeting requests from the Toowoomba South P&C—

Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Bundamba, there is an imputation in that question. I would ask you to rephrase it in accordance with the standing orders and put it again.

Mrs MILLER: I note that the Premier was too busy to attend a meeting at Fortitude Valley— Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Bundamba, that is an imputation. Mrs MILLER: No, he said it in the House yesterday, Madam Speaker. Mr Langbroek: I said I am busy; I didn’t say I was too busy. Mrs MILLER: I have said that I have noted you were busy. Madam SPEAKER: Order! I am going to instruct the member to rephrase the question without

an imputation and put it again. I am not going to entertain debates across the chamber in the middle of a question.

Mrs MILLER: I shall do. I note that the minister has had numerous requests to attend meetings of P&C associations, particularly in relation to those school closures, and I ask: will the minister commit to meeting with the community of each of the state schools proposed for closure before a final decision is made, or is it because the minister is a dentist and he is not allowed to show his face at these meetings?

Mr STEVENS: Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order—

Speaker’s Ruling, Question Out of Order Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Bundamba, I am going to rule your question out of

order. That is a clear imputation. I gave you ample opportunity to rephrase in respect to your question and warned you about imputations.

Mrs MILLER: I rise to a point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order? Mrs MILLER: Madam Speaker, the minister doesn’t have a ring of confidence today. Madam SPEAKER: Order! I am going to warn the member under 253A. The member is

warned under 253A and is on notice in regard to her behaviour.

Budget, Social Housing Mr SYMES: My question without notice is to the Minister for Housing and Public Works. Can

the minister please update the House on what the Newman government’s 2013-14 budget is doing to help the 23,000 Queensland families waiting for long-term social housing?

Mr MANDER: I thank the honourable member for his question. In tough financial times it is important that we do not forget those on the margins of society. I am happy to report that the 2013-14 budget includes a number of initiatives to deliver more housing for needy Queenslanders. With more than 23,000 householders on the waiting list, it is no secret that the public housing system is under enormous stress thanks to years of neglect and mismanagement by the Labor Party. Demand for all types of housing far outweighs supply and in recent years that gap, particularly with regard to public housing, has expanded faster than ever before.

The government has already engaged in a large-scale pilot program for the renewal of social housing in Logan, a project that will provide at least 1,000 additional homes over the next 10 years. The government is also working with Economic Development Queensland to identify and deliver projects in a number of priority development areas including Townsville, Mount Isa, Gladstone and the Gold Coast. These projects will increase the availability of social affordable housing and reconfigure existing properties to more closely match the needs of families on the waiting list. Put simply, the number of properties that we own are no longer suitable for the people that we house.

5 Jun 2013 Treasury and Trade and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1935

Those opposite ought to be ashamed for letting it get to the state that it did. Fixing that mismatch is something that we are making a priority. It is not good enough to simply put a roof over somebody’s head. You also have to make sure that it is appropriate for their needs, which is why we are committed to renewing and configuring our stock.

This budget sets aside $133 million in capital works for funding and $27.7 million in capital works to start building at least 28 new units of accommodation, complete construction on another 149 units and purchase 45 more, and also upgrade some existing properties. This budget also contains good news for the Indigenous community, with $237.7 million set aside for Indigenous housing. That money will be used to start construction on at least 204 dwellings and complete construction on another 280. There is also $44 million to be spent on general upkeep and maintenance.

This budget represents an important milestone as we continue to work on a modern, flexible and supportive social housing system that needy Queenslanders deserve. This budget will also boost the supply of affordable accommodation across the state with $20.7 million in Queensland government incentives to deliver over 10,000 dwellings as part of the National Rental Affordability Scheme. All Queenslanders deserve a safe, appropriate and affordable house in which to live and, thanks to this government’s ongoing commitment to NRAS, we will deliver it.

Budget Mr BYRNE: My question is to the Premier. Both the Treasurer and the Premier have admitted

that their path to surplus is almost entirely on the back of LNG exports, an industry established by the former government. After the Treasurer broke his promise to deliver a fiscal surplus in 2014-15, will the Premier guarantee to the people of Queensland that the budget will be in fiscal surplus in 2015-16?

Madam SPEAKER: The time for questions has expired.

TREASURY AND TRADE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction Hon. TJ NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (Treasurer and Minister for Trade) (3.30 pm): I present a

bill for an act to amend the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, the Evidence Act 1977, the Financial Accountability Act 2009, the Legislative Standards Act 1992, the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994, the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001, the Queensland Competition Authority Act 1997, the Queensland Treasury Corporation Act 1988, the Reprints Act 1992, the State Financial Institutions and Metway Merger Facilitation Act 1996, the Statistical Returns Act 1896 and the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 for particular purposes, to repeal the Anzac Square Development Project Act 1982, the Commonwealth and State Statistical Agreement Act 1958, the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia Agreement Act 1966, the Energy Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Act 2006, the Government Inscribed Stock Act 1920, the Government Loan Act 1986, the Government Loans Redemption and Conversion Act 1923 and the Government Stock Act 1912, and to make minor and consequential amendments of the acts stated in schedules 1 to 4 for particular purposes. I table the bill and the explanatory notes. I nominate the Finance and Administration Committee to consider the bill. Tabled paper: Treasury and Trade and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 [2827]. Tabled paper: Treasury and Trade and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes [2828].

The bill I present amends a series of acts that are consequential upon announcements the government has already made and are largely technical in nature and repeal other legislation that is no longer required. Details in relation to the changes and the reasons for those changes are contained in a speech which has been presented to your office, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to have the remainder of the speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted. This Bill will repeal legislation within the Treasury and Trade portfolio that is no longer required as well as facilitating a number of amendments to other legislation. The Treasury and Trade legislation that will be repealed is the: • Anzac Square Development Project Act 1982; • Energy Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Act 2006; • Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia Agreement Act 1966;

1936 Treasury and Trade and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

• Commonwealth and State Statistical Agreement Act 1958; • Government Stock Act 1923; • Government Loans Redemption And Conversion Act 1923; • Government Inscribed Stock Act 1920; • Government Loan Act 1986; and • Division 3 of the Queensland Treasury Corporation Act 1988.

In short, those Acts or provisions have achieved their purpose and are no longer required. Similarly, the Bill will also repeal those provisions of the State Financial Institutions and Metway Merger Facilitation Act 1996 that have fulfilled their purpose and are no longer required. The provisions dealing with head office requirements and the guarantee of pre-merger obligations continue to operate and will be retained. Madam Speaker, this Bill also makes necessary technical amendments to the:

• Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994;

• Financial Accountability Act 2009;

• Queensland Competition Authority Act 1997; and

• Statistical Returns Act 1896.

At the Premier’s request, the Bill also includes the following amendments:

• amendment of the Evidence Act 1977, Legislative Standards Act 1992, Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 and Reprints Act 1992 to streamline and modernise those provisions governing the authorisation of electronic reprints of legislation, the effect of authorised reprints and evidence of a range of legislative and parliamentary matters;

• amendment of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 to provide for subordinate legislation to become effective on its publication on the Queensland legislation website;

• several technical amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 to insert new definitions and relocate all definitions to a schedule; and

• amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 and Statutory Instruments Act 1992 to give effect to recommendations of the former Scrutiny of Legislation Committee.

I wish to discuss the need to amend each of these Acts in turn.

The State Financial Institutions and Metway Merger Facilitation Act 1996 was originally enacted to enable the merger of Metway Bank with the Queensland Government owned Suncorp Building Society, Suncorp Finance Limited, Suncorp Insurance and Finance and the Queensland Industry Development Corporation. The merger was aimed at enhancing the availability of banking, finance and insurance services in Queensland by creating a financial institution that could use recognized brands to offer a wide range of banking, finance and insurance products in an increasingly competitive market. Many of the provisions of this Act have now achieved their purpose and are no longer required.

I will now turn to the amendments proposed to the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994.

Firstly, the Bill contains two amendments to better align the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 with transport legislation. The first amends the term ‘agricultural implement’, which is currently undefined, to ‘agricultural machine’ by reference to the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Regulation 2010. The second will align section 23 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 with transport legislation to authorise the recovery of CTP premiums where an electronic payment is initially made but later reversed by a financial institution.

The Bill also contains amendments to rectify a drafting error relating to section 38 as well as a technical amendment to section 10 to specify explicitly that a function of the Motor Accident Insurance Commission is to conduct research, and collect statistics about the statutory insurance scheme.

I also propose to amend section 33(3) of the Act to ensure that the Nominal Defendant will provide gratuitous third party insurance cover for Queensland registered motorised wheelchairs anywhere in Australia. Currently, Queensland registered motorised wheelchairs are only gratuitously insured by the Nominal Defendant for accidents that occur within Queensland. This limitation is inconsistent with the statutory policy of insurance which specifies that a CTP insurance policy must insure against liability for personal injury caused by, through or in connection with the insured vehicle anywhere in Australia. The Bill will amend section 33 to clarify that gratuitous CTP insurance cover provided by the Nominal Defendant will cover the insured vehicle anywhere in Australia. There are challenges involved in balancing the desire to protect the privacy of individuals and the need for CTP insurers and the Nominal Defendant to be able to access information required to undertake the necessary investigation to appropriately assess CTP claims. While there are provisions in the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 and Regulation that purport to authorize information being provided by the Queensland Police Service and other government emergency service agencies to a CTP insurer or the Nominal Defendant for the purposes of assessing a CTP claim, there is inconsistency in the level of information that is being provided to insurers and the Nominal Defendant who are investigating CTP claims.

This inconsistency in the information that is being supplied is attributed to uncertainty that has arisen within the Queensland Police Service and other government emergency service agencies over the application of the Information Privacy Act 2009 to the personal information contained in motor vehicle accident reports and the contact details of witnesses to an accident. One of the key objectives of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 is the encouragement of the swift resolution of CTP insurance claims. In recognition of this, I propose to amend the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 to explicitly authorize the Queensland Police Service and other Government bodies, such as the Queensland Ambulance Service and the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service, to release information to CTP insurers and the Nominal Defendant to help them identify or contact a person who witnessed a motor vehicle accident where the insurer or the Nominal Defendant reasonably believes that the information is necessary to decide the accuracy of matters relating to the CTP claim and help resolve the CTP claim.

5 Jun 2013 Treasury and Trade and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1937

I turn now to the proposed amendments to the Financial Accountability Act 2009. I propose to remove the requirement that first, second and third quarter consolidated fund statements be published in the Government Gazette by amending section 22(5) of this Act. Despite this change, the Government will still retain the highest levels of probity and transparency by making these statements publically available such as on the department’s website.

I also propose to amend section 48 of the Financial Accountability Act 2009 to allow me to delegate to an officer or employee of my Department, my power to nominate a public sector employee to fill the position of Chief Finance Officer or Head of Internal Audit of a Government Department as set out in sections 77 and 78 of the Financial Accountability Act 2009.

It is proposed to amend section 61 of the Act to incorporate the concept of “value for money” into the functions of accountable officers and statutory bodies. This amendment reflects the recommendations of both the “Report of the 2010 Strategic Review of the Queensland Audit Office” and Commission of Audit Interim Report.

The Bill will also amend the Queensland Competition Authority Act 1997 to reflect that the Ministerial responsibility for the Act is to lie with a single Minister, rather than two Ministers as has historically been the case. This will streamline Ministerial decision making processes under the Act and is consistent with the practice in other jurisdictions with similar laws. The Bill also corrects a number of minor cross-referencing and typographical errors in the Act.

I have also proposed two amendments to the Statistical Returns Act 1896 to, firstly, expand the areas that the Government Statistician may collect and publish statistics about to include the areas of “energy, environment and construction”, and, secondly, to clarify that the Government Statistician may collect information from the State, including State Government Departments and, when requested, that the State, including State Government Departments, is to provide the information to the Government Statistician.

Further, the Bill includes amendments to various Acts to reflect the change of name of the professional organisation, the National Institute of Accountants to the Institute of Public Accountants.

Madam Speaker, the amendments as contained in the Bill will contribute towards improving efficiencies and removing redundant legislative provisions, correcting typographical errors and omissions as well as clarifying and streamlining provisions administered by the Treasury and Trade portfolio. This Bill also makes a number of technical amendments to the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994, including an amendment to ensure that the Queensland Police Service and the State’s other emergency service agencies are authorized to give information for identifying or contacting a person who has witnessed a motor vehicle accident to a CTP insurer or the Nominal Defendant, if the insurer or the Nominal Defendant reasonably believes the information is necessary to decide the accuracy of matters relating to a CTP claim and will help resolve that claim.

Combined, the amendments in this Bill will save the State money by clarifying existing provisions, reducing unnecessary red tape and repealing obsolete legislative provisions.

Allow me to also speak briefly about the amendments included in the Bill at the request of the Premier.

Queensland legislation is available on the Queensland legislation website (www.legislation.qld.gov.au), and is widely accessed by the courts, lawyers, business, government agencies and the community. Electronic reprints of legislation published on the website are now authorised by the Parliamentary Counsel, allowing them to be relied on under the Evidence Act 1977 and Reprints Act 1992 to the same extent as authorised paper reprints as accurate copies of Acts or subordinate legislation at a particular point in time. To support this use of the Queensland legislation website, the Bill amends the Reprints Act 1992 to provide for the Parliamentary Counsel to prepare reprints of all Queensland legislation, including legislation that has not been amended.

The Bill removes unnecessary duplication between the Evidence Act 1977 and other Acts by co-locating all legislative matters of which judicial notice must be had in the Evidence Act 1977. By bringing all relevant provisions together, this amendment will make clearer which matters must be accepted as a matter of fact by a judge or other person acting judicially without having to be proven in evidence. The Bill also streamlines and modernises the Evidence Act 1977 by:

• updating a range of provisions prescribing the means by which evidence of various Parliamentary and legislative matters may be given;

• modernising the presumption that particular copies of legislation correctly show the law at a stated date; and

• co-locating in the Evidence Act 1977 the provisions about how evidence may be given of instruments issued by the Governor, a Minister or a public entity.

These amendments are complemented by the insertion into the Legislative Standards Act 1992 of a new head of power for the Parliamentary Counsel to authorise copies of all Queensland legislation, including reprints, and Bills. This is necessary to enable all forms of legislative material authorised by the Parliamentary Counsel to be given the same evidentiary value under the Evidence Act 1977 as amended.

On their publication on the Queensland legislation website, official copies of Queensland legislation will assume their full evidentiary value under the Evidence Act 1977 as amended.

The Bill further amends the Legislative Standards Act 1992 to better reflect the changing preferences of users of Queensland legislation by allowing greater flexibility in the form in which legislation is required to be made available.

The Bill similarly allows greater flexibility under the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 by amending the provision dealing with the evidentiary value of reports of Parliamentary debates to require that those debates simply be published in written form. While reports of Parliamentary debates must currently be in printed form to be taken as an accurate record, this amendment will leave it to Parliament to determine the precise form in which they are to be published.

The operation of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 is further modernised by correcting outdated references in that Act to the official record of Parliamentary proceedings.

1938 Education and Care Services Bill 5 Jun 2013

Users of legislation no longer have to rely on the Queensland Government Gazette for accurate, current information about the making of subordinate legislation. Instead, they can now access subordinate legislation and information about when subordinate legislation was made or amended through the Queensland legislation website.

However, under the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 as it currently stands, subordinate legislation only takes effect on being notified in the Queensland Government Gazette. To allow users to rely on the information on the Queensland legislation website without also having to undertake the additional step of accessing the Queensland Government Gazette, the Bill amends the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 to provide for legislation to become effective when it is published on the website.

The Bill makes a range of consequential amendments to these Acts as a result of the amendments relating to reprints and electronic notification of subordinate legislation. It also amends the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 to consequentially amend or replace a number of definitions as a result of these substantive amendments. It also inserts a new definition of ‘appropriately qualified’ in relation to a function or a power or in relation to appointment to an office, a term which is in use across the Statute Book. For ease of reference, the Bill relocates all existing and new definitions in the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 to a new schedule.

Finally, the Bill makes a number of amendments to implement outstanding matters arising from recommendations of the former Scrutiny of Legislation Committee.

In its Report No. 46, the former Committee recommended that those provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 and Acts Interpretation Act 1954 which deal with forms made under an Act be located together in the same piece of legislation. This was in part an acknowledgement that forms are essentially administrative instruments, while the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 deals with statutory instruments. The Bill accordingly co-locates the relevant provisions from both Acts in a new part of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954.

The former Scrutiny of Legislation Committee also undertook a review of the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 dealing with the automatic expiry of subordinate legislation. In its Report No. 42, the former Committee recommended that the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 be amended to require the Parliamentary Counsel to give one year’s notice to administering departments and agencies of the impending expiry of subordinate legislation, rather than the current six months. The Bill implements this recommendation.

Madam Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House.

First Reading Hon. TJ NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (Treasurer and Minister for Trade) (3.32 pm): I move—

That the bill be now read a first time.

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

Referral to the Finance and Administration Committee Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! In accordance with standing order 131, the bill is

now referred to the Finance and Administration Committee.

EDUCATION AND CARE SERVICES BILL

Introduction Hon. JH LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Minister for Education, Training and

Employment) (3.33 pm): I present a bill for an act to regulate the provision of education and care by particular services, amend this act and the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000 for particular purposes and make consequential and minor amendments to other legislation stated in schedule 1. I table the bill and the explanatory notes. I nominate the Education and Innovation Committee to consider the bill. Tabled paper: Education and Care Services Bill 2013 [2829]. Tabled paper: Education and Care Services Bill 2013, explanatory notes [2830].

This bill will establish a new regulatory framework for education and care services currently regulated under the Child Care Act 2002. This bill will repeal the Child Care Act 2002. On 1 January 2012, the Education and Care Services National Law (Queensland) Act 2011 commenced. This act applies a national law for the regulation of most education and care services. It was developed as a Council of Australian Government commitment to implement a national quality framework for education and care services in Australia.

The national law replaced the Child Care Act 2002—the Child Care Act—in Queensland as the regulatory framework for services covered by the national law. The vast majority of education and care services in Queensland, approximately 2,500 services, are regulated under the national law.

5 Jun 2013 Education and Care Services Bill 1939

These services include long-day-care centres, kindergartens, outside school hours care, family day care and pre-prep services. Some service types were excluded from the national law in each jurisdiction. In Queensland, around 66 services are excluded from the national law. These include limited hours care services funded by the Queensland government, occasional care services, education and care services that are also disability services and budget based funded services not in receipt of Commonwealth child-care benefit. These services are currently required to hold a licence under the Child Care Act and are subject to requirements about staffing levels, health and safety, staff qualifications and other matters. After the commencement of the national law, it was necessary to consider how to regulate the services that remained outside the national law. In addition, the regulation made under the Child Care Act 2002 is due for review as it will expire on 1 September 2013 and it is appropriate at this point to review both the act and regulation.

In March 2011, a regulatory assessment statement—RAS—was released seeking feedback from stakeholders on their preferred option for regulating services not covered by the national law. The RAS considered three options: mirror the national law, retain the Child Care Act or create a new framework which is a hybrid of the national law and the Child Care Act. Stakeholders supported the development of new hybrid legislation, and this is the approach adopted in the bill. The bill also seeks to reduce red tape for services while maintaining the high-quality service that Queenslanders expect for their children.

Incorporating elements of both the national law and the Child Care Act has the greatest benefits for Queensland. Adopting certain elements of the national law will reduce costs and the regulatory burden for services by having a system of perpetual service approvals rather than a licence which expires every three years. Greater consistency between the national and Queensland frameworks will also reduce the burden for those providers who operate under both frameworks, such as providers who operate a limited hours care service and kindergarten from the same premises. Finally, it will reduce the complexity of the regulatory environment and streamline implementation because departmental staff will be applying similar frameworks for services regulated under the Queensland and the national regimes.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in light of the time, I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted. Under the bill a Queensland provider approval is granted to a person who proposes to operate a Queensland education and care service by the Chief Executive. Queensland approved providers may apply for one or more Queensland service approvals to operate in Queensland. A Queensland approved provider must have a Queensland service approval for each Queensland education and care service they operate.

This change in legislation will not represent increased costs for services. Currently under the Child Care Act services pay $500 for an application for a licence and a $300 renewal fee every three years totalling $800 for their first 3 year licence. For the same period, a service will only be required to pay $500 due to a reduction in the effective cost of an application to operate a service. Instead of a three yearly renewal fee services will pay an annual fee of $100. The Bill provides for a perpetual approval system to reduce red tape for the operator of a Queensland education and care service. There will be a one-off $100 fee for granting a Queensland provider approval and a one-off $100 fee for granting a Queensland service approval, a total of $200 compared to the $500 charged under the Child Care Act 2002. Once approved, an approved provider will pay an annual fee of $100 for each service approval they hold. These fees will be prescribed in a regulation.

To ensure that the quality of services is maintained, the Bill provides for a minimum of three-yearly inspections of each service. This is consistent with requirements under the Child Care Act.

Consistent with the national law, the Bill allows services to seek service or temporary waivers. These waivers excuse services from complying with particular requirements in the Bill or Regulation. For example, a service may apply for a waiver if due to renovations being undertaken, the service temporarily cannot meet the minimum outdoor space or staffing requirements. The ability to apply for a temporary waiver enables the service to continue operating without having to reduce the number of children for whom it provides education and care. A waiver can be granted enabling families and children to continue to access the service and minimise cost and disruption to the provision of education and care. This is consistent with the national law.

The Bill also includes a new process to allow services to temporarily relocate in exceptional circumstances, for example, where premises are damaged by a natural disaster. In recent years Queenslanders have experienced natural disasters that have unfortunately wiped out their homes and businesses. The Bill provides an expedited approval process to enable services affected by natural disaster to relocate to alternative premises as quickly as possible to provide for continuity of care. The Bill balances the need to ensure the safety of children with the objective of allowing services to continue to operate.

The Bill also establishes the staffing requirements for Queensland education and care services and requires each service to appoint a supervisor responsible for providing education and care by the service. Whilst this represents a change from the current requirements in the Child Care Act, the supervisor role will have similar functions to that of a Director under the Child Care Act. A Queensland approved provider will be required to appoint a supervisor for every service.

1940 Energy and Water Legislation Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

The supervisor will be required to hold or be actively working towards a 2 year Diploma level qualification in a course related to early childhood education and care. Currently under the Child Care Act the Director usually holds a 3 year Advanced Diploma in Children’s Services.

The supervisor will be required to be present at prescribed times during the day. This requirement will not apply to services with a licensed capacity of 30 places or less and school age care services, consistent with the approach currently taken in the Child Care Act. This recognises that for services with a capacity of 30 places or less and school age care services, a requirement for the supervisor to be present at prescribed times is not practicable.

The Bill also provides for the maintenance and publication of registers of Queensland approved providers and services. The Child Care Act requires a register of licensed services to be kept but does not require that it be published online. This Bill adopts the national law approach of having registers available online to increase parents’ access to information about services. This is also consistent with the Queensland Government’s policy of providing open access to data.

The Bill provides for a regulation to prescribe the requirements for qualifications of staff, staffing levels and physical space.

The Bill continues the approach to the regulation of stand-alone services set out in the Child Care Act. Stand-alone services care for six children or less, of whom no more than four can be under school age. These services can operate from a person’s home or from another location. The Department of Education, Training and Employment does not license these services. If a person wishes to operate a stand-alone service they are required to hold a blue card and have adequate insurance cover, as prescribed under regulation. Finally, the Bill includes detailed transitional provisions to ensure that existing services are seamlessly transferred to the new regulatory framework without having to make applications.

This Bill will provide clear benefits for education and care services, families accessing these services and for officers regulating these services. In addition to reducing red tape and providing savings through the perpetual Queensland provider and Queensland service approvals, services will be able to organise their staffing and physical environments to maximise efficiencies while also ensuring high quality education and care is being provided.

Furthermore, the high quality of education and care is only expected to increase with a higher number of educators holding or actively working towards a Diploma level qualification, and ensuring services have educators who are competent in first aid as well as asthma and anaphylaxis management.

I commend this Bill to the House.

First Reading Hon. JH LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Minister for Education, Training and

Employment) (3.37 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a first time.

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

Referral to the Education and Innovation Committee Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! In accordance with standing order 131, the bill is

now referred to the Education and Innovation Committee.

ENERGY AND WATER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction Hon. MF McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (Minister for Energy and Water Supply) (3.37 pm): I

present a bill for an act to amend the Electricity Act 1994, the Energy and Water Ombudsman Act 2006 and the South-East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) Act 2009 for particular purposes and to repeal the Clean Energy Act 2008. I table the bill and the explanatory notes. I nominate the State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee to consider the bill. Tabled paper: Energy and Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 [2831]. Tabled paper: Energy and Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes [2832].

This bill cuts red tape from Queensland’s energy sector to meet the government’s commitment to reduce costs for business and the community. Removing programs duplicated by the Commonwealth government’s carbon price will ease pressures on electricity costs.

On 8 March 2013, I announced the government’s decision to cease the Queensland Gas Scheme and the Smart Energy Savings Program—or SESP—to cut red tape from the state’s energy sector. The Gas Scheme requires electricity retailers to source 15 per cent of their electricity from gas fired generators, to encourage investment in gas fired electricity generation and boost gas production

5 Jun 2013 Queensland Building Services Authority Amendment Bill 1941

across the state. The Gas Scheme has served its purpose, with nearly 20 per cent of electricity currently being sourced from gas fired generators. The continued application of the Gas Scheme in its present form, combined with the effect of the carbon price, would likely result in a duplication of costs to Queensland’s electricity providers, which would be passed on to consumers.

The proposed amendments to the Electricity Act clarify that 2013 will be the final liable year for the Gas Scheme. Additionally, these amendments provide clarity to Gas Scheme participants that no annual fees will be charged for the 2014 calendar year. The Gas Scheme will operate with normal administration procedures for the 2013 liable year. To ensure participants comply with their legal commitments for the 2013 liable year, appropriate monitoring and enforcement powers will remain in place until 30 June 2014.

Part 9 of the Electricity Act will be amended to include transitional provisions to allow for the expiry of the gas scheme. The gas scheme will expire on 30 June 2014. Beyond this date, all relevant registrations, accreditations and exemptions will expire. Similarly, all unexpired gas electricity certificates will expire on 30 June 2014. The amendments additionally make it clear that gas electricity certificates hold no value beyond 30 June 2014. I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted. The Smart Energy Savings Program requires businesses with energy use above specified thresholds to undertake energy audits and report their energy saving strategies to the government. The government believes that as part of prudent management, businesses will be incentivised to identify energy savings to boost their bottom line. Forcing businesses to identify these savings and then report on them adds red tape for no reason.

Consistent with the platform of red tape reduction, the government decided to cease the SESP and repeal the Clean Energy Act 2008. Ceasing the operation of the gas scheme and the SESP will reduce the administrative burden and complexity for government and industry. This will decrease pressure on electricity costs to consumers and remove programs duplicated by the Commonwealth Government’s Carbon Price.

The repeal of the Clean Energy Act, legal amendments to the Electricity Act and transitional provisions proposed in this bill meet the government’s commitment to reduce red tape on business and the community.

The deamalgamation of Noosa from the Sunshine Coast Regional Council will take effect on 1 January 2014.

Amending the South East Queensland (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) Act 2009 will enable Unitywater, the Northern Distributor-Retailer Authority in South-East Queensland, to continue to provide the Noosa Shire Council area with water and sewerage services.

The proposed amendment enables the new Noosa Council to become a participating local government in the retail-distribution business Unitywater, which will then be able to continue to supply water and sewerage services to the area.

In order for this to occur the Bill will add Noosa Council to the list of participating councils for Unitywater from 1 January 2014.

Madam Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House.

First Reading Hon. MF McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (Minister for Energy and Water Supply) (3.41 pm): I

move— That the bill be now read a first time.

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

Referral to the State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! In accordance with standing order 131, the bill is

now referred to the State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee.

QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction Hon. TL MANDER (Everton—LNP) (Minister for Housing and Public Works) (3.41 pm): I

present a bill for an act to amendment the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 to

1942 Queensland Building Services Authority Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

replace the Queensland Building Services Authority with a new commission, and to make consequential or minor amendments of the Building Act 1975 and the acts as stated in schedule 1 for related purposes. I table the bill and the explanatory notes. I nominate the Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee to consider the bill. Tabled paper: Queensland Building Services Authority Amendment Bill 2013 [2833]. Table paper: Queensland Building Services Authority Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes [2834].

The building and construction industry is one of the four pillars of the Queensland economy, and this government is committed to putting the right framework in place to allow it to continue to drive growth in our state. This bill facilitates the biggest reform of building industry regulations in more than two decades and will ensure that Queenslanders have the best building regulator in the country. The aim is to strike the right balance between consumers and contractors. It is about building confidence in the industry, whether that is confidence to build a new home or renovate an existing one, or the confidence to start or grow a business or pursue a career in the industry.

In August 2012, this parliament agreed to a motion that the Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee inquire into and report on the operation and performance of the Queensland Building Services Authority. On 30 November 2012, the parliamentary committee tabled in the Legislative Assembly its report recommending far-reaching changes to the Queensland Building Services Authority. My department then appointed a panel of three experts to fully assess the recommendations of the parliamentary committee. I thank those panel members—Mr Phil Kesby, Mr Andrew Wallace and Mr David Hanna—and the director-general of my department, Mr Neil Castles, for their valuable assistance in developing the government’s response.

The government response, which was tabled on 29 May 2013, includes a 10-point action plan to overhaul building regulation in this state. This bill today sets in motion points 1 and 2 of the action plan, which will see us establish the Queensland Building and Construction Commission, QBCC, in place of the Queensland Building Services Authority. The new commission will have a professional governing board and a commissioner who will be appointed by, and report to, the governing board. The board of the QBCC will set the strategic direction and the operational, financial and administrative policies of the commission. It will report to me directly on matters of performance and on issues affecting the building industry and consumers.

This is a significant departure from the system used by the Building Services Authority, where the board served in a purely advisory capacity with no real authority. The board will also ensure that the commission performs its functions and exercises its powers in a proper, effective and efficient way, making and reviewing policies governing the administration of the act, providing guidance and leadership to the commissioner, and advising me about unfair trading practices affecting the security of payments to subcontractors.

There will be seven members of the board, including a chair and a deputy chair, appointed by the Governor in Council for a term of not more than three years. The commissioner will not be a member of the board. Board positions will be advertised following the passage of this bill, with members to be selected on the basis of their relevant expertise and experience as a member of a governing board. The commissioner will be appointed by the board, subject to my approval, for a term of not more than three years, with the role being akin to that of a chief executive. General managers will be responsible for each of the three main business units, those being licensing, dispute resolution and the home warranty scheme, with these units being firewalled from each other to prevent any potential conflict of interest.

As the responsible minister, I will have the power to give formal directions to the commission. These are to be tabled in parliament. Any formal policies of the board governing the administration of the act will need to be endorsed by me as part of the approval process by the Governor in Council, as these policies are required to be approved by a regulation.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill is only the start. Points 3 to 10 of the action plan contain a raft of other measures, including: early intervention in the dispute process; improved accountability of the certification of building work; possible changes to the scope of the Home Warranty Insurance Scheme; improved consumer awareness and industry training; a review of the professional development, licensing and compliance for contractors; and expanded licensing role of the commission. These changes will be implemented progressively by the new commission in consultation with industry and stakeholders. Ultimately we want to see fewer disputes, fewer cases going to QCAT and faster resolution of those disputes that do arise.

5 Jun 2013 Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1943

The building and construction industry is one of the pillars of our economy, and it is important that we make sure that there is a level playing field for all participants, whether consumers or contractors. The reforms set in motion by this bill are an important step towards making sure that the building industry can continue to drive growth in our state. I commend the bill to the House.

First Reading Hon. TL MANDER (Everton—LNP) (Minister for Housing and Public Works) (3.46 pm): I

move—

That the bill be now read a first time.

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

Referral to the Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! In accordance with standing order 131, the bill is

now referred to the Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee.

JUSTICE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Message from Governor Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (3.46 pm): I

present a message from Her Excellency the Governor. The Speaker read the following message—

MESSAGE

JUSTICE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2013

Constitution of Queensland 2001, section 68

I, PENELOPE ANNE WENSLEY AC, Governor, recommend to the Legislative Assembly a Bill intituled— A Bill for an Act to amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Holding Act 2013, the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973, the Appeal Costs Fund Regulation 2010, the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003, the Child Employment Act 2006, the Child Employment Regulation 2006, the Civil Proceedings Act 2011, the Coroners Act 2003, the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986, the Dispute Resolution Centres Act 1990, the District Court of Queensland Act 1967, the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012, the Electronic Transactions (Queensland) Act 2001, the Evidence Act 1977, the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, the Information Privacy Act 2009, the Judges (Pensions and Long Leave) Act 1957, the Judicial Remuneration Act 2007, the Justices Act 1886, the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners for Declarations Act 1991, the Land Court Act 2000, the Legal Aid Queensland Act 1997, the Legal Profession Act 2007, the Magistrates Act 1991, the Magistrates Courts Act 1921, the Peaceful Assembly Act 1992, the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, the Recording of Evidence Act 1962, the Retirement Villages Act 1999, the Right to Information Act 2009, the Statutory Instruments Act 1992, the Succession Act 1981, the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 and the Trusts Act 1973 for particular purposes

(sgd)

GOVERNOR

Date: 4 JUN 2013 Tabled paper: Message, dated 4 June 2013, from Her Excellency the Governor, recommending the Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 [2835].

Introduction Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (3.46 pm): That

is only an eighth of my ministerial responsibilities! I present a bill for an act to amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Holding Act 2013, the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973, the Appeal Costs Fund Regulation 2010, the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003, the Child Employment Act 2006, the Child Employment Regulation 2006, the Civil Proceedings Act 2011, the Coroners Act 2003, the Criminal

1944 Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986, the Dispute Resolution Centres Act 1990, the District Court of Queensland Act 1967, the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012, the Electronic Transactions (Queensland) Act 2001, the Evidence Act 1977, the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, the Information Privacy Act 2009, the Judges (Pensions and Long Leave) Act 1957, the Judicial Remuneration Act 2007, the Justices Act 1886, the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners for Declarations Act 1991, the Land Court Act 2000, the Legal Aid Queensland Act 1997, the Legal Profession Act 2007, the Magistrates Act 1991, the Magistrates Courts Act 1921, the Peaceful Assembly Act 1992, the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, the Recording of Evidence Act 1962, the Retirement Villages Act 1999, the Right to Information Act 2009, the Statutory Instruments Act 1992, the Succession Act 1981, the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 and the Trusts Act 1973 for particular purposes. I table the bill and the explanatory notes. I nominate the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee to consider the bill. Tabled paper: Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 [2836].

Tabled paper: Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes [2837].

I am pleased to introduce the Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. The bill proposes miscellaneous amendments to approximately 30 acts administered by the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. The bill includes a number of amendments to clarify and improve provisions concerning the operation of various commission, court, tribunal and registry processes. I will outline some of the amendments included in the bill. The bill amends the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 to expand the grounds on which the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland may reject or lapse a complaint and to allow for a 28-day cooling-off period when complainants give notice that they wish to withdraw a complaint.

The Coroners Act 2003 is amended to authorise the publication of inquest and investigation findings and inquest comments. The amendments to the Coroners Act will also allow Coroners to make appropriate orders concerning access to exhibits, broaden the grounds for access to investigation documents where in the public interest, and allow Coroners to take a urine sample regardless of the type of autopsy ordered. Additionally, the bill amends the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 to exempt certain court, departmental and private sector staff from compliance with some disclosure restrictions so as to enable them to properly carry out their duties.

The bill proposes amendments to the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 and the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 to facilitate the appointment of retired District Court and Supreme Court judges, having reached 70 years of age, as acting judges until they reach 78 years of age. It is proposed to amend the Evidence Act 1977 to clarify that, for the purposes of providing that parties, or spouses of parties, are competent and compellable in all non-criminal proceedings, a proceeding is defined to include an inquiry, reference or examination. I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech, which has been approved by Madam Speaker, incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Justices of the Peace and Commissioners for Declarations Act 1991 is proposed to be amended to improve registry administration and allow the registrar to exempt appointees from gazettal; and to amend an uncommenced section of this Act dealing with what proof of identity documentation a Justice of the Peace must keep when witnessing documents. This uncommenced section was inserted by the Civil Proceedings Act 2011. The amendments change the provision to remove the option for taking copies of identity documents, and instead provide that justices of the peace need only record sufficient identity information, for example, for a driver licence, the name, document type and last digits in the sequence of the driver licence number.

The Land Court Act 2000 is proposed to be amended to clarify powers and jurisdiction of the Land Court; ensure the procedures of the Court are consistent with other Queensland Courts; and remove the requirement for the Registrar of the Land Court to be appointed by the Governor in Council.

The Magistrates Act 1991 is amended to expand and clarify the powers of the Chief Magistrate; to allow for the appointment of more than one Deputy Chief Magistrate; to clarify arrangements for a District Court Judge appointed as a Chief Magistrate, and to clarify when a person acts as a judicial registrar.

The Bill amends the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 to clarify provisions, provide for more efficient use of tribunal resources and management of matters and to afford certain protections to conciliators and costs assessors.

5 Jun 2013 Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1945

The Bill provides for the implementation of model provisions to allow for accession to international conventions. Amendments to the Electronic Transactions (Queensland) Act 2001 will provide a set of internationally accepted rules to remove legal obstacles and to provide a more secure environment for Queensland businesses using electronic communications in domestic and international trade.

The amendments to the Succession Act 1981 will provide Queenslanders with an additional form of will, known as an international will. An international will may be recognised as a valid will by a court in Australia, or in another country that is a party to the convention, irrespective of where the will was made, where assets are located or where the testator lives. Therefore, a court will not have to examine the laws of a foreign country to decide if the will has been properly executed.

The Bill makes a number of minor or technical amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973, Legal Aid Queensland Act 1997, Legal Profession Act 2007, Recording of Evidence Act 1962, and the Trusts Act 1973 to update or clarify definitions and references.

With respect to the Recording of Evidence Act 1962 amendment, in February 2013, this Parliament passed amendments to that Act to enable the implementation of the outsourcing of the recording and transcribing of legal proceedings in Queensland. As announced since then, Auscript won the tender to provide those services. I can report that Auscript’s services have successfully commenced in the Supreme and District Courts.

Arbitration proceedings in general were removed from the Act as part of the amendments earlier this year, owing to the largely private nature of the arrangement, and that will remain the case. However, this Bill puts the arbitration proceedings of the Industrial Relations Commission back under the coverage of the Recording of Evidence Act.

In a practical sense, the fact that it was omitted does not make a difference. The Act requires proceedings to be recorded but this does not stop proceedings outside of the Act being recorded, as Industrial Relations Commission proceedings have continued to be.

I would like to take the opportunity to clarify, for the record, that proceedings of the Industrial Relations Commission generally were part of the tender process and will be encompassed by the services Auscript offers. I am clarifying this as I had previously told the House that arbitration was not part of the tender, however it was, to the extent that the Industrial Relations Commission undertakes arbitration.

The Bill implements a number of red tape reduction measures concerning boards and the mechanisms for appointments. Amendments are proposed to: The Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 to simplify appointment arrangements for the Secretary to the Appeal Costs Board; to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003 to simplify appointment arrangements for the registrar and deputy registrar; to the Dispute Resolution Centres Act 1990 to abolish the Dispute Resolution Centres Council; and to the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 to allow the appointment of community visitors on a casual basis, and to simplify appointment arrangements for an acting Public Advocate.

The Bill introduces further red tape reduction measures by allowing the Minister to delegate to the chief executive a decision to release copies of records in certain proceedings under the Justices Act 1886, and to allow delegation of the Police Commissioner’s powers under the Peaceful Assembly Act 1992.

The Bill additionally clarifies that the Information Commissioner may publish the name of declared vexatious applicants under the Information Privacy Act 2009 and the Right to Information Act 2009.

The Bill includes amendments to enhance the operation of a number of legislative frameworks, including amending the Child Employment Act 2006 and Child Employment Regulation 2006 to prohibit the employment of minors in the unregulated live adult entertainment industry.

The Bill further proposes amendment to the Magistrates Court Act 1921 to provide authority to create stand-alone rules of court for proceedings under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012; and further to the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012, administered by the Minister for Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services, to provide for the application of domestic and family violence protection rules of court to proceedings under that Act.

In addition, the Bill proposes further amendment to the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 to resolve the current uncertainty about which domestic violence order is enforceable when two orders exist at the same time.

I commend the Bill to the House.

First Reading Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (3.53 pm): I

move— That the bill be now read a first time.

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

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

is now referred to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee.

1946 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATIONS) AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

Declared Urgent; Allocation of Time Limit Order Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (Manager of Government Business) (3.53 pm), by

leave, without notice: I move— That under the provisions of standing order 137, the Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill be declared an urgent bill and the following time limits apply to enable the bill to be passed through its remaining stages at this day’s sitting—

(a) second reading by 9.30 pm;

(b) consideration in detail to be completed by 11.50 pm;

(c) third reading by 11.55 pm; and

(d) long title agreed by 12.00 am.

If the stage has not been completed by the time specified, Madam Speaker shall put all remaining questions necessary to pass the bill, 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.

By way of explanation, this bill has been to a committee for thorough investigation. There is seven hours left to debate this bill under this motion. Obviously the budget bills must be passed this week during the last two days and this bill has to be passed in this sitting. For those reasons, we have moved this motion.

Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Leader of the Opposition) (3.55 pm): The opposition will be opposing the motion moved by the Leader of the House because, once again, we are seeing the LNP using its massive majority on the floor of this parliament to rush through bills and not allow the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression which goes to the heart of the legislation that will be before this chamber. We are prepared to stay to the early hours of the morning to debate this legislation. We are prepared to stay here and work through the night to make sure that the voices of workers are heard in relation to this bill.

We have just been presented with volumes of amendments—volumes of amendments—that the Attorney guaranteed that we would get a briefing on that we now have to go through because this government wants to push them through. This is a guillotine by the government. This is an example of a guillotine by the government in relation to what I regard as a suppression of freedom of speech in this state. Let the debate be without guillotine. Let the members of this House express themselves and not have a government put the gag order in relation to this very important piece of legislation. There are 22 names on the list to speak and if 22 members want to speak on this bill they should be able to speak on this bill. We have concerns about the clauses in this bill. We have concerns about the amendments to this bill and we want to debate this on the floor of the House.

To my knowledge, the Leader of the House has not discussed this with the Manager of Opposition Business. He has not discussed this with the CLA because the CLA meeting has been postponed until Thursday. So this issue has not even come before the Committee of the Legislative Assembly. It is usually scheduled on a Tuesday and it has been postponed until Thursday. The government has postponed the Committee of the Legislative Assembly. It has not gone to the Committee of the Legislative Assembly to discuss this guillotine. It has not even had the courtesy to discuss this with members of the opposition or the Independents or members of the Katter party.

This legislation is very important. This is the legislation that we wanted to discuss and debate because we want to stand up for the workers’ rights in this state. It has been through a committee. It has come back very quickly. It was tabled in this House on Tuesday, so it has laid on the table for one day. We now have a situation where it has to be rushed through within this day’s sitting.

Mr Stevens: You’re wasting some of your time now. Ms PALASZCZUK: You had your right to speak, Leader of the House, and now I have my right

to speak. Mr Bleijie: He didn’t speak as long as you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Those on my right will cease interjecting. Mr Pitt: Why does this have to be passed this week?

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1947

Ms PALASZCZUK: Yes. There is no urgency for this bill to be passed this week—absolutely no urgency. The debate could be started today and it could then be recommenced in the August sittings following estimates. But we know what this legislation does. It curtails the democratic freedom of speech in Queensland. We know that this legislation is unheard of, it is unprecedented and it sets the bar at a ridiculous level for not only union organisations but also employer organisations. We know from the committee hearings that people are not happy with this bill. We know that they came to the hearings and expressed their feelings. But because of the ideological nature of the LNP, it wants to rush this bill forward and use the guillotine. It is going to use its massive majority of 74 seats to silence the members of this House who were elected to have their say. That is a complete and utter disgrace and today members should hang their heads in shame for not allowing the freedom of speech that is required.

In summary, we will be opposing this motion. If members have the desire to speak, they can add their names to the list. They do not have to interject. They can put their name on the speaking list and they can make their points heard.

Mr Cripps interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: I find that offensive and I ask the member to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! Leader of the Opposition, which member made

the comment? Ms PALASZCZUK: The Minister for Natural Resources. I ask him to withdraw. Madam SPEAKER: Minister, you have been asked to withdraw. It would help the House. Mr Cripps: I withdraw. Ms PALASZCZUK: The opposition will be opposing this motion. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (4.01 pm): Can I just echo my views in relation to the

government’s proposal to rush through this bill. At 2.20 pm today I received 78 pages of amendments headed— Amendments during consideration in detail to be moved by

The Honourable the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.

Can I say quite frankly that I think this is an abuse of process. Quite clearly, if we get an Abbott-led government in the federal parliament in September we will see more of the abuse of process that we are seeing here today. Very clearly, what we are seeing here today is a government flexing its muscles and saying, ‘We don’t really care what other people might think. We are going to do it our way or the highway.’ What did the Attorney-General say on the evening news on the day we had a public hearing? I stand corrected, but my recollection of his words were to the effect, ‘I have not been persuaded by any of the material that was produced during the hearing.’ Quite frankly, it seems to me from my position on the committee that the Attorney-General has already closed his ears to many of the submissions that people in Queensland made about this legislation. I will resume my seat because, as we speak, the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee is meeting and I need to be at that meeting.

Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (4.03 pm): Oh, how it changes from government to opposition in such a short period of time! A couple of minutes ago we had the opposition leader saying, ‘You should hang your heads in shame because of this.’ Did the opposition leader hang her head in shame when she was in government and night after night her government would come in and guillotine debates? There is a fundamental difference here. We are guillotining the debate early, before the debate even starts. What did the Labor Party members do? They guillotined debate when they had had enough. When they were sick and tired of hearing the debate, then they would guillotine it. The opposition leader said, ‘We want to be here all night. We want to be here all morning.’ They did not for the past 15 years, because 10 o’clock would come and it would be all over, shut down, guillotined.

A government member: Schwarto would come in. Mr BLEIJIE: Schwarto and then Judy Spence would come in and the debate would be shut

down right there and then on the spot and all the members who wanted to express their freedom of speech, which the opposition leader espouses today, were not given their chance. If memory serves me correctly—and I will be corrected by the record if so—they guillotined the debate on the assets sales. I am sure they guillotined that debate. The opposition leader just said that she wants to be here

1948 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

all night to stand up for the workers. Where was the opposition leader when they sold the assets from under the workers? If my memory serves me correctly, another bill that they guillotined was the vegetation management bill. That was the first bill they introduced. It was the dodgy deal with the Greens. It was the preference swap in the 2009 election. Then they came in here, moved this legislation without any consultation and then guillotined it. In fact, it did not even go to a committee. The Deputy Premier may correct me, but I do not think we had the committee system established in 2009. So there was no committee process; there was just a guillotined debate. So it is the utmost hypocrisy for the opposition leader to come in here today and say that she wants to be here all hours of the morning, because that was not the case for the past 15 years. They guillotined debate after debate in this place.

I think Queenslanders are most disgusted by how a position can change in such a short period of time. For the past 15 years the members opposite had this position that debate should be guillotined, that the government has particular agendas and that the people elected governments for those particular agendas. They thought that they could come in here and get their agenda through. How the situation changes in opposition. The honourable Leader of the House has clearly indicated that we have the debate on the budget tomorrow and on Friday. It is the government’s intention that this bill pass this evening. We think seven hours is a reasonable time to debate the bill, considering it has gone through the committee process. I have had roundtable meetings with stakeholders. We are moving substantial amendments and we are not finishing the debate until midnight tonight. We think that is a completely satisfactory time.

I do not like digging into members’ time—and the more they speak the more time they are digging into the debate—and I do not ordinarily do so, but I have to point out to the members the absolute hypocrisy of the opposition leader.

Mr Langbroek interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: I take that interjection from the education minister. The member for Nicklin stood

in here and said that he hates this guillotine and he talked about freedom of speech. The people of the Nicklin electorate do not know who they voted for. I remember he came into this parliament wanting to do a dodgy deal, saying in the newspapers, ‘I might serve on the shadow ministry of the Labor Party.’ He was happy to do a little dirty deal with the Labor Party to serve in the shadow ministry. Then we see a few weeks later on the front page of the Sunshine Coast Daily, ‘I’m with Clive,’ or, ‘I love Clive,’ or something like that. So now he is with Clive. Probably in the middle of that he was with the Katter party. He is all over the place and it is all about the member for Nicklin—not about what is in the interests of the electorate of the member for Nicklin but what is in it for him. That is why he switches and changes and swaps and gets out on all sides of the bed.

A government member: And now he supports Gillard. Mr BLEIJIE: And now he supports Gillard. Mr WELLINGTON: I rise on a matter of privilege suddenly arising. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! What is the point of order? Mr WELLINGTON: The minister was aware that I was going to a Parliamentary Crime and

Misconduct Committee meeting so I could not stay in the chamber. He has now been speaking about the member for Nicklin. I have only heard part of his comments. I find the parts I heard offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. He knew I would not stay in here to take issue with matters of privilege.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The member was not in the chamber. I was listening carefully to all that the Attorney-General said. I did not find anything he said unparliamentary. Nothing that I heard the Attorney-General say was unparliamentary. Member, you could have been here in the chamber for the duration of the debate. You made your decision. There is no point of order.

Mr BLEIJIE: I clearly point out the hypocrisy of the member for Nicklin and those seven opposite. When they were in government it was okay to guillotine debates.

Mr WELLINGTON: I rise to a point of order. I find the comments offensive. I was not in government. I have always been a member of the crossbench. I ask that that be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am listening very carefully to what the Attorney-General is saying. I am finding it difficult to see any personal imputation against you, member for Nicklin. However, for the sake of the debate and for things to proceed in the House perhaps the Attorney might withdraw and we can move on.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1949

Mr BLEIJIE: I withdraw and I will move on. Talking about the member for Nicklin, he made the comment in this House only a short period of time ago that if the guillotined debate proceeds this is what the Abbott government is going to do in the federal arena if they win the election in September. When did the member for Nicklin, when the Labor Party moved to guillotine debates, say ‘This is the Gillard government you are going to get in Canberra?’ Not once did the member for Nicklin stand up on that issue in relation to Gillard’s government and say ‘All these guillotined debates under the state Labor government is what you will get in Canberra.’ Not once did the member for Nicklin do that.

Mr WELLINGTON: I rise to a point of order. The records will show I have opposed every guillotine motion put by the government in this state parliament.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nicklin, I do not find anything that the Attorney-General has said offensive, but there is obviously a different point of view that is happening here and I simply would ask that all members contribute to the debate in a calm and collected manner. The Attorney-General has the call.

Mr BLEIJIE: The member for Nicklin will go down in history as one of the biggest Labor Party supporters this parliament has ever known and taking the most vexatious points of order this parliament has ever seen.

Mr WELLINGTON: I rise to a point of order. I find those comments offensive. The Attorney-General continues to pursue an issue on which you have made a ruling.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Again it would help the House if the Attorney might withdraw. Mr Seeney: But he didn’t ask for it. Mr WELLINGTON: I rise to a point of order. I heard the Deputy Premier say ‘he asked for it’. I

did not ask for it. The Attorney-General is continuing to pursue an issue— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member shall resume his seat. The member for Nicklin has found

the comments offensive for which a withdrawal has been sought and I believe the Attorney made a withdrawal.

Mr LANGBROEK: I rise to a point of order. No, he did not. Mr WELLINGTON: It is in relation to the Deputy Premier. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would simply ask the minister if he would withdraw and we can

move on. Mr LANGBROEK: I rise to a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I take that point of order, if I could deal with this first. Mr LANGBROEK: It is a clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker, with respect. It is about whether a

withdrawal was requested. It was not. The member for Nicklin is now overhearing things and making up what he thinks he is hearing from the Deputy Premier.

Mr WELLINGTON: I find those comments offensive. I am not making up comments. Mr LANGBROEK: I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Wellington interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nicklin, I have given a lot of latitude to your comments

and I have asked for calmness in the House and I do not find the way you are conducting the debate as showing calmness. I have asked the Attorney to withdraw. You have said the comments were offensive. You may not have specifically requested there be a withdrawal, but I have asked the Attorney to. He is willing to. I suggest we move on and I will be very carefully listening for points of order that are under the standing orders.

Mr BLEIJIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I accept your wise counsel, noting that the honourable member did not request the withdrawal but I withdraw, and in the withdrawal may I, for the benefit of the member for Nicklin, table a copy of the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly and perhaps the member for Nicklin may take the opportunity to go and read the standing orders. He has been a member of this parliament for so long he ought to know the standing orders in this place. The point I am making is the hypocrisy of the Labor Party. It came in here and moved guillotine motions. I accept that it is the right of the member for Nicklin to stand in this place and talk against a motion moved by the government, as is the case with the guillotine motion. I accept the member’s absolute right to do it. What I do not accept is when the member says this is the government you are going to get at a federal level because we guillotine this particular motion. That is an absolute imputation at the federal level and I do not accept it. As I said, and I will be held to account on this by

1950 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

the record because I will be corrected, but I am absolutely sure I am right, the member for Nicklin, whenever we have had a guillotine debate in this place, has never made those inferences about the federal Gillard government.

A government member: Always been a Labor stooge. Mr BLEIJIE: The member for Nicklin has always been a Labor stooge in this parliament. Mr WELLINGTON: I find those comments offensive. I ask they be withdrawn. He is pursuing a

line of argument that you have continually ruled on. Mr BLEIJIE: I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. There will be seven hours of this debate. The

Labor Party and the member for Nicklin have wasted a lot of opportunity for their members to debate this particular bill. It is going to be a long night. I was anticipating receiving the support of honourable opposition members for this bill but I think they have shown their cards and that they do not particularly support this bill. I think midnight is a completely satisfactory time for this debate to finish. As I said, if we had been the Labor Party, at 11.50 when there was another 30 members on the speaking list, Schwarto would have come in here after a conversation with Judy Spence out the back—

A government member: Upstairs. Mr BLEIJIE: Upstairs. He would have woken up from the delusional world he lived in and said,

‘Gee, what’s this? Are we in the next morning? Is this debate still going? What’s happening? Get down there and finish this off.’ At 11.50 they would have come in and said the debate is over at midnight. Andrew Fraser was one of the biggest offenders. He always came in here and guillotined certain debates. I remember Paul Lucas doing it. There will be ample opportunity for all members, including the member for Nicklin, to debate this.

Ms Trad interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection from the member for South Brisbane, who I understand was

not here for the previous Labor government and does not understand the guillotine debate, but I can assure the member for South Brisbane—

Ms Trad interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! A government member: She was behind the scenes. Mr BLEIJIE: Indeed. I take that interjection. I said the member for South Brisbane may not

have been in this chamber but I did not say she was pulling the strings from outside. The member for South Brisbane ought to go back and have a look at the record of guillotined debates and she will see that the biggest offenders of guillotined debates in this place is the Australian Labor Party, Queensland Division, not the ALP.

Mr SEENEY: In the interests of maximising the time for debate on the bill I move— That the question be now put.

Division: Question put—That the question be now put. In division— Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. For a member to call a division he has to vote no. I do

not think the member for Charters Towers voted no. Mr KNUTH: We voted no, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member who called the division, member for Dalrymple: will you

give an undertaking, because I could not hear clearly, that you voted no? Mr KNUTH: I said ‘no’, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: And you called the division? Mr KNUTH: I called ‘divide’.

AYES, 71—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Mulherin, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Pitt, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Walker, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens NOES, 11—Byrne, Cunningham, Hopper, Katter, Miller, Palaszczuk, Scott, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Douglas, Knuth

Resolved in the affirmative.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1951

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! For any further divisions, the bells will ring for one minute.

Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to. AYES, 69—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Walker, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens

NOES, 13—Byrne, Cunningham, Douglas, Hopper, Katter, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott

Resolved in the affirmative.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATIONS) AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL Resumed from 30 April (see p. 1308).

Second Reading Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (4.32 pm): I

move— That the bill be now read a second time.

I thank the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee for its prompt consideration of the Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2013. As I mentioned in my explanatory speech, the government acts in the interest of the wider community to guard against corruption and the misuse of trust and position. We stand for accountability and we stand for transparency. I acknowledged that there would be a variety of views about the bill and encouraged those who had something to say to use the committee process to air those views. I followed that process with particular interest. I also met with a number of key stakeholders about concerns raised through the committee process, including the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Master Builders Association, the Local Government Association and the Queensland Council of Unions. My department also provided a number of briefings about the bill and my office was involved in meetings with other organisations including Clubs Queensland and the Electrical Contractors Association.

I note the committee tabled its report on the bill on 3 June 2013 and has recommended that the bill be passed. The government accepts that recommendation. The committee has made a further 11 recommendations. I shall address each recommendation in turn.

Recommendation 2 is partially accepted. The bill will be amended to remove the requirements for organisations to prepare an initial disclosure statement covering the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 with the exception of remuneration reporting for the 10 highly remunerated officers.

Recommendation 3 is partially accepted. The bill will be amended so that the definition of an officer required to prepare a personal interest disclosure register be limited to the president, vice-president, secretary or assistant secretary and members of the management committee. Recommendation 4 is accepted. The obligation for disclosure by a relative of an officer will only extend to the officer’s spouse.

Recommendation 5 is partially accepted. The bill will be amended so that the contents of the register will not be required to be made public. Officers will lodge their disclosure statements with the Industrial Registrar. In addition, there will be an exemption for those officers who do comply with a substantially similar law about disclosure of material personal interests where that information is already publicly available—for example, local government councillors.

Recommendations 6 and 7 are partially accepted. The bill will be amended to exclude employees from the remuneration disclosure obligations. The information will remain publicly available.

Recommendation 8 is partially accepted. In response to this recommendation and the concerns of stakeholders, the bill will be amended to remove the requirement for a public register of procurement spending. Instead, an officer of the organisation’s decision-making body will be required

1952 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

to declare a conflict of interest where there is a relationship between the supplier and the officer. Although not consistent with the committee’s recommendation, these amendments address the committee’s concern about the regulatory—red-tape—burden whilst maintaining the objective of ensuring the accountability of officers with the capability to influence the expenditure of industrial organisations and will provide transparency to their dealings with suppliers.

Recommendations 9, 10 and 11 are partially accepted. In response to these recommendations and the submissions of stakeholders, the bill will be amended to remove the requirement for the ECQ to conduct the ballot. Ballots may be conducted by the organisation or a third party. A ballot must include all members of an organisation with a successful ballot requiring a majority of the votes returned—that is, the requirement for the return of at least 50 per cent of the members balloted is removed. Political campaign expenditure will be payment to a political party or a candidate, donations to a third party to conduct a political campaign and expenditure on public advertising which includes public opinion polling, television, radio, electronic and print advertising, billboards and letterbox drops. Activity within the organisation’s own membership—that is, not extending beyond its members—does not require a ballot. Organisations will remain obligated to provide public disclosure on the outcome of the expenditure ballot and the particulars will be set out in regulation which will be put to the Governor-in-Council upon the passage of the bill. It is not proposed to change the threshold for a ballot which is currently $10,000.

Recommendation 12 is not supported. The application of the tests in the existing definition of ‘worker’ have caused significant confusion around when an employer is required to hold a policy of insurance to cover a worker for a work related injury. It is noted the Housing Industry Association and the Master Builders Queensland, while preferring a definition of ‘worker’ based on GST transactions, consider the definition of ‘worker’ in the bill to provide much greater clarity on who is and who is not a worker than the existing definition and support it.

I table the government’s response to the committee report. Tabled paper: Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 31—Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2013, government response [2838].

I have also noted the dissenting reports of the opposition and the member for Nicklin. It is good to see that the member for Rockhampton took my advice in the last sitting and rather than doing a statement of reservation actually did a statement of dissent, if that is in fact where they are going. In response to the member for Rockhampton, I can only repeat what the committee has found—that is, it is vitally important that steps be taken to improve the accountability, integrity and transparency of all industrial organisations in Queensland.

The notorious case of the investigation of the Health Services Union, which identified over 100 breaches of that organisation’s own rules and federal laws, raising serious concerns about financial mismanagement, improper use of funds and using position for personal gain, should be enough for even the most fervent unionist to recognise that there is a need for greater scrutiny and transparency so that allegations of corruption and fraud can be dealt with head-on. As I said, the best disinfectant is sunlight, and this bill lets the sunshine in. In response to the concerns raised by the member for Nicklin, I trust that amendments in the government’s response to the recommendations of the committee that I will move tonight will allay his concerns.

As I outlined in my address to this parliament when the bill was introduced, the purpose of the bill was to ensure the transparency and accountability of industrial organisations and their elected officials. The bill will also support an employee’s right to choose to belong or not to belong to a trade union. It will re-establish managerial prerogative regarding departmental policies. It will facilitate a more orderly process for union right of entry to an employer’s premise. It will facilitate Queensland Health’s continuing efforts to recover overpaid moneys from employees caused through Labor’s debacle of the Health payroll system. The bill will also designate the vice-president of the QIRC as the senior appeals officer under the Public Service Act 2008 with responsibility to issue practice directions for the management of appeals dealt with under that act. This will improve the management of appeals and the consistency of the tribunal’s decisions. The bill will also amend the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 to clarify the definition of ‘worker’ to assist employers with identifying who must be included in their workers compensation policy.

I have noted the recommendations of the committee and I have noted the views of the stakeholders and that is why tonight I will be moving a number of amendments to the bill. In addition to those amendments I have already outlined in the government’s response to the committee’s recommendations, I will also be introducing additional amendments to further strengthen accountability in industrial organisations.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1953

In addition to the requirements for financial management policies on the issuance and use of credit card payment facilities by organisations, the bill is amended to require employee organisations—unions—to make publicly available online the credit card/Cabcharges/similar credit facility statements of all organisation issued cards for each reporting period the statements are issued. This will also include any personal credit card usage for an official purpose of the organisation by an officer or an employee of the organisation. Further, the requirement will be from 1 July 2012.

The amendments will also clarify that political party affiliation fees are to be publicly disclosed as part of the annual financial disclosure regime. These amendments retain the integrity of the bill while addressing concerns expressed by stakeholders through the committee process and in the community at large.

Additional amendments to the bill will also be moved to better utilise the expertise of the existing president of the Industrial Court of Queensland and other presidential members of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission to ensure all matters before the industrial tribunals are dealt with as speedily as possible. Prior to 1999 the position of president was part-time. The position was held by an existing Supreme Court judge who would hear appeal matters for approximately six to eight weeks per year. The 1998 review of the Queensland industrial relations legislation, the IR task force, recommended that the position remain part-time but that the availability of the president be increased. This recommendation was not adopted by the then Labor government and the current president was appointed on a full-time basis. What we have seen is that the number of matters filed in the Industrial Court has continued to fall. In 2005-06, 100 matters were filed. In 2011-12, 41 matters were filed. At the same time, the QIRC is feeling workload pressure. The changes to the bill will allow for the workload of the court and the commission to be spread across all presidential members thereby improving the efficiency of those tribunals through better use of the existing resources.

An amendment will also be made to further clarify the existing definition of organisational change for the purposes of section 691C of the Industrial Relations Act to make clear that it includes any requirements for consultation and joint decision making which occurs prior to organisational change. I will also be moving a number of minor, technical or consequential amendments to the bill.

I will also move amendments relating to the Drug Court Act 2000 and the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. These amendments are drawn from the Criminal Law Amendment (No. 2) Bill 2012, which was introduced to this parliament on 29 November 2012 and was referred to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee. I do thank the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee for its timely consideration of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012, which contained the Drug Court related amendments. I note the committee tabled its report on the bill on 8 April 2013, recommending that the bill be passed. The committee made no other recommendation. The government of course accepts this recommendation.

I will briefly address the statement of reservation of the honourable member for Rockhampton regarding the Drug Court. On 11 September 2012 the government announced, as part of the state budget 2012-13, that funding will cease for the Drug Court. We all know that decisions to cease funding programs are not made easily. However, these tough choices are necessary to return Queensland to a stronger fiscal position.

The member for Rockhampton calls on me to ensure that adequate programs are in place to transition people under current Drug Court orders. The Drug Court related amendments reflect a gradual approach to the cessation of the Drug Court to ensure the appropriate transition of people under current Drug Court orders. Effectively, the Drug Court will continue to operate in a limited capacity until 30 June 2013 using existing allocation of resources, continuing to operate only to support offenders already on a rehabilitation program as part of their intensive drug rehabilitation order. This allows offenders subject to an intensive drug rehabilitation order the opportunity to complete the rehabilitation program and be finally sentenced before 30 June 2013.

It is also important to note the related amendment made to the Drug Court Regulation 2006 to limit the number of people who can be placed on an intensive drug rehabilitation order and who can be assessed for eligibility or suitability. This was an interim arrangement pending passage of the bill and was made on 15 November 2012. The amendments also include the necessary transitional provisions for the expiration of the Drug Court—for example, provisions for dealing with offenders apprehended upon Drug Court warrants after 30 June 2013. I am satisfied that the amendments accommodate the appropriate transition of people on Drug Court orders.

1954 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

The key purpose of this legislation is to provide greater accountability and transparency for registered industrial organisations in Queensland. We believe in democracy and letting the grassroots members of these organisations have the opportunity to have a say on key decisions that are made and how their money is spent. There have been numerous examples in Queensland and in other states of alleged abuses of trust and we want to guard against that. This is about having grassroots members of these organisations having a say in the direction and leadership of their organisations. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Leader of the Opposition) (4.45 pm): First of all, I thank the work of the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee. I understand that the Attorney-General just addressed the series of recommendations and what the government was supporting and what it was not supporting. I have only just received the government’s detailed response, so we will be examining that over the dinner break and we will be able to provide a fulsome response. But I did want to raise a couple of issues before I get to the substantive part of my speech.

The Attorney-General addressed an amendment that he is going to bring in, and I do note that the Attorney has offered a briefing over the dinner break on this large volume of amendments. But there is something I want to question in relation to an amendment that he is proposing for employee organisations to publish credit card and Cabcharge statements including statements of personal credit cards for official purposes which was not included in the original bill. My question to the Attorney-General is: is this going to apply to employer organisations as well or is the Attorney seeking to be discriminatory in relation to this amendment in that it will only apply to employee organisations? My concern here is that the government could be discriminating against one sort of organisation and not the other. If this is indeed the case, we have very, very grave concerns in relation to this matter.

At the outset let us be completely clear: this bill is a blatant attack on working Queenslanders and their representatives. It is designed for that specific purpose. It is a vicious attack on free speech and strikes at the heart of a modern democratic society. The Attorney-General claims this legislation is about transparency, but in reality these measures are designed to silence the voice of workers and their representatives by imposing impossible administrative burdens on organisations to exercise their free speech; forcing burdensome requirements on unions and elected officials, with disclosure requirements far beyond that of even company directors; imposing disincentives for union and business members to seek to be involved in senior activities of the organisation; reversing years of established practice to provide fair and free access for workers to join unions and to organise workplaces; making it harder for union representatives to access workers and represent their interests; giving power to managers at the expense of input from workers over their very right to have a say about their role and conditions; making it easier to recover money from workers without discussion, causing significant financial hardship, especially for affected low-paid employees; and changing the definition of ‘worker’ and circumventing the review into workers compensation that was handed down at the last sitting by the Finance and Administration Committee.

This legislation narrows what will be covered under WorkCover, meaning many workers will now no longer be covered, especially those in the construction industry. The shadow Treasurer and member for Mulgrave will be addressing this in more detail as he was privy to these discussions at the committee. He will be going into some depth in relation to why the definition that was proposed by both of the committees should still remain.

We do not need to come up with our own descriptions of the Attorney-General’s position. By his own admission, he is introducing extreme measures. As the Attorney-General admitted when interviewed by Steve Austin on ABC Radio, he introduced an extreme piece of legislation. It is nothing but an ideological attack on the rights of workers and employees to join an organisation and pursue their collective interests. To understand just how extreme this legislation is, not even Work Choices went this far. Not even Peter Reith went this far. Not even Thatcher went this far. Not even Joh went this far, and he was no friend of the worker. Just ask the thousands of SEQEB workers who were sacked.

Mr Rickuss: What about Thomson sitting down there in the federal parliament? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! The member for Lockyer will cease interjecting.

The Leader of the Opposition has the call. Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This legislation is so extreme there is not

a similar example of restricting the freedom of industrial organisations participating in public and political debates in any other Australian jurisdiction that I can find. In fact, we are yet to find a similar example anywhere in the world. I challenge the Attorney-General to produce the evidence if he has the evidence.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1955

Freedom of political expression is recognised in all Western democracies. It is a fundamental human right. To stifle freedom of speech is to apply a gag to the very core of our society. It tramples important history. In its very first session in 1946 before any human rights declarations or treaties had been adopted, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 59(1), which stated— Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and is the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated ...

Freedom of expression is integral to the effective working of a democracy and public participation in decision making. No citizen can effectively exercise their right to vote—they cannot take part in public decision making—if they do not have ready and free access to information and ideas and are not able to express their views freely. Freedom of expression is therefore not only critical to individual dignity but also to participation, accountability and democracy.

Mr Rickuss: Accountability is the important one there. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Lockyer, I think that is quite a frivolous interjection,

and I have already asked you and named you specifically to cease interjecting. Ms PALASZCZUK: Violations of freedom of expression often go hand in hand with other

violations, in particular the right to freedom of association and assembly. Many people will be familiar with the first amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits any restriction on the freedom of speech. But the American Convention on Human Rights also protects the right to freedom of thought and expression, the right to receive and impart information, and for restrictions to be imposed on this right only for limited circumstances such as the reputations of individuals, national security or public order.

Freedom of political expression has been something people have fought for over the centuries. It is a right for which many individuals have made great sacrifice. It is a right for which people like Nelson Mandela spent decades in jail. People have died to protect this freedom. It is jealously guarded worldwide but apparently not so here in Queensland. In Queensland the Newman government strikes at the heart of freedom of expression. We have seen some evidence of this as of late. Early in the term of the Newman government we heard that community groups were required to sign agreements that they would not criticise the government before they could receive any grants funding. But the Newman government may well find that rights that have been fought for over centuries are not so easily expunged as originally thought, because what sets democratic societies apart from autocratic ones is that in a democratic society there is a presumption—in fact, there is an expectation—that citizens will be entitled to express their opinions about what the government is doing. Any attempt to curtail that right can only be seen as undemocratic or authoritarian.

Governments that act in this matter are governments that are worried about expressions of public opinion. They are governments that do things that they know citizens will not support. In Queensland we live under a system of representative democracy. As members of parliament, we are elected by our constituents to represent them in this parliament. We are answerable to our constituents every three years for how we go about this very important task. This is the same for other organisations in our society. Trade union officials are elected by their members to take action on their behalf. Boards of directors are elected by corporations to represent them at the boardroom table. Employer organisations elect their officials in the same manner.

The practical effect of this bill is to totally shut down and stifle political debate in the public arena about any industrial issue by the Newman government. Response to political issues, by its very nature, needs to be immediate and it needs to be responsive. By the time a trade union or an employer organisation has put together a ballot, arranged for all members to receive a ballot paper, taken steps to encourage members to vote to ensure the 50 per cent plus one criteria is met and closed the ballot and then prepared the campaign which cannot be authorised until that ballot authorises it, the issue would be well and truly over. Laws would have already been passed.

There is one accurate thing in this bill, and that is the word ‘transparency’. It is accurate because the intention of this government is manifestly transparent. This bill seeks to fetter the political activity of trade unions. It seeks to shackle and gag those charged with the responsibility for speaking out for some of the most disadvantaged workers against the excesses of a government with a massive majority that appears to have taken the majority as a mandate to attack workers and suppress their industrial rights.

The Labor Party will always support the freedom of speech, and we will always stand for ensuring that organisations representing workers can do so with the same sort of freedom that we enjoy as members of parliament. It is unthinkable in a Western democracy such as ours that a

1956 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

government can announce a decision that impacts on union members and the same government can spend millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on a public education advertising campaign, but a trade union cannot spend more than $10,000 without first undertaking a ballot of members. This bill strikes at the very heart of freedom of speech. It strikes at the very heart of freedom of political expression, and it is happening right here in the heart of Queensland.

The ideological position of the government was laid bare in the submissions to the legal affairs committee and the one day of public hearings. It should be noted that the recommendation from the LNP members of the committee to pass the bill is in direct conflict with the overwhelming opposition from a wide range of organisations and stakeholders. In fact, when it appeared that one organisation supported the legislation, it was with a special caveat. That organisation clarified that it would support the legislation being passed so long as they were made exempt from it and the requirements did not apply to them.

The legal affairs committee tabled its report only two days ago. In case the Attorney-General missed some of the submissions or some of the testimony at the hearing, I would like to remind the House of some of the key points. I might correct the record: in my earlier comments in a debate I think I said that the report was tabled on Tuesday. My recollection now is that it was tabled late Monday afternoon.

To be blunt, if the Attorney-General is being sincere when he talks about consultation, he would actually take on board the overwhelming opposition to this bill and withdraw it immediately. Before going to some specific examples, I also want to make the point that opposition to this bill was not restricted to the edges of the legislation. Submissions were not concerned with tweaking parts here and there. What became crystal clear throughout the hearing was that industrial organisations, both employee and employer representatives, spoke with one voice and said that this legislation was beyond tinkering.

I will start with an organisation that, historically, has been more closely associated with the LNP side of politics than with the Labor opposition. Let me remind the House of the submission from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland began their submission as follows— At the outset CCIQ wishes to state its disappointment and opposition to the passage of this Bill. As an organisation we were not consulted in its drafting, believe it to be ill founded, will prevent political debate and will make it more difficult for member organisations such as CCIQ to effectively perform our duties on behalf of our members.

CCIQ’s concerns more specifically relate to the following areas: This act is an attack on political discussion and an attempt to make it more difficult for employer organisations, unions and associations to perform the role that their members ask of them.

...

The Bill will ultimately undermine CCIQ’s governance framework creating disincentive for business leaders to sit on CCIQ’s Governance and Policy Boards as well as ability to recruit talented individuals. CCIQ will be required to comply with additional red tape that duplicates its best practice internal processes and external financial governance and advocacy. The cost of compliance will impact on our financial viability and ability to maintain current workforce numbers. The State Government has failed in applying its own best practice for regulation making through an absence of a regulatory impact statement.

This is just the beginning of the clear opposition in the community to this legislation. But it is a clear and unequivocal summary of the opposition to this extreme legislation.

I also note that the Queensland Trucking Association supported the CCIQ submission. Likewise, the Master Builders Queensland put in a submission. In relation to the requirement to disclose spending for political objects they said— Like CCIQ one of the key functions of Master Builders Queensland is to represent the interests of its members and more generally the building and construction industry.

This provision which amongst other things requires reporting of any material/publication about a political matter will clearly impact on Master Builders Queensland’s ability to represent our members and seek to influence the Government and Opposition regarding matters under consideration by Government.

This is a clear indication that this legislation goes to the heart of the ability of legitimate organisations to make their voices heard in our democratic system. Similar views were expressed by a range of representatives from the union movement. The Queensland Law Society submitted that

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1957

they had serious concerns with the restrictions this legislation imposes on free speech. The society expresses the same concern about those provisions as is reflected in the explanatory notes to the bill, namely— The proposal raises the issue of whether the legislation has sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals and whether there is a breach of the implied doctrine of freedom of political communication and association. The public interest in the transparency and accountability of industrial organisations is seen to override this concern.

The Law Society’s submission went on to say— The Society has and continues to express concern about any measure which restricts the ability of individuals or organisations to inform the Government or the public on the impacts of policies, especially those organisations best placed to express those views.

They are the words of the Queensland Law Society. The LNP government is trying to silence opponents and stifle public debate by deliberately targeting those organisations with the greatest authority and expertise to express their views and to express their opinions. After confirming that they would want to be exempt from this legislation, the Local Government Association of Queensland said that if they were covered by the requirement their work would be dramatically curtailed. In relation to advocacy Greg Hallam said— Certainly it is a very significant part of what we do. I have five full-time staff involved in industrial relations, three full-time advocates. The difficulty would be, to be honest, with the smaller councils and the Indigenous and rural and remote councils.

There are serious concerns about the constitutional validity of this legislation. There are obvious questions that need to be answered in relation to the parts of this bill that require industrial organisations to seek approval by a ballot of members before they can spend funds of their organisation for the purpose of informing public debate. There are very real concerns that the bill is so extreme that it impedes the well-established principles of the implied freedom of speech protected by the Australian Constitution.

I do not intend to provide legal advice in this speech but will say that it is obvious there are serious questions that raise legitimate concerns about the legal validity of core elements of this bill. Even if the legal concerns were not self-evident, we know there are serious questions being raised because the departmental representatives at the public hearing confirmed that legal advice had been sought going to the question of constitutionality. When asked if the advice would be provided to the committee, that request was completely denied.

My questions now for the Attorney-General to answer in his reply are: if the Attorney-General is so confident that this legislation does not encroach on the established constitutional right of freedom of speech, (1) will he confirm he has received advice that the legislation is constitutional; (2) has he received advice that there are risks that it is not constitutional; or (3) will he release to parliament the advice upon which he is relying?

This bill smacks of hypocrisy. How often do we see LNP members come to this chamber and rally against the so-called red tape? Every week we listen to them speak on this topic at the same time as they rip away the rights of vulnerable outworkers, environmental protections and the rights of local communities to have their say in planning decisions all under the guise of reducing red tape. Yet here we see a piece of legislation that is all about creating red tape for industrial organisations. The difference with this legislation is subtle but vicious. In this legislation red tape is not a side effect of the legislative purpose. In this legislation the red tape is the purpose of the legislation. The bill deliberately imposes such burdensome restrictions on industrial organisations spending funds of their own organisation that it makes their involvement in public debate and political discussion almost impossible. Week after week we also witness the LNP members proudly dedicate themselves to sacred institutions and the importance of freedom and liberty. They purport to believe in democratic principles, yet want to stifle debate and silence opponents in this state. In fact, they are so eager to silence their opponents that they are even prepared to silence their ideological supporters as collateral damage.

The definition of ‘political objectives’ is so broad that it encompasses almost everything a union or employer organisation does. In particular, what are actually industrial or workplace issues are being treated in this legislation as political. For example, if teachers ran a public awareness campaign about the workplace issues of teacher to student ratios, it would be considered a political objective. If nurses and allied health professionals produced materials raising awareness about the risk of outsourcing their jobs, that would not be treated as a normal workplace issue that obviously effects their job; no, that would be treated as a political objective. If public servants ran a campaign about the removal of job security, that would be considered a political objective even though it goes to the very

1958 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

core of their workplace rights and likewise for police officers, ambos or firies who, because of their front-line service to our community, are reticent to resort to striking as part of their industrial negotiations. This government is telling those Queenslanders in uniform that if they raise a public awareness campaign to get more police, ambulance officers and firefighters in the community, they will be captured under the provisions of ‘political objectives’. As many people in the Attorney-General’s department have no doubt already advised the Attorney-General, these cases highlight the danger in trying to regulate political activity through industrial relations legislation rather than through changes to the electoral legislation.

Has the Attorney-General actually thought about how this will be applied? I ask the Attorney-General to respond in his reply to some very serious questions. Does he seriously think the elected leaders of the Electrical Contractors Association did not have the support of their members when they ran a public awareness campaign about the dangerous practices of shonky contractors which were seeing kids killed in the insulation industry? Does he seriously think that members of the Public Service Union wanted to spend months on a balloting process before their union was allowed to spend the organisation’s funds on a protest when it was announced that thousands of workers were going to be sacked? Is he seriously suggesting that police officers would not support the work of the Queensland police union in its campaign for better conditions for police officers?

Standing up for its members is not at the periphery of the work of industrial organisations; it is at the core of their reason for existence. It is the right of workers and unions to join together to promote their collective interests. It is also at the core of modern democracy, and those opposite should feel embarrassed about coming into this democratic institution and trying to drive a stake through the well-established principles of freedom of association and freedom of speech. With the stroke of a pen late into the evening of a parliamentary sitting, we saw the ripping up of job security and the sacking of more than 14,000 workers.

This Premier and Attorney-General are so obsessed that they want to introduce extreme legislation the likes of which the Western democratic world has never seen. Why? It is because they dislike workers and the unions which represent their interests. The LNP refuses to acknowledge that unions are democratic organisations. Union members freely join their union; they choose to pay membership fees; they can engage with the leadership of their union on matters important to their workplace and organisation; and they are able to vote for their union representatives. Union leaders are elected by the grassroots membership to represent those workers and to run the organisation. If members do not like a decision or the direction of their leadership, they have the right to themselves stand for elected positions. If they disagree with the direction of their union, they are able to leave it. The Attorney-General and the Premier—

Mr Bleijie interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Byrne): Order, Minister! The opposition leader is not taking

interjections. Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Attorney-General and the Premier

have given absolutely no logical explanation as to why union leaders, who were elected by union members in free and fair elections run by the ECQ, will not have the authority to run the organisation and expend the funds of that organisation to promote the collective interests of their members. The CCIQ made the point that the leadership of their organisation is already accountable to its members. Their submission states— CCIQ has a Governance Board who are responsible for the long term strategic direction of CCIQ and corporate governance. In addition our advocacy work is overseen by both a CCIQ Policy Board and 8 Regional Councils who are responsible for ensuring that CCIQ’s members have direct input into policy and advocacy development. This structure is in place to ensure transparency and accountability—

Mr Newman interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Premier, if you are going to interject or have a conversation,

do so from your proper seat. Mr Newman interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Down here. Mr Bleijie: The Premier can interject from wherever he likes. Under Westminster tradition, a

Premier can interject from any seat in the House. Look it up.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1959

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Despite the expert knowledge available to me, I am not sure of what the ruling is on that. We will find out. But in the meantime, can you just act like adults for a second or two?

Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you very much. I would also note that the Premier is able to participate in this debate tonight. There is a speaking list available, and I do not see that the member for Ashgrove is currently on that speaking list. Let us see if the Premier would like to participate in this debate. I would encourage it.

Mr Newman interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: Are you taking the challenge? Should I accept that? Mr Newman interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: I take the Premier’s interjection that he will be speaking on this bill tonight. I

was about to quote the CCIQ. The submission states—

This structure is in place to ensure transparency and accountability to our membership for CCIQ advocacy activities and financial expenditure of the organisation.

Mr Minnikin: It didn’t help the HSU. Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The QCU made the same point. I refer to

what QCU President John Battams said at the hearing of the legal affairs committee. I quote— Mr Minnikin interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition. Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I quote— Mr Bleijie: Oh, come on—a bit of chit-chat. You can’t stop your speech for a bit of chit-chat. Ms PALASZCZUK: I will wait until there is silence. Mr Bleijie: We must all be silent? In the people’s house we all have to be silent, just because

you are on your feet? Ms PALASZCZUK: Yes. People are interjecting. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member is not taking interjections. It is not helpful to make

snide comments from the back benches, so just keep your cool. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.

Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I quote— ... trade unions are representative democracies. Like any other organisation, whether it is a corporation, a soccer club or in fact the Parliament of Queensland, the members of the registered organisation elect their office bearers to run the organisation until the next election, the same as you guys face every three years. In no other organisation in a democracy I know of where, on each and every occasion, the organisation which wishes to make a major decision and involve itself in activity it is very much set up to do, you have to actually go back to the members and have a referendum ...

The Attorney-General will no doubt have us believe that he has listened to submissions and that is why he has been compelled to make some minor changes. The Attorney should acknowledge in his reply the important point that both employer and employee organisations made in relation to their submissions to the legal affairs committee. Their concern with the legislation was not about tweaking thresholds; they opposed the central tenet of this extreme legislation. Mr Maloney, secretary of the QTU, made this point clear when asked whether there was a threshold that would make this legislation appropriate. Mr Maloney said— ... we would not see a threshold amount, because the submission that we have made is that any constraints on political expenditure are best handled through the Electoral Act, or the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the reporting requirements there.

Mr Battams of the QCU stated— We are not interested in talking about thresholds; it is the concept that we oppose. We believe that the whole thing about having to go back to a referendum each and every time that you want to spend whatever dollars does not add up in terms of a democratic organisation.

Ms PALASZCZUK: The Executive Director of the Master Builders Association, Mr Graham Cuthbert, made the point very firmly. When questioned whether changing the threshold could make the legislation acceptable—

Mrs Frecklington interjected.

1960 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

Ms PALASZCZUK: Feel free to jump up and speak, too, member for Nanango. Are you on the list?

Government members interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition. Ms PALASZCZUK: He said—

... we have no ability to accept a threshold. The reality is that this organisation was formed in 1882 by five contractors who were upset with the terms and conditions of government contracts and the behaviour of industrial unions. They sought to get together to have someone represent their interests and influence outcomes. It has not changed in 130 years, and I do not believe that there should be ...

The Attorney is trying to raise fear about HSU allegations, and there have been several interjections in relation to that here tonight. Need I remind the Attorney that, to the best of my knowledge, the HSU does not exist in Queensland. If the Attorney was serious—

Mr Bleijie: So corruption at a national level doesn’t mean it should be of concern in Queensland?

Ms PALASZCZUK: We are talking about Queensland here. If the Attorney was serious about the issue of misuse of union funds for the personal gain of union leaders, what does that have to do with public campaigns and the right of organisations to free speech? Of course, it is obvious that the Attorney-General is using the language of misuse of funds as a cover to go after the rights of organisations to spend the organisation’s own money to pursue the interests of its members. Running public awareness campaigns has nothing to do with any allegations of personal misuse of funds.

I note that the government’s response to recommendations 9, 10 and 11 notes the political campaign expenditure that would be prohibited unless there was a ballot. The sorts of things we are talking about here for unions in relation to expenditure to run a political campaign on public advertising includes public opinion polling—so no ReachTEL polling for the unions to gauge interest about government policies—television, radio, electronic and print advertising, billboards and letterbox drops. If that is not curtailing freedom of speech, I do not know what is! Let us go through it again so all members are very clear what they will be voting on. Without a political ballot if it is over $10,000, unions will not be able to conduct political advertising which includes public opinion polling, television, radio, electronic and print advertising, billboards and letterbox drops. You are shutting down freedom of speech and expression in Queensland by passing this bill tonight. That is what you are doing.

Mr Bleijie interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: That is what you are not telling Queensland about, Attorney: it is in the fine

detail. Mr Bleijie: I said it on radio! Ms PALASZCZUK: It is in the fine detail. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Byrne): Order! Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is now very calm in the Queensland

parliament—just briefly! Mr Bleijie: I’ve never seen an opposition leader need so much protection from a Deputy

Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Attorney-General! I call the Leader of the Opposition. Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you. Of course the LNP is continuing its deeply deceptive language.

Just as it refused to say ‘privatisation’—instead using the term ‘contestability’—it is trying to frame this legislation as democratic. I am sure we will see the Attorney and the rest of the backbench that will follow stand up and say that there is nothing more democratic than members voting on every major decision—except of course that imposing such administratively burdensome requirements on fulfilling what is a core role for unions and employer organisations standing up for their members becomes almost impossible. It is drastically anti democratic to impose such restrictions that aim to silence legitimate voices in public debate.

If this legislation was actually supported by the community, the LNP would have announced it prior to the election. If the Attorney claims that the government has a mandate to rush through this legislation, I ask him to table in the House where the LNP said prior to the election that it would be taking these extreme steps. Of course, I doubt we will see that in the Attorney-General’s reply

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1961

because the LNP made no such promise. Instead, it is arrogantly using its majority to rush through legislation against the interests of Queenslanders and against the universal opposition of employers and employees. You simply could not dream this stuff up! So ashamed is the LNP of this draconian legislation that it is now going to rush it through in one day, and in budget week. It is just so cynical, but perhaps it is fitting that the LNP is trying to once again hide from public scrutiny on a piece of legislation that aims to stifle public debate in this state. If the Attorney believes in consultation and actually listening, he would not be putting this bill forward. His extreme ideology is hurting workers, industrial organisations and the very fabric of democratic debate. There are serious, genuine concerns that employee and employer organisations have put to this government about flaws with the fundamental fabric of this legislation. But instead of taking it on the chin and accepting that perhaps the Attorney may have got it wrong, this government is still pushing ahead. Once again we see the Newman government arrogantly using its majority to rush this through and once again the LNP has confused a majority with a monopoly on wisdom.

The opposition is opposed to this legislation. It may come as a surprise to those on the back bench, but we are opposed to this legislation. We believe in the freedom of speech, in the freedom of political expression and in the freedom of association. That is what we believe in. Tonight this government is about shutting down any opposition or any debate or any freedom of expression in Queensland. We have not seen issues like this since the Joh Bjelke-Petersen era, and that is true. Employer organisations and employee organisations attended the committee hearing. From what I read in the notes, all of them were opposed to this legislation, yet this government intends to rush it through tonight. I will always stand up for workers in this state. This is the government that sacked 14,000 workers in its last budget. This is a government that in this budget its core centrepiece is the rising cost of household budgets in this state. That is the centrepiece; that is the core. Today the Premier could not even name one new initiative in this budget—

Government members interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: What was the one new initiative? There is not one new initiative about

lowering the cost of living. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, refer your comments through the

chair. Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I look forward to the Premier’s comments

in this debate tonight. I would love to see where he stands in relation to this. Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. We will oppose this legislation every step of the way.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Byrne): Order! Before I call the Premier, I have had some information regarding the etiquette of where the Premier may speak from. The Clerk advises me—and for your education—that if the Premier’s seat is taken he should speak from the front benches. On that note, I call the Premier.

Hon. CKT NEWMAN (Ashgrove—LNP) (Premier) (5.27 pm): This evening I rise to speak in support of the Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill. I do not intend to speak for too long, but the things I say will clearly summarise the position that both myself and the government take in relation to this bill. Let me start by saying that I am an enthusiastic supporter of unions—100 per cent—and I am an enthusiastic and wholehearted supporter of people’s right to join a union. I am an enthusiastic and unequivocal supporter of people’s right, if they choose to do all that, to be involved in collective bargaining for the purpose of getting the best deal. I say that because I have not only been a politician but I have also been a public servant in the Defence Force and I have also been in business. I have seen good things and bad things happen in business and I have seen the need for people to stand up and be counted as a group against—sometimes—poor management, inconsiderate management and incompetent management. People need to have that balancing opportunity in the workplace. I also believe that the unions have done many great things over the years. Many of the great terms and conditions and social reforms that we have seen over the 100 years or so since Federation have been achieved in the workplace through industrial organisations, and I particularly acknowledge the unions.

It is no secret that I have had a very good relationship with a union leader over the years, former union heavyweight Mr Hughie Williams from the Transport Workers Union. I spoke at the 100th anniversary of the TWU at its celebrations in Musgrave Park. I also spoke alongside Anna Bligh when I was Lord Mayor at the launch of Hughie Williams’s autobiography at Brisbane City Hall. Again,

1962 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

I acknowledge the battle and the contribution in his life that he had made to the cause of working people against exploitation in the workplace. So I think I have perhaps made the case for why I support unions and their role.

But let me now talk about why this bill is being introduced. I am afraid that over the last couple of years in this country we have seen that the union leadership of many unions is rotten to the core. They misuse their members’ money by running causes, by running campaigns that, if they were put to a vote of their members, would not be supported. All we are saying in terms of those provisions is for the membership to have their say—a simple majority vote, of people being able to give the nod to the union leadership. If that is the case, I hope that people will. If there is a cause that the union leadership wishes to put to the membership that should be fought—a workplace health and safety issue or a state or federal political issue—my view is go for your life, but just make sure you get an authority before you spend hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of dollars of the rank-and-file members’ funds before you go and undertake that expenditure. What is so unreasonable about that?

I heard the Leader of the Opposition talking about it being unconstitutional and ‘We are going to have a High Court challenge,’ says Mr Battams and company. What are they afraid of?

Mr Pitt interjected. Mr NEWMAN: What is the member for Mulgrave, who is interjecting, afraid of? I know. It is

about entrenching the status quo. Sadly, unions have been less and less accountable and more and more secretive. What those members opposite do not like, what Mr Battams does not like, is the spotlight of accountability coming onto them. They do not like it, because they are absolutely beholden and tied to the hip of the union movement.

Mr Bleijie: Their preselections depend on it. Mr NEWMAN: I take that interjection from the Attorney-General. Their preselections absolutely

rely on it—do they not, Mr Deputy Speaker? Let me move to some other things that will be referred to this evening, such as the issue of

expenditure in the day-to-day running of unions and industrial organisations. We believe that organisations should be totally open and accountable. People in Queensland can see my expenses. There is an RTI process and these days we go to great lengths to be open about what the government is doing and the money we are spending. But why not unions? There are many thousands of people who are members of different unions.

Ms Palaszczuk interjected. Mr NEWMAN: I will take the interjection. If I am a nurse working at the RBH today, what hope

do I ever have of knowing how the union leadership is spending my money? How do I know if Beth Mohle is spending my money properly? How do I know if Beth Mohle is giving me value for money? That is why this bill will, by the time it is passed, contain provisions to ensure that union leaders must make available all their expenditure on credit cards and on Cabcharge. We need to know what they are spending their money on and, more importantly, their members need to know what their money is being spent on.

We know what has happened in the Health Services Union. Very clearly, it is totally and utterly rotten to the core. If there are smoke and flames coming from that one, what is going on in this neck of the woods? We know that there have been long-time union leaders in this state who have been there year after year. Some of them have been there for decade after decade.

Opposition members interjected. Mr NEWMAN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your protection against these frightful interjections!

They interject, because I start to really get to the point. As I said, right now, today, union members—hardworking men and women who are doing it tough—have to fork out to pay their contributions, yet there are people we know in the union movement in Queensland who are living high on the hog. They are going to conferences and conventions. They are sitting up at the front of the plane. So much for the workers they have left behind in their fluoro vests sitting down at the back of the plane. That is right: the CFMEU leadership is sitting up at the front of the plane. When I was Lord Mayor I used to go interstate for various reasons. As I walked down into economy—to row 13, or 15, or whatever—quite often I would notice the people wearing their CFMEU and AWU logos and the AMWU people and the BLF people sitting up there in business class at the front of the plane. I wonder if the hardworking men and women know that their leadership is having a great time—spending up big on Cabcharge, going out to lunches with Labor politicians and wheeling and dealing, taking those

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1963

businessclass trips, perhaps even going on overseas junkets to International Labour Organization get-togethers. They can continue to do that—they can continue to have their snouts in the trough, they can continue to spend union members’ money on buying houses for people to live in in Sydney in the case of the ETU—but do you know what? They are going to tell their members. That is what this bill is all about. They can do all of these things. That is why this constitutional stuff is a load of hogwash and hot air from those people. The trouble is that they do not like it because they do not want to be accountable. They do not want to be accountable to their card-carrying members.

This is much needed, long overdue reform. It allows unions to effectively lobby for their members’ interests. I made it very clear that I back that totally 100 per cent. I have never been afraid of taking on the unions or having them take the fight to me. I did that from March-April 2011 to March 2012 in the electorate of Ashgrove and no doubt I will do that again. That is fine. But what they should be doing is being accountable. It is about time that spotlight of accountability and scrutiny came onto unions—that they were accountable for the money they spent on their campaigns but, more importantly for me, the money they spent on travel, on accommodation, on their personal expenses. It is about time the members had a say and knew what was going on. That is what this bill is all about. Any huffing and puffing from those opposite this evening demonstrates that they have learned absolutely nothing from the events of March last year. This is a great reform and it needs to be supported.

Mr BERRY (Ipswich—LNP) (5.37 pm): There has been and is an expectation in the Queensland community that trade unions’ fundamental responsibility is to protect their members’ industrial rights. Increasingly over time, trade unions became less involved in members’ industrial objects and more in political objects. I indicate to the members of the House today a full-page political advertisement in today’s Courier-Mail—of Wednesday, 5 June 2013—by the federal president of the Australian Education Union. Clearly, it is a political advertisement. But one wonders why it takes a union to advertise ALP policy. It has me bewildered. I would have thought that, fundamentally, the ALP’s policy should be advertised by the ALP. Certainly, I do not know how many members of that union allowed, knew and consented for that advertisement to be placed—incidentally, just before an election in September. Generally, union membership has been at best one of silent toleration and, more recently, a sense of disbelief about those sorts of advertisements. I will give an example of that later in my speech.

The decline in the membership base of unions may be just one indication of the silent toleration or ambivalence to the change of the agenda in unionism. In 1976, trade unions represented 51 per cent of the workforce. In 1992, trade unions represented 40 per cent of the workforce. In 1999, trade unions represented 26 per cent of the workforce. Unions have a declining membership. I should not be the one asking the question; it should be the union leaders who are asking why this is happening.

The principles of unionism are the same, though the way the principles are applied have remarkably different consequences for those unions that represent employees and those that represent employers. It is not a giant leap to suggest that the decline in union membership was either an ambivalence or disenfranchisement of the member with the member’s union. After all, it was the union that was not meeting the expectation of members in relation to the use of their union dues for political purposes. Fundamentally unions have always been about defending their members’ rights in the industrial sphere and that is what their members expected of them. But for a lot of reasons, which I will explain, the landscape has changed.

In the 1990s unions were amalgamated, which by itself may be seen as a prominent factor in this disenfranchisement. For instance, members of small unions where they had a certain empowerment were placed into bigger unions and thus their say was reduced remarkably. The unions became much more professional and, of course, the union hierarchy, as the Premier has noted, became a lot more influential in how union dues were spent. The representation of members of the union decreased. Of course, it is not the case that all members were so disenfranchised they made the decision to leave. Members did stay on because ultimately there are other benefits that unionists receive from union participation.

It made it more imperative to have the union movement aligned with the Australian Labor Party. It is my contention that this realignment, while always there, strengthened and accelerated the ties between the union movement and the Australian Labor Party. That is why now the area is clouded. There is that grey area where one does not know whether you are supporting the ALP or a union’s rights. This is illustrated by union officials expecting to serve time in rank and file and then the anointed migrate to a career in politics. It emphasises the greyness that seems to have occurred over the years. In more recent times this migration of trade union officials into politics is really now one of

1964 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

expectation. The foundation was laid for unions to step up the political objects which were more aligned with the ALP movement. The complacency of the union hierarchy in identifying with the ALP rather than, I submit, with its members led to this ambivalence of the union movement and ultimately to the perception that the union was driven from the top rather than its members.

I have not identified necessarily with Senator Faulkner’s findings in relation to the fall in ALP membership but it is in rhythm and very much aligned with the concerns of the union movement. I endorse the Premier’s remarks: unions have always been a necessary part of commerce. They were an industrial organisation that pursued their members’ industrial agendas. Moreover, now there is a perception in the Queensland community that there is a disconnect between the union and its members, that in fact they do not necessarily concur with political agendas as distinct from union agendas. In Ipswich the union movement has always been expected to support the coffers of the Australian Labor Party. In return the Australian Labor Party supported and advanced the union’s agenda, be it directly or indirectly. However, this changed. It was not long before the last election when unionists who had been supporters of the union movement, and by association supporters of the ALP, felt let down by the sale of the profitable arm of Queensland Rail, commonly referred to as QR National. Protection of jobs at QR National was only for a limited period of time and, not unpredictably, jobs were not secure and it led to redundancies. In fact, 3,000 workers were offered voluntary redundancies just three months after the privatisation of QR National. The sale was to do with the lessening of the debt that the government had imposed by some $15 billion. The question is what would have happened if this bill was legislation before the sale. I have to make the assumption that the union movement knew what was going to happen. There is some argument about that, of course. The former minister for transport only two weeks before the announcement of the sale said there was not going to be a sale. Let us again make the presumption that the union movement knew. What could they do?

Mr Johnson: Where is she now? Mr BERRY: Sydney. What would have happened is that the union would have needed to get a

mandate from its members. The majority of the members who voted would have a say. How democratic is that? How is that taking away the right to freedom of speech? How is that taking away the right of a member to political expression? It simply does not do so. For a start, I respectfully submit it would be an industrial matter around the protection of their rights. Again assuming that the legislation was in place, they would have had a say with government directly as to what happens to redundancies. They could withhold union dues. They would have had an empowerment. If the members did have that empowerment there is a fair chance that things may well have gone substantially differently. The unions could have supported each other. It would have been a matter of unions banding together as they have done in the past in an industrial way to force concessions from government. As I said previously, the union movement could have withheld funds from ALP coffers. That perhaps could have been a forceful voice in making sure that union members were protected.

If the political object was to protect jobs, then they had the imprimatur from members to protect them and there may well have been a different position. Union officials would have had to make out their case. Rather than unions having lost empowerment, it would be the case that members would, in fact, be empowered. Union officials would have been required to sell the political object to their members. What else could one call that other than political expression by the members? The bill unfortunately was not law and it is a case of being too little too late. The point is that union members would have been empowered to decide whether the union should support the political object by having a ballot on the issue.

We are in changing times where the level of accountability requires our corporate and public officials to be above reproach. It has happened in all other spheres of commerce and in political life. It requires that officials be professionally equipped to deal with the issues on a professional level. Disclosures of conflict of interest is now the corporate norm. What is being introduced by this bill encapsulates what happens in commerce right now. These notions of corporate governance are creatures of the present and the future because they are always developing. For all organisations that broker the interests of others, it is expected that corporate governance principles apply.

Our community expects legislators to guard against acts of malfeasance and misfeasance. This bill is directly relevant to meeting the community’s high expectations. There are sections of our community where it seems not so. This is the perception of our community. There are the investigations by the Victorian Police Force into the actions of the Australian Workers Union about alleged slush funds from building corporations. There is the investigation into the Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association over asset sales. New South Wales has its own issues with

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1965

the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union concealing the granting of mining leases. And there is notably the unresolved matter of the federal member Mr Craig Thomson who is alleged to have used union funds to sustain a lifestyle whose members ordinarily could not afford and certainly would find abhorrent.

The submitters to the public hearing did not present a clear alternative to each of the major parts of the bill. In fact, their stance was that this was a violation of rights when, in fact, it has always been an empowerment bill, a bill where members have the right to veto or vote against political objects. How can that be undemocratic, particularly when one considers that in the last election, by the size of the majority, there must have been unionists voting for the LNP? To me it represents a clear change in the climate and it is one that this government has noted, taken on board and is prepared to implement.

The submission at the public hearings that the bill is an affront to the union movement and provides a danger to the democratic running of unions cannot be sustained. The answer is that the unions’ capacity to have elections and represent members is not altered. Running industrial campaigns on a platform put forward by the candidates at union elections is democratic. Industrial campaigns are not affected by this bill. For that matter, to have a vote in spending members’ money on a political campaign where the political nuances of the membership are not known is not only undemocratic but also clearly takes away the ability of union members to be empowered. It is for the union officials to persuade the union membership to advance a political strategy and how that political strategy is to be funded. After all, members can donate funds directly to any political party, as do other Queensland citizens, so the argument really does not have legs.

For too long, avoiding union encouragement has been a bow in the quiver of a lazy trade union. Like any other representative body, the officials need to work for the members and to mount the arguments as to why a political rather than an industrial campaign ought to be moved. Recently I spoke to a constituent who has been badgered by her employer and a union representative. She was being pressured to join the union when she did not want to do so. She had been coerced to the point where she was told that she would not receive any benefit unless she joined the union, which is clearly wrong. There is a movement of people who find that the payment of dues is not fairly balanced with their right to have a say.

It is also submitted that the bill seeks to further remove the capacity of the unions to influence the outcome on behalf of its members by peaceful means. That statement could not be further from reality. The bill has no capacity to influence an outcome. If it is an industrial outcome, then it does not come within the purview of this bill. If it is a political outcome, again it is not restricted. It simply means that the majority of unionists plus one are required to vote. They are required to have that empowerment and indicate how and when their funds are to be spent.

The bill will not stifle membership of unions. While it is a fact that the employee union membership is dropping and has been doing so for decades, the same cannot be said for employer unions. Clearly, the employer unions have listened to their membership and are providing what they require in representation. This bill will allow union officials to re-engage with their members, which after all is what it is all about. Union policies will now need to compete. The principles of planning, investigation and evaluation will be the plinth that members can now expect of their officials. They will be engaged.

The allegation that the LNP seeks to stifle opposition to its policies is unsustainable. Where was the trade union opposition to the Bligh electoral laws that clearly gave the Australian Labor Party in government an advantage over ordinary citizens? Union membership donations were paid singularly to the Australian Labor Party as if they were not unionists, whereas other Queenslanders did not have that same advantage. Where were the unions then, talking about freedom of speech and freedom of rights?

Because of the democratic principles that underpin this great state of ours, the peoples of Queensland wanted change, they voted for change and they got change. It bears repeating that the core obligation of the union movement is to care for and protect its members, which is something that I believe has been lost. To suggest that a vote on a political objective is likely to occur every couple of months beggars belief. That was the suggestion that was raised in the public hearings. The bill will, in fact, re-enfranchise members and reinvigorate proper unionism, that is, the unionism of past days when they did have the right to have a voice at a meeting, to stand up and to be counted.

1966 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

The Leader of the Opposition indicated that things such as freedom of speech, freedom of political speech and freedom of expression have disappeared. It is completely the opposite. It is the case that now, for the first time in a good while, the membership of unions is enfranchised.

Mr Johnson interjected. Mr BERRY: That is a matter about which I do not know, in reply to that interjection. However, I

take the clear view that this bill will enfranchise members and give them empowerment. I take this opportunity to thank the Attorney-General. I thank my committee for their commitment to the work that we did on this bill. We had a robust debate and one that explored many issues. It was a pleasure to be involved in a committee where that debate was actively canvassed, so I thank the committee members. I also thank the secretariat. The workload has been quite formidable and they have carried out their tasks competently and professionally. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (5.56 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2013. This bill strikes at the very heart of freedom of association and freedom of political speech. Because the bill applies to industrial organisations instead of attacking the views as contrary to individual freedoms, the moral fibre of those opposite is such that they are happy to curtail their liberal views provided workers are being oppressed. The bill contains a number of aspects that I would like to talk about today. These include the so-called accountability measures, the expenditure ballot provisions, the changes to the right of entry and redefining the definition of ‘worker’.

The opposition clearly supports reasonable measures to increase accountability in industrial organisations. However, the measures in this bill seek to impose unreasonable and burdensome requirements on employees of industrial organisations. The Industrial Relations Act 1998 as it stands sets out a framework of financial accountability that ensures that unions must act in a way so as to further or protect their members’ interests. The existing accountability provisions in the act are more than adequate to ensure that registered industrial organisations are subject to a high degree of scrutiny. By going beyond what can be reasonably expected of an industrial organisation in terms of accountability, this bill has the practical effect of rendering the operation of a registered organisation totally unworkable.

Why are these reforms necessary? According to the explanatory notes, ‘the Health Service Union scandal highlighted concerns about alleged financial mismanagement’. The fact that the Attorney-General chose to use the HSU as an example in the explanatory notes shows the malice aforethought on the part of the Newman government. In fact, the HSU is not even registered in Queensland. In recent Queensland history there is only one industrial organisation that has had allegations made against an official. Those complaints were able to be made within the ambit of the current regulatory framework. Therefore, the act as it stands provides the appropriate mechanism for bringing these allegations to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

Amendment 43 circulated by the Attorney-General is an outrage, applying as it does only to employee organisations. You cannot purport to be creating financial obligations for industrial organisations and then create additional obligations that apply to only one branch of those organisations. That is a clear breach of the legislative standard. It is a disgrace. The Attorney-General has shown his true colours. He brings the parliament into disrepute and deserves the reprobation of the community.

It is ironic that in the last sittings we debated the Liquor and Gaming (Red Tape Reduction) Bill and this sittings we are debating the ‘Industrial Organisation Red Tape Proliferation Bill’. The bill also provides for mandatory balloting of members to approve expenditure of political objects of $10,000 or greater in a financial year. In relation to this and other accountability measures the explanatory notes say— These changes will apply similar levels of accountability and transparency demanded of elected public officials and local government officials in Queensland to elected officials of industrial organisations.

Wrong; there are no similar requirements on elected public officials and local government officials. In fact, as is perfectly appropriate in a system of representative democracy, elected public officials and local government officials are free to spend money on political objects without going back to their members on each and every issue for permission. Freedom of speech is fundamental in a democratic society. Protections are afforded in every Western democracy for freedom of political expression. With this bill, Queensland will be setting itself apart from every other mature democracy in the world.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1967

The High Court has recognised an implied right to freedom of political expression in the Commonwealth Constitution. The Attorney-General has been very sheepish about the advice he has been given as to the potential susceptibility of this legislation to a constitutional challenge. But we will not have to wait long to find out the outcome. The QCU announced yesterday that they will be mounting a High Court challenge to this aspect of the legislation.

In May, shortly after the bill was introduced, Simon Breheny from the Institute of Public Affairs said—

This bill is a thinly veiled attempt to restrict freedom of speech and freedom of political participation ... The changes will have an unacceptable impact on freedom of speech—the bill makes it much more difficult for an organisation to participate in political debate.

Yesterday David Jancik, also from the Institute of Public Affairs, noted the QCU announcement that it will challenge the legislation in the High Court, and said—

The laws represent an unacceptable limit being imposed on the ability of organisations to be involved in the political process. We look forward to the laws being defeated by the High Court.

And so do we on this side of the House. The bill also makes changes to the right-of-entry provisions in the Industrial Relations Act. The explanatory notes provide—

Union right of entity provisions as they apply in the Queensland industrial relations system are now out of step with national workplace relations laws. It is in this context that the Bill provides for improvements to the right of entity provisions to be more consistent with certain procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) (Cth).

However, in his explanatory speech the Attorney-General went further. He said that one of the objectives of the bill is ‘to align right-of-entry requirements with the Commonwealth Fair Work Act’. It is no wonder that the committee, in its report, made special mention of the quality of the explanatory notes to this bill, describing them as ‘confusing and unclear in parts’. For, as the committee noted, when it compared the right-of-entry requirements in the Fair Work Act with those in this bill, they were broadly similar but noted that the Fair Work Act contained a number of additional measures that assist in achieving the stated objects of the act. Those measures are not contained in this bill.

The restrictions to right of entry contained in the Fair Work Act were first introduced by the Howard government. This has resulted in a number of disputes under the legislation. By contrast, there are currently no disputes arising out of the right of entry under the current state legislation. This bill seeks to cause upheaval in the previously harmonious industrial landscape that has prevailed in Queensland over the past 20 years or more. This is the Queensland government hell-bent on provoking industrial unrest in Queensland. It is a return to the Joh era.

In a final coup de grace the bill amends the definition of worker in the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act. The explanatory notes state— Finally, the current definition of ‘worker’ in the WCR Act is considered to be unworkable ...

By whom? It has been operating effectively for years and the courts have been able to effectively and efficiently interpret the law and apply the meaning contained in the act to great effect. The real motive behind the proposed change is to reduce the number of people who are covered by the workers compensation scheme, particularly those in the construction industry. It is unfair and it will impact on workers and their families and further undermine the economy of this state.

The Finance and Administration Committee has been undertaking a review of workers compensation and in its report recommended that there be no change to the definition of worker. In its report the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee stated— The Committee recommends that the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice accept the recommendations of the Finance and Administration Committee in relation to the definition of ‘worker’.

As such, the Committee recommends that the definition of ‘worker’ in the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 remain unchanged and the relevant provisions in the Bill relating to the amendment of that Act be removed.

I agree with both committees and I will be interested to see what the Attorney-General does in relation to this issue. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland said in its submission— At the outset CCIQ wishes to state its disappointment and opposition to the passage of this Bill. As an organisation we were not consulted in its drafting, believe it to be ill founded, will prevent political debate and will make it more difficult for member organisations such as CCIQ to effectively perform our duties on behalf of our members.

I could not say it better myself. I cannot support this bill.

1968 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

Hon. JA STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Small Business and the Commonwealth Games) (6.06 pm): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Crisafulli interjected. Mrs STUCKEY: This may not be the good news that some people in the House are looking for.

I rise tonight to contribute to the Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2013 introduced into the House by the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the honourable member for Kawana, on 30 April this year.

As honourable members have heard, this bill’s overarching theme is one of accountability and transparency—core principles which the Newman government will never apologise for upholding or legislating for. This government is 100 per cent committed to governing for all Queenslanders equally and putting the best interests of the people of this state first. The bill before us enshrines these principles in a way that has found a balanced path forward for industrial organisations in this great state. Of note, 32 employer associations and 34 unions will be affected by provisions within the bill.

As the explanatory notes outline, the objectives of this bill are numerous and widespread. But today I intend to mainly focus on the amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1999. There has been considerable media coverage regarding this bill and numerous sensationalist remarks that have failed to capture the true intent and scope of this legislation. Unfortunately, we have come to expect nothing more from those opposite who are completely absorbed and preoccupied by their own agendas and are incapable of recognising that at the core of this legislation is the desire to create a more level playing field across Queensland. This legislation does not favour one group over another. Groups that have little or no scrutiny placed upon them for decades will now have to clean up their activities—some more so than others.

Recent coverage and comment indicates that very scant examination or analysis of certain organisations’ transparency in their dealings and administration methods has been undertaken. This bill has been introduced as a result of ongoing and widespread concerns about the governance and financial accountability of industrial organisations. Headlines have screamed at us over suspected misuse of credit cards and other dubious practices by senior members of the Health Services Union and unanswered questions lurk around the operations of the QRTSA here in Queensland. There are other incidents that have resulted in investigations by various authorities, as the Attorney-General highlighted in his introductory speech, that warrant this approach and this legislation.

Members opposite will bleat that this is an unfounded attack on unions by the LNP but they ignore the many examples that provide ample justification for the need to introduce these reforms into Queensland. As the Premier did earlier, I also place on record my support for unions and the role they play—those unions that represent their members honestly and for the genuine benefit of them not for their own personal gain.

Back in October 2004 I was contacted by a group of angry ambulance officers who felt disenfranchised by the union that was supposed to be covering them. I speak of the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, known as the LHMU. They spoke of being too frightened to speak out for fear of reprisal over changes to their rosters. During its many years in power Labor did not just bury our great state in debt; it bred a culture of fear through many departments and front-line workers, a fear intended to choke an individual’s democratic right to freedom of speech. It was the manner in which these dedicated ambos were treated that really upset them. It was a total disregard for their rights of expression, which we hear members opposite crowing about now, that led over 80 of these dedicated officers to congregate outside my Currumbin office. That is right, honourable members. Union members had to lobby a Liberal because no Labor members on the Gold Coast in 2004 were interested in their concerns.

Union representatives admitted to me that they felt more like managers than union delegates, as they could not speak up for rank and file members. Union delegates themselves quit left, right and centre in protest over the way they were being treated. Many of these wonderful people were threatened with job losses, and the whisper of a culture of bullying and low morale that was burning out long-serving, dedicated paramedics was rife. I am very pleased to stand before this House and say that I helped them to form a breakaway union, a union called EMSPA, which is now known as APAQ, the Australian Paramedics Association Queensland.

Workers who invest their money and their trust in unions do so with certain expectations of that union, yet all too often they are left with a reality that falls way short of what they expect and deserve, as I have just related. Amendments to the Industrial Relations Act will see elected officials of industrial

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1969

organisations registered in Queensland required to meet the same standard of accountability and transparency that is demanded of elected public officials and local government officials in Queensland. There are a number of specific amendments which will legislate this and require registers to be kept up to date and publicly available from 1 July this year.

As the Minister for Small Business, I am all too aware of the burden of red tape and regulation. Since becoming the government, the LNP has from day one been committed to reducing unnecessary red tape, but that is the key here—unnecessary red tape. Regulations proposed by this legislation weigh up the benefits versus keeping the status quo, and quite simply transparency and accountability are not unnecessary concepts.

Perhaps one of the most important changes proposed by this legislation is the support of an employee’s right to choose whether to join a union or not. Any provisions in industrial instruments, policies and procedures that encourage compulsory membership will no longer have effect. Further, any provisions that require an employer to make available its facilities, resources or premises which require an employer to provide union information about employees or access to its employees will be deemed to have no effect.

In opposition as the shadow minister for manufacturing, I saw firsthand the damage the Labor Party did to small business and manufacturers. An example of this was the Mandatory Code of Practice for Outworkers that commenced on 1 January 2011 and was received most unfavourably by many stakeholders in the industry. In opposition the LNP vehemently opposed this code of practice, which in a private member’s statement on 13 October 2011 I described as ‘a union-led witch-hunt of local clothing manufacturers and retailers’. The Attorney-General, to his credit, repealed this legislation in November 2012 which was welcome news. It was widely believed this code was nothing more than legalised extortion by the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia, the TCF. It did nothing to prevent workers from so-called sweatshop conditions, rather it was implemented to boost union membership in what was witnessed by many small businesses as deceitful and forceful behaviour.

As I discussed in my contribution to the debate earlier this year, manufacturers were only exempt from the code if accredited to the Ethical Clothing Australia code. Clauses in the ECA stipulated that fees paid were to primarily go to the TCF. The TCF had the responsibility for enforcing compliance and a standard letter was to be supplied that had phrases such as—and I will give honourable members a direct quote—‘As your employer, I support the TCFUA and you joining that union and you will not be discriminated against if you do so.’ Heavy-handed tactics such as these by a union or any other industrial employer organisation have no place in today’s Queensland. They do not contribute to the creation of jobs or to growing a thriving economy in Queensland.

The freedom of association that will come about through the passage of this bill is a genuine hallmark of democracy, and I am proud to be part of a government that recognises that and acts to promote it. Too often we have seen individuals acting dishonestly and contrary to the best interests of organisations, and the new provisions will see a penalty of up to $340,000 and/or five years imprisonment for such an offence. These provisions require the best effort to be applied to satisfy the disclosure requirements, and what is reasonable will be taken into account before any penalties are considered.

However, one of the important outcomes from this legislation is that it creates a level playing field. It epitomises the fundamental principles of accountability and transparency. Those opposing this legislation are essentially opposing concepts that are the backbone of a democratic state which, and I am sure honourable members will agree with me, is quite baffling.

May I congratulate heartily the Attorney-General and his department for legislation that is fair for all Queenslanders, and I might add that it has been a long time coming but then we have not had the honour of governing this state for long. Since coming to government in March 2012, this government has not shied away from difficult or controversial issues that affect the lives of Queenslanders. Unlike the Labor government, we will never be a government that sweeps things under the carpet, a government that is only interested in being re-elected. We will not sit by and watch as the money of members contributed to unions or any other organisations like that is misused or squandered. We will always stand up for all Queenslanders and do what is fair and just to protect them from corruption and the misuse of trust and position.

(Time expired)

1970 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (6.16 pm): I rise to speak on the Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill. As the Leader of the Opposition has already outlined, the opposition will be opposing this ill-considered piece of draconian legislation. Our opposition to this bill reflects the views of the vast majority of the community—from all sectors—about these offensive laws. This bill strikes at one of the fundamental rights of people in a democracy—and that is the right to freedom of speech. Yet here we have the LNP, with the largest parliamentary majority in Queensland’s history, arrogantly amending the laws to make it harder for people to criticise the ruling government.

What are the Premier and the Attorney-General worried about? Perhaps they are finally picking up on the massive groundswell of discontent about this government’s poor performance over the past 15 months. But it is clear that the broader community can see that this bill is a thinly disguised ideological attack by the tories. Rather than focusing on real issues that affect Queenslanders, such as jobs and the increasing cost of living—which the Newman government has in fact worsened—they play politics with union bashing. They think the unions are a threat to their born-to-rule grasp on power because they will stand up for Queensland. Over 130 years the union movement survived the corrupt administration of Joh Bjelke-Petersen and it will survive this morally corrupt and bankrupt administration of Premier Newman’s government.

The irresponsible nature of this bill is evident in the views of stakeholders. There is virtually unanimous condemnation of this shonky bill. Even the bosses’ unions have very serious concerns about this bill. With the shotgun spray of this incompetent Attorney-General, doing the Premier’s bidding and attacking unions, the Attorney-General has inflicted some collateral damage on organisations such as the CCIQ, the Housing Industry Association and the LGAQ—well, that was initially. But when the LGAQ said that they supported the legislation and, wait for it, provided that it did not apply to them, miraculously it now will not apply to them—the old mayor of Brisbane looking after his mayor and councillor mates.

But do not take my word for it. Look at what some of these hotbeds of radicalism have said. The CCIQ, in its submission to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee, made the following observations— As an organisation we were not consulted in its drafting, believe it to be ill founded, will prevent political debate and will make it more difficult for member organisations such as CCIQ to effectively perform our duties on behalf of our members.

It goes on to state— This act is an attack on political discussion and an attempt to make it more difficult for employer organisations, unions and associations to perform the role that their members ask of them.

With no proper consultation, this blundering Attorney-General has had his bill universally pilloried by all involved, even the bosses unions. This repugnant legislation will impose ridiculous rules on unions that will restrict free speech. It will impose disclosure requirements on unions that exceed those that apply to company directors. It will make it harder for workers to get access to their union representatives and have their views represented to management, and this legislation will change the definition of ‘worker’ as it relates to workers compensation making it harder for some workers to get access to supporting compensation if they are injured at work, despite two parliamentary committees recommending against it.

By far the most serious of the wide-ranging changes in this bill are the ideological attacks on freedom of speech. The tory Attorney-General even has the audacity to include transparency and accountability in the title of this bill. For 15 months the LNP members of this chamber have stood up and protested about the apparent amount of red tape that stifles life here in Queensland, yet this bill sets a ridiculous amount of red tape on unions and other industrial organisations. The LNP paranoia must dictate that the miners union campaigning on issues like workplace health and safety, or the construction union on issues such as asbestos, or employer unions on the benefits of apprenticeships and training is so subversive and contrary to the objectives of these organisations for these draconian laws.

Another offensive element to this bill is the change to the definition of ‘worker’ as it relates to workers compensation. This amendment directly contradicts the recommendation of the Finance and Administration Committee, which has spent a full year reviewing Queensland’s stable and successful workers compensation scheme. In fact, in the last month two parliamentary committees, both dominated by LNP members, have recommended that the definition of ‘worker’ stay the same. The Attorney-General’s decision to completely ignore the recommendations of his own colleagues highlights the arrogance of this government.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1971

I urge the LNP members of the finance and administration and legal affairs committees to have the courage of their convictions and vote against the Attorney-General’s changes. If they do not, the members will be hypocrites. In fact, all members of the LNP should vote against this bill as it flies in the face of the LNP Constitution, which I will table. In the LNP Constitution under ‘Human Rights, Freedom and Values’ it states that it is—

... dedicated to political liberty and the freedom, welfare and dignity of its citizens ...

Under ‘Democratic Principles’ the fifth principle starts with ‘freedom of speech’. I table this document for the benefit of the LNP members of this House. Tabled paper: Extract from Liberal National Party Constitution [2839].

What we have to do is note the hypocrites in this place as they line up to vote against their own LNP Constitution. The same Attorney-General who carries on like a frog in a sock about cutting red tape is in fact burdening one section of the community with more red tape. It is not making them more transparent but it is creating more hurdles than a Little Athletics meet. When you look at the structure of a union you see that democracy and accountability are built into its structure because its members decide what they do and how they do it. The miners union, for example, know what their members want. They know what their members feel because the union is them and they are the union. They have members who report to delegates who report to lodges who report to state council and state conferences. They are in constant touch with their members and the industry. Whether it be workplace health and safety or industry sustainability, from a fair day’s pay to a fair day’s work, to looking after the communities in which they live, they know what their members want because they have a democratic structure in place that goes far beyond the structure of this place.

This is a burdensome impost to only one section of society—that is, employee unions—dealing with $10 a week coming from its members having to undertake training, yet the LNP Treasurer, who is in charge of $46.5 billion worth of funding, needs no financial accountability training. In fact, he has none. If this accountability measure was fair dinkum and a real attempt at public accountability, then the member for Clayfield, the Queensland Treasurer, should undertake formal training or the Premier should appoint the member for Murrumba, Reg Gulley, who is in fact a true accountant, as Treasurer. I table Reg’s biography and that of the member for Clayfield. Tabled paper: Extract of biographical details of Hon. Tim Nicholls MP [2840]. Tabled paper: Extract of biographical details of Mr Reg Gulley MP [2841].

Come on down, member for Murrumba: it is your time. He should be the Treasurer or perhaps the Treasurer’s trainer. Training the Treasurer in accumulating compensated absences is right up his alley. Let’s have a look at it. We know that the member for Clayfield has managed his footy team but he does not know anything about monetary markets. Let’s have a brief look at criminal sanctions. If criminal sanctions were opposed by this parliament for acting dishonestly or not acting in the best interests of parliament or not acting for proper purposes et cetera, can you think of anyone in this House who may be in trouble? Look no further than the member for Redcliffe, who cannot even be bothered turning up to this place, because if they had the same standards it would apply to him—

(Time expired) Mr DILLAWAY (Bulimba—LNP) (6.26 pm): I rise today to bring this debate back to some form

of reality on the Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2013. I congratulate the Attorney-General on the introduction of this bill. I acknowledge the work of my colleagues on the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee, the research team and the organisations which made submissions during the examination and reporting process and for their contributions. I welcome the Attorney-General and his department’s due consideration and approach to the 12 recommendations our committee proposed. I further welcome the Attorney-General’s willingness to further consult with the industrial organisations on the committee’s findings and their concerns.

Upon hearing the Attorney-General’s second reading speech this afternoon and noting the government’s response to report No. 31, I commend the proposed amendments to be moved later this evening. The amendments undoubtedly further strengthen the bill and adequately address many, if not most, of the concerns raised by the industrial organisations that are impacted by this bill, that being 32 employer organisations and 34 unions. Industrial organisations have a necessary and unique position in the industrial relations system. Members of these organisations elect officers and bestow their confidence in their stewardship and financial management. However, concerns about the

1972 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

governance and financial accountability of industrial organisations have increasingly become a focus of community concern and rightly so. This bill amends the Industrial Relations Act 1999 to improve the accountability and transparency of industrial organisations registered here in Queensland. The amendments provide for a more stringent financial reporting obligation and public disclosures by maintaining up-to-date registers.

I note that the Attorney-General has taken the committee’s recommendations on board, and some amendments to the initial requirements for registers contained within the bill will be moved later tonight. These registers include the remuneration of the organisations’ highly paid officials but will be amended now to exclude employees. Material personal interest declarations of elected officials are now only extended to their spouses including gifts and benefits given and received amongst others. These requirements will ensure transparent and accountable practices by industrial organisation officials which are what rightly is expected of them by their members.

In the past we have seen many stories in the media such as the Health Services Union scandal highlighting concerns of alleged financial mismanagement, improper use of funds, improper use of position to gain personal advantage and a general failure by some officers to exercise powers or discharge their duties in good faith. Strengthening the accountability and transparency of these organisations will protect the rights and interests of their members. The amendments in this bill will finally deliver for their members.

The bill also amends the Industrial Relations Act 1999 to introduce the balloting of members to improve expenditure on political objects. This comes in the wake of the Together union, which earlier this year spent $100,000 on a ReachTEL opinion poll. This divided even the members of the executive of the Together union, with some demanding to know who approved the expenditure and what possible benefit the members of the union would receive from their members’ dues and fees being spent on a push poll.

The bill respects the rights of members of these organisations by requiring members to be canvassed to approve expenditure on public advertising and related political activities. With an amendment that the Attorney-General will move tonight, this ballot can now be conducted by the organisation or a third party. I also note that the Attorney-General took note of the concerns of the industrial organisations that to achieve a 50 per cent return rate—

Sitting suspended from 6.30 pm to 7.30 pm. Mr DILLAWAY: I will continue where I left off earlier. The bill respects the rights of members of

these organisations by requiring members to be canvassed to approve expenditure on public advertising and related political activities. With an amendment that the Attorney-General will move tonight, this ballot can now be conducted by the organisation or a third party. I also note that the Attorney-General took note of the concerns of the industrial organisations that to achieve a 50 per cent return rate was too high and, as such, the only need now is that a successful ballot must achieve a majority of the votes returned. Further to the concerns raised on the expenditure ballot by a number of the industrial organisations, the definition of when a ballot would be required to be conducted has been further defined with some proposed amendments. This was in response to the stakeholders’ concern raised through the committee process.

To further deter dishonesty, the amendments contain an increased penalty of up to $340,000, or five years imprisonment, and bring officers of the industrial organisations in line with the Corporations (Queensland) Act. The Newman government recognises freedom of association gives individuals a right to choose whether or not to join an industrial organisation. Currently, many industrial instruments require government departments to actively encourage union membership and provide preferential treatment to union members. This bill makes changes to ensure that provisions in industrial instruments or policies and procedures that give preferential treatment to industrial organisations have no effect. It should not be the government’s duty to build the membership of industrial organisations. These services to workers should be sufficient incentive to attract their own members.

This bill aims to strengthen the rights of members of industrial organisations and the workers of Queensland by fortifying the transparency and accountability of the executive, ensuring a higher degree of financial responsibility and respect of these organisations by giving their members the opportunity to vote to approve expenditure for political purposes and by strongly supporting the right of freedom of association and giving greater effect to this right.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1973

I strongly support the policy objectives of this bill and believe they will be delivered in the best interests of all Queenslanders. I congratulate the Attorney-General once again. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr BYRNE (Rockhampton—ALP) (7.32 pm): Needless to say, I am not a supporter of this bill. Frankly, each time the Attorney-General—

Government members: Why? Mr BYRNE: Surprising, isn’t it? Each time the Attorney presents a new bill to this House I am

more astounded than I was by his last effort. I would submit that this legislation would be more appropriately titled ‘Industrial Relations (Stick it to the Labour Movement again, Gag and Bind them with Red Tape) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2013’ because that is what this is really all about. Members should remember that none of the stakeholders are on board with this bill. I appreciate the work of the committee and the secretariat in supporting us, but the committee’s recommendations are a vain attempt to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear. Trying to salvage a piece of garbage legislation is really ‘finger in the dyke’ stuff.

Taken as a whole, there is in fact no merit in this legislation whatsoever. In simple terms, it is intended to drown industrial organisations in red tape, compliance and prohibitive costs. In that regard it succeeds. It is all about reducing political opponents’ capacity to influence the broader community. This legislation is an ideological attack from the Attorney-General possessed of hubris on a global scale. This bill is an embarrassment to the state that has every prospect of being overturned ultimately. There is no precedence for this sort of legislation in any jurisdiction in this country or in the civilised Western democracies.

This inexperienced Attorney-General has introduced a bill that, by his own description, is extreme. It smacks of hypocrisy and the perverse priorities of this government and this Attorney-General. It would almost be funny if it were not so serious that an inexperienced Attorney-General is pursuing a vicious attack on democracy while he also tries to portray himself as the protector of institutions and liberal notions of freedom. The Attorney-General, as is well known, is an ardent defender of the monarchy as an important part of the Australian and Queensland system of government. Frankly, I find it very strange that, on the one hand, the Attorney-General is so obsessed with the position of a foreign family in our democratic system and yet, on the other hand, he introduces legislation that attacks core elements of our representative democracy and, therefore, makes an attempt to constrain public debate in Queensland.

The Leader of the Opposition has already outlined some examples of the pathological hatred of workers and their representatives that we have seen from this government, but it is not just the labour movement and the Labor Party the Attorney-General is attacking with this legislation. The Attorney-General initially asked the Finance and Administration Committee to investigate changing the definition of ‘worker’ as a specific question in the review of the Queensland workers compensation scheme. It seems that the Attorney-General did not have faith in his own LNP backbenchers who were tasked to examine that question because even before the committee returned its report the Attorney-General had brought in legislation to change the definition and cynically had referred the same specific question of changing the definition of ‘worker’ to a different committee. The Attorney-General’s change would see a large number of workers lose protection, especially in the construction industry. As it happens, the Finance and Administration Committee has reported in time and the committee unanimously recommended that the definition of ‘worker’ not be weakened. I repeat: the committee, with its majority of LNP members, recommended that the suggested changes of the Attorney-General not proceed.

The Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee, of which I am a member, also considered the question and also recommended that the recommendations of the Finance and Administration Committee should be supported. It is clear that, despite the Attorney-General’s efforts to circumvent the extensive review undertaken by the finance committee, members including the majority LNP members have rebuffed the Attorney-General’s approach.

It is obvious that the Attorney-General has his own agenda. The explanatory notes suggest that he is trying to force this through this financial year. My question to the Attorney-General is: have there been commitments to sections of industry regarding these changes and the time frame involved? I am not that precious. I will not be surprised or offended if these committee reports are ignored essentially. I have come to expect that from this government. I do feel for those LNP backbenchers who did do the hard work on two different committees to investigate this issue and brought back recommendations with genuine intentions of good policy outcomes. Call me cynical, but it seems like

1974 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

this legislation is being rushed through with the least possible public scrutiny in order to try to pass it in a budget week. Doing so in a week when a high-profile sporting event is held might help distract people from that fact as well. Who is the government trying to kid with such tactics? Perhaps the timing of tonight’s debate is more about a lack of understanding of the place of Origin in the Queensland landscape or perhaps it is just a coincidence. Is it because we have a Tasmanian born Premier who does not seem to get it? Is it because we have a Victorian born Treasurer? He was smiling when slipping into his maroon shirt for a photo shoot last week. Was that because he knew he would be celebrating the game by passing legislation to hurt working Queenslanders? Make no mistake, this legislation will hurt and disadvantage industrial organisations, the workers, businesses and the members that they represent.

I need to raise several points from the hearing of the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee. As I have already flagged, I participated in the hearing as a member of the committee. It became clear to everyone in the hearing that there was widespread and deeply held opposition to this legislation. In fact, apart from the departmental officers, who admitted that many of the more extreme elements of this bill were not based on departmental advice but were decisions of government, you could say opposition to the legislation was virtually universal.

The Attorney-General cannot pretend that tweaking the legislation is the same thing as negotiating for a moderate or compromise position. You just have to look at the committee hearing record to see that industrial organisations—both employer and employee organisations—made it very clear that their concern with this legislation is the central element of the legislation: using administrative burdens to seriously dampen their right to promote their collective interests and participate in public debates. The Executive Director of Master Builders, Graham Cuthbert, said—

... we have no ability to accept a threshold. The reality is that this organisation was formed in 1882 by five contractors who were upset with the terms and conditions of government contracts and the behaviour of industrial unions. They sought to get together to have someone represent their interests and influence outcomes. It has not changed in 130 years, and I do not believe that there should be any threshold put on it.

Several representatives from the union movement made the same point. For example, John Battams, President of the Queensland Council of Unions, said—

We are not interested in talking about thresholds; it is the concept that we oppose. We believe that the whole thing about having to go back to a referendum each and every time that you want to spend whatever dollars does not add up in terms of a democratic organisation.

It is simply not good enough for the Attorney-General to pretend that tweaking at the margins is the same thing as actually consulting and negotiating with those most affected.

The Queensland Law Society submitted that they have serious concerns about the restrictions that this legislation imposes on free speech. In their written submission they stated— The Society expresses the same concerns about those provisions as is reflected in the explanatory notes to the Bill, viz.:

…

The proposal raises the issue of whether the legislation has sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals and whether there is a breach of the implied doctrine of freedom of political communication and association. The public interest in the transparency and accountability of industrial organisations is seen to override this concern.

It is that central issue that is raised by the Queensland Law Society. The Law Society also stated— The Society has and continues to express concern about any measure which restricts the ability of individuals or organisations to inform the Government or the public on the impacts of policies, especially those organisations best placed to express those views.

It is a point which is well made, and I thank the Law Society and all those organisations that made written submissions and attended the hearing. In relation to the Law Society recommendations, it was interesting to hear what the member for Ipswich—who was also the chair of the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee—had to say on the matter.

I must reflect on and acknowledge the articulate and researched testimony presented by a wide range of industrial organisations—both employer and employee organisations—to the committee hearing. I was very disappointed by some of the interaction during the committee’s hearing, though that is now a matter of public record. It is enough for me to observe that many members of this House have not the slightest appreciation of how industrial organisations presently operate or in fact how this bill will apply in practice to such organisations.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1975

I look forward to seeing how the other members of the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee respond to the strong opposition of the Queensland Law Society, particularly in relation to serious questions of encroaching on freedom of association and freedom of speech. The Queensland Law Society, an organisation for which I assume members have some respect, should give some guidance to all LNP members. I encourage all members to consider how dangerous this legislation is, and I urge the Attorney-General to pull the bill.

As a pretext for this bill, there have been some suggestions of ill doings within the union movement particularly. I invite any member in this chamber, under privilege, to provide any evidence of such in Queensland. I bet that there is not one member in this House who is prepared to do so. With that in mind, it is hard for me to reach any other conclusion than that this bill is the product of furtive, paranoid minds who are simply fixated by the desire to neuter opposing voices. This is like some sort of ‘scorched earth’ bill where the government is prepared to accept collateral damage being inflicted on organisations fundamentally sympathetic to their political agenda. It is a mini-me Genghis Khan ‘I would rather the innocent suffer than the guilty escape’ type of approach. How bloody-minded can this government really be?

I think the depth and breadth of opposition to this legislation can be summed up with the interaction from the committee hearing. After submission after submission that opposed the bill, and after being told by employer and employee organisations that they vehemently opposed the bill, it seemed that there might be a sole defender of the Attorney-General. I noted then that the LGAQ seemed to support what the legislation was talking about. It quickly became obvious that this in fact was not the case, although I notice that they are likely to be exempt. The hearing transcript states—

Mr BYRNE: I have another question for Mr Hallam. I note that you support the legislation as long as it does not apply to your organisation?

Mr Hallam: Correct.

Doesn’t that just say it all! I say to the Attorney-General: pull this draconian bill before the rest of Queensland die from embarrassment and shame.

Mr CHOAT (Ipswich West—LNP) (7.45 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2013. I join this debate with genuine intent. The bill was referred to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee, and I speak this evening as both a member of the committee and a former union member. As part of the consultation process the committee received a total of 24 submissions from various stakeholders, and a public hearing was conducted to gather information and perspectives. This certainly added to the depth of deliberations of the committee. The committee has made 12 recommendations as a result of its deliberations and has recommended that the bill be passed.

The bill addresses a number of important matters including: improving the financial accountability and governance of industrial organisations and their office holders; introducing stringent requirements to apply for and exercise right of entry by union officials to a workplace; allowing for Queensland Health to recover unpaid moneys from current and former employees as a result of Labor’s Health payroll debacle; broadening the definition of contracting provisions; standardising the appeals process under the Public Service Act 2008; and amending the definition of ‘worker’ under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 to align it with the PAYG test applied under Australian tax office laws.

There has been significant public discussion and debate about the accountability of union officials following revelations that certain high-profile current or past officials have allegedly acted dishonestly—rorting their privileges and squandering and even stealing funds which are effectively the property of rank-and-file union members.

At this point I want to talk about my history of union membership. I will be open and say that there were times when I posed questions during committee discussions. When I reflect on my experiences as a union member, though, it shows me that indeed there is a need for more accountability on the part of union decision makers, and this bill will deliver that. In 1988 I joined the former Queensland Public Sector Union. I had no choice in the matter as it was put to me at the time—as an 18-year-old—that it was a condition of employment. In those days it was not a case of ‘What job do I want?’ but ‘What job can I get?’ So I was not about to jeopardise my prospects but had no idea even about who the union was.

1976 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

I did remain a member of that union for years after the compulsion was gone. At one point I needed their help and asked for it. The organiser to whom I had been referred told me, ‘You’ll be right. You won’t need our help.’ I remember that day. I am sure the organiser’s name was Jenny, and later I saw that she ran for election as a union boss. I was only to find out later that the QPSU had provided assistance to the awful woman who was the subject of my grievance—and, I hasten to add, was found to have acted inappropriately by the investigation. This was a serious situation, but the QPSU, knowing full well what had happened to me, never bothered to contact me. I remember talking to the union president at the time. She was an honorary president, as I recall, and was a worker in DETIR’s finance and administration branch—a good lady and a nice person. She apologised to me and said that the union should have followed up and that she would talk to them. Well, I never heard from a delegate and, needless to say, I resigned as a disillusioned union member.

All honourable members will know that I was a member of the Rail Tram and Bus Union whilst with QR and later QR National. I joined voluntarily as I found them genuine and had been impressed by what they had done to assist some of my staff. This was well before Bligh’s privatisation moves.

I recall that as a member I went along to the rally against the Labor asset sell-off at the 2009 Labor state conference at South Brisbane. I was informed that inside the conference union delegates were instructed by their bosses not to vote against the sell-off. Like many of my work colleagues, I could not believe that those union fat cats simply cast the interests and the will of their members aside to support their Labor masters. I later contributed to the RTBU’s voluntary fighting fund to try to stop the disgrace that is Queensland Labor’s legacy. I also refused the $1,000 QR National share offer—or 30 pieces of silver as I referred to it at the time—that was paid to workers on the basis that the privatisation was wrong and that Queensland Labor had no right to try to use Queenslanders’ assets to try to buy off workers.

The actions by union bosses at the 7 June 2009 Labor conference is the sort of thing that should not happen. All organisations as covered by the bill must be seen to be working in the interests of their members and spending funds in a way members want. The Bligh privatisations could have been stopped by union bosses, but they chose not to act when they could. This certainly flies in the face of what the Leader of the Opposition was saying earlier. I also do not recall a huge Nurses Union backlash against Queensland Labor after the now infamous payroll debacle. In fact, the Nurses Union had donated over $75,000 to the ALP when many of its rank-and-file members had not been paid properly for months—hardly the desire of its members at the time to reward such incompetence and disregard for workers, probably worse than the tens of thousands of dollars spent to celebrate the switching on of the payroll by the Queensland Health managers of the day. Earlier today I heard the Attorney-General say that actions speak louder than words. Well, that $75,000 speaks pretty loud to me. This is an example of unions not pursuing the interests of rank-and-file members in favour of the political allegiances of union bosses.

I do believe that the majority of union leaders try to do the right thing by their members, but it is evident that some unions have become the slave of their political masters in the Labor Party at the expense of their membership. I believe the bill will drive transparency and accountability and will empower rank-and-file union members and ensure they have the ultimate say in where their hard earned contributions are spent, particularly when that expenditure is not specifically in line with the organisation’s core business and objects. I believe the bill will also encourage unions to engage more proactively with their members to make sure that where they are going to embark on political campaigns they are upfront with their members about it and ultimately members will decide where the dollars go. When I protested against privatisation, I had my own signs and went out at my own expense to protest. I used my freedom of speech, as mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition earlier tonight, and I did what I believed in. Therefore, there is nothing stopping individuals doing what I did and it costs them nothing but a bit of time. In 2009 I remember receiving a letter from my union effectively telling me not to vote for myself. I do not recall anyone asking me if that was a political campaign I wanted my contributions spent on.

Today I let my fingers do the walking on that great foundation of all knowledge—Google—and it assisted to find that disclosure returns for political parties for the first half of 2010 revealed that the state branch of the ALP had received $1.2 million in donations from unions. The donation details were released by the ECQ and I was amazed that my own RTBU had donated $47,359, the TWU had donated $57,589 and the CFMEU had donated $119,800. These three unions were very prominent in their opposition to the Bligh government sell-off and had actually asked their members for an additional voluntary contribution to fight privatisation, which I gladly agreed to pay. Indeed I did see evidence of a public campaign with that money and I participated in same, but how much of my

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1977

subscriptions went to the very Labor Party that sold out QR workers and effectively sacked 9,000 workers of QR Ltd? As much as I respect the RTBU, I do not think that was a sound investment of members’ money.

This bill seeks to improve the accountability and transparency of industrial organisations and will apply to all 32 employer associations and 34 unions registered under the Industrial Relations Act. The increased disclosure and reporting requirements within the bill will ensure members are aware of how their funds are being spent and promote good governance. New disclosure registers will be required to be kept up to date. As related to contemporary debate in the Commonwealth arena, industrial organisations will be required to implement and maintain policies on credit card usage and issuance; gifts and benefits; procurement, leases and contracts; and officers with financial duties will need to undertake governance and financial accountability training every two years. There are other aspects of this bill which the Attorney-General and other members have discussed. These will also have significant benefit. I believe the provisions of the bill will ensure greater accountability and transparency and promote clarity and integrity within our community. I want to see more accountability and I want to make sure that rank-and-file members, as I once was, have a sense of certainty about how their contributions are spent. Union subscriptions are not cheap and people sacrifice to make those payments. Let us see them spent for members’ interests and not as political slush funds. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (7.55 pm): I rise to make a contribution to this draconian tory bill. So ashamed of this bill is the LNP that it is hiding this deeply flawed, divisive and, in parts, downright discriminatory legislation on State of Origin night. But this should come as no surprise given the Premier’s previous disinterest in terms of securing the maximum number of State of Origin games for Queensland. I heard the Premier speaking earlier when he said that he likes unions. It just seems that he does not like those who lead them, their organisers, their delegates and even their members when they have a different point of view than his. He criticised union heads like Beth Mohle and John Battams from the Queensland Council of Unions. Newsflash, Premier: if you do not like John Battams then you do not like unions, because you do not get more ‘union’ than John Battams.

Earlier this evening we had the government pass a motion to guillotine debate on this important bill despite the Attorney-General making the commitment on ABC Radio that he would not rush the legislation through. What an utter disgrace! The LNP simply refuses to accept that unions and employer organisations are democratic organisations. They are already highly regulated, professional organisations that have a legitimate voice to be heard in the Queensland political landscape. The ideological determination of the LNP is imposing unreasonable barriers to industrial organisations exercising their right to free speech and decision making. It would be preposterous if, before we as members of parliament decided how to vote on any issue in the parliament, we were required to conduct a ballot of all constituents and receive a majority vote specifically on each issue before we could vote to change any laws in this state. Similarly, it would be absurd of corporations to require a ballot of all shareholders before deciding to spend an amount of $10,000 on a public education campaign. In the same way, it is preposterous to suggest that trade unions or employer organisations be required to conduct such a ballot. Any members not happy with the way that that money is being spent can let the officials know at the next election.

As was put to LNP members in the public hearing on this bill, if they believe that people should have a vote on every major decision, will they be running a ballot in their own electorates before voting on this legislation? Of course not! Do MPs believe that the government should take a referendum to the Queensland people before the government spends millions of dollars advertising the Queensland Plan? Will they take a poll of their own constituents before passing the budget that smacks households with new taxes and charges? Do they believe that the LNP leadership should not be allowed to spend the LNP organisation’s own money on political advertising unless a majority of LNP rank-and-file members vote on each and every decision that spends $10,000? Of course not! But that is the blinkered and ideologically driven nature that has become the hallmark of this Newman LNP government.

The General Secretary of the Queensland Independent Education Union, Terry Burke, provided clear evidence to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee hearing that there are cynical examples where descriptions from the government in describing the action taken in this legislation could be construed to be misleading. Let me quote Mr Burke from the hearing when he said— We also think it is disproportionate in terms of the criminal penalty that is being contemplated under this bill regarding the duty of an officer. The department when they spoke to you said that they had taken account of the corporations law with regard to that. Certainly, they have regard to the introduction of a criminal penalty of the dimension of in excess of $300,000 and up to

1978 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

five years of imprisonment, but frankly they were, in my view, mischievous in suggesting that they had borrowed from the corporations law. If one goes to the relevant section of the Corporations Act, section 184, the good faith text, it reads that the officer commits an offence if they—

(a) are reckless; or (b) are intentionally dishonest; and fail to exercise their powers and discharge their duties: (c) in good faith in the best interests of the corporation; or (d) for a proper purpose.

If you go to the legislation which is in front of you, curiously, the word ‘intentionally’ has dropped out of that comparator with the Corporations Act and also, importantly, the word ‘and’ has dropped out of the legislation that you are looking at, such that a person could be in breach of this legislation with a penalty in excess of $300,000 and up to five years of imprisonment for a single instance of not being honest. The tests in the Corporations Act—

He was then interrupted. The chair of the committee then tried to cut him off by saying— We are talking maximums, though, are we not? I do not wish to be cutting into your speech, but when people start talking about the maximum amount we all know that, in reality, it is the maximum—

Then Mr Burke said— Whether it is $100 or one day in prison, the fact is that the suggestion that this was borrowed from the Corporations Act is, frankly, wrong. The text, if you go to section 184, will be quite a discovery to you if you have not looked at it already in terms of what is, in fact, imposed under 527 in the bill that is in front of you. It is extraordinary the difference that is actually there.

In essence, our comments are that we think that this is highly disproportionate in terms of an essential character of our Western democratic society that the laws that we establish in that tradition are laws of proportionality, which deal with a pattern of behaviour that we think is the appropriate way that a society ought to operate, mindful in a proportionate sense to the extent that that needs to be enforced and, importantly also, the extent to which it infringes on personal liberties.

Those points, articulated well by the secretary of QIEU, did not receive a response in the department’s additional briefing provided to the committee. Even if the LNP try to pass off those concerns as minor technicalities, it goes to the broader point that this government is determined to dress up every hurtful legislative change in misleading language and spin.

When it was suggested by an LNP committee member that there is nothing wrong with the requirements being imposed for balloting, the response from John Battams of the QCU was as follows. ... the democratic nature of unions means that the people who made those decisions are ultimately responsible to the members at the ballot box the same as you are. That is the way it should operate. To put constraints into that equation will make it impossible for the decision-making processes of the union to effectively represent the interests of the members. What I said before is what seems cleverly to be something so simple—‘Let’s ask the members’—the way it is constructed in this act is designed, we believe, to hamstring unions into not being able to act decisively in a timely fashion to protect the interests of their members.

Finally, I note with interest that, despite 78 pages of amendments being presented tonight, there is one particular amendment that is not included. Of course, I am referring to the recommendation from not one but two parliamentary committees not to change the definition of ‘worker’ in relation to Queensland’s workers compensation scheme. When introducing this legislation to include a change to the definition of ‘worker’, the ‘Kmart lawyer’ attempted to skirt the work of the Finance and Administration Committee and, at the same time, impacts upon workers’ rights to make claims under the state’s workers compensation scheme. The Attorney-General introduced the legislation after asking the bipartisan parliamentary Finance and Administration Committee to review the definition of ‘worker’. Clearly, the Attorney-General was concerned that he might not achieve the result he was after with the committee. He did not want to know what that answer might be. That concern proved to be well founded.

I am the deputy chair of the committee and, although I am not speaking in that capacity tonight, I take great exception to the Attorney-General showing contempt for the committee system and its independent role in undertaking a review into the iconic workers compensation scheme. What did the FAC’s report say? It states— The Committee agreed that the definition, as it currently stands, has been tested at law and fundamentally works. Any change to that definition will impact on both employers and workers. There may also be unintended imposts on the scheme as any new definitions are tested in the courts.

The committee recommended to not only retain the definition of ‘worker’ but also, in fact, strengthen the definition. Despite the fact that there were 240 submissions to the committee and 13 public hearings on this issue and then a second parliamentary committee that agreed with the findings of the FAC, the Attorney-General clearly thinks that he knows better. The Attorney-General

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1979

and the government are attempting to make it more difficult for genuine claimants to pursue their rights and achieve a fair outcome under the scheme. Tradies and subcontractors are among those who might lose access to the scheme. They are the people who will be defined as independent contractors and not be included in the definition of ‘worker’ and they are the ones who stand to lose. I will have an opportunity to talk about the FAC’s report on the workers compensation scheme in more detail when we debate the committee report at a later sitting. But I want to once again thank my fellow committee members for their truly bipartisan approach and their fair-mindedness in considering this important issue. In particular, I wish to thank the committee chair, the member for Coomera.

Any narrowing of the definition of ‘worker’ when there are still some workers who ought to be included under the current definition is just plain wrong. I vehemently oppose all elements of this bill and will vote it down at every opportunity.

Miss BARTON (Broadwater—LNP) (8.03 pm): I rise to speak to the Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2013. At the outset I acknowledge my fellow members of the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee. This was particularly complex legislation and we were incredibly well served by the secretariat, who I would also like to acknowledge. Our committee has been particularly busy, although I can assure the Attorney-General that I am not complaining about that. The committee secretariat has always worked quickly in preparing documents and helping us go through the many submissions that we have received, and in particular on this bill. I would also like to thank those who took time out of their very busy schedules to appear at the public hearing that we held, and that includes officials from the department and representatives from industry and the union movement. In light of the mood of the House earlier, in the interests of brevity I will certainly endeavour to keep my comments brief.

This bill has seven main objectives. It will improve the financial accountability and governance of industrial organisations and their office holders; it will render provisions relating to union encouragement of no effect; it will introduce stringent requirements to apply for and exercise right of entry to an employer’s premises; it will allow for Queensland Health to recover overpaid moneys from current and former employees; it will broaden the definition of contracting provisions; it will standardise the appeals process under the Public Service Act 2008; and it will amend the definition of ‘worker’ under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2002 to align it with the PAYG test that is applied by the Australian Taxation Office. At its core this bill is about openness, this bill is about transparency, this bill is about accountability and this bill is about democracy. The element that I intend to focus on is the requirement to conduct a ballot of organisation members for political expenditure in excess of $10,000. The union movement has said that it believes that any requirement to seek the opinion of, the views of, the endorsement of, and the permission from its membership is draconian and impinges on freedom of speech.

During the public hearing on this bill I had the opportunity to put a question to the President of the Queensland Council of Unions, John Battams, regarding this particular point of view. I put it to Mr Battams— I just wonder how you can rationalise your comments when you consider that asking people what they think of something is not really impinging on freedom of speech, rather it is encouraging freedom of speech and it is encouraging them to give an opinion on whether or not they think the expenditure is, I guess, valid. Surely you would think that anything that empowers your members to control what happens with their money, given that they are hardworking Queenslanders, is a good thing.

In his response, Mr Battams—and I am paraphrasing him—equated the union movement with the parliament. He said that any attempt to impose a requirement to ballot members and seek their point of view takes away from a union’s ability to represent its members and their interests. To that I say: what an absolute load of codswallop. I am proud to stand up here today in this House for the rights of hardworking Queenslanders—for their rights to have their voices heard on whether or not their money should be spent.

The Labor opposition comes into this House and claims that it stands up for the rights of workers. I contend that that is absolute nonsense. What the Labor Party in Queensland stands up for and what the Labor Party across Australia stands up for is for apparatchiks who make decisions about how to spend hardworking Queensland union members’ hard earned dollars. At this point I would like to table an article from the Courier-Mail dated 15 April 2013 by Des Houghton titled, ‘Leaked email shows Together Queensland union split over $100,000 spent on opinion poll’. This article highlights exactly why it is so critically important that we allow hardworking Queenslanders and union members the ability to have their say on exactly what it is that they want their money spent on. Tabled paper: Extract from the Courier-Mail, dated 15 April 2013, titled ‘Leaked email shows Together Queensland union split over $100,000 spent on opinion poll’ [2842].

1980 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

In his contribution the member for Ipswich West highlighted that money was spent by the Rail, Tram and Bus Union in a campaign against him while he was a member of that union. At no point was he ever given the option or the opportunity to voice his concerns—to say what it is that he wanted done with his money. He was a voluntary member of the union and he was rightly very proud of that. But at no point was he given the freedom to have his say. In this debate we have heard members of the Labor Party talk about freedom of speech. But at the end of the day, by opposing this bill they are saying that they do not care about freedom of speech, they do not care about the rights of workers, they do not care about their right to have their voices heard. All they care about are the union fat cats who spend their time thinking about themselves and what they can achieve for themselves.

I would also like to table another article that was published a week ago titled ‘Labor big a real heavy sleeper’, which highlights the concern that many of us have when we stand up for the rights of workers, when we say that some union officials are not committed to workers; rather, they are committed to what they can achieve for themselves. Tabled paper: Extract from the New York Post, dated 29 May 2013, titled ‘Labor big a real heavy sleeper’ [2843].

Over the past couple of years grave concerns have been raised about unions in other states where senior officials have acted with great impropriety and not in the interests of their workers. In the case of that particular union, its members were incredibly hardworking people who did not earn very much money who felt that by contributing their union dues they were contributing to their right to have fair conditions at work. A high-level official allegedly took that money and used it inappropriately. I would contend that that is another prime example why in this House we need to stand up for the rights of workers to have their voices heard. This is something that the Labor Party fails to do. What the Labor Party stands up for is the rights of apparatchiks to have their opinions heard, they do not stand up for the rights of workers to have their opinions heard.

Again I highlight the issue addressed in the article from the Courier-Mail that I tabled. We all remember a couple of months ago that the Together Union spent $100,000 on a phone poll asking Queenslanders what they thought about a particular issue. We saw union members come out and want to know exactly who approved the expenditure because they did not think that that was an appropriate use of $100,000 of their hard earned money. I think it is incredibly important that we remember that the people who are contributing union dues are hardworking Queenslanders who deserve the right to have their opinions heard, who deserve the right to have someone stand up for them legitimately, not to have someone impose their opinions on them. It strikes me that that is effectively what the Labor Party seeks to do. It seeks to control people’s thoughts and does not allow them the opportunity to form their own views and have their views heard.

I do not deny that there are some union members and unionists who have the best interests of workers at heart. When I was at university I spent some time working at Myer. As a number of university students do, I worked in retail. I saw a number of young students who were working with me bullied by managers. In those circumstances they took advantage of the shop stewards who were able to help and support them. I fully congratulate and applaud those people who were prepared to stand up to management in the face of bullies and say, ‘That is not okay. You cannot say to a student that they cannot take time off to go to an exam or time off to study for an exam’. What we see time and time again is that the people who legitimately care about the interests of hardworking Queenslanders are not the people who are making the decisions to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, it is the apparatchiks who are making those decisions.

Ms Trad interjected. Government members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Broadwater. Miss BARTON: Thank you for your protection, Madam Speaker. Members of the opposition will

quite often not take interjections and will seek your protection when members of the government seek to interject on them. For the benefit of the House I would like to point out the hypocrisy that we see time and time again from the opposition. They are more than happy to dish it out, but they are never happy to take it. They are never happy to let other people have their say.

Honourable members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! There are interjections from my right and from my left and I would

ask for those to cease. I call the member for Broadwater.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1981

Miss BARTON: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, though I am sure that the interjections coming from your right were common-sense interjections that were contributing much to the debate. As I was saying, it is critically important that we give hardworking Queenslanders the opportunity to have their voices heard so that when their hardworking dollars are being spent on political campaigns they can honestly say that they support it and they can honestly say that they do not feel that they have been deceived by the apparatchiks and the upper echelons of the union.

I would also like to point out, with regard to the balloting of members, that the committee has recommended to the Attorney-General that he consider a whole range of factors and whether or not the threshold amount is appropriate. We have suggested he might wish to take into account how much the advertisements and the like have cost. I note that the Attorney-General has indicated in his response that he accepts the recommendation in part. One of the recommendations of the committee, and this is one that I particularly supported, was that perhaps the Attorney could consider whether or not contestability was an option so that when union officials were balloting their members, they were making sure that they were doing it in the cheapest possible way so that when they are using union members’ hard earned money they are not wasting it on the most expensive option. I note that the Attorney-General has indicated that he will accept this recommendation in part.

I said at the beginning of my contribution that I would, noting the mood of the House, keep my remarks brief so I will finish by saying that this bill is about transparency, this bill is about accountability, it is about democracy and it is about giving hardworking Queenslanders a voice, a voice that has been taken away from them by union apparatchiks and bigwigs. I commend the Attorney-General and I commend the bill to the House.

Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (8.16 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2013. At the outset I thank the member for Woodridge for allowing me the chance to take her speaking spot during this debate. I know she had a speech prepared. I do not know if time will allow her to deliver it in light of the government’s decision to guillotine this bill. Unfortunately this government is following some of the worst practices of the previous government in guillotining important legislation for ulterior purposes. There is no doubt there are ulterior purposes. Why else would the government want to push such a controversial piece of legislation through on the day that we have our star footballers playing and the day after the budget was handed down? I will get on with my speech and will certainly not take my full allocation of time.

I respect the rights and views of other members to have different opinions to me on the possible effect of this bill. I have listened to members’ contributions to the debate on the bill to date and I will be standing by my dissenting report to the bill as set out in the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee report No. 31.

The Hansard record will show how some government members were spooked this afternoon when I suggested that if we get an Abbott-led government in federal government in September we will see more of this sort of abuse of process. I believe that tonight we are seeing exactly that happen. I believe the Hansard record will also show how some of the government speakers who have spoken in support of this bill have justified their support for the bill and for the proposed changes by referring to incidents involving unions over the border. To justify changing the law in Queensland they have had to go to union alleged wrongdoings not in Queensland, but in another state of Australia. Clearly it follows that if the leader of our state, our Premier, and government members have to use interstate examples of alleged misuse by leadership people to justify changing the laws in Queensland then it is logical to say we are witnessing here tonight an insight into what an Abbott-led government may do after 14 September if they control the House.

I agree with comments reportedly made by the Attorney-General that parts of this bill will lead to extreme legislation. What happened to a tolerant Queensland? What happened to the days when we had a liberal party? We had the Liberals, the Country Party and the National Party. Where is the tolerance? I see no tolerance whatsoever in what I understand are the practical effects of parts of this bill. There is no tolerance. I see very clearly a direct challenge to the rights of association, the freedom of speech and the freedom of political expression.

Honourable members interjected. Mr WELLINGTON: I understand other members may not agree with me, but please hear me

out. Earlier I listened to what I think was the Premier baiting the union: ‘Bring it on! Bring on your High Court challenge! We are looking forward to it!’ Do members know what it reminded me of? It reminded me of the Joh Bjelke-Petersen era.

1982 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

Honourable members interjected. Mr WELLINGTON: No, hear me out. I listened to other members in silence. I can remember

when the Bjelke-Petersen government brought in legislation deliberately provoking the union in relation to their protests and rallies. It was provocative legislation to bait someone else to create an issue. It is amazing that one of the government members even referred to an advertisement placed in the local newspaper and then went straight on and said, ‘Yes, and it is not that far away that we will have the September election.’

It all seems very convenient: this bill is being rushed through, there is a federal election around the corner, they want to create a major fight with the unions and divide this state, and it is all happening the day after the Treasurer comes in here and tells Queenslanders, ‘You have to tighten your belts because there’s not enough money to go around.’ This government is keen and willing to take this to the High Court, to defend the legislation no matter what it costs. I repeat: to defend it no matter what it costs.

We have all been involved in the 30-year Queensland Plan, which will cost $4.6 million. We spent over $300,000 going to Mackay to sit around for a couple of hours and then come back. The Premier’s office has informed me that the Queensland Plan will cost $4.6 million. I cannot see the consistency: one minute the Treasurer says that things are tight, that we have to tighten our belts, that there is hardship, doom and gloom; yet they are keen to go to the High Court to fight for it. I will not support all of the bill. I can support some of the bill, but I believe that there are components of it that are extreme and will not lead to a tolerant Queensland. I think that they are simply provocative. I look forward to this going to the High Court as I think the decision will show that it is unconstitutional.

Mr WATTS (Toowoomba North—LNP) (8.20 pm): I rise to support the Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2013. Firstly, I thank the secretariat of the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee for the work that they do in supporting the committee. I also thank all of the committee members and, of course, all of the people who put in written submissions and attended the public hearings. Tonight I will be brief in the interests of other speakers having an opportunity to participate in the debate.

Firstly, I congratulate the Attorney-General for ensuring that we are a government that will act in the interests of all Queenslanders by guarding against corruption and the misuse of trust and position by anyone or any organisation. Others would hide behind a thin veneer of representing a disengaged and disfranchised membership and suggest that the fact that they hold a position means that they can act in any way they like without account to the membership. However, the suggestion that you take away freedom of speech by giving someone a democratic vote does not make sense. It does not make sense to say that giving people an absolute and enshrined right to vote and have their voice heard on any decision put to the membership so that the majority decides what the membership wants somehow reduces the freedom of speech of the membership. It would appear to me that the freedom of speech of the membership is under most threat from those who purport to represent them but, in fact, who will not allow them to vote on whether they should or should not be represented in the way that has been suggested.

I give a couple of examples from personal experience. I worked for a student union for 12 years. I worked on the commercial side of that union. While we were negotiating our enterprise bargaining agreement, I was the representative of management. That was with the Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union. We had about 120 employees. The union did not want what the employee representatives wanted. The employee representatives wanted part-time work, because a lot of them were students studying engineering degrees and other degrees at the University of Southern Queensland. The union wanted to turn all of those part-time jobs, which were helping the students pay their way through university, into full-time jobs. The workers, the people who were paying their union membership, asked me to represent them in the negotiations. I was on the other side of the negotiations. It was absolute lunacy that the union would hold a position that the members did not want, when the members agreed with exactly what management was proposing. That was just one small example that I had personal experience with. It took several months before we could persuade the union that maybe it should do what the members wanted. With a piece of legislation such as this, when you cut away the hysteria and the freedom of speech and other arguments that have been put forward, what you are doing is giving people a democratic opportunity to vote on how their money and their organisation is going to act. I cannot think of anything better than for that to be the case in a democracy such as ours.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1983

Several submissions were made to the committee. People put forward the idea that I stand here elected. I represent the entire electorate of Toowoomba North and I was voted in. One cannot suggest for a moment that a union has the checks and balances of this place when we have an opposition that is fully funded and we have processes that have been built up over a very long period. To suggest that the members of a union would be served as well as constituents are by this institution is simply belittling this institution. One cannot suggest for a moment that denying union members a vote on how their money is spent is in any way similar to people coming in here and presenting a budget or debating legislation, particularly as we have gone to an election and we have told people what we are going to do. The union bosses are out there making decisions without reference to anybody.

Ms Trad interjected. Mr WATTS: I will take the interjection about backflips. Isn’t it interesting that the interjection

comes in, ‘What about the backflip?’ I ask: what about the backflip? The Labor Party takes money from unions. The unions publicly opposed the sale of assets and publicly opposed what the government was going to do, but they donated money to Labor. The workers did not want it. Who backflipped? That is right: the Labor government backflipped. It let down its members, it let down its union and it let down everybody who had paid money into that institution to represent them, simply by going completely and utterly against everything that that union wanted. If that union did want the assets sold, why did not they stand up and say so?

Ms Trad: Because they ran a campaign, in a democracy. Mr WATTS: They ran a campaign against the asset sales; that is correct. If their members had

had the opportunity to have a vote, how would they have voted? How will this legislation stop the members voting to decide how their money should be spent?

Ms Trad interjected. Mr WATTS: You will get your opportunity to speak in a moment, member for South Brisbane.

When you stand up, you will have the opportunity— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! Member, please address your comments

through the chair. Mr WATTS: Through the chair, the member for South Brisbane will have the opportunity to

have her say in a moment. I challenge her to suggest how giving the members the opportunity to vote on how their money is spent is not in the interests of the members. I will be very interested to hear that. I will not take up too much more of the time of the House tonight. I know that there are plenty of others who want to speak. I support this bill. I support the Attorney-General. I think the unions should be held to high account. They have a special place in our history. They have a special place in the institutions of industrial law in this state. They should be held to high account so that their members can see how their leadership acts and, when the leadership wants to act to make a decision, they simply run a poll to decide whether the membership agrees with it. I commend the bill to the House and I look forward to hearing the member for South Brisbane.

Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (8.27 pm): I rise to speak on the Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2013. Whilst this bill addresses a range of issues that required addressing, I will focus on the changes that will protect and enhance the rights of workers—those who choose to join a union and those who do not wish to do so. Freedom of association should be a fundamental right of all Queenslanders and all Australians. It seems it should be an essential and perpetual feature of our democracy, but we should not forget that in practice it is a recent development in Australia and one that, despite its desire to do so, federal Labor has been unable to undo. Presumably, that is because it is now such an electorally damaging position to take to force workers to join an organisation essentially against their own will, and rightly so. According to the ABS, only 13 per cent of private sector employees now choose to be a member of a trade union. Trade unions should exist to support their membership. The question is: what do their members want?

Whatever they have been doing over the past 15 years obviously is not offering an appealing value proposition because membership continues to drop. Unions have become political campaign machines above protecting their members, funnelling money from their members’ pockets into the coffers of the Labor Party or into campaigns that will support them or disparage their opposition.

1984 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

This bill introduces a new framework where industrial organisations must ballot members when they wish to spend more than $10,000 on a political matter. This ballot must be made available to all members and describe the proposed campaign, the associated expenditure and for how long the campaign is proposed to continue. It will require the support of more than half the votes received for authorisation from the membership. It empowers the membership to have a say as to where their dues are being spent. These organisations purport to support their membership in their employment, but, when they have historically supported or are even officially affiliated with a political party, how can they do so when they have a serious conflict of interest in play?

The Queensland Nurses Union has shown it is all a little bit too hard for them. An issue, one that would have affected or at least touched each of their members, should have seen them up in arms as government incompetence hurt their members and their members’ families—that is, the Queensland Health payroll debacle. Surely ensuring that their membership is actually paid correctly for the work they do should be fundamental to the work of a trade union? The payroll debacle is the sort of issue that if it happened on our watch it would have seen a prolonged and well-funded campaign designed to embarrass the LNP, and it would have been easy. I do not think there is a person in Queensland who thinks the disaster was in any way justified or does not feel for those nurses and their families who were and continue to be affected.

If we look at the campaign archive on the QNU website, there is a list of current and previous campaigns the QNU have elected to spend their members’ membership fees on. How the carbon price is directly linked to nursing I have no idea, but the union saw fit to spend its members’ funds on this. If their website is accurate and has not had campaigns added or removed or placed out of order then they only decided to campaign on the payroll issue in July 2012.

Yes, there are records of very polite conversations and correspondence between the union and the previous Labor government on this issue published on their site. There is also information outlining their regular meetings with the Premier and the health minister. But it was not until the LNP won government that the tone of their information on this issue changed. From outlining that ‘Queensland Health announced that it will implement a package of measures designed to progress payroll matters under the Bligh government’ to ‘We’ve had enough’ under the Newman government indicates a serious issue of bias.

Just months after the change of government they set up a protest email facility so that their membership could email the Premier, the health minister and the chair of the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee years after the issue raised its head and was affecting its own members. Hilariously, their page that links to this email facility has the following tag line: ‘We must speak quickly and with one voice.’ Quickly—the problem was already a year old by that stage. When Labor was in government there was no email campaign. There were very few protests in the street and there was no ad buy.

According to the QNU’s ECQ return, they spent more than $60,000 prior to the last election campaign on things like advertising and election Q&As. Presumably this expenditure was made on similar campaigns to those we are hearing on the radio right now—that is, bagging the Premier and the federal opposition leader through deceptive language and a concerted effort to mislead the public.

This bill is about empowering union members so that, if they wish, their funds can be solely invested into supporting them in their workplace, not on overtly partisan political campaigns. If the QNU is truly an organisation set up to protect their members’ rights then these funds are much better spent providing services to these members rather than on efforts to affect the vote of the general public. But if their membership agrees that it should be campaigning on broader issues then the membership will have the opportunity to support these moves through a ballot. If the membership wishes to have their dues spent on campaigning for climate change policy, fair enough, but it is time that we let them have their say.

As a registered nurse, I obviously know many nurses. I know that a lot of nurses join unions, but they do not join the QNU to become quasi-members of the ALP. Nurses only join a union for indemnity insurance for potential malpractice, not to fund ALP campaigns. A classic example of this was in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election and the Your Rights at Work campaign. The unions were very busy in all the tearooms in all the hospitals around Queensland trying to convince nurses that if they elected John Howard for another term their penalty rates would be in jeopardy. Most nurses should know that they are paid under a state award and not under a federal award. That was another porky from the Labor Party.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1985

We have TV ads and rubbish campaigns about selling our hospitals at the moment. This is another scare campaign and more lies from the QNU. If nurses really want proper representation, they have an alternative to the QNU. They can join the Royal College of Nursing Australia, which is the professional body for nurses. The Royal College of Nursing has its own indemnity insurance. In fact, since we passed the national harmonisation laws where all nurses are entitled and required to have registration and need indemnity insurance, they could actually even go to a private provider.

We have the likes of Beth Mohle and our old friend Grace Grace in the QNU these days making sure that nurses continue to think that it is only the Labor Party that they should vote for. Nurses do not join a union to vote for the Labor Party. I am going to make sure that every nurse I know knows that a percentage of their QNU contributions actually go directly to funding Labor campaigns.

Where was the QNU when nurses in Queensland were being bullied left, right and centre? That is the repository for all bullying and intimidation claims in Queensland. Nurses go to a union if they are bullied. I never saw any stories in the whole time that Labor was in power in Queensland where the QNU actually stood up for nurses.

I congratulate the Attorney-General on this bill. It is a sensible move that is about allowing union members to decide if they wish their hard earned money to be spent on issues relating directly to their own employment or political campaigns. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms TRAD (South Brisbane—ALP) (8.35 pm): I rise to make a contribution on the Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill. It is worth noting tonight that all of the odious examples that have been presented by those members opposite are examples that they have somehow trumpeted from the trade union movement. I note their silence when it comes to employer organisations. I note their silence when it comes to the Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association. I note that they are silent when it comes to the complaints of RTSA members that have been aired in the media, complaints about a particular member of this place by Woolworths and Coles that have gone to the LNP office.

I notice that members opposite are very silent—mute in fact—when it comes to those dubious activities by members of employer organisations. But, having said that, we know that even the employer organisations—

Mr BLEIJIE: I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! There is a point of order. What is your point of

order, Attorney-General? Mr BLEIJIE: I seek your guidance because the organisation the member refers to—and it may

be why no-one on this side has spoken about it—is subject to CMC investigations, Queensland Industrial Relations Commission investigations, potential Ethics Committee investigations. Potentially the sub judice rule may come into effect. That is probably why nobody on this side has spoken about that. I seek your guidance on that, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is a view that the CMC does not quite come under the same set of rules as applies with sub judice. I am not going to take that as a point of order, Attorney. The member has the call.

Ms TRAD: Once again, the legal fraternity of Queensland can sit there and bemoan the fact that someone of this calibre is actually the first law officer of the state.

The reason the Labor opposition will be opposing this bill is that it is antidemocratic, it is draconian and it is discriminatory. This bill imposes disclosure laws, disclosure requirements on trade unions only and no other organisation—disclosure laws that are actually more excessive, more onerous than disclosure laws we put on ourselves as politicians. That is disgraceful!

This bill makes it a requirement for union members to be balloted before campaigns can be run. This bill includes a wide definition of political campaign in order to capture as much as possible under the $10,000 mark. This bill increases onerous red tape and procedural hurdles for unions and employer organisations that have been detailed throughout the committee inquiry. This bill curtails right-of-entry provisions. It does not align Queensland provisions with the Fair Work Act. That is a mistruth and the Attorney-General knows it. This bill seeks to silence the most organised, vocal critics of the government’s massive outsourcing and privatisation agenda, and it is quite telling that it is being introduced now in a rushed fashion.

1986 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

This is an attack on the very foundation of representative government and modern democracy. It stifles freedom of political expression and is a curtailment of participation in our democratic system. Alexander Meiklejohn, an American academic and philosopher of the 20th century, was a notable proponent of the important link between freedom of speech and democracy. For democracy to work, Meiklejohn contended, an informed electorate with no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas should exist. Further, democracy will be corrupted and distorted if those in power are able to manipulate the electorate by withholding information and stifling criticism. This is a notion that captured the attention of fledgling democracies and became the strong foundation of Western democracies that have been the rock for non-violent democratic change.

As an elected representative, I know it is a career of privilege to stand in this place and represent the members of my electorate of South Brisbane. We as members of parliament know that intensely: it is an honour and a privilege to stand in this House. But we are not alone in having this privilege bestowed upon us. The people targeted by this bill—those from industrial organisations, both unions and employer organisations—are acutely aware of the privilege of representing their members and the causes that they stand for. In a civilised society we need dissent. We need debate. We need the battle of ideas. We need well-established principles of democracy, a modern and social democracy. Where dissent, debate and ideas are silenced, corruption flourishes. We saw that with the last long-term coalition regime that governed Queensland where critics were silenced, where protests were made illegal, where corruption flourished—and, if my memory serves me correctly, it was the party of those opposite that was in power then.

Without dissent, without debate, without the battle of ideas in this country, women would not have the vote, our nation would not now have an NDIS and we would still have Work Choices. These are just a few of the great wins—

Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! Members will cease interjecting. The member

has the call. Ms TRAD: These are just a few of the great wins thanks to the fearless and continued

campaigning by industrial organisations. Indeed, Queenslanders’ way of life would be fundamentally different, and I believe poorer, without campaigns specifically run by trade unions in this country. Let me just highlight a few of the rights and causes that have been won as a result of strong union campaigns. In April 1856, following negotiations supported and facilitated by unions—

Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting. The member is not taking

interjections. I call the member for South Brisbane. Ms TRAD:—workers at Melbourne Trades Hall were awarded the eight-hour working day—an

Australian first. In 1941 a campaign for annual leave of one week succeeded and became a standard. Over decades, continued campaigning saw annual leave expanded to four weeks. In 2004 a union-led campaign for fair compensation for asbestos victims of James Hardie won the largest personal injury settlement in Australia’s history. In 2012, after years of union campaigning, led by the Australian Services Union, a Fair Work Australia ruling awarded social and community sector workers pay increases of between 23 and 45 per cent over the next eight years.

These are great moments of progress for our nation, fought and won with the help of mobilised, vocal union campaigns, and this begs the question: had this bill been the law of this state for the past 100 years, what entitlements would we now not enjoy? What campaigns would have been silenced? Would we have the minimum wage, long service leave and superannuation? Even more importantly, what next great fight for fairness and progress will be silenced as a result of these laws?

As I said earlier, this is a higher standard for unions than for politicians, and we know why—because the Attorney-General, in his own words, has revealed that this is extreme legislation. It is extreme legislation and the Attorney said on the Steve Austin program on 16 May 2013— We’ve gone to the extreme. If we can be convinced to pull it back a little bit, more than happy to look at it and work with the unions on it and work with the employer groups.

Well, it is quite clear that the Attorney-General was just telling more porkies on radio. The other porky he said earlier in the conversation when Steve Austin asked, ‘You’re not going to try and rush this through committee?’ He said— No. It’s not going to be rushed through. We’re not going to rush it through, we want to get it right.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1987

Well, what are we doing tonight? We are rushing it through obviously. We are rushing it through. For the benefit of those members opposite who want to know what union members think, let me tell them what union members think, particularly a union member in my electorate who wrote to me last Monday. He wrote— Dear Jackie

I’m sure you will agree that the clear intent of the Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill is to attack the rights of individuals to collectively organise and campaign on a wide range of issues.

My union represents my interests and acts as an advocate for me on industrial matters affecting my employment and conditions. I endorse the right of my union to campaign on my behalf. The requirement to be polled on each and every issue addressed by my union is an obvious and unprecedented attack on organised representation and free speech in a democratic country.

Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There are too many interjections. The member has the call. Ms TRAD: He goes on to say—

This is an issue that rises above party politics, attacking the very foundations of my rights as an individual to act collectively with other like-minded workers. It is a right that I hold as a citizen and a voter and no government has the right to attempt to take this away from me. Please do all in your power to prevent this draconian legislation from being passed.

In conclusion, if those opposite cannot stand the criticism, they do not deserve to stand in this place. (Time expired) Mr YOUNG (Keppel—LNP) (8.47 pm): I rise to support the Industrial Relations (Transparency

and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2013. As everyone would be aware, the 2012 investigation into the Health Services Union identified numerous breaches of that organisation’s own rules and the laws which regulate federally registered industrial organisations. Among the investigation’s findings were breaches in the duty of care by HSU officials to discharge their fiduciary duties diligently and the improper use of position to gain a personal advantage. Following a community outcry calling for tougher sanctions and greater regulation of industrial organisations, the federal and New South Wales governments responded with amendments to their respective legislation, and I am suggesting we do the same.

This bill has been framed taking into consideration the events of the HSU, the regulatory responses of other jurisdictions and community calls for holding industrial organisations to the same level of accountability as corporations. The bill encompasses a suite of changes aimed at strengthening the transparency of industrial organisations, improving their governance and accountability, and provides realistic deterrents for breaches of the regulation. It strengthens the pecuniary penalty including the imposition of a criminal sanction if officers of industrial organisations act dishonestly or without proper care and due diligence against the interests of the organisation. The bill also improves the external complaints process by allowing the Industrial Registrar to direct complaints to the Director-General of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General.

To reflect the priority placed by this government on transparency and accountability, the bill introduces a range of new or increased penalty provisions for breaches of the proposed provisions. For example, the bill imposes new penalty provisions for officers of industrial organisations who act dishonestly or without proper care and due diligence against the interests of the organisation. This will address the financial governance of an organisation and, to that end, a certified registered company auditor will be required to certify the annual financial reports of the organisation and reporting requirements including the declaration of interests register, political objects ballots register, expenditure policies and governance training. I might add that annual reporting will be made publicly available. That is something that needs to happen.

Some of the disclosures will be through registers which must be kept up to date and be available for public scrutiny. These relate to the remuneration of the organisation’s 10 most highly paid officers, gifts and benefits received and given by officials and employees, political objects funding of $10,000 or greater including the outcome of any expenditure ballot.

To ensure that all organisations have the capacity to meet all the financial management and reporting requirements, the bill provides that an industrial organisation must ensure that an officer who holds a financial management position completes approved financial management training within three months of assuming the role and every two years while holding the office. As an employer, the Queensland government is obliged to operate in an efficient and effective manner without giving

1988 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

preferential treatment to certain employees over others. As a result, employees will have a genuine choice about whether they become members of industrial associations and no-one will be obliged to coerce others to join. These amendments will ensure that valuable resources can be redirected towards providing services rather than supporting industrial associations. I might add that I probably held a union ticket longer than anyone within this House. I worked in mining for many years. The first person who met me in the gate for my employment was a union official.

By removing union encouragement provisions, the bill brings the IR Act in line with other state and federal industrial relations legislation. Employers have a right to conduct their business without undue interference, harassment or disruption from unions. Conversely, union members rely on their union’s ability to visit the employee’s workplace using right-of-entry provisions to hold discussions with members or to investigate suspected breaches of industrial laws and instruments. The challenge for government is to balance the needs of employers and the employee. Union right-of-entry provisions as they apply in the Queensland industrial relations system are now out of step with national workplace relations laws. It is in this context that the bill provides for improvements to the right-of-entry provisions to be more consistent with certain procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act and to ensure that right of entry does not cause undue interference, harassment or disruption to an employer’s business. The bill introduces a requirement for authorised industrial officers who propose to enter an employer’s workplace under section 372(1) of the IR Act to provide an entry notice.

The bill has an amendment relating to consent to the recovery of an overpayment of wages. This amendment enables an employer to implement an agreed recovery arrangement that has been discussed with an employee, provided written acknowledgement of the employee’s consent is provided before recovery commences. This bill also clarifies the definition of the employer’s determination whether a person is a worker for workers compensation purposes. The legal tests applied to define who is a worker have caused confusion and difficulty for businesses, as they are required to hold a policy of insurance to cover a worker for a work related injury. Many businesses which engaged what they believe to be independent contractors are subsequently penalised by WorkCover, with additional premium charges for failure to include these persons as workers for compensation purposes.

The bill amends the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act to bring the meaning of ‘worker’ in line with the definition used by the Australian Taxation Office. This is achieved by amending the act so that a worker is a person who works under a contract including a contract of service or at piecework rates and the person is an employee for the purpose of assessment for PAYG tax withholding by the ATO. This amendment will save the builders in my area of Rockhampton a lot of unnecessary stress, time and money. Many builders whom I have met in my area are very pleased to see this anomaly rectified, and I say that most sincerely. It has caused them untold grief in the past.

There are other aspects of this bill which I have not covered. No doubt the committee members will speak on those. I wish to thank the committee and the Attorney-General for their efforts in the development of this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (8.54 pm): In speaking to this legislation, I acknowledge that time is short and that there are other members who wish to speak. Given the guillotine, I will be as brief as I can. There are four areas that I wish to comment on in relation to this legislation. The first is the authorisation for particular spending for political purposes. I do understand the reasoning behind this: there have been ad campaigns that have been extensive and expensive in all ways. However, I am concerned that the $10,000 threshold in the current economic climate in the sense of the cost of advertising, both print and electronic media, is too low a threshold. I think there will be many issues that unions and union members would like to prosecute where there will not be time to deal with a matter because of the short time frame. By the time they ballot their members, the opportunity will be lost. Whilst I understand and support the principle, I think that threshold is way too low in terms of the amount that will trigger the requirement for the ballot.

The second area I wish to comment on is financial disclosure. I support this part of the legislation. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition, I think it was, who talked about unions. I do not want to misquote her but I think she said that unions were like any other corporation, association or, indeed, this parliament, and they are. They are a significant entity. They have a lot of members. They certainly have financially a great deal of weight behind them. For that reason, it is important that they are accountable. So I do not have a problem personally with the accountability measures, and I look forward to the debate on the clauses.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1989

The third area that I wish to speak to is the political party affiliation that must be stated in political advertising. Again, I think this is a positive in terms of openness, accountability and transparency. I do not believe there should be any problem with alerting people who are listening to your arguments to your affiliations with others.

The fourth area that I wish to speak to is the amendment to the workers compensation act and the definition of a ‘worker’. I was late going to the Finance and Administration Committee, but I would have to say that in the period of time that I have been on that committee I have been very impressed with the bipartisanship in the debate, particularly in relation to the work that they did prior to my joining the committee on the workers compensation legislation amendment bill. I commend the chair, the member for Coomera, and all of the members for their attention over a long period of time to what is a very serious issue in the community.

Workers compensation deals with people when they are at their lowest. I was relieved—that is the proper word—when I understood some of the information that had been brought in for the committee’s consideration and the bipartisan nature that that consideration had been given. I support the recommendation, albeit tempered by the fact that the Attorney-General had introduced this legislation, which effectively took out our dealing with the definition of a ‘worker’ but, in fact, the committee did make a comment, and that was that had the committee had the opportunity we would not have changed the definition of ‘worker’. I stand by that decision of this committee.

I was here in 1996 when a major overhaul of the workers compensation legislation occurred and we changed the definition of ‘worker’. To my regret, it caught many people unintentionally. There were people excluded from workers compensation who were not intended to be excluded. Yes, it drew a clear line in the sand but there were unintended consequences. It is for that reason that I do not support the changes to the definition of ‘worker’. I thank the chamber for the opportunity of speaking to these matters, but I will be voting against the authorisation for political spending only because the threshold, I believe, is too low. Lastly, I believe we need to protect workers who are injured at work because they and their families are most vulnerable.

Mrs SMITH (Mount Ommaney—LNP) (8.59 pm): I rise tonight to speak in support of the Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Act Amendment Bill 2013. I will get straight to the point as to why I support this bill. If people have nothing to hide, they hide nothing. Any organisation that is entrusted with other people’s money must ensure that appropriate checks and balances are in place. Time and time again history has proven that the temptation to put a hand in the till has seen the downfall of many.

I draw members’ attention, firstly, to the woes of the Health Services Union that have been played out now for a number of years. However, this union is not the only union organisation to have been investigated or to have been under suspicion for misusing members’ funds. I will give a quick history. In 1996 there were calls for an inquiry into the Australian Workers Union’s financial affairs after it was discovered that in excess of $160,000, including union membership subscriptions, were in unauthorised bank accounts in Victoria being operated by union officials. Furthermore, in 2009 the Electoral Commission of Queensland launched an investigation into a ‘special reporting event’ with regard to the Australian Labor Party and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union in 2009. That was about reporting irregularities regarding a series of donations totalling $225,613.70 to the ALP by the CFMEU. Section 305C of the Electoral Act requires that donations totalling $100,000 or more must be declared. This was not complied with and, hence, the investigation occurred.

Another incident occurred here in Queensland in 2011. Honourable members may recall the AWU using members’ funds to pay legal expenses for the then secretary, Bill Ludwig, which related to a matter against him in his position as a director of Racing Queensland Ltd. A cheque for $45,000 from the AWU was signed by Ludwig to fund this. His response was a little bit more original than Craig Thomson’s. He simply stated, ‘When there’s an attack on me personally, it’s an attack on the union.’ With this attitude, which can only be described as breathtakingly arrogant, I think honourable members would be getting my drift.

So is there any wonder that union membership is on the decline? This is where I am throwing a lifeline to the ALP and the unions by giving them a bit of a picture. Only 18 per cent of the working population belongs to a trade union, and there is the correlation. That is further supported by my line of thinking along with that of Judith Sloan, the contributing economics editor, who wrote in the Australian on 1 May 2012— The reputational damage caused by the shenanigans at the HSU is likely to have led to a further haemorrhaging of members—this is already apparent in terms of resignations from the HSU. But the effect is likely to be more widespread. With the lack of transparency in union affairs, who can tell what other unions get up to?

1990 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

The workers of Queensland deserve better than this. Sloan goes on to say— The alternative strategy for the union movement is to embrace choice and competition and commit to high standards of governance. By providing real benefits to members in an open and transparent manner, there may be a chance workers can be attracted to join up.

The workers of Queensland deserve transparency and they deserve the right to decide if and what their hard-earned money should be spent on. For me, the bill addresses exactly that. I will give honourable members a quick example, and I did note that the opposition leader raised the issue of balloting and how undemocratic it is. Back in 2002 I was working as the industrial relations adviser at the Mater. The QNU came in to say, ‘We’re holding a meeting.’ The QNU had about 1,500 nurses as members at the Mater. I walked past and I saw five people in that meeting. Bob Parker, the then union organiser, came and saw me and said, ‘The membership have decided this and this.’ Is it really fair that when five people turn up to a meeting they can adequately represent the whole of the membership? I think not.

In conclusion, there are many good amendments in this bill. I think the key issue is that I cannot believe that there would be one person in the opposition who would be against open, transparent accounting of members’ or other people’s money. I commend the bill to the House. I say congratulations to the Attorney-General. I support the bill.

Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—Ind) (9.04 pm): This legislation is a kind of political, broad based payback to the predominant union movement, although arguably it extends beyond those groups to include these employer based organisations, and I do not think that was originally the intention. As such, one would have to have a strong suspicion that the legislation is motivated in equal measure by revenge and arrogance. It is a kind of class enemy argument. These arguments have no place in the current political arena. This is easily assessed by hearing the details of what has been said here tonight about these so-called accountability measures. These are impractical. If they fail the practical application test, then they are futile and they will certainly be amended. When one adds the issue of the lack of justification for the legislative step, effectively, none of the reasons supporting a legislative approach can be justified. I say this because only two cases in recent times may apply. One is obviously the HSU and its executives, which occurred in the south; and, secondly, there are matters which have been raised earlier here in the House.

This legislation confirms to me that the Campbell Newman government is generally out of touch with what is being demanded of politicians in the real world outside the cloisters of parliament. I say this because the public are in quantitative research, demanding everything from doing what one says they will do, representing them, value adding, not wasting time on frivolous point-scoring between the majority and minority parliamentary structures, and equity and honesty.

The legislation requires a union to effectively fund plebiscites to authorise spending over $10,000, which is what we are talking about. In many cases we are talking about large unions. Inherently, these unions are politicised groups of former trade craft groups and, therefore, most such expenditure will be political in nature. Before getting into anything else, why do we want to restrict anyone from exercising their legitimate rights? We need to understand that we want them to be able to have the right to organise and represent themselves if that is what they want to do. This is a democracy and in an orderly world they have a right to do that.

These days $10,000 will not buy a new, four-cylinder car. It is the cost of colouring some ladies’ hair for one year. It will buy two wedding dresses—or only 1½ for some depending on what they want—or maybe one or two of the bridesmaids’ dresses. I asked one of the tradesmen in my electorate of Gaven and he said that is what he spends on petrol in a year. It is actually the cost of a five-kilowatt solar system, which is so despised by some of the people on the other side of the House. All sorts of value judgement statements have been made here tonight about the law being imposed that states that the unions are failing to be transparent and this legislation will make it all the better for union members’ rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. This will create a further major cost and red tape impost on organisations that are, by and large, trying to get as much value for the funds they expend. It is exactly the same thing we try to do in government. They are trying to do the same thing. All organisations are doing the same thing. Ultimately, transparency and accountability are only worthwhile if anything can be progressed with the money that they have, otherwise nothing happens.

It is reasonable to engage in both rhetorical and adversarial banter between parties and political opponents. It is unreasonable to propose legislation that may not survive the long-term scope of survival in a legal challenge in the High Court at great expense to the public. The public has to pay for that when it is defeated—all just to prove that the government was right. It certainly is right; it is

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1991

extremist right-wing agenda and it has no place in a modern democracy, just as the extremist left-wing agenda also does not. It will do none of those things that government members wax lyrical about should or will occur. The mistaken belief that the enshrined right to vote on all such issues is that which needs protection defies evidence.

Union membership is declining, and it has done so for 30 years and may well continue, but we do not know. Union members do vote, but imposing such a low bar on costs for their executives’ decisions is to attempt to paralyse them, which is the nature of this legislation. The government recognises this and that is why they gave the LGAQ an exemption. Additionally, this type of legislation leads to ‘tit for tat’ legislation. Where does that end? Bad legislation leads to bad outcomes. I have heard the Deputy Premier say that to us many, many times over the years when talking about this in parliament. It should play no part in a progressive government’s armamentarium; nor should it in this parliament.

I do support a limited role for the Drug Court. I have spoken about this issue before. In the correct scenario—which I agree is very limited—the court must have an objective based on objective studies. According to the most recently completed research, which I have previously tabled in the House and provided to the Attorney-General, drug courts have the capacity to deliver a saving of 300 per cent in custodial time for those participating, with no loss of capacity to manage those people in the normal system should they exit the Drug Court program. That alone is an excellent result, but when you combine it with the proven effect on the rate of recidivism you can see that drug courts do have a role in modern society.

Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (9.11 pm), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contribution to the debate this evening. It has been a good debate. It has been a long debate during which members have had an opportunity to have their say. Pursuant to the earlier resolution of the parliament, this debate is due to wrap up at 9.30 this evening, and then consideration in detail will follow until midnight.

I will address some of the issues which have been raised, particularly by the Leader of the Opposition. Make no mistake about it: this legislation is about accountability and integrity amongst industrial organisations in Queensland. This is about making sure that grassroots members have a direct say.

We have heard opposition members speak tonight about democracy and freedom of speech. What could be more democratic than giving grassroots members, who pay their membership dues to unions or other organisations, a direct say in how their membership dues are used? Be it on election campaigning, advertising or whatever purpose, what could be more democratic than giving grassroots, hardworking Queenslanders the right to know that their union membership fees are being wisely used? Just as governments are elected to use taxpayers’ money wisely, so too are union executives. That is the fundamental aspect of this legislation.

The Leader of the Opposition asked some questions with respect to which credit card statements this will apply to in terms of being available online. Yes, it will only apply to employee organisations. I did say in my second reading speech that it will be applicable to employee organisations—therefore, the unions—and they will be required to produce their credit card statements publicly. That provision will not necessarily be retrospective, but it will apply to this financial year. That means that the credit card statements for the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 must be available for public viewing.

The Leader of the Opposition said that no-one supported this bill. When I introduced this legislation I made it abundantly clear that it was contentious. The government have set the threshold very high in terms of accountability and integrity. I have said that on the radio. I have also said that I am willing to work with unions and employer organisations. I am very pleased to say that we had a couple of round table discussions with employer organisations. I met with Mr John Battams, President of the Queensland Council of Unions. We had a fruitful discussion, and we had to agree to disagree on a few aspects.

It is a falsehood to say that no-one agrees with this legislation. I will table a few documents. One is the media statement from 30 April 2013 with respect to the definition of ‘worker’. Warwick Temby, the Executive Director of HIA, said— The Queensland government’s decision to align coverage for WorkCover with PAYG tax has been strongly endorsed by the Housing Industry Association.

The rest speaks for itself. I table that statement. Tabled paper: Media statement, dated 30 April 2013, titled ‘Red Tape Untangled for Building Contractors’ [2844].

1992 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

With respect to the definition of ‘worker’, we then had a press release from WorkCover itself. This is an independent board that has been established under statute and has union representatives on it. WorkCover wrote to me requesting a change to the definition of ‘worker’. It put out a press release which states— WorkCover Queensland supports the worker definition provided in the bill tabled in parliament on 30 April 2013.

This is from the very body which requested the change to the definition of ‘worker’ that in fact pays out workers. I table that press release. Tabled paper: Media release, dated 1 May 2013, of WorkCover Queensland titled ‘Proposed worker definition changes to reduce red tape’ [2845].

We also have a press release issued on 5 June by the HIA urging the government to push through the WorkCover changes. It states— The government must grab the opportunity to relieve a red tape nightmare for the building industry with its changes to who needs to be covered for Workers Compensation.

I table a copy of that press release. Tabled paper: Media release, dated 5 June 2013, of HIA, titled ‘HIA urges government to push through WorkCover changes’ [2846].

In respect of the other provisions of the bill, it may surprise the Leader of the Opposition to know that when I met with the likes of the Master Builders Association, Clubs Queensland, CCIQ and the Local Government Association they were actually quite supportive of the bill and our amendments. A letter, dated 24 May, from the CCIQ states— Thank you for the meeting with you and your office and the department. As previously indicated, CCIQ believes transparency and accountability should be at the heart of all industrial organisations. Accordingly, with the above changes we now accept and indeed—

wait for it— support the bill, despite additional compliance it creates for our organisation.

So CCIQ now supports the legislation. I table a copy of that letter. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 24 May 2013, from Mr Stephen Tait, CEO, Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland, to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Hon. Jarrod Bleijie [2847].

An email from Tony Goode of the LGAQ states— Thank you for the opportunity to meet ...

It then states— ... my CEO has authorised that I might now pass on our full support for the directions being considered by JAG to change the Bill.

So the Local Government Association supports the bill. I table a copy of the email. Tabled paper: Email, dated 24 May 2013, from Mr Tony Goode, LGAQ, to Mr Nathan Ruhle titled ‘Discussions—IR Transparency Bill’ [2848].

We then have the Master Builders Association in Queensland saying— Based on the understanding of—

these dot points of the proposed solution— Master Builders Queensland would accept this as a reasonable and workable outcome in all the circumstances.

So, with the amendments, we now have the support of the CCIQ, the Master Builders Association and the Local Government Association. So I think the process by which we introduced the legislation was apt. I said when I introduced it that this was a contentious bill and that we would have a debate in the community about how far the government has taken the clauses—and we have had that debate. We have had a great debate. I encouraged everyone, including the unions, to contact me. I note that Mr John Battams was on the radio attacking me, despite the fact that I had said on the Steve Austin program on that Friday morning that all he had to do was pick up the phone and have a chat to me or come and meet me. I made that offer. That afternoon, incidentally, my office received a letter requesting a meeting. So we had a meeting the following week.

Honourable members opposite asked for Queensland examples. We have talked a lot in this place about the Health Services Union, Craig Thomson and the like, so the opposition members said, ‘Give us examples from Queensland.’ Of course, I am happy to oblige. The Labor Party will not want to be reminded of certain things. I particularly refer to the member for South Brisbane, who we know

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1993

has a very good working relationship with Bill Ludwig—all the dodgy deals and deals with the Greens behind the scenes that were concocted in Peel Street, with Mr Ludwig pulling the strings of the member for South Brisbane when she was deputy state secretary of the Labor Party, Queensland division. Let me use this as a Queensland example.

Ms Trad interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: They do not want to hear the Queensland example, do they? They do not

interject, but at the time they are going to cop it back in terms of something they asked for—I am happy to oblige—they start interjecting because they do not want to hear it. I will table it for the member for South Brisbane. Just in case she does not want to hear it, she can read it. For the benefit of the member I have written on the top of the document ‘Qld example’, because she asked for a Queensland example. I will start with an article by Michael Madigan in the Courier-Mail of 7 September 2011. It states—

One of the most powerful men in Australian politics has used union funds to pay for the cost of a private legal dispute.

Can anyone guess who I am talking about here? Does anyone want to hazard a guess? Mr Dickson: Racing? Mr Berry: Bill? Mr BLEIJIE: It has something to do with racing. Someone said ‘Bill’. The article goes on—

National Australian Workers Union boss Bill Ludwig personally signed two AWU cheques worth almost $45,000 combined for legal expenses relating to his position as a director of Racing Queensland Limited.

Not Racing New South Wales but Racing Queensland! You cannot get a better example than a Queensland example, member for South Brisbane. The article goes on— The revelation will focus further attention on the use of union funds by officials.

Labor remains embroiled in the ongoing controversy involving former head of the Health Services Union, NSW federal Labor MP Craig Thomson, who is alleged to have misused union credit cards.

Mr Ludwig, one of the powerbrokers instrumental in the downfall of Kevin Rudd as prime minister, yesterday said he had done nothing unusual.

I table a copy and point out, for the member for South Brisbane, that that is a Queensland example. Tabled paper: Article from the Courier-Mail, dated 7 September 2011, titled ‘Australian Workers Union funds paid Bill Ludwig’s bills’ [2849].

If the member wants another Queensland example, I am happy to give it to her. Who has heard of the Cooke inquiry? The Cooke inquiry was set up by former Premier Mike Ahern in 1989 when he appointed Marshall Cooke to inquire into the activities of particular trade unions. The Cooke inquiry found a level of misconduct, financial maladministration and corruption in several unions and recommended reforms. That is a Queensland example. It was a Queensland commission of inquiry. So the Cooke inquiry found corruption in several unions—misappropriation of funds—and we have Bill Ludwig signing the cheques. What did Bill Ludwig say at the time when he was questioned on this? He said, ‘The union members look after union officials.’ That is what he said. Union members—the hardworking, grassroots members—look after the union officials like Bill Ludwig, although I do not think union members who pay their membership fees every week out of their hard-earned pay expect the president of that association in his own private legal dispute to actually sign the cheques.

A government member interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection, but we have a clear example. That is why we have to look

at this. If the member for South Brisbane wants another Queensland example, I am more than happy to oblige. She asked for examples. The member for Rockhampton came in here with one of those speeches written by one of the overresourced opposition’s 22 staff members and did not know what he was talking about and said, ‘Show us the Queensland examples. Show us! You’ve only mentioned federal examples.’ As I said, I hope the member for Rockhampton has learnt something tonight about unions in Queensland—I have given those two examples—and if he has not let me refer to a more recent article, shall I? This is an article by Stephen Scott, national political correspondent, in the Courier-Mail on 23 April 2013. It is only a couple of months old and tells about a former union leader who quit over factions. The article states— ONE of Queensland’s former union powerbrokers has quit the Labor party after 36 years, warning it has ‘lost the plot’ and is being ruined by factional power struggles.

1994 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

The member, Mr Dave Harrison, said— Frankly, reality says that the trade unions cannot continue to have the influence in a broader-based party that they have enjoyed for the last hundred years.

Mr Harrison said an AMWU official tried to convince him to renew his party membership—

wait for it— but the only reason offered was so he could vote in internal party ballots.

Mr Stevens: Branch stacking. Mr BLEIJIE: That is it. So the only reason they wanted this former trade union official—former

member of the Labor Party—to be involved in the Labor Party was to vote in internal party ballots. The article continues— ‘Is that what it’s all about? Getting the numbers?’ he said. ‘That just speaks volumes for where the party has lost the plot.’

Under the leadership of the opposition leader, this member—Dave Harrison, who was a lifetime member of the Labor Party—quit the party.

Mr Johnson interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: Absolutely. I take the interjection from the member for Gregory, who said that that

is why there are only seven opposite. Just as former Labor heavyweights in the unions such as Mr Dave Harrison have said it has lost the plot, so did Queenslanders. In March 2012 the Queensland community said the Labor Party had completely lost the plot. I hope the member for Rockhampton and the member for South Brisbane have learnt something, particularly with respect to unions in Queensland.

If the seven opposite want another little example, can I give them this: members opposite talked about the issue of the definition of ‘worker’. Despite the fact I have tabled copies of all of the correspondence where people and industry support the definition of ‘worker’ to try to help businesspeople—to help support small to medium business people such as people building homes in our electorates with the Great Start building grant of $14,000 in order to help them clarify what is a worker on their site—we also had a meeting with the union about this matter. During that meeting the union did not raise too many objections to it, so my department wrote back—and I will table a copy—stating— Following from the discussion of the proposed amendment to align the definition of ‘worker’, I will be briefing the Attorney-General on the stakeholder feedback with respect to the proposed amendment. Can you please confirm your advice earlier this morning that you have no objection to the amendment being proposed?

The union representative—a Mr Ron Monaghan—wrote back— I think our position that, whilst we would have preferred the amendment to not go ahead, we accept that the definition of worker being brought into line with the ATO definition will have some effect on who is classified as a worker but should not lead to a huge change in relation to the number of people being covered by the WorkCover scheme.

So the union does not even particularly have a problem with the definition of worker, and nor does the HIA and the business community. The only people who seem to have a problem with the definition of ‘worker’ is the Labor Party.

I have concentrated in the last few minutes on the unions because those opposite wanted Queensland examples, which I have given them. But make no mistake: this is also industrial organisations’ employer groups. It was quite deliberate when we put this bill into the parliament that it was going to apply to industrial organisations. As one member in this House raised the issue of the association that he is involved in, they will be subject to all of these. With regard to gifts received by that organisation, there will be a register. It will be registered gifts if there are conflicts of interest in that association. There will be disclosure of those conflicts of interest and a register kept. There will be interests in terms of the elected officials of that organisation. For any employer or employee groups, there will be registers kept in terms of their assets and their liabilities. They will not be made publicly available, but if there is ever a complaint raised about any of these particular groups then the industrial inspectorate will have the power to be able to investigate those matters.

One of the fundamental things we have done in this legislation is of course in relation to penalties. At the moment under the Corporations Act there are high penalties, but Queensland has not had penalties applicable to the particular crime. We are increasing those penalties from $20,000 to upwards of $340,000. That is going to apply to unions. It is going to apply to employer

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1995

organisations as well. That is about making sure that there is some integrity and accountability in these organisations, just as their members expect there to be. The other thing with respect to the $10,000 and political objects campaign fund is that we will not be changing the threshold. It will stay at $10,000. However, what I have done in all sincerity is taken away the ECQ running the ballot. I have also taken away that it has to be 50 per cent plus one of the ballots being returned. It is a simple majority now of the members who are balloted. If an organisation, including an employer organisation, wishes to conduct a political objects fund or do the necessary things that are set out in the legislation, they will now be subject to this. If it is over $10,000, they will have to ballot their members. They will have the freedom to choose how they in fact ballot their members. They may do it by email. They may employ someone to do it. It will not be the ECQ and we have got rid of that cost for both the unions and the employer associations.

The other thing is that if the unions or any group fear that they are not going to get their campaigns perhaps they really should look at running them. If the majority of their members do not support the types of campaigns that the employer or employee associations are running, then really the leadership team has to think about why they are in fact going to run the campaign or whether they should be running the campaign. They will not be able to run the campaign if the grassroots members vote against that particular campaign. We have talked about democracy. What could be more democratic than giving the person who actually pays the union membership fees the ability to know where that money goes and to vote where their money is spent? We know that employer organisations but more particularly the unions have got more involved in the political process over the years. Gone are the days when they essentially marched on the street. Many of their organisations and employee associations run quite untruthful advertising at the drop of a hat and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars.

If those opposite want another Queensland example in my last two minutes before the end of the debate, let us talk about a few weeks ago when the United union spent $100,000—the member for Broadwater raised this issue—of union funds which were then questioned by a director of that particular union as to who authorised the expenditure. That was on push polling in Queensland. So you even have directors of unions coming out asking who authorised the money and how it was spent thinking that it was a complete waste of money.

If you have the directors of the unions coming out, then I seriously question what the union members paying the bill would think about that type of expenditure. So this government will not shy away from the fact that, when we introduce hard legislation, we will negotiate in all sincerity with sensible, grown-up people. We will have the debate in the committee process. We will have round tables afterwards. I congratulate the Master Builders, Clubs Queensland, the CCIQ and the Local Government Association because they negotiated as grown-ups. I think what we have achieved at the end the day is still the fundamentals of the integrity of the legislation and the registers and so forth but we have alleviated some of the regulatory burden that it would have placed on some of those organisations. At the end of the day, when we introduce particularly the credit card issue, we have to make sure at the forefront of our mind that the union members, the grassroots members, are protected and this is exactly what we are doing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Under the provisions of the resolution agreed to by the House and the time limit for the second reading having expired, the question is—

That the bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES, 72—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Cunningham, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens

NOES, 13—Byrne, Douglas, Hopper, Judge, Katter, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott

Resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

1996 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

Consideration in Detail Cause 1, as read, agreed to. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The consideration of clause 2 is postponed until after the clauses and

amendments have been considered. Clause 3, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr BLEIJIE (9.38 pm): I seek leave to move an amendment outside of the long title of the bill. Leave granted. I move the following amendment—

2 After clause 3 Page 10, after line 13— insert— 3A Amendment of s 8 (Provisions about appointments and procedures)

Section 8(a), ‘commissioners’— omit, insert—

industrial commissioners

I now table the explanatory notes to all the 110 amendments. Tabled paper: Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes to Hon. Jarrod Bleijie’s amendments [2850].

Amendment agreed to. Clause 4— Ms PALASZCZUK (9.38 pm): The Attorney-General and this government are obsessed with

attacking the right of workers to join a union and promote their collective interests. The Attorney-General is ignoring the history in this area—

Mr Seeney: Speak to the clause. Ms PALASZCZUK: I am. Mr Seeney: It’s not the second reading debate. Speak to the clause. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the call. Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Attorney-General is

ignoring the history in this area, where encouragement clauses exist to ensure that the employees are not subject to intimidation—overt or subtle—in relation to joining a union and participating in union activity.

The legislation ignores the reality that encouragement clauses reflect the practical and very real power imbalance that can occur in the workplace. The existing protections are balanced and fair and should not be weakened, let alone removed by this Attorney-General.

Mr Seeney interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I find that offensive and I ask the minister to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier has been asked to withdraw his comments. It

would help the House tonight if he would agree. Mr SEENEY: I withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, can I just note that this does not seem to be

very close to clause 4A, which deals with the Full Bench and enforcing commissioners’ orders. Ms PALASZCZUK: My understanding is that clause 4 was in relation to encouragement

clauses. Mr Seeney: You’re reading the wrong pages. Ms PALASZCZUK: There were some 78 pages of amendments that were handed down this

afternoon. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, my apologies. The Leader of the Opposition

is speaking to the clause. Please, the Leader of the Opposition may continue.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1997

Ms PALASZCZUK: I know some people are having a late night, but we respect each other’s right to stand in this House and to examine these bills in detail, as the Deputy Premier knows full well from when he was opposition leader many, many years ago.

Mr STEVENS: I rise to a point of order. That has nothing to do with the clause. Ms PALASZCZUK: We will be opposing this clause. Mr BLEIJIE: The government is not the recruitment agent of unions in Queensland. If the

unions want to build their membership base then they fight for their own members. The people’s government of Queensland is not the recruitment agent for the unions.

Division: Question put—That clause 4, as read, stand part of the bill. In division— Mrs Miller interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Bundamba, I remind you that you are already on a

253A warning. I just called order. You are at the end of your tether already. Mr Bleijie interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Attorney-General, it will help if the crossfire ceases from the

government side as well. AYES, 72—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Cunningham, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens

NOES, 13—Byrne, Douglas, Hopper, Judge, Katter, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott

Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr BLEIJIE (9.48 pm): I seek leave to move an amendment outside the long title of the bill. Leave granted. Mr BLEIJIE: I move the following amendment—

3 After clause 4 Page 10, after line 16— insert— 4A Amendment of s 233 (Enforcing commission’s orders)

Section 233(8), definition full bench— omit, insert—

full bench means the full bench constituted by 3 or more members, 1 of whom must be the president, vice-president or a deputy president (court).

4B Amendment of ch 8, pt 1, div 2, hdg (President) Chapter 8, part 1, division 2, heading, ‘President’— omit, insert—

Composition of the court 4C Insertion of new ss 242C–242G

Chapter 8, part 1, division 2— insert— 242C Members of the court

The members of the court are— (a) the president; and (b) the vice-president; and (c) the deputy presidents (court).

242D Appointment of members on full-time or part-time basis (1) This section applies to a person appointed to 1 of the following offices (each a relevant

office)— (a) if the person is a non-judicial appointee—the office of the president; (b) the office of the vice-president; (c) the office of a deputy president (court).

1998 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

(2) A person appointed to a relevant office is on a full-time basis unless the appointment is stated, in the instrument of appointment, to be on a part-time basis.

(3) However, a person appointed to a relevant office on a full-time basis may, by written agreement between the Minister and the person, perform the functions of the office to which the person has been appointed on a part-time basis.

(4) An appointment or agreement for a person to perform the functions of a relevant office on a part-time basis must state the percentage of the office the person is to perform.

(5) A person appointed on a part-time basis may, by written agreement with the Minister, perform the functions of the office to which the person has been appointed on a full-time basis.

(6) A person appointed to a relevant office on a part-time basis may hold another office, perform other duties or engage in employment if— (a) the Minister is satisfied that holding the other office, performing the other duties

or engaging in the employment is compatible with, and is not a conflict of interest issue for, the relevant office; and

(b) the Minister has given written approval for the person to hold the other office, perform the other duties or engage in the employment.

242E Functions of the president (1) The president has the functions conferred on the president under this Act. (2) The functions of the president include preparing, and giving the Minister, the annual

report under section 252. (3) The president has the power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for

the performance of the president’s functions. (4) The president may delegate a function of the president to the vice-president.

242F Functions of the vice-president (1) The vice-president of the court has the functions conferred on the vice-president under

this Act or another Act. (2) The vice-president is subject to the direction of the president in performing the vice-

president’s functions, other than the function mentioned in section 242G. (3) The vice-president has the power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done

for the performance of the vice-president’s functions. (4) The vice-president may delegate a function of the vice-president to a deputy president

(court). 242G Administration of the court

(1) The vice-president is responsible for managing the administration of the business of— (a) the court; and (b) to the extent it operates as the registry for the court—the registry.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the vice-president is responsible for deciding the member who is to constitute the court for a proceeding.

4D Amendment of s 243 (President of the court) Section 243, heading— omit, insert— 243 Appointment of president

4E Amendment of s 246 (Acting president of the court) (1) Section 246, heading, ‘of the court’— omit. (2) Section 246(2)(b), after ‘office,’— omit, insert—

a deputy president (court). 4F Insertion of new ss 246A–246E

Chapter 8, part 1, division 2— insert— 246A Appointment of vice-president

(1) The Governor in Council may, by commission, appoint a person as the vice-president of the court.

(2) The person must— (a) be a lawyer of at least 5 years standing; and (b) have either of the following—

(i) high level experience in business or industry or in a relevant entity; (ii) suitable experience, qualification and standing in the community to be

appointed as the vice-president of the court.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1999

(3) The person can not be— (a) a member of the Executive Council or Legislative Assembly; or (b) a director of a corporation engaged in a calling; or (c) an auditor of a corporation engaged in a calling or of a business; or (d) a person who participates in any capacity in the management of—

(i) a corporation engaged in a calling; or (ii) a business.

(4) In this section— relevant entity means any of the following— (a) an organisation or employer association or a State peak council; (b) a department of government; (c) an agency, authority, commission, corporation, instrumentality, office or other

entity, established under an Act or under State authorisation for a public or State purpose.

246B When vice-president holds office (1) The vice-president of the court holds office until the vice-president—

(a) turns 70; or (b) resigns by signed notice given to the Governor; or (c) becomes a member of the Executive Council or Legislative Assembly; or (d) does any of the following without the prior written consent of the Minister—

(i) acts as a director of a corporation engaged in a calling; (ii) acts as auditor of a corporation engaged in a calling or of a business; (iii) participates in any capacity in the management of a corporation

engaged in a calling or of a business; or (e) is removed from office under section 246E.

(2) If the vice-president stops holding the office because of subsection (1)(a) or (b) while hearing a matter, the Governor in Council may, without reappointing the person as the vice-president of the court, continue the person in the office for the time necessary to enable the hearing of the matter to be completed.

(3) A person continued in office under subsection (2) may exercise the jurisdiction and powers of the court necessary or convenient for the hearing to be completed.

246C Deputy presidents (court) (1) The Governor in Council may, by commission, appoint a person as a deputy president

(court) of the court. (2) The person must—

(a) be a lawyer of at least 5 years standing; and (b) have either of the following—

(i) high level experience in business or industry or in a relevant entity; (ii) suitable experience, qualification and standing in the community to be

appointed as a deputy president (court). (3) The person can not be—

(a) a member of the Executive Council or Legislative Assembly; or (b) a director of a corporation engaged in a calling; or (c) an auditor of a corporation engaged in a calling or of a business; or (d) a person who participates in any capacity in the management of—

(i) a corporation engaged in a calling; or (ii) a business.

(4) In this section— relevant entity see section 246A(4).

246D When deputy president (court) holds office (1) A deputy president (court) holds office until the deputy president (court)—

(a) turns 70; or (b) resigns by signed notice given to the Governor; or (c) becomes a member of the Executive Council or Legislative Assembly; or (d) does any of the following without the prior written consent of the Minister—

2000 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

(i) acts as a director of a corporation engaged in a calling; (ii) acts as auditor of a corporation engaged in a calling or of a business; (iii) participates in any capacity in the management of a corporation

engaged in a calling or of a business; (e) is removed from office under section 246E.

(2) If a deputy president (court) stops holding the office because of subsection (1)(a) or (b) while hearing a matter, the Governor in Council may, without reappointing the person as a deputy president (court), continue the person in the office for the time necessary to enable the hearing of the matter to be completed.

(3) A person continued in office under subsection (2) may exercise the jurisdiction and powers of the court necessary or convenient for the hearing to be completed.

246E Removal of vice-president or deputy president (court) from office The Governor may remove the vice-president or a deputy president (court) from office, on an address of the Legislative Assembly, for—

(a) mental or physical incapacity; or (b) misbehaviour.

4G Replacement of s 247 (Constitution of court) Section 247— omit, insert— 247 Constitution

The court is constituted by the president, the vice-president or a deputy president (court) sitting alone.

4H Amendment of s 248 (Court’s jurisdiction) Section 248(1)(e), ‘exercise the’— omit, insert—

if the court is constituted by the president, exercise the 4I Amendment of s 256 (Composition)

Section 256(1) and (2)— omit, insert—

(1) The commission consists of the following members (each a commissioner)— (a) the president; (b) the vice-president; (c) a person holding office as a deputy president; (d) a person holding office as an industrial commissioner.

(2) The full bench of the commission (the full bench) is constituted by— (a) for chapter 12, part 16 or for the hearing of an appeal other than an appeal

mentioned in paragraph (b)—3 or more commissioners, 1 of whom must be the president; or

(b) for the hearing of an appeal from a decision of the commission constituted by the president sitting alone—3 or more other commissioners, 1 of whom must be the vice-president or a deputy president; or

(c) otherwise—3 or more commissioners. 4J Replacement of ss 257 and 258

Sections 257 and 258— omit, insert— 257 President of the commission

(1) The president of the court is also the president of the commission. (2) The president’s service as the president of the commission does not entitle the

president to any salary or allowance in addition to the salary or allowance received as the holder of the office of the president of the court.

258 Vice-president of the commission (1) The vice-president of the court is also the vice-president of the commission. (2) The vice-president’s service as the vice-president of the commission does not entitle

the vice-president to any salary or allowance in addition to the salary or allowance received as the holder of the office of the vice-president of the court.

258AA Deputy presidents (court) also deputy presidents of the commission (1) A deputy president (court) is also a deputy president of the commission.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2001

(2) The service of a deputy president (court) as a deputy president of the commission does not entitle the deputy president (court) to any salary or allowance in addition to the salary or allowance received as the holder of the office of a deputy president (court).

4K Amendment of s 258A (Deputy presidents of the commission) (1) Section 258A, heading, ‘Deputy’—

omit, insert— Appointment of other deputy (2) Section 258A(1), ‘a commissioner’—

omit, insert— an industrial commissioner

4L Amendment of s 259 (Commissioners) (1) Section 259, heading— omit, insert— 259 Industrial commissioners (2) Section 259, ‘a commissioner’— omit, insert—

an industrial commissioner (3) Section 259(5), ‘the commissioner’— omit, insert—

the industrial commissioner 4M Amendment of s 259A (Commissioner may be appointed ombudsman)

(1) Section 259A, heading, ‘Commissioner’— omit, insert—

Particular commissioners (2) Section 259A(1), after ‘A commissioner’— insert—

, other than the president, 4N Amendment of s 260 (When commissioner holds office)

(1) Section 260, heading, after ‘When’— insert—

deputy president or industrial (2) Section 260(1)— omit, insert—

(1) A deputy president appointed under section 258A or an industrial commissioner (each a relevant commissioner) holds office until— (a) the relevant commissioner turns 70; or (b) the relevant commissioner resigns by signed notice given to the Governor; or (c) the relevant commissioner becomes a member of the Executive Council or the

Legislative Assembly; or (d) the relevant commissioner becomes a person mentioned in section 262(b),

other than with the Minister’s written approval; or (e) the relevant commissioner is removed from office under section 263.

(3) Section 260(2), ‘commissioner’— omit, insert—

relevant commissioner (4) Section 260(2), ‘subsection (1)(b) or (c)’— omit, insert—

subsection (1)(a) or (b) 4O Replacement of s 261 (Acting vice-president, deputy president or other commissioner)

Section 261— omit, insert— 261 Acting deputy president or industrial commissioner

(1) This section applies if a deputy president appointed under section 258A or an industrial commissioner temporarily can not perform the functions of office.

(2) The Governor in Council may, by gazette notice, appoint a person to act as the deputy president or industrial commissioner.

2002 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

4P Amendment of s 262 (Restrictions on appointment) Section 262, ‘commissioners’— omit, insert—

a deputy president under section 258A or an industrial commissioner 4Q Amendment of s 263 (Removal of commissioners from office)

(1) Section 263, heading, ‘commissioners’— omit, insert—

deputy president or industrial commissioner (2) Section 263, ‘a commissioner’— omit, insert—

a deputy president appointed under section 258A or an industrial commissioner 4R Amendment of s 264 (Administrative responsibilities for the commission and registry)

(1) Section 264(4A)(b), ‘commissioners’— omit, insert—

industrial commissioners (2) Section 264(5), ‘A commissioner’— omit, insert—

An industrial commissioner 4S Amendment of s 281 (Reference to full bench)

Section 281(2), after ‘A commissioner’— insert—

, other than the president, 4T Amendment of s 299 (Functions and powers of registrar)

Section 299(3)(a) and (b)— omit, insert—

(a) for the court, other than in relation to a function mentioned in section 242G (court administration)—the president; and

(b) for court administration—the vice-president; and (c) for the commission—the vice-president.

4U Amendment of s 306 (Appointment of Commonwealth official as commissioner) (1) Section 306, heading, ‘commissioner’— omit, insert—

deputy president or industrial commissioner (2) Section 306(1), ‘a commissioner (dual commissioner)’— omit, insert—

a deputy president or an industrial commissioner (each a dual commissioner) (3) Section 306(2), ‘Section 263’— omit, insert—

Sections 246E and 263 (4) Section 306(4) and (5), ‘a commissioner’— omit, insert—

a deputy president or an industrial commissioner 4V Amendment of s 307 (Role of dual commissioner)

Section 307, ‘a commissioner’— omit, insert—

a deputy president or an industrial commissioner 4W Amendment of s 308 (Reference of matter to a Commonwealth official)

Section 308(3)(a), ‘a commissioner’— omit, insert—

an industrial commissioner 4X Amendment of s 309 (Conferences with industrial authorities)

Section 309— insert—

(3) In this section— commissioner does not include the president.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2003

4Y Amendment of s 310 (Joint sessions with industrial authorities) Section 310— insert—

(3) In this section— commissioner does not include the president.

4Z Amendment of s 318 (Service of process) (1) Section 318(1)(a), after ‘the president’— insert—

, the vice-president, a deputy president (court) (2) Section 318(2), ‘president’— omit, insert—

court

Amendment No. 3 deals with substantive and consequential amendments to the constitution of the Industrial Court of Queensland and the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The substantive amendments are for the Industrial Court the appointment of presidential members of the QIRC—vice-president and deputy presidents—to the Industrial Court. Under this proposal the workload of the Industrial Court and the commission can be spread across all presidential members, thereby improving the efficiency of the tribunal through better use of existing membership. Appointment to the Industrial Court will be subject to those members possessing appropriate legal qualifications and under legislation a lawyer of five-years standing, for the commission—that is, the president—is now also the commissioner of the QIRC.

Amendment agreed to. Clause 5— Ms PALASZCZUK (9.49 pm): As stated in the previous clause, we oppose any moves to

remove the existing encouragement clauses that provide a fair and balanced approach. The opposition will be opposing this clause.

Division: Question put—That clause 5, as read, stand part of the bill. AYES, 72—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Cunningham, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens

NOES, 13—Byrne, Douglas, Hopper, Judge, Katter, Knuth, Miller, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Pitt, Scott

Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr BLEIJIE (9.55 pm): I seek leave to move an amendment outside the long title of the bill. Leave granted. Mr BLEIJIE: I move the following amendment—

4 After clause 5 Page 10, after line 19— insert— 5A Amendment of s 323 (Adjournment by registrar)

Section 323, ‘the president or a commissioner’— omit, insert—

a member of the commission 5B Amendment of s 326 (Interlocutory proceedings)

Section 326, from ‘the president’, first mention, to ‘commission or registrar’, second mention— omit, insert—

the court, commission or registrar may make orders or give directions the court, commission or registrar

2004 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

5C Amendment of s 337 (Protections and immunities) Section 337(1) and (2), ‘The president, the commission’— omit, insert—

A member of the court, a member of the commission 5D Insertion of new s 337A

Chapter 8, part 6, division 7— insert—

337A Rules committee (1) The president must establish a rules committee consisting of the following members—

(a) the president; (b) the vice-president; (c) each deputy president.

(2) The president is the chairperson of the rules committee. (3) The functions of the rules committee include—

(a) developing and reviewing the rules under this Act; and (b) approving forms under section 708; and (c) the other functions conferred on the rules committee under this Act.

(4) The rules committee may conduct its business and proceedings at meetings in the way it decides.

(5) However— (a) the chairperson has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of

votes, a casting vote; and (b) the rules committee must consult with—

(i) for a rule relating to the Industrial Magistrates Court—the Chief Magistrate; or

(ii) for a rule relating to the registry—the registrar. 5E Amendment of s 338 (Rules)

(1) Section 338(2), ‘president’— omit, insert— rules committee

(2) Section 338(3)— omit.

(3) Section 338(4) and (5)— renumber as section 338(3) and (4).

5F Amendment of s 339 (Directions about practice) Section 339(1), ‘the president, a commissioner’— omit, insert—

a member of the court, a member of the commission 5G Amendment of s 340 (Appeal from court or full bench)

(1) Section 340, heading, ‘or full bench’— omit. (2) Section 340(2), (3) and (3A)— omit. (3) Section 340(4)(d), ‘or full bench’— omit.

5H Amendment of s 341 (Appeal from commission, magistrate or registrar) Section 341(1), from ‘section 149’ to ‘president’— omit, insert—

or a decision under section 273A

Amendment No. 4 inserts, after clause 5, new amending clauses. These are about making rules for the purposes of making rules and forms for the various industrial tribunals.

Amendment agreed to. Clause 6—

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2005

Ms PALASZCZUK (9.55 pm): This clause is the government’s attempt to threaten and pressure union representatives. Not satisfied by imposing massive red tape on core worker industrial organisations, now the government wants to tie up the daily work of industrial organisation officers through the investigations and complaints process. The opposition will not be supporting this clause.

Mr BLEIJIE: If there is a complaint being made, someone has to investigate it. There is no tooth fairy. The inspectorate fairy does not come down and deal with things. If there is a legitimate complaint, a person—a physical human being—has to conduct the investigation. That is why the inspectorate is there. It will conduct the investigation. I have full confidence in the inspectorate to conduct such investigations if there are legitimate concerns, such as—

Mr Stevens: Craig Thomson. Mr BLEIJIE:—and I take the interjection from the Leader of the House—with Craig Thomson.

What if we entrusted the tooth fairy to investigate Craig Thomson? This is about having knowledgeable people who know what they are doing and can make those sorts of inquiries if legitimate complaints are being made. If there are legitimate complaints made after these integrity and accountability measures go through, I would encourage all Queenslanders, if they have issues with their employee or employer associations, to make the appropriate complaints.

Mr KNUTH: On that question, I ask about the inspectorate. Mostly the inspectorate is employed by the company and, obviously, is receiving a pay packet week in and week out. Let us say there was a cave-in at a mine site and the inspectorate did not ensure that the workers would be totally secure. Isn’t it right and proper to look at the union as a delegate to represent those employees with regard to a cave-in that might be covered up because of concerns that there might be repercussions as a result of having the inspectorate there as a paid employee? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to ensure that you have a union delegate inspecting the cave-in, rather than an employee of the company?

Mr BLEIJIE: The member is highlighting that he knows nothing of what we are talking about tonight. Mine safety falls under the portfolio of my honourable colleague the Minister for Mines, Minister Cripps. They have their own mine safety officers who investigate such things. It has nothing to do with this legislation. Mining companies are corporations. That is not even covered by this legislation. I am trying to assist the member by answering with some form of relevance, but I am struggling because essentially none of it was relevant. The member talks about mining companies, but they are not subject to this legislation because they are not industrial organisations. Mining safety comes under the portfolio of Minister Cripps. I fail to understand how we can assist the member any further.

Division: Question put—That clause 6, as read, stand part of the bill.

AYES, 72—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Cunningham, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens

NOES, 13—Byrne, Douglas, Hopper, Judge, Katter, Knuth, Miller, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Pitt, Scott

Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Clause 7— Ms PALASZCZUK (10.04 pm): This clause again deals with the right of entry. The opposition

opposes the moves of this government to weaken the right-of-entry provisions for industrial officers. The government’s whole approach in this area is to weaken what are recognised as fundamental elements of freedom of association. It has been recognised historically in Australia, in Queensland and indeed around the world that a fundamental right for workers is the right to organise. At the core of the important work unions do is to meet with workers, discuss workplace issues and join new or transferred staff members. The government is striving to build a barrier between union representatives having contact with their members and with workers for whom their organisation has coverage.

2006 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the call. Ms PALASZCZUK: Mr Deputy Speaker— Mr Newman interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you, Premier. Putting up further hurdles to right to entry, including

this clause— Mr Seeney interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you, Deputy Premier. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There are too many interjections. Ms PALASZCZUK: You can continue to be rude as long as you like and I will stand here

because I have a right to speak in this debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will speak through the chair. Government members interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: I have made it very clear. It is to do with the right of entry. It is a disgrace

what you are trying to do and we will oppose this. Mr BLEIJIE: Clause 7 is the provision that discourages unions from entering a workplace by

punishing disruptive tactics which do not follow the new right-of-entry process requirements. Here’s a newsflash: the new provision that I am inserting in clause 7 tonight is, in fact, a copy of a provision from the Fair Work Act instigated by the Labor Party at a federal level. On work sites they have right-of-entry provisions. They have to give notice and so forth.

A government member: It’s harmonisation. Mr BLEIJIE: I do not take that interjection. No, it is not harmonisation. It is not a national law. I

totally object to that interjection. This is substantially similar to the national law that the Labor Party inserted.

I just make the point, though, that one would think that if it were so draconian and bad that the federal Labor Party would have abolished it, but it has not. If there is good policy we are happy to copy good policy. That particular provision is good policy. What we are trying to do is make sure that the militant behaviour is punishable. That is what we are trying to outlaw from these sites.

Mr KNUTH: These provisions about right of entry perturb me. For example, we might have a railway employee skittled on a railway track. That has happened in the past. Unions are there to assess the situation and ensure that no other railway employee gets skittled on that track. We do know how governments can be bullying to their staff—whether it is health workers or teachers, you name it. Obviously we trust that the government and the department will resolve serious health and safety risks. But we do have rights of entry for unions to ensure that those health and safety risks are addressed and there is not a fear of death. There is no leeway for the unions in terms of right of entry in the provision. I ask the minister to respond to this. Hopefully he can support those people who will be put in those positions and situations.

Mr BLEIJIE: Having been given the opportunity to respond, I will. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection of the Deputy Premier where he says that the member for

Dalrymple would make a better opposition leader. I object to that interjection because the member for Dalrymple is actually not talking about anything relevant to the bill again. He has had two tries.

Mr Seeney: He is not reading the union pamphlet. Mr BLEIJIE: No, he is not reading his preselection form. He is talking about workplace health

and safety laws again. This is not a workplace health and safety bill. This is an industrial relations bill. There is a difference. Workplace health and safety is about ensuring the safety of workers on site. Industrial relations laws are completely different. In fact, it is completely different legislation although I am responsible for both. I would encourage the member to perhaps get a copy of the bill and read the objectives and see what it relates to. I am trying to assist the member but he seems a little confused. If I can assist him any further please keep getting up. I am happy to assist him further if he needs some assistance with it.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2007

Division: Question put—That clause 7, as read, stand part of the bill. AYES, 71—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens

NOES, 13—Byrne, Douglas, Hopper, Judge, Katter, Knuth, Miller, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Pitt, Scott

Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 7, as read, agreed to. Clauses 8 and 9, as read, agreed to. Clause 10— Division: Question put—That clause 10, as read, stand part of the bill. In division— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! There is too much noise. Mr Bleijie interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Attorney-General, I will start naming people. Ms Trad interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for South Brisbane. I will start warning people. Mr Bleijie interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Attorney-General.

AYES, 72—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Cunningham, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens

NOES, 13—Byrne, Douglas, Hopper, Judge, Katter, Knuth, Miller, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Pitt, Scott

Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 10, as read, agreed to. Clause 11— Mr BLEIJIE (10.22 pm): I move the following amendments—

5 Clause 11 (Amendment of s 372 (Right of entry—authorised industrial officer)) Page 13, lines 15 and 16— omit, insert—

(a) first notify each of the following persons of the officer’s presence— (i) the employer or the employer’s representative; (ii) if the place is not occupied by the employer—the occupier of the place; and

6 Clause 11 (Amendment of s 372 (Right of entry—authorised industrial officer)) Page 13, line 19, ‘or representative’— omit, insert—

, representative or occupier 7 Clause 11 (Amendment of s 372 (Right of entry—authorised industrial officer))

Page 13, lines 20 to 23— omit, insert—

(2) Section 372(3)— omit, insert— (3) If an authorised industrial officer’s entry to a place is authorised under subsection (1)

and the officer complies with subsection (2)— (a) if the place is occupied by the employer—the employer must not refuse the

officer entry to the place; or (b) if the place is not occupied by the employer and the occupier has given the

consent mentioned in section 372B(3)(b)—the occupier of the place must not refuse the officer entry to the place.

Maximum penalty—27 penalty units.

2008 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

Amendments agreed to. Clause 11, as amended, agreed to. Clause 12— Mr BLEIJIE (10.23 pm): I move the following amendment—

8 Clause 12 (Insertion of new ss 372A and 372B)

Page 14, line 18—

omit, insert—

(d) the powers the officer proposes to exercise under section 373, including, if the officer intends to inspect records, the records to be inspected;

Amendment agreed to. Clause 12, as amended, agreed to. Clause 13— Division: Question put—That clause 13, as read, stand part of the bill. In division— Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! There is too much noise in the House. Ms Palaszczuk interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition. I was on my feet. The

next time there will be no further warnings.

AYES, 72—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Cunningham, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens

NOES, 13—Byrne, Douglas, Hopper, Judge, Katter, Knuth, Miller, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Pitt, Scott

Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 13, as read, agreed to. Clause 14— Mr BLEIJIE (10.30 pm): I move the following amendment—

9 Clause 14 (Insertion of new s 390A)

Page 17, after line 20—

insert—

continuing health employee means a health employee who, immediately after ceasing to be a health employee, begins new employment, or resumes previous employment, as a health employee, on any basis. final payment— 1 Generally, a health employee’s final payment is the total amount owing to the

employee by the health employer on the day the employee ceases to be a health employee, including unpaid wages, or any other amount payable in relation to employment, to which the employee is entitled.

2 However, the final payment for a continuing health employee includes only the component of the total amount mentioned in paragraph 1 that is the amount the employee is entitled to be paid for untaken leave.

This is a technical amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 14, as amended, agreed to. Clause 15—

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2009

Ms PALASZCZUK (10.31 pm): Clause 15 deals with the recovering of wages without consent. This clause removes the requirement for written consent from employers before they can make deductions from their pay. We will be opposing this clause.

Division: Question put—That clause 15, as read, stand part of the bill. AYES, 72—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Cunningham, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens

NOES, 13—Byrne, Douglas, Hopper, Judge, Katter, Knuth, Miller, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Pitt, Scott

Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 15, as read, agreed to. Clause 16— Mr BLEIJIE (10.37 pm): I might speak for a minute to allow the opposition leader to catch up

on where we are at. We are at clause 16 and I am about to move amendments 10 and 11. I move the following amendments— 10 Clause 16 (Amendment of s 396A (Recovery of health employment overpayments))

Page 18, lines 19 to 32— omit, insert—

(2) Section 396A(5)— omit, insert— (5) A deduction can not be made in an amount that would result in the amount that is paid

to a health employee on any single occasion, disregarding any other deductions for any other purpose, being less than the amount prescribed under a regulation. Examples of other deductions—

an income tax deduction, a superannuation contribution paid by the employee, a deduction made with the consent of the employee

11 Clause 16 (Amendment of s 396A (Recovery of health employment overpayments)) Page 19, lines 5 and 6— omit.

These are technical amendments. I point out that in relation to the previous division the opposition leader seemed to give up on providing any explanation as to why they were dividing because we have gone a bit fast for them this evening and they cannot keep up. Essentially, what they just divided on was a provision that actually helped the employee. In the case of the Queensland Health employee who had acknowledged an overpayment and works with the department, under this clause we are giving them written consent to be able to pay it back. This actually makes it more efficient so we can assist the employee. Tonight the Labor Party aspires to be the workers party, yet it just voted against that provision.

As I said earlier in the debate, Dave Harrison was quoted in the Courier-Mail on 14 May this year as saying that the Labor Party has lost the plot. I think we can understand why. It has completely lost the plot.

Ms Trad interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: The member for South Brisbane lost the plot well before coming to this

parliament. The member for South Brisbane fully appreciates that this will probably be the first and last time she serves in this place because we know Cameron Dick is coming back. The member for South Brisbane has quietened down a lot in this place over the last few weeks. I think the party hierarchy, the union, the Ludwigs have told her, ‘You have to settle down a little bit because Cameron Dick will not even accept your far lefty radical policies.’ Cameron Dick is a little more conservative than the member for South Brisbane.

Mr Grimwade interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: We know the Bill Ludwigs of the world are in charge; their preselections depend

on it. I think they should be absolutely ashamed of the way they have carried themselves through this consideration in detail debate in not knowing clause from clause, what they are debating, what they are dividing on and not even speaking or telling the people of Queensland why they are dividing. They should know better. They have been in this place many times before. They all should be ashamed.

2010 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

Division: Question put—That the amendments be agreed to. AYES, 71—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Cunningham, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens

NOES, 13—Byrne, Douglas, Hopper, Judge, Katter, Knuth, Miller, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Pitt, Scott

Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 16, as amended, agreed to. Clause 17— Mr BLEIJIE (10.46 pm): I move the following amendments—

12 Clause 17 (Amendment of s 396B (Recovery of health employment transition loans)) Page 19, line 9, before ‘Section’— insert—

(1) 13 Clause 17 (Amendment of s 396B (Recovery of health employment transition loans))

Page 19, after line 11— insert—

(2) Section 396B(5)— omit.

These amendments are of a technical nature. Amendments agreed to. Clause 17, as amended, agreed to. Clause 18— Mr BLEIJIE (10.46 pm): I move the following amendment—

14 Clause 18 (Insertion of new ss 396C and 396D) Page 20, lines 15 to 34— omit.

This is another technical amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 18, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 19 and 20, as read, agreed to. Clause 21— Mrs MILLER (10.47 pm): I would like to speak briefly in relation to clause 21. It is absolutely

stunning that this government has the hide to insert ‘Duty of honesty, good faith and proper purpose’. It has been said that these amendments mirror the accountability provisions in the Corporations Law, but you have to compare this provision with section 184, the good-faith provision.

The Corporations Law requires that a person be intentionally dishonest. ‘Intentionally’ is left out of this bill. The Corporations Law also requires recklessness or dishonesty and failing to exercise powers and discharge duties in good faith and for a proper purpose. The ‘and’ is mysteriously deleted from the bill. So, like so much of the Attorney-General’s rhetoric, it is less than complete in the explanation of this amendment.

I will talk briefly about what was said by the member for Toowoomba North today. He said that union bosses take money and do what they like with it. What nonsense—absolute nonsense! The member for Ipswich West is no friend of the worker. In fact, he hates unions. He spoke about the fact that he was against asset sales. Let me tell you that we had Owen Doogan from the RTBU against it; Ron Monaghan and Amanda Richards from the QCU against it; Stephen Smyth from CFMEU Mining against it; ‘Blocker’ of United Voice against it; Peter Simpson of the ETU against it; the CFMEU Construction Division’s Michael Ravbar against it—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bundamba, can you explain how that is relevant to the clause?

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2011

Mrs MILLER: Because they acted in honesty, they acted in good faith and they acted for proper purposes. In fact, Peter Simpson was expelled from the Labor Party for standing up for his union. Rohan Webb from the AMWU also stood up. There were honest, full and frank representations made on behalf of their members.

Let me also talk about the disgraceful performance of the member for Mudgeeraba this evening. She went in and bagged the Nurses Union, bagged Bev Mohle—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bundamba is reminded that she needs to speak to the clause and only the clause.

Mrs MILLER: Yes, I am speaking to the clause, because the member for Mudgeeraba proved that she acted tonight dishonestly, not in good faith and against proper purpose.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Bundamba, you have moved off the clause. Have you finished?

Mrs MILLER: No, I have not. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bundamba, I warned you. Mrs MILLER: Yes, I know. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I warned you in terms of relevance. You moved off the clause again

and so— Mrs MILLER: I take what you are saying. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:—I ask you to take your seat. Mr BLEIJIE: I will be astounded if those opposite vote against this clause, because it is the

replacement of a provision of a duty to act honestly with a duty to act not only honestly but in good faith. It is saying that not only have you got to be honest but you have to act in good faith and for proper purposes. That is actually a higher threshold of integrity and if those opposite oppose it—

Mrs Miller interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: You have had your chance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! The member for Bundamba will cease

interjecting. Mr BLEIJIE: The member for Bundamba has had her chance and she just spoke against

acting in good faith and acting for proper purposes. If it is good enough— An opposition member: Open your ears to what she said. Mr BLEIJIE: I heard exactly what the member for Bundamba said, and let me mention a few

more things about the member for Bundamba. The member for Bundamba cast all sorts of aspersions on the member for Mudgeeraba. She opened that debate; let me finish it with this: Bill Ludwig!

Mrs Miller interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Attorney-General, I would suggest you stay close to the

clause. I have allowed a little bit of latitude because of where the member for Bundamba went with her point, which I called her out of order for and brought her back into line. I just ask that the Attorney stay close to the clause and finish.

Mr BLEIJIE: I may assist, Mr Deputy Speaker, because section 527, which of course we are replacing, talks about proper purpose. I am submitting to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and this House that Bill Ludwig signing a cheque for $45,000 would not be for good purpose and in good faith because he paid it for Racing Queensland. It was his personal legal bill. He said at the time—and again I submit that it is not in good faith and proper purpose that he did this; that is why I am raising it in this debate—that union members should stick up for union officials, which of course he was. In other words, ‘I’ll sign the cheque for $45,000 to cover my own legal expenses,’ relating to a private board that he was engaged in—that is, the Racing Queensland board. The member for Bundamba then talked about the Nurses Union. I would submit to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the duty to act in good faith for the Nurses Union was not there when the Health payroll debacle was happening and it remained silent. It remained silent! It remained absolutely silent to all—

Opposition members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Those on my left! The Attorney-General has the call.

2012 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

Mr BLEIJIE: It remained silent as nurses in this state were not getting paid; as nurses and doctors and allied health professionals were not getting paid. The Labor Party in government took no responsibility because in its world—that is not in reality—it thought it had no obligation. It thought it had no obligation to pay those nurses, and the member for Bundamba squawks and squeals in here defending the Health payroll debacle. I would expect nothing less from a former parliamentary secretary to Gordon Nuttall, I assure you of that. I would expect nothing less from the former parliamentary secretary to a corrupt politician. The Nurses Union remained silent when its members were not getting paid.

Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There are too many interjections. The Attorney-General has

the call. I just remind the Attorney-General to stay close to the clause. Mr BLEIJIE: Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker. When we talk about acting in good faith and

putting in additional thresholds, it is all right for politicians and it is all right for the business community. Why is it not all right for the unions in this state? Why is it not all right for the Nurses Union to act for its members?

Mrs Miller interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I may point out that the member for Bundamba is under a

253A warning if it assists the House to understand her personal, vindictive attacks that she is making, because we know that the member for Bundamba lowers the level of debate in this House—absolutely lowers the level of debate in this House. She cannot hold her tongue. As someone once said, everyone rises to their level of incompetence. The member for Bundamba is a classic example of everyone rising to their incompetence. I submit that the member for Bundamba has not quite reached that yet because her level of incompetence could reach the moon!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney-General will return to the clause. Mr BLEIJIE: I may have gone a little off subject, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Seeney: Clear provocation. Mr BLEIJIE: Learned in law, I take the interjection from my learned friend the Deputy

Premier—the bush lawyer from Callide. I know the provocation it caused me and surely there is a standing order that suggests that there is a defence available for provocation in this House. I make the point: unions and business organisations should always act with good faith and proper purpose and act honestly.

Mrs Miller interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: Member for Bundamba, I will take that interjection and you will regret it. I need not

mention a few of your own: Gordon Nuttall, Merri Rose— Mr Springborg: Keith Wright. Mr BLEIJIE: Keith Wright. Give me some more names. I need not mention your members:

Mike Kaiser, a fraudster, and Jim Elder. The Labor Party— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Attorney-General, will you please resume your seat. I want to

just suggest to both sides of the House that we calm down and we resume the debate and stick to the clauses. I call the Attorney-General.

Mr BLEIJIE: I have finished my contribution to that particular clause. Division: Question put—That clause 21, as read, stand part of the bill.

AYES, 71—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Cunningham, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens

NOES, 13—Byrne, Douglas, Hopper, Judge, Katter, Knuth, Miller, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Pitt, Scott

Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 21, as read, agreed to. Clause 22, as read, agreed to. Clause 23—

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2013

Mr BLEIJIE (11.03 pm): Prior to moving these amendments, I want to speak to this clause. The amendments are separate from what I am going to say. I thought I would take this opportunity, because this is a pretty exciting clause that we are amending. I will let honourable members know, because they may not have read this clause in the legislation, that it is in respect to the officers’ material personal interest—when they are going to disclose their assets, liabilities and all of those sorts of things. Under the legislation, the current penalty units are 40 penalty units. We are increasing those penalty units to 3,091 penalty units, or five years imprisonment, because we are serious about this. If we are going to set an appropriate deterrent, we have to have a penalty of more than 40 penalty units. That is why we are increasing the penalty from 40 penalty units to 3,091 penalty units. If that sets a deterrent for these industrial organisations so that they will not partake in wrongful activity, then that is a great thing for Queenslanders and we would have achieved our purpose of integrity and higher accountability. I move the following amendments— 15 Clause 23 (Amendment of s 529 (Officers with material personal interests))

Page 22, after line 17— insert—

(1) Section 529(1), after ‘management’— insert— or procurement activities

(2) Section 529(2), after ‘must’— insert— by written notice (a disclosure notice)

16 Clause 23 (Amendment of s 529 (Officers with material personal interests)) Page 22, line 18, before ‘Section’— insert— (3)

17 Clause 23 (Amendment of s 529 (Officers with material personal interests)) Page 22, after line 20— insert—

(4) Section 529— insert— (4) In this section—

procurement activities means activities relating to— (a) the purchase of goods and services; or (b) the carrying out of work. services includes auditing services and legal services.

These are technical amendments. Ms PALASZCZUK: The Attorney-General mentioned that this amendment is applicable to

employee organisations. By way of clarification, do these penalties also apply to employer organisations?

Mr BLEIJIE: Yes. Ms PALASZCZUK: I thank the minister. Amendments agreed to. Clause 23, as amended, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr BLEIJIE (11.05 pm): I move the following amendment—

18 After clause 23 Page 22, after line 20— insert— 23A Insertion of new ch 12, pt 9, divs 4 and 5

Chapter 12, part 9— insert—

Division 4 Register of material personal interest disclosures

2014 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

530A Register of material personal interest disclosures

(1) This section applies if a disclosure notice is given to an organisation’s management committee by an officer of the organisation under section 529.

(2) The organisation must keep, for at least 7 years after the date the disclosure notice was given, a written register of the following for the disclosure notice—

(a) the name of the officer;

(b) the date the disclosure notice was given;

(c) a copy of the disclosure notice.

Maximum penalty—40 penalty units.

(3) The register kept under subsection (2) may be inspected by the following persons—

(a) the registrar;

(b) a member of the organisation’s management committee;

(c) another person permitted by law to inspect the register.

(4) A person mentioned in subsection (3) may ask the organisation to make the register available for inspection, free of charge, during the organisation’s business hours.

(5) The organisation must comply with a request made under subsection (4).

Maximum penalty—40 penalty units.

(6) In this section—

disclosure notice see section 529(2).

Division 5 Statement of interests of officers holding management offices

530B Application of div 5

This division applies to an officer of an organisation who holds a management office in the organisation.

530C Definitions for div 5

(1) In this division—

management office, for an organisation, means an office of the organisation mentioned in section 412(a) or (b).

particulars, of an interest, means the financial and non-financial particulars of the interest prescribed under a regulation.

(2) A reference in this division to an interest is a reference to the matter within its ordinary meaning under the general law and the definition in the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, section 36 does not apply.

530D Officer must file statement of interests (1) The officer must, within 1 month after being elected or appointed to the management

office in the organisation, file a statement of the particulars of each interest held by the officer or the officer’s spouse. Maximum penalty—85 penalty units.

(2) However, the particulars of an interest held by the officer jointly or in common with the officer’s spouse need to be included in the statement only once.

(3) Nothing in subsection (1) requires the statement to include any of the following— (a) the number or monetary value of shares; (b) the monetary value of an asset, investment or other interest; (c) the full street address of land; (d) the account number of, or amount held in, an account held with a financial

institution. (4) To remove any doubt, it is declared that a person holds an interest if the person holds

the interest— (a) alone; or (b) jointly or in common with another person.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2015

530E Officer must file updated particulars (1) Subsection (2) applies if the officer becomes aware (including because of a change in

the interests of the officer or the officer’s spouse) of any of the following matters— (a) that the officer has not filed a statement of the particulars of an interest held by

the officer or the officer’s spouse; (b) that the particulars of an interest held by the officer or the officer’s spouse

included in a statement filed by the officer are not, or are no longer, correct. (2) The officer must file a statement of the particulars of the interest, or the correct

particulars of the interest, within 1 month after the officer becomes aware of the matter. Maximum penalty—85 penalty units.

530F Exemption (1) This section applies if—

(a) under another Act or law— (i) information about the interests held by the officer and the officer’s

spouse is required to be recorded in a register or otherwise disclosed by the officer; and

(ii) the information is published to the public; and (b) the officer has filed a written notice stating the matters mentioned in paragraph

(a). (2) Sections 530D and 530E do not apply to the officer.

Amendment agreed to. Madam SPEAKER: The Attorney-General has circulated amendment No. 19, which proposes

to omit clauses 24 to 26. The correct procedure is to vote against these clauses. Clauses 24 to 26, as read, negatived. Clauses 27 and 28, as read, agreed to. Clause 29— Mr BLEIJIE (11.06 pm): I move the following amendments—

20 Clause 29 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 1A and 1B) Page 36, after line 14— insert—

553BA Division does not apply to organisations with local government members This division does not apply to an organisation if each of the members of the organisation is— (a) a local government; or (b) the mayor or a councillor of a local government.

21 Clause 29 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 1A and 1B) Page 36, lines 28 to 30 and page 37, lines 1 to 5— omit, insert—

(d) conducting opinion polling, or otherwise ascertaining opinions, about a political matter; (e) another activity related to a political matter prescribed under a regulation;

22 Clause 29 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 1A and 1B) Page 37, line 6, ‘(e)’— omit, insert—

(f) 23 Clause 29 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 1A and 1B)

Page 37, line 10, ‘(d)’— omit, insert—

(e) 24 Clause 29 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 1A and 1B)

Page 37, line 11— omit, insert—

(2) However, an organisation does not spend money for a political purpose if— (a) the organisation spends money for an activity mentioned in subsection (1)(c), (d), (e) or

(f); and (b) the activity engages or involves only members of the organisation.

2016 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

Examples—

• an organisation distributes brochures containing material about a political matter only to its members

• an organisation conducts opinion polling about a political matter only of its members

(3) In this section— publication, of material, does not include designing, printing or otherwise preparing the material.

25 Clause 29 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 1A and 1B)

Page 37, after line 11—

insert—

553CA Other definitions for div 1B

In this division— 26 Clause 29 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 1A and 1B)

Page 38, line 4, after ‘candidates’— insert—

for election 27 Clause 29 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 1A and 1B)

Page 38, lines 12 to 27— omit, insert—

(a) an organisation intends to spend an amount for a political purpose for a political object in a financial year; and

(b) the organisation has spent or, if the amount is spent, the organisation will have spent, in the financial year, more than $10000 for the same political purpose and the same political object.

28 Clause 29 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 1A and 1B)

Page 38, line 28, ‘(3)’—

omit, insert—

(2) 29 Clause 29 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 1A and 1B)

Page 39, line 1, ‘(4)’— omit, insert—

(3) 30 Clause 29 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 1A and 1B)

Page 39, lines 6 to 9— omit, insert—

(b) more than 50% of the valid votes cast authorised the spending. 31 Clause 29 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 1A and 1B)

Page 39, lines 12 to 29 and page 40, lines 1 to 5— omit.

32 Clause 29 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 1A and 1B) Page 40, lines 6 to 17— omit, insert—

553G Compliance with prescribed rules (1) An expenditure ballot must be conducted in accordance with the rules prescribed under

a regulation. (2) The prescribed rules must provide for the preparation of a roll of voters for an

expenditure ballot. 33 Clause 29 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 1A and 1B)

Page 40, lines 18 to 30 and page 41, lines 1 to 7— omit.

34 Clause 29 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 1A and 1B) Page 41, lines 8 to 14— omit, insert—

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2017

553H Expenditure ballot result report (1) The organisation must, within 14 days after the declaration of the result of an

expenditure ballot, file a written result report for the expenditure ballot stating the particulars prescribed under a regulation.

35 Clause 29 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 1A and 1B) Page 41, lines 21 to 29— omit, insert—

(a) is, within 14 days after the declaration of the result of the expenditure ballot, published in the approved way; and Note—

See section 655A for how the notice must be published.

(b) continues to be published for a period of 2 years after the filing of the result report. 36 Clause 29 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 1A and 1B)

Page 42, lines 13 and 16, ‘approve’— omit, insert—

authorise 37 Clause 29 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 1A and 1B)

Page 42, line 20, ‘The electoral commission’— omit, insert—

An organisation 38 Clause 29 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 1A and 1B)

Page 43, lines 1 to 13— omit.

These amendments deal with substantive, consequential and technical changes to political expenditure provisions. These substantive amendments are in response to the committee’s recommendations and to the issues raised by stakeholders. These amendments remove the requirement for the ECQ to conduct ballots.

What we had previously in the bill as it went to the committee was a requirement that any expenditure over $10,000 required the industrial organisation to ballot their members. The ballot was to be conducted by the ECQ. The ballot, having been returned, had to have 50 per cent plus one of those returned. As I said when I introduced the bill, we negotiated in good spirit with the employer and union groups. So we have moved an amendment so that the ECQ does not have to conduct a ballot.

Essentially, what will happen is that, if the industrial organisation wants to spend over $10,000, it will still have to ballot its members. It can choose how it conducts that ballot of its members. But a report has to be produced and provided to the Industrial Registrar so that the Industrial Registrar can ensure that the ballot was conducted appropriately. The Industrial Registrar has to also have a list of those who were balloted and who were eligible to be balloted.

This amendment also gets rid of the requirement with respect to 50 per cent plus one of the returned votes. It is a general 50 per cent plus one majority. These amendments are in line with what we negotiated with stakeholders such as the CCIQ, the Master Builders, Clubs Queensland and other organisations. However, we are not changing the threshold, because we fundamentally believe in the integrity of the bill. But we were more than happy to work our way through those issues with the stakeholders. In the second reading debate I tabled responses from the stakeholders giving their endorsement to those provisions.

Amendments agreed to. Ms PALASZCZUK: This is the fundamental issue of the bill that the opposition is opposed to.

This is about curtailing fundamental freedoms of association, freedom of expression and freedom of speech in Queensland. This is about the government using its massive majority to say to unions, ‘For any campaign you want to run over $10,000, you need to ballot your members.’ The government’s recommendation was very clear in terms of what it meant by political campaign expenditure. For the purpose of the debate, it has been made very clear that this sort of conduct of political campaigns means things such as public advertising, which includes public opinion polling, television, radio, electronic and print advertising, billboards and letterbox drops.

This clause is about curtailing freedom of speech in Queensland. This clause is chaining the unions down in this state. That is the government’s agenda. Why does this government hate unions? Why does it hate opposition? Why does it hate dissent?

2018 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There are too many interjections. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.

Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. We know that this government is no friend of the worker because its first budget was all about sacking 14,000 of them. What this Premier does not want in the future is any form of dissent in this state.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind the Leader of the Opposition to speak to the clause. Ms PALASZCZUK: I am. This is very clear. This is about political campaigning and the

government shutting down any form of opposition by unions in this state. I want to end my remarks by talking about the Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association in relation to giving a gift to a political party. The question remains: did the Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association know that that money could potentially have gone to Mr Driscoll who would then give it as a gift to the LNP? This government can authorise the LNP to investigate this matter. Was it a bribe? This is what we need to know. It is clearly in this clause here. I think the people of Queensland deserve a full and frank answer.

Mr KNUTH: The unions mounted a massive campaign against the Labor Party on asset sales that no doubt cost more than $10,000. Back then the LNP patted the union on the back and felt that it was quite justified at that time. The LNP promised the unions that it would act in good faith, would be accountable and transparent. It promised the unions that it would be public servant friendly. It also promised the unions that it would not sell our profitable assets. But what did we see? A sacking of 14,000 public servants and asset sales.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Dalrymple, you need to speak to the clause. Mr KNUTH: In relation to the $10,000 threshold, it is obvious that the LNP do not want any

opposition. After the sacking of 14,000 public servants and the campaign that the unions mounted against it, it could be perceived by Queenslanders that the LNP do not want opposition. When there is opposition the government legislate against it.

Mrs CUNNINGHAM: This is one of the issues that I addressed in my very short contribution to the second reading speech. I do believe that unions and other entities have to be accountable for money that is given to them. I think that that is responsible. However, as I said in my second reading speech, I think the $10,000 threshold is too low. Given the cost of advertising, it would not take much to hit that threshold. I run a very modest election campaign and I know the cost of advertising. On the basis of the threshold limit I oppose the amendment but I do support the principle of it.

Mr NEWMAN: I rise to speak for a moment in relation to the clause as it has been amended and to address a few things that have been said. Firstly, I totally reject what the Leader of the Opposition has said. The unions are totally, utterly and unequivocally free to conduct campaigns. All that they are being asked to do is to, in an open and transparent manner, set out what they want to do and ask the members, the hardworking men and women who pay the bills, for permission to do that. Is that so hard? Is that so impossible? Is that so unreasonable? I think not. I think it is fair and reasonable.

Ms Trad interjected. Mr NEWMAN: The member for South Brisbane, who is a dyed-in-the-wool, rusted-on union

official, is one of the reasons for the decline of the Labor Party. It is her attitude—the attitude you see in her face every day, the hatred, the nastiness—that is bringing the Labor Party down. The sort of campaign that she was involved in during the recent state campaign is why the Labor Party are at 28 per cent. I am happy for the Labor Party to have politicians from the unions like the member for South Brisbane with that sort of attitude to politics and service to the community because it is a bad attitude.

To return to the clause, I will now talk about the actual threshold. I listened with interest to what the member for Gladstone said. The member for Gladstone always makes a thoughtful and reasoned contribution, but I say this: every dollar that is provided by members to a union is precious because it comes out of the pockets of hardworking men and women. Some might have argued for a lower threshold. Some did. But I think $10,000 is a reasonable compromise. I do not think union officials have any problems putting forward campaigns. If they want to put a billboard up at the entrance to the Ashgrove electorate having a go at me—and I know they will—surely they will get permission from their membership to do just that and I would welcome that if that is the decision of the membership.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2019

This is about accountability and spending the members’ money wisely. The member for Bundamba shakes her head as well. I will give those opposite a bit of a message from Kim Beazley who, at a TWU Hughie Williams autobiography book launch, said that at least 40 per cent of union members actually vote for the conservative parties: the Liberal and National parties. Those opposite might care to remember that and respect that. They are looking after members’ money.

Mr BYRNE: This has been a very interesting interlude but the reality is that this clause raises the core issues. The first issue that has raised my ire is the exemption that was put on the table in relation to the Local Government Association. I have been to the hearings and read all the material and there is no justification, to my mind, why the Local Government Association of Queensland would be exempted from the provisions of this act. I would like at some point someone to explain to me the basis for this exemption.

Secondly, this clause and the amendments do nothing to resolve the issue of political purposes and the requirements for ballots. Anybody in this room understands that there are two aspects to politics, just like there are two aspects to anything in life. There is the deliberate component and there is the reactive component. Much of what unions or other organisations need to do are real-time driven, expedient measures. We heard much evidence over the period of the public hearings that these ballots will take weeks, if not months, to conclude under the current arrangements. What this is effectively doing is hamstringing the capacity, when an issue arises, for an industrial organisation to make a timely contribution to the public debate. This is a very deliberate measure designed to take an argument out of the equation when it is time relevant. You can put it any way you like, but these clauses are about destroying the capacity of industrial organisations to enter any form of debate in this state in a timely fashion, and that is why it should be objected to.

Ms TRAD: I rise to make a contribution on this particular clause, which essentially means the tying up—the procedural tying up and the financial tying up—of trade unions and employer organisations in Queensland when it comes to engaging in democratic campaigning in a representative democracy. That is what this is about. It is about tying up the hands of unions in terms of being able to respond, as the member for Rockhampton so eloquently articulated just now. It is about tying their hands so that they cannot participate in a timely fashion in issues and debates that are being run in our communities in a way that we expect in a modern 21st century democracy. This is a curtailment of freedom of speech, pure and simple. It is absolutely a curtailment of freedom of speech. In the same way that union members elect a leadership group to make decisions, to run their unions and to get on with business, they expect them to make decisions and to engage in the public debate on issues that affect their employment conditions and the social fabric that affects workers in Queensland and across Australia when it impacts upon their livelihoods and their lifestyle.

This amendment, the $10,000 threshold, is simply ridiculous. It is a ridiculous level. It is something that would be exceeded in the balloting of many of our large public sector unions. Many would exceed that level even if it were a ballot of members to get a tick-off to run a campaign around class sizes. If the police union were to run a campaign on increased wages during an enterprise bargaining agreement, they would have to ballot all of their members before they could engage in that debate. This is outrageous.

A government member interjected. Ms TRAD: It is industrial; I will take that interjection. Quite frankly, where the industrial and the

political come together, one could quite easily make an argument that a union is running a political campaign. Quite frankly, this amendment has been drafted to reduce the criticism that this government expects from its very long and aggressive agenda of outsourcing, privatisation and continued sackings of public sector workers. Pure and simple: it is about silencing the workers, silencing their voices.

Mrs MILLER: I think we have to place on record here tonight that this particular provision is unprecedented in this country. This government is so concerned about the public backlash against its litany of broken promises that it wants to stifle the ability of unions to raise concerns about the government’s performance. Let me just say to the Premier: while you can sit over there and sing to yourself—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! The member will speak through the chair. Mrs MILLER: The Premier was singing before, ‘You can’t blame me, I’m part of the union’. I

can tell him that Joh tried to break the unions and he failed. The Premier is over there laughing now.

2020 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member will stick to the clause or the member will sit down.

Mrs MILLER: I am. I will go to the clause. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member will stick to the clause or will sit down. Mrs MILLER: The Attorney-General should explain how, even with the furphy of

contestability—which the unions know is privatisation—and let us take the Queensland Nurses Union which has 40,000 members. Using the Electoral Commission figures of around $2 per member balloted, the expenditure of over $80,000 of members money to undertake a $10,000 publicity campaign on an issue that is dear to its members is not wasting their members money? In other words, they have 40,000 members and have to spend $2 per member for a ballot, yet they may want to spend only $10,000. All QNU members, indeed, all union members are taking notice of the Premier’s and this government’s attack on them this evening. They will remember this and they will never forgive and never forget.

I turn to another part of the clause in relation to union structures et cetera and decision making in campaigns. I shall give an example. The ETU has rank and file delegates. It has an executive, a state council and biannual conferences. The shop floor directs the decisions. They do not need a ballot to tell them what their members think. They are the members. Anyone from the union can ask for financial records without cost. That is unlike the state government, where residents have to lodge RTI applications, then sit back and wait for weeks to get the answers. Unions are more accountable than this government. They are far more representative of the constituency than this government. Let us remember: union members can choose to be members of a union, but taxpayers cannot choose to be taxpayers.

Mr BLEIJIE: The member for Bundamba made an accusation about how all the union officials are sitting around watching this debate somewhere. Certainly they are not in the gallery. I can tell her where the union officials are. Right now, they are sitting in their business-class seats on the way back from Sydney having watched the State of Origin from their corporate boxes that are paid for by union members, that is, hardworking Queenslanders. The member for South Brisbane has woken up now. We have her interest. I wonder if she was offered one of the union corporate boxes.

I thank the honourable Premier for his very statesmanlike response. The Premier gave a very statesmanlike response, but I hope the House allows me to be a little more direct. Five minutes ago, the member for Dalrymple came in here and espoused the fantastic efforts of the unions.

A government member: The union man. Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection: he is the union man. The honourable health minister has

advised me that potentially the reason the member for Dalrymple comes in here and espouses the unions is that the unions are bankrolling the Katter party.

Mr Newman: That is two parties that have been bought. Mr BLEIJIE: Yes, two parties have been bought. Two parties in this place have been

bankrolled: the Labor Party opposite and the Katter Party. We also have the PUP. The ‘Katts’ have been bought by the unions and the ‘PUPs’ are owned by Clive. We know that everything Clive touches fails, so essentially that will fail too. The Independent member Peter Wellington will be supporting Julia Gillard at the next election. I can assure the House that that will go down well on the Sunshine Coast!

Mr WELLINGTON: I rise to a point of order. I find the comments offensive. They are untrue and I ask the Attorney-General to withdraw.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Attorney-General to withdraw. Mr BLEIJIE: Absolutely, I withdraw. I take your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I withdraw. I

mention Dean Mighell from the ETU. Not only is the Katter party being bankrolled by the union, but also Dean Mighell is in charge of writing policies for the Katter party. The member for Dalrymple is pointing at me from the far corner. He has been in this parliament for a while, as has the member on his left. They cannot write their own policies so they have to get the ETU to write policies for the Katter party.

Mr Springborg: From Victoria; outsourced from Victoria. Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection. They believe in contestability and outsourcing; they have

outsourced their policy writing to Victoria. In all seriousness, following on from the Premier’s statesmanlike presentation tonight I turn to the comments of the member for Gladstone, who asked a

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2021

legitimate question. We did debate this. As members know through the debate that we had on potential asset sales in this state, we had a discussion in the cabinet. I can tell the House, as the Premier did, there were varying views. However, we believe we have the balance right. As I have said publicly before—

Mr Newman: Come on: give me credit. Mr BLEIJIE: I will give you credit. As I have said publicly before, the best friend that the unions

have in the government is the Premier. He might be their only friend, but he is the best friend that the unions have in the government.

There was a divergence of views. I think we got the balance right at $10,000. But, unlike the Labor Party, we had that debate. We had the debate in cabinet and we came up with $10,000. We believe that is a reasonable balance. If a union membership wants to conduct a particular campaign then they can ballot their members. As the honourable Premier said, what could be more democratic than the actual members who pay the union membership fees having a say.

Believe it or not, if the CFMEU want to run a campaign the member for Bundamba is going to get a vote on that campaign. She will actually be balloted and have a direct say. The member for Bundamba will have more say in the CFMEU than she does now. Is that not a contrast? Rather than the CFMEU pulling the puppet strings it will be the grassroots members, like the member for Bundamba, who will have a say in the policies and direction of the union.

Mr Springborg: You’re a true democrat. Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection from the health minister. This is about democracy in action.

I am pleased that I have been able to give the member for Bundamba a better say, a more fulsome say, in the operations of the CFMEU. I suggest she complained in the asset debate in 2009 that she did not have much of a say.

Mr Seeney: She did; I remember. Mr BLEIJIE: She had a bit of say, but it did not do her any good. It certainly did not do her any

good when she came in and voted for the asset sales anyway. She had a say but could not build the courage to vote against a terrible policy of her government at the time.

This is all about grassroots members of industrial organisations. This applies equally to employer organisations. If they want to partake in these sorts of activities and these campaigns then they will go through the same balloting process as the unions will. I think that is democracy in action. I take the interjection from earlier that this is not only a national first but an international first. This is a world first. This is groundbreaking legislation from the bottom up rather than the top down.

Division: Question put—That clause 29, as amended, be agreed to. AYES, 70—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens

NOES, 14—Byrne, Cunningham, Douglas, Hopper, Judge, Katter, Knuth, Miller, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Pitt, Scott

Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 29, as amended, agreed to. Clause 30— Mr BLEIJIE (11.37 pm): I move the following amendments—

39 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B) Page 46, lines 7 and 8— omit, insert—

employee, other than an amount or benefit given— (i) as remuneration; or (ii) for the costs of travel undertaken or accommodation used by the officer

or employee in an official capacity; 40 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B)

Page 46, lines 11 and 12, ‘in the year’— omit.

2022 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

41 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B)

Page 47, lines 16, 17, 20 and 21, ‘political purposes for’—

omit, insert—

the same political purpose and

42 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B)

Page 47, line 23, ‘a’—

omit, insert—

the

43 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B) Page 48, after line 2— insert—

557BA Register of credit card and cab charge account spending (1) This section applies only to an employee organisation. (2) The organisation must, for each financial year, keep a written register complying with

subsection (3) for each of the following— (a) a credit card of the organisation; (b) if an officer or employee of the organisation uses the officer’s or employee’s

personal credit card in the year for a transaction (a relevant transaction) that is related to the organisation’s activities—the personal credit card;

(c) a cab charge account or cab charge card of the organisation. Maximum penalty—40 penalty units.

(3) The register must include the following— (a) for a credit card—

(i) the name of the financial institution with which the card is held; and (ii) for a credit card of the organisation—a copy of each statement issued

for the card by the financial institution in the year; and (iii) for a personal credit card of an officer or employee of the organisation

mentioned in subsection (2)(b)—a copy of each statement issued for the card by the financial institution in the year that contains information about a relevant transaction;

(b) for a cab charge account or cab charge card— (i) the name of the taxi service with which the account or card is held; and (ii) a copy of each statement issued for the account or card by the taxi

service in the year. (4) Nothing in subsection (2) or (3) requires the register, or a copy of a statement included

in the register, to include any of the following— (a) the number of a credit card, cab charge account or cab charge card; (b) the name or address of a person, other than the organisation—

(i) to whom a credit card or cab charge card is issued; or (ii) who is authorised to use a credit card, cab charge account or cab

charge card; (c) for a personal credit card—details of a transaction that is not a relevant

transaction. (5) In this section—

cab charge account means a credit facility provided to a person by the operator of a taxi service to which the person may charge the fare for hiring a taxi. cab charge card means a card issued to a person by the operator of a taxi service to be used by the person to charge the fare for hiring a taxi to a cab charge account.

557BB Register of credit card and cab charge account spending for 2012-13 financial year (1) This section applies only to an employee organisation. (2) Within 1 month after the commencement of this section, the organisation must, for the

period 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013, prepare a written register— (a) for the matters mentioned in section 557BA(2)(a), (b) and (c); and (b) that complies with section 557BA(3). Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2023

44 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B) Page 50, lines 19 to 27 and page 51, lines 1 to 19— omit, insert—

557I Highest paid officers and board member officers of an organisation (1) For this division—

(a) if an organisation has less than 10 officers in the initial year or a financial year—all of the officers of the organisation are the highest paid officers of the organisation for the year; and

(b) if an organisation has 10 or more officers in the initial year or a financial year—the 10 most highly paid officers of the organisation for the year are the highest paid officers of the organisation for the year; and

(c) an officer of an organisation is a board member officer of the organisation if the officer is a member of a board and— (i) the membership is a function of the officer’s office with the

organisation; or (ii) the organisation nominated the officer to be a member of the board.

(2) For subsection (1)(b), an officer of an organisation is more highly paid than another officer of the organisation for the initial year or a financial year if the first officer is paid more remuneration for the year than the other officer.

45 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B) Page 51, line 23, before ‘Within’— insert—

(1) 46 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B)

Page 51, line 26, ‘sections 557K to 557N’— omit, insert—

subsection (2) 47 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B)

Page 51, after line 30— insert—

(2) The initial financial disclosure statement must include the following information for each of the highest paid officers of the organisation for the initial year— (a) the remuneration paid to the officer in the year; (b) any non-cash benefit, including the value of the benefit, given to the officer by the

organisation, other than as remuneration, in the year; (c) any amount paid to the officer in the officer’s capacity as a board member officer in the

year, other than an amount paid to the officer for the costs of travel or accommodation for the officer to attend a board meeting.

48 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B) Page 52, lines 1 to 34, page 53, lines 1 to 32, page 54, lines 1 to 31 and page 55, lines 1 to 5— omit.

49 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B) Page 55, lines 16 to 18, from ‘period within’ to ‘section 557J’— omit, insert—

initial year 50 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B)

Page 56, lines 23 and 24, ‘highly paid officials’— omit, insert—

highest paid officers 51 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B)

Page 56, lines 26 and 27, ‘highly paid official’— omit, insert—

of the highest paid officers 52 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B)

Page 57, lines 1 and 4, ‘official’— omit, insert—

officer

2024 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

53 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B) Page 57, lines 7 to 9— omit, insert—

(c) any amount paid to the officer in the officer’s capacity as a board member officer in the year, other than an amount paid to the officer for the costs of travel or accommodation for the officer to attend a board meeting.

54 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B) Page 57, lines 18 to 20, from ‘occasion in’ to ‘political purpose’— omit, insert—

political purpose on which the organisation spent money in the financial year 55 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B)

Page 57, line 25, ‘or any part of it’— omit, insert—

(or any part of it) 56 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B)

Page 57, after line 27— insert—

557V Political party affiliation fees The financial disclosure statement must include the following particulars for each political party with which the organisation was affiliated in the financial year— (a) the name of the political party; (b) the amount paid to the political party for the affiliation in the year.

57 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B) Page 57, lines 28 to 30, and page 58, lines 1 to 17— omit.

58 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B) Page 59, line 22, ‘official’— omit, insert—

officer 59 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B)

Page 59, line 23, ‘highly paid official’— omit, insert—

highest paid officer 60 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B)

Page 59, lines 25, 26 and 30, and page 60, line 5, ‘official’— omit, insert—

officer 61 Clause 30 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, divs 2A and 2B)

Page 60, lines 8 to 10— omit, insert—

(v) any amount paid to the officer in the officer’s capacity as a board member officer in the year, other than an amount paid to the officer for the costs of travel or accommodation for the officer to attend a board meeting.

These are substantive, consequential and technical amendments to clause 30 of the bill which deals with the financial registers. The substantive amendments are in addition to the requirements for financial management policies on the issuance and the use of credit cards by organisations and employee organisations. Unions will be required to make publicly available online the credit card statements of all organisation issued cards for each reporting period the statements are issued. Any personal credit card usage for an official purpose of the organisation by an officer or an employee of the organisation must be made publicly available. Any Cabcharge cards or vouchers or similar or charge payment facility statements must be made publicly available online. This will apply for this current financial year—that is, dating from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013.

The amendments clarify that unions must disclose party affiliation fees. It is proposed to remove the obligation to report all expenditure over $5,000. That was in negotiation with the groups. Separately, another amendment will require a declaration of a conflict of interest by an officer of an

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2025

industrial organisation’s decision-making body where there is a relationship between the officer and a supplier. We would expect nothing less from that particular relationship. These amendments also remove the requirement for an initial disclosure statement which will cut red tape in response to stakeholder concerns about retrospective reporting.

These amendments are all about making sure that if unions partake in some of the things that we have seen through the HSU and the Craig Thomson scandal the world will see. As I said in my introductory speech, the best cure for this is sunlight. So we are letting the sunlight in. That is the best way we can see it. We will make sure that the credit card statements will be put online in the reporting period and then be made public.

If there are concerns with particulars in the credit card or Cabcharge statement and grassroots members of the organisation want to raise issues about where their money has been spent then that is their entitlement. They will be able to make a complaint to the Industrial Inspectorate. This is all about what we have seen particularly with employee organisations. That is why the provisions about credit cards apply to employee organisations. It is all about making sure that there is integrity and accountability.

We saw the Cooke inquiry in Queensland in 1989. We saw the Ludwig affair in terms of legal fees. We have heard Mr Harrison say that the Labor Party has lost its way and the unions are now basically running the Labor Party in Queensland. That was only a couple of months ago. This is really about letting the sunlight in and that is the best cure.

Ms PALASZCZUK: For a start can I say that I believe that this clause and the amendments that are being proposed by the Attorney-General are discriminatory. For a start I want a very clear explanation from this government why they are picking only on employee organisations and why are employer organisations omitted. This is something that I think the people of Queensland need to have clarified. This is a completely new amendment that has been thrown in at the last minute. It is about disclosing—

Mr Newman: It’s a goodie. Ms PALASZCZUK: The Premier says it’s a goodie, does he? I take that interjection that he

thinks it is a goodie. We know what the Premier’s views are about unions. We know what his views are about workers in this state.

Let’s take a moment and think about these requirements to do with Cabcharges. To my knowledge, MPs’ Cabcharges are not disclosed publicly. So why are you discriminating against MPs in this House and employer organisations and only applying this to the employee organisations? Why don’t you think about applying it to all MPs in this House as well? If you want openness and accountability and transparency, go on and apply it to MPs. Put everybody’s Cabcharges online. Be open and transparent and let people see how MPs are using their Cabcharges to and from parliament to show where they are going. Make it open and accountable, and make it retrospective as well. The provisions in this clause are also retrospective.

You are discriminating against a particular organisation that this government hates—and that is the union movement—fair and square. We know that the Premier got up and talked about Mr Battams and Beth Mohle. Guess what? These people will always stand up for the workers in this state. They will always protect workers’ rights. These people have a right to advocacy. They have a fundamental right to put an alternative view. But once again I go back to my core statement here—

Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There are too many interjections. The Leader of the

Opposition has the call. Ms PALASZCZUK: If you want to talk the talk and walk the walk, make this apply to all MPs.

Don’t single out union movements. Be open and transparent. Let the public know where everybody in this parliament is travelling on their Cabcharges. Put it online. Let’s be full and open. Let’s be accountable. Why pick on the unions? Because it is the unions that are opposing what this government is doing. It is the unions that are making their political voice heard throughout this state. That is what it is. My challenge to the government today is: put your Cabcharge vouchers online. Put them online for everybody to see.

(Time expired)

2026 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

Mrs MILLER: I would just like to make a brief contribution to this particular clause, because it is very, very interesting to me that they are only applying this to employee organisations. I would like to table an article from the Courier-Mail on 25 May in relation to credit card issues to do with local government. Tabled paper: Extract from the Courier-Mail, dated 25 May 2013, titled ‘Put it on the plastic—What else would you do with a taxpayer-funded credit card than buy tickets to watch a Bee Gee and don a novelty dog costume’ [2851].

Of course what we find is that this particular clause will not apply to local government, where there are real issues that have been exposed by the Courier-Mail journalist through the right to information laws. In fact, we had the Redland City Council, the Moreton Bay Regional Council, the Ipswich City Council, the Gold Coast City Council and a number of others all racking up enormous bills in relation to credit cards. So my challenge to the government is this: if it is going to apply to employee organisations, it should also apply to local government and it should also apply to ministerial officers. The provisions in relation to Cabcharges should also apply to ministerial officers and they should also apply to MPs.

I would also like to ask about the employer organisations—for example, the QCCI and the Queensland Resources Council. I would just like to know whether they paid to go to the LNP’s fundraising functions on their credit cards. It would be really good for the LNP to be open and put their credit card statements online as well. Let’s have a look at AgForce. Let’s have a look at all the chambers of commerce all the way around the state. Let’s get their credit card statements online as well.

It is just typical of this government because they have been caught out since they have been in power. They have had the former LNP member for Chatsworth, the former director-general for transport, go down the gurgler. Now they have the former LNP member, the member for Redcliffe—well, we do not know where he is but he will probably go down the gurgler, too.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bundamba will stick to the clause. Mrs MILLER: Yes. In relation to the RCAMB, wouldn’t it be nice to be able to see the credit

card statements of the RCAMB online? You are a shameless government! That is it—true and simple. You hate unions. But we will get back.

(Time expired) Mr NEWMAN: I rise in support of the amendments that have been put forward by the Attorney-

General— Ms Trad: Because it’s a goodie. Mr NEWMAN: Yes, in response to an interjection from those opposite, because it is a goodie.

But let me first deal with the assertion of the Leader of the Opposition which is incorrect. I spoke this evening for 10 minutes and I laid out very clearly that I am a strong supporter of unions. What I do not support—

Opposition members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Those on my left. Mr NEWMAN: What I do not support, and no right-minded, fair-minded Queenslander would

support, is corrupt union officials who misuse their members’ money. Opposition members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Those on my left will cease interjecting. Mr NEWMAN: When we hear stories about Mr Ludwig using union funds to pay his personal

legal bills—it seems to be without dispute that that has occurred—when we see the ETU buying houses in Sydney for their chieftain down there; when we see good old Craigie baby in the federal parliament allegedly using union funds of hardworking, low-paid hospital and health workers to go to brothels or to use escorts; and when we know this evening there are probably union officials flying back business class and paid for by their members, using Silver Service cab fares to and from the airport, drinking the free booze and using the union funded box, we know that something has to happen here. The Labor Party may not know, but right-minded, fair-minded Queenslanders know that enough is enough. They ask: why is the rule different? I will tell them why the rule is different—because the stench and the rorts are coming from union officials. They can carry on about it all they like, but that is where we are seeing the problems.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2027

The other thing I say to those opposite is this: industrial organisations are funded by corporations; by firms with shareholders. Unions are funded by individuals—hardworking men and women, many on low-paid incomes, who work hard to pay those union dues. That is the difference. There is a stark difference. Hardworking men and women deserve totally squeaky clean, accountable organisations, not organisations with rorters and pigs with their snouts in the troughs which we see in the supporters of the Labor Party, the funders of the Labor Party. We have seen it with Craig Thomson. We have seen it with Bill Ludwig. We have seen it with the ETU. This will sort out the stench.

(Time expired) Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! Under the provisions of the resolution agreed to

by the House and the time limit for the consideration in detail of the bill having expired, the question is— That clauses 30 to 76 and the Attorney-General’s amendments as circulated be agreed to.

Amendments as circulated— 62 Clause 33 (Amendment of s 563 (Auditor’s powers))

Page 63, lines 1 to 7— omit, insert—

auditor includes— (a) the registrar’s auditor engaged under section 575 to examine the organisation’s

accounting records; and (b) a complaints auditor engaged under section 636L to examine the organisation’s

accounting records. 63 Clause 36 (Replacement of s 565 (Obligation to present to general or committee meeting))

Page 64, line 1, after ‘general’— insert—

or committee 64 Clause 36 (Replacement of s 565 (Obligation to present to general or committee meeting))

Page 64, lines 3 and 4, ‘a financial year to a general meeting’— omit, insert—

each financial year to a general meeting or a meeting of the organisation’s management committee 65 Clause 40 (Amendment of s 570 (Report and accounts must be filed))

Page 66, lines 3 to 16— omit, insert—

(2) An organisation must ensure a copy of the audit report and its financial disclosure statement— (a) is, within the required period, published in the approved way; and

Note—

See section 655A for how the copy must be published.

(b) continues to be published for a period of 2 years from the end of the required period. Maximum penalty—40 penalty units.

66 Clause 41 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, div 5, sdiv 1) Page 66, line 26, ‘(1)’— omit.

67 Clause 41 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, div 5, sdiv 1) Page 67, line 9, after ‘auditor’— insert—

under section 575 68 Clause 41 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12, div 5, sdiv 1)

Page 67, lines 11 to 14— omit.

69 Clause 46 (Insertion of new s 574A) Page 72, line 6, ‘636C’— omit, insert—

636G(2)(b)

2028 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

70 Clause 50 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12A)

Page 73, line 15, ‘(1)’—

omit.

71 Clause 50 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12A)

Page 73, lines 25 and 26—

omit.

72 Clause 50 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 12A)

Page 74, lines 17 and 18— omit.

73 Clause 54 (Replacement of s 592 (Obligation to file copies of reports under other Act or law)) Page 76, lines 3 to 6— omit.

74 After clause 56 Page 88, after line 6— insert— 56A Amendment of s 679 (Confidential material tendered in evidence)

Section 679(2), ‘the president, a commissioner’— omit, insert—

a member of the court or the commission 75 Clause 57 (Amendment of s 691C (Particular provisions are of no effect))

Page 89, lines 14 and 15, ‘, of a relevant industrial instrument’— omit.

76 Clause 57 (Amendment of s 691C (Particular provisions are of no effect)) Page 89, lines 19 and 23, after ‘into the’— insert—

relevant industrial 77 Clause 57 (Amendment of s 691C (Particular provisions are of no effect))

Page 90, after line 16— insert—

(4) Section 691C(2), definition organisational change provision— omit, insert—

organisational change provision means a provision, other than a TCR provision, that— (a) requires the employer to do any of the following before, or in relation to,

making a decision about, or implementing, proposed organisational change— (i) notify an entity about the proposed organisational change; (ii) consult with an entity about the proposed organisational change; (iii) involve an entity in the decision-making process for the proposed

organisational change; or (b) is otherwise about organisational change. Examples—

1 The following provisions, as in force on 1 July 2013, are examples of organisational change provisions—

• clause 7.3 of the State Government Departments Certified Agreement 2009

• clauses 3.2, 4.1 and 4.2 of the Queensland Public Health Sector Certified Agreement (No. 8) 2011 (EB8)

• clause 1.17(vi) and (vii) of the Queensland Public Health Sector Certified Agreement (No. 8) 2011 (EB8).

2 Also, the following provisions, as in force immediately before the date of assent of the Queensland Rail Transit Authority Act 2013, are examples of organisational change provisions—

• clause 22 of the Queensland Rail Customer Service Enterprise Agreement 2011

• clause 41 of the QR Passenger Pty Limited Traincrew Union Collective Workplace Agreement 2009.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2029

78 After clause 57 Page 90, after line 16— insert— 57A Amendment of s 708 (Approved forms)

(1) Section 708(1), ‘president’— omit, insert— rules committee

(2) Section 708(1A)— omit, insert— (1A) When acting under subsection (1), the rules committee must consult with—

(a) for a form relating to the Industrial Magistrates Court—the Chief Magistrate; or (b) for a form relating to the registry—the registrar.

(3) Section 708(1A) and (2)— renumber as section 708(2) and (3).

79 Clause 58 (Insertion of new ch 20, pt 16) Page 91, lines 7 and 8— omit, insert—

commencement means the day on which the provision in which the term is used commences. 80 Clause 58 (Insertion of new ch 20, pt 16)

Page 91, after line 14— insert—

789A Appointment of first vice-president of the court (1) Despite section 246A(1), on the commencement the person holding office as the vice-

president of the commission is appointed as the vice-president of the court. (2) This Act applies to the appointee as if she had been appointed under section 246A.

789B Appointment of first deputy presidents of the court (1) Despite section 246C(1), on the commencement each of the persons who is a legally

qualified deputy president is appointed as a deputy president (court) of the court. (2) This Act applies to the appointees as if they had been appointed under section 246C. (3) In this section—

legally qualified deputy president means a deputy president of the commission who, immediately before the commencement, is a lawyer of at least 5 years standing.

789C Industrial commissioners A person appointed as a commissioner under the pre-amended Act, section 259 is, on and from the commencement, taken to have been appointed as an industrial commissioner.

789D Proceedings in court started before commencement The pre-amended Act applies to a proceeding started in the court under section 317 before the commencement as if this Act had not been amended by the amending Act.

789E Existing rules under this Act (1) This section applies to rules made, before the commencement, under previous section

338 with the consent of the president. (2) From the commencement, the rules are taken to have been made under new section

338 with the consent of the rules committee. 81 Clause 58 (Insertion of new ch 20, pt 16)

Page 91, after line 30— insert—

790A Statement of interests of officer holding management office at commencement

(1) This section applies to an officer of an organisation who holds a management office in the organisation at the commencement.

(2) For section 530C(1), the officer is taken to have been elected or appointed to the management office in the organisation on the commencement.

82 Clause 58 (Insertion of new ch 20, pt 16) Page 92, line 6, ‘This section’— omit, insert—

Subsection (2)

2030 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

83 Clause 58 (Insertion of new ch 20, pt 16) Page 92, lines 10 and 11, ‘for the financial year,’— omit, insert—

, other than a register under section 557BB, for the first financial year starting after commencement, 84 Clause 58 (Insertion of new ch 20, pt 16)

Page 92, after line 12— insert—

(3) Sections 557D and 557E do not apply to an organisation until 1 month after the commencement.

85 Clause 58 (Insertion of new ch 20, pt 16) Page 93, line 34, after ‘in force’— insert—

or continues to be in force under subsection (2)(b), as if the amending Act had not been enacted 86 Clause 58 (Insertion of new ch 20, pt 16)

Page 94, after line 26— insert—

797A Existing approved forms (1) This section applies to forms approved, before the commencement, by the president

under previous section 708(1). (2) From the commencement, the forms are taken to have been approved by the rules

committee under new section 708(1). 87 Clause 58 (Insertion of new ch 20, pt 16)

Page 95, after line 14— insert—

799 Amendment to renumber particular provisions (1) On the commencement, the following provisions of this Act are amended by numbering

and renumbering them in the same way as a reprint may be numbered and renumbered under the Reprints Act 1992, section 43— (a) sections 553BA to 553S; (b) sections 557BA to 557ZB; (c) sections 789A to this section.

(2) Subsection (1) applies to a provision of this Act enacted or otherwise affected (a relevant provision) by a provision of the amending Act enacted but uncommenced when subsection (1) is commenced (the uncommenced provision), with the intent mentioned in subsection (3) for the relevant provision.

(3) If the number of the relevant provision would have changed under subsection (1) had the uncommenced provision commenced— (a) a number is allocated to the relevant provision as if the uncommenced

provision had commenced; and (b) when the uncommenced provision commences, the number of the relevant

provision is amended by omitting it and inserting the number allocated to it under paragraph (a).

(4) Each reference in this Act to a provision renumbered under subsection (1) is amended, when the renumbering happens, by omitting the reference to the previous number and inserting the new number.

(5) This section expires on the day after the commencement of the last numbering or renumbering of a provision done under the section.

(6) This section does not limit the Reprints Act 1992. 88 After clause 58

Page 95, after line 14— insert—

58A Amendment of sch 2 (Appointments) (1) Schedule 2, part 1, heading, after ‘presidents and’— insert—

industrial (2) Schedule 2, part 1, section 1(3) and (5), ‘a commissioner’— omit, insert—

an industrial commissioner

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2031

(3) Schedule 2, part 1, section 1(7), definition relevant member— omit, insert—

relevant member means a member of the court or of the commission other than a president who is a Supreme Court judge.

(4) Schedule 2, part 1, section 2(1), after ‘to a member’— insert—

of the court or commission (each a member) (5) Schedule 2, part 1, section 2A(6), definition relevant member— omit, insert—

relevant member means a member of the court or of the commission other than a president who is a Supreme Court judge.

(6) Schedule 2, part 1, section 3(1), after ‘on a member’— insert—

of the court or commission (7) Schedule 2, part 1, section 4(1), after ‘to a member’— insert—

of the court or commission (8) Schedule 2, part 1, section 4A(1), after ‘or a member’— insert—

of the commission (9) Schedule 2, part 1, section 4AA(2), definition relevant member— omit, insert—

relevant member means a member of the court or the commission other than a president who is a Supreme Court judge.

(10) Schedule 2, part 1, section 4B, after ‘A member’— insert—

of the court or commission (11) Schedule 2, part 1A, section 4C(1), ‘members of the commission’— omit, insert—

vice-president, a deputy president or an industrial commissioner 89 Clause 59 (Amendment of sch 5 (Dictionary))

Page 95, after line 17— insert—

(1A) Schedule 5, definitions commissioners, deputy president, member and vice president— omit.

90 Clause 59 (Amendment of sch 5 (Dictionary)) Page 96, lines 1 to 3— omit, insert—

board member officer means an officer of an organisation who is a board member officer under section 557I(1)(c). candidate for election, for chapter 12, part 12, division 1B and chapter 12, part 12A, see section 553CA.

91 Clause 59 (Amendment of sch 5 (Dictionary)) Page 96, after line 9— insert—

continuing health employee, for chapter 11, part 2, division 3, see section 390A. 92 Clause 59 (Amendment of sch 5 (Dictionary))

Page 96, line 14, ‘(3)’— omit, insert—

(2) 93 Clause 59 (Amendment of sch 5 (Dictionary))

Page 96, after line 14— insert—

final payment, for chapter 11, part 2, division 3, see section 390A.

2032 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

94 Clause 59 (Amendment of sch 5 (Dictionary)) Page 96, lines 24 to 26— omit, insert—

highest paid officer means an officer of an organisation who is 1 of the organisation’s highest paid officers under section 557I(1)(a) or (b).

95 Clause 59 (Amendment of sch 5 (Dictionary)) Page 97, lines 5 to 7— omit.

96 Clause 59 (Amendment of sch 5 (Dictionary)) Page 97, after line 10— insert—

legislature, for chapter 12, part 12, division 1B, see section 553CA. local government, for chapter 12, part 12, division 1B, see section 553CA. management office, for chapter 12, part 9, division 5, see section 530C(1).

97 Clause 59 (Amendment of sch 5 (Dictionary)) Page 97, lines 25 to 27— omit, insert—

particulars, for chapter 12, part 9, division 5, see section 530C(1). political matter, for chapter 12, part 12, division 1B and chapter 12, part 12A, see section 553CA. political object see section 553CA. political party, for chapter 12, part 12, division 1B and chapter 12, part 12A, see section 553CA. political purpose see section 553C.

98 Clause 59 (Amendment of sch 5 (Dictionary)) Page 97, lines 30 to 32 and page 98, lines 1 and 2— omit.

99 Clause 59 (Amendment of sch 5 (Dictionary)) Page 98, after line 6— insert—

rules committee means the rules committee established under section 337A. 100 Clause 59 (Amendment of sch 5 (Dictionary))

Page 98, after line 12— insert—

(3) Schedule 5— insert—

commissioner see section 256(1). deputy president means— (a) a deputy president (court); or (b) a person appointed as a deputy president of the commission under section 258A. deputy president (court) means a person appointed as a deputy president (court) of the court under section 246C. industrial commissioner means a person appointed as an industrial commissioner under section 259. member— (a) of the court means the president, the vice-president or a deputy president (court); or (b) of the commission means a commissioner. vice-president means the person appointed as the vice-president of the court under section 246A.

101 After clause 59 Page 98, after line 12— insert—

Part 2A Amendment of Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 59A Act amended

This part amends the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2033

59B Amendment of s 106A (Compulsory retirement age under legislation etc.) (1) Section 106A(1)(e), ‘President’— omit, insert—

president, the vice-president or a deputy president (court) (2) Section 106A(1)(f), before ‘an industrial’— insert—

a deputy president appointed under the Industrial Relations Act 1999, section 258A or

Part 2B Amendment of Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950 59C Act amended

This part amends the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950. 59D Amendment of s 4A (Interaction of commission with courts etc.)

Section 4A(1)(b), ‘a member of the said’— omit, insert—

the president of the

Part 2C Amendment of Corrective Services Act 2006 59E Act amended

This part amends the Corrective Services Act 2006. 59F Amendment of s 209 (Automatic cancellation of order by further imprisonment)

(1) Section 209(3)(b)(iii)— omit.

(2) Section 209(3)(b)(iv)— renumber as section 209(3)(b)(iii).

Part 2D Amendment of Criminal Code 59G Code amended

This part amends the Criminal Code. 59H Amendment of s 227C (Persons who are not criminally responsible for offences against

ss 227A and 227B) (1) Section 227C(3), definition supervision order, paragraph (d)—

omit. (2) Section 227C(3), definition supervision order, paragraph (e)—

renumber as paragraph (d). 59I Amendment of s 552H (Maximum penalty for indictable offences dealt with summarily)

Section 552H(1)— omit, insert— (1) A person is liable on summary conviction under section 552A, 552B or 552BA to a

maximum penalty of— (a) if the Magistrates Court is constituted by a magistrate—100 penalty units or 3

years imprisonment; or (b) if the Magistrates Court is constituted by justices under section 552C(1)(b)—

100 penalty units or 6 months imprisonment.

Part 2E Amendment of Drug Court Act 2000 59J Act amended

This part amends the Drug Court Act 2000. 59K Amendment of s 12A (Application of pt 3A)

Section 12A— insert—

Note—

See section 12B(1A) for the ending of referrals for indicative assessment under this part.

59L Amendment of s 12B (Referral for indicative assessment) (1) Section 12B—

insert— (1A) However, a magistrate must not decide to refer a person for an indicative

assessment on or after the relevant day.

2034 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

(2) Section 12B(4)— insert—

Note—

See section 12E for how a drug court magistrate must deal with the proceeding after an indicative assessment report has been submitted.

(3) Section 12B(6)— omit.

59M Insertion of new s 12E Part 3A— insert— 12E Dealing with proceedings after submission of indicative assessment report

(1) If an indicative assessment report about a person is given to a drug court magistrate on or after the relevant day, the magistrate must exercise the jurisdiction of a Magistrates Court and deal with the person according to law.

(2) A drug court magistrate may take account of the indicative assessment report when sentencing the person for the offence.

59N Amendment of s 13 (Application of pt 4) Section 13— insert—

Note—

See section 16C for the ending of referrals for assessment under this part.

59O Amendment of s 15 (Deciding whether to refer for assessment) Section 15— insert— (3) However, a magistrate must not make a decision about whether the person appears to

be an eligible person, or to refer the person for assessment on or after the relevant day.

59P Amendment of s 16 (Referral for assessment) Section 16(5)— insert—

Note—

See section 16C for how a drug court magistrate must deal with the proceeding if an assessment report or a pre-sentence report is submitted on or after the relevant day.

59Q Amendment of s 16A (Assessment report) Section 16A(4)— insert—

Note—

See section 16C for how a drug court magistrate must deal with the proceeding if an assessment report or a pre-sentence report is submitted on or after the relevant day.

59R Insertion of new s 16C Part 4— insert— 16C Dealing with proceedings after submission of assessment report and pre-

sentence report (1) If an assessment report or a pre-sentence report about a person is given to a

drug court magistrate on or after the relevant day, the magistrate must exercise the jurisdiction of a Magistrates Court and deal with the person according to law.

(2) A drug court magistrate may take account of the assessment report and the pre-sentence report when sentencing the person for the offence.

59S Amendment of s 17 (Application of pt 5) Section 17(2)— omit, insert— (2) However, if the person appears before the drug court magistrate on or after the

relevant day— (a) division 2, other than section 26(2), does not apply to the person; and (b) the magistrate must exercise the jurisdiction of a Magistrates Court and deal

with the person according to law.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2035

59T Amendment of s 29 (Dealing with offenders if no intensive drug rehabilitation order made) Section 29, ‘decides not to’— omit, insert—

does not 59U Amendment of s 33 (Amending intensive drug rehabilitation orders)

Section 33— insert— (1A) Also, if a drug court magistrate must conduct a court review in relation to an offender,

the magistrate must amend the requirements of the offender’s intensive drug rehabilitation order or rehabilitation program if the magistrate is satisfied on the balance of probabilities the offender can, before 30 June 2013— (a) comply with the amended intensive drug rehabilitation order and complete the

amended rehabilitation program; and (b) be sentenced under section 36.

(1B) However, a drug court magistrate need not amend the requirements of an intensive drug rehabilitation order or rehabilitation program if the magistrate is satisfied on the balance of probabilities the offender can, before 30 June 2013— (a) comply with the intensive drug rehabilitation order and complete the

rehabilitation program; and (b) be sentenced under section 36.

(4) In this section— court review means a review by a drug court requiring the attendance of an offender who is subject to an intensive drug rehabilitation order.

59V Amendment of s 34 (Terminating rehabilitation programs) (1) Section 34(1)—

insert— (f) a warrant is issued for the offender’s arrest under section 40(1)(a).

(2) Section 34— insert—

(1A) Also, a drug court magistrate must terminate a rehabilitation program decided for an offender if the magistrate is satisfied on the balance of probabilities there are not reasonable prospects the offender can, before 30 June 2013— (a) comply with the intensive drug rehabilitation order or complete the

rehabilitation program; and (b) be sentenced under section 36.

(3) Section 34(3)(a)— omit, insert— (a) order that the record of the conviction for the offence be revoked; and

Note—

For the effect of not recording a conviction, see the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, section 12.

(4) Section 34(3)(c), ‘Supreme Court’— omit, insert—

District Court 59W Omission of s 35A (Inclusion of new rehabilitation program)

Section 35A— omit.

59X Amendment of s 36 (Final sentence to be decided on completion or termination of rehabilitation program) Section 36(1)(b) and (2)— omit, insert—

(b) if the offence for which the offender’s intensive drug rehabilitation order was made was not a prescribed drug offence—for any reason.

(2) The magistrate must, before 30 June 2013— (a) reconsider the offender’s initial sentence; and (b) vacate the intensive drug rehabilitation order; and (c) impose a final sentence.

2036 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

59Y Amendment of s 40 (Arrest warrants) Section 40(4)— omit, insert— (4) If the warrant is issued under subsection (1)(a), the drug court magistrate may remand

the offender in custody to appear before a drug court magistrate if the drug court magistrate decides to— (a) reserve making a decision about terminating the offender’s rehabilitation

program; or (b) terminate the offender’s rehabilitation program under section 34.

(4A) If the warrant is issued under subsection (1)(b) and the offence for which the offender’s intensive drug rehabilitation order was made was not a prescribed drug offence, the drug court magistrate may remand the offender in custody to appear before a drug court magistrate to be sentenced under section 36 before 30 June 2013.

59Z Insertion of new s 40A After section 40— insert—

40A Dealing with offender after arrest but no final sentence decided before 30 June 2013 (1) This section applies if an offender is arrested on the authority of a warrant

issued under section 40 and brought before a drug court magistrate after the relevant day but can not be sentenced under section 36 before 30 June 2013.

(2) The drug court magistrate must— (a) order that the record of the conviction for the offence be revoked; and

Note—

For the effect of not recording a conviction, see the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, section 12.

(b) vacate the offender’s intensive drug rehabilitation order; and (c) deal with the offender according to law.

(3) The magistrate— (a) may remand the offender in custody to appear before a magistrate; or (b) may release the offender on bail to appear before a magistrate; or (c) if either of the following applies must, under the Justices Act 1886,

section 113, commit the offender to the District Court for sentence— (i) the offence, in relation to which the intensive drug rehabilitation

order for the offender was made, is a prescribed drug offence; (ii) the magistrate is satisfied, under the Criminal Code, section

552D, the offender, if dealt with under subsection (2)(c), may not be adequately punished on summary conviction. Note—

For the maximum penalty for indictable offences dealt with summarily, see the Criminal Code, section 552H.

(4) Subsection (3)(c) applies even though the magistrate has not addressed the defendant as required under the Justices Act 1886, section 104(2).

(5) In sentencing an offender to whom subsection (3)(a) or (b) applies, the magistrate must have regard to the initial sentence contained in the offender’s intensive drug rehabilitation order.

(6) To remove any doubt, it is declared that— (a) the Bail Act 1980 applies to an offender who is arrested on the

authority of a warrant issued under section 40 and to whom subsection (1) applies; and

(b) in applying the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, section 159A, to a sentence for a term of imprisonment imposed on an offender under this section, time spent in custody, other than under section 32(1)(f), is taken to be imprisonment already served under the sentence.

59ZA Insertion of new s 45 Part 6— insert— 45 Expiry of Act

This Act expires on 30 June 2013.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2037

59ZB Amendment of schedule (Dictionary) Schedule— insert—

relevant day means the day section 12E commences. Part 2F Amendment of Judicial Remuneration Act 2007 59ZC Act amended

This part amends the Judicial Remuneration Act 2007. 59ZD Amendment of s 12 (Presidential members of the Industrial Commission)

(1) Section 12, heading, ‘of the Industrial Commission’— omit, insert—

under the Industrial Relations Act 1999 (2) Section 12(2), ‘Vice President of the Industrial Commission’— omit, insert—

Vice-President of the Industrial Court (3) Section 12(3), ‘Industrial Commission’— omit, insert—

Industrial Court or Commission 59ZE Amendment of s 13 (Commissioner other than a presidential member of the Industrial

Commission) (1) Section 13, heading— omit, insert— 13 Industrial Commissioner (2) Section 13, ‘A commissioner, other than a presidential member of the Industrial

Commission,’— omit, insert—

An industrial commissioner 59ZF Amendment of s 16 (Jurisprudential allowance)

Section 16(2)(e), ‘Vice President of the Industrial Commission’— omit, insert—

Vice-President of the Industrial Court 59ZG Amendment of s 20 (Education and conference allowance)

Section 20(2)(a) and (b)— omit, insert—

(a) a deputy president of the Industrial Court or Commission; (b) an industrial commissioner.

59ZH Amendment of s 22 (Long leave allowance) Section 22(2)(d), ‘of the Industrial Commission’— omit, insert—

under the Industrial Relations Act 1999 59ZI Amendment of s 29 (Notice of election)

Section 29(a)— omit, insert—

(a) for a presidential member under the Industrial Relations Act 1999—the chief executive of the department in which that Act is administered;

59ZJ Amendment of sch 2 (Dictionary) (1) Schedule 2, definitions commissioner, deputy president of the Industrial Commission,

presidential member, Vice President of the Industrial Commission— omit. (2) Schedule 2— insert—

deputy president of the Industrial Court or Commission means a deputy president under the Industrial Relations Act 1999. industrial commissioner means an industrial commissioner under the Industrial Relations Act 1999. Vice-President of the Industrial Court means the vice-president under the Industrial Relations Act 1999.

2038 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

(3) Schedule 2, definition judicial office, paragraphs (i) to (k)— omit, insert—

(i) Vice-President of the Industrial Court; (j) deputy president of the Industrial Court or Commission; (k) industrial commissioner;

Part 2G Amendment of Justices Act 1886 59ZK Act amended

This part amends the Justices Act 1886. 59ZL Amendment of s 154 (Copies of record)

Section 154— insert— (6) In this section—

exhibit includes a document that— (a) was given to a drug court under the repealed Drug Court Act 2000; and (b) is about an offender who had appeared before a magistrate who was allocated

the functions of a drug court magistrate under section 10 of that Act. Part 2H Amendment of Local Government Act 2009 59ZM Act amended

This part amends the Local Government Act 2009. 59ZN Amendment of s 185 (Remuneration and appointment conditions of members)

Section 185(3), ‘commissioner under’— omit, insert—

commissioner, other than the president, under Part 2I Amendment of Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 59ZO Act amended

This part amends the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. 59ZP Insertion of new pt 14, div 6

Part 14— insert— Division 6 Transitional provisions for expiry of Drug Court Act 2000 227 Definitions for div 6

In this division— Drug Court Act means the Drug Court Act 2000 as in force before its expiry. intensive drug rehabilitation order means an order made under the Drug Court Act, section 19.

228 Application of div 6 This division applies from 1 July 2013.

229 Continuation of warrants (1) This section applies to a warrant issued under the Drug Court Act, section 40, for an

offender before 30 June 2013— (a) but not enforced; or (b) enforced but not returned before a drug court magistrate before that day.

(2) The warrant is taken to be a warrant— (a) issued by a magistrate; and (b) that authorises any police officer to arrest the offender and bring the offender

before a magistrate. 230 Dealing with offences after enforcement of warrant (1) This section applies if—

(a) an offender is arrested on a warrant mentioned in section 229; and (b) the offender is brought before a magistrate.

(2) The magistrate must— (a) order that the record of the conviction for the offence be revoked; and

Note—

For the effect of not recording a conviction, see section 12.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2039

(b) vacate the offender’s intensive drug rehabilitation order; and (c) deal with the offender according to law.

(3) Also, the magistrate must, under the Justices Act 1886, section 113, commit the offender to the District Court for sentence if— (a) the offence, in relation to which the intensive drug rehabilitation order for the

offender was made, is a prescribed drug offence under the Drug Court Act; or (b) the magistrate is satisfied, under the Criminal Code, section 552D, the

offender, if dealt with under subsection (2)(c), may not be adequately punished on summary conviction. Note—

For the maximum penalty for indictable offences dealt with summarily, see the Criminal Code, section 552H.

(4) Subsection (3) applies even though the magistrate has not addressed the defendant as required under the Justices Act 1886, section 104(2).

(5) To remove any doubt, it is declared that— (a) the Bail Act 1980 applies to the offender; and (b) the offender has pleaded guilty to the offence under the Drug Court Act,

section 19(c).

231 Sentencing an offender after enforcement of warrant (1) This section applies if a magistrate sentences an offender to whom section 230

applies. (2) In sentencing the offender, the magistrate must have regard to the initial sentence

contained in the offender’s intensive drug rehabilitation order. (3) To remove any doubt, it is declared that, in applying section 159A to a sentence for a

term of imprisonment imposed on an offender under this section, time spent in custody under the Drug Court Act, other than under section 32(1)(f) of that Act, is taken to be imprisonment already served under the sentence.

102 After clause 60 Page 98, after line 16— insert—

60A Amendment of s 13 (Act does not apply to particular offices and employment) Section 13(2), ‘industrial commissioner’— omit, insert—

commissioner under the Industrial Relations Act 1999 103 Clause 61 (Amendment of s 88AA (Definition for pt 5))

Page 98, lines 23 and 24— omit, insert—

vice-president means the vice-president under the Industrial Relations Act 1999. 104 Clause 62 (Amendment of s 88A (Appeals officers))

Page 99, lines 4 and 9, ‘vice president of the IRC’— omit, insert—

vice-president 105 Clause 62 (Amendment of s 88A (Appeals officers))

Page 99, line 10, ‘vice president’— omit, insert—

vice-president 106 Clause 62 (Amendment of s 88A (Appeals officers))

Page 99, after line 16— insert—

(5) Section 88A(7)(a), as renumbered, ‘section 258’— omit, insert—

section 246A 107 Clause 63 (Insertion of new s 88B)

Page 99, line 21— omit, insert—

(1) The vice-president is also the senior

2040 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 5 Jun 2013

108 Clause 63 (Insertion of new s 88B) Page 99, after line 22— insert—

(2) In section 88A— (a) a reference to the functions of office of an appeals officer includes the functions of

office of the senior appeals officer; and (b) a reference to service as an appeals officer includes service as the senior appeals

officer. 109 Clause 69 (Amendment of sch 4 (Dictionary))

Page 103, line 5, ‘vice president, of the IRC’— omit, insert—

vice-president 110 After clause 69

Page 103, after line 6— insert—

Part 3A Amendment of Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 69A Act amended

This part amends the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008. 69B Omission of s 42 (Intensive drug rehabilitation order)

Section 42— omit.

Part 3B Amendment of Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990 69C Act amended

This part amends the Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990. 69D Amendment of s 4 (Meaning of terms)

Section 4, definition commissioner— omit, insert—

commissioner means a commissioner, other than the president, under the Industrial Relations Act 1999.

Division: Question put—That clauses 30 to 76 and the Attorney-General’s amendments be agreed to.

AYES, 70—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens

NOES, 14—Byrne, Cunningham, Douglas, Hopper, Judge, Katter, Knuth, Miller, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Pitt, Scott

Resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 30 to 76, as amended, and amendments agreed to. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The House will now consider postponed clause 2. Clause 2— Mr BLEIJIE (11.57 pm): I move the following amendment—

1 Clause 2 (Commencement)

Page 10, lines 8 and 9—

omit, insert—

(1) The following provisions of this Act commence on a day to be fixed by proclamation— (a) parts 2, 2A, 2B, 2F, 2H, 3B and 4; (b) sections 60A and 62(5).

(2) Parts 2C, 2D, 2G, 2I and 3A commence on 1 July 2013.

5 Jun 2013 Industrial Relations (Transparency and Accountability of Industrial Organisations) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2041

This deals with the commencement of various parts of the bill. What we have seen tonight in this debate is the Labor Party covering up dirty deals. It has voted against truth, honesty, dignity, accountability and integrity—all of the accountability we have seen the Labor Party vote against. We on this side of the House will always believe in democracy, truth, honesty and dignity. If I can end this debate with these words of wisdom from Sir Robert Menzies—

Mrs MILLER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I understand that in accordance with standing orders you cannot debate after the guillotine has gone down.

Mr BLEIJIE: I am talking to the clause. I am moving an amendment that was postponed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We have to cover the clause that was postponed, member for

Bundamba. The Attorney-General has the call. Mr BLEIJIE: I am going to end this debate tonight with the words of one of the greatest prime

ministers of Australia, Sir Robert Menzies, who said—

What may be before us we do not know, nor how long the journey. But this we do know, that Truth is our companion on that journey; that Truth is with us in the battle, and that Truth must win.

Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to. AYES, 71—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Cunningham, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens

NOES, 13—Byrne, Douglas, Hopper, Judge, Katter, Knuth, Miller, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Pitt, Scott

Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Third Reading Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! Under the provisions of the resolution agreed to

by the House and the time limit for the third reading of the bill having expired, the question is— That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time.

Division: Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. AYES, 70—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens

NOES, 14—Byrne, Cunningham, Douglas, Hopper, Judge, Katter, Knuth, Miller, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Pitt, Scott

Resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time.

Long Title Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Under the provisions of the resolution agreed to by the House

and the time limit for the long title of the bill being agreed to having expired, the question is— That the long title of the bill, including the Attorney-General’s amendment as circulated, be agreed to.

Amendment as circulated— 111 Long title

Long title, ‘Public Service Act 2008’— omit, insert— Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950, the Corrective Services Act 2006, the Criminal Code, the Drug Court Act 2000, the Judicial Remuneration Act 2007, the Justices Act 1886, the Local Government Act 2009, the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, the Public Service Act 2008, the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008, the Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990

2042 Adjournment 5 Jun 2013

Division: Question put—That the long title of the bill, as amended, be agreed to.

AYES, 71—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Cunningham, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens

NOES, 13—Byrne, Douglas, Hopper, Judge, Katter, Knuth, Miller, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Pitt, Scott

Resolved in the affirmative.

ADJOURNMENT Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (Manager of Government Business) (12.12 am): I

move— That the House do now adjourn.

World Environment Day Ms TRAD (South Brisbane—ALP) (12.12 am): Ten minutes ago World Environment Day came

to an end. World Environment Day was established by the United Nation’s General Assembly in 1972 with the first World Environment Day in 1973. World Environment Day provides an opportunity for all of humanity to sit back and look at our impact on other species and the planet that we share with them. The theme for 2013—Think.Eat.Save—is an anti food waste and food loss campaign that encourages people to reduce their waste footprint.

In Queensland, World Environment Day is an important time to look back at the Newman government’s environmental record. One of the ministers responsible for looking after some of our most important environmental assets—national parks—Minister Steve Dickson, stated in this House on 17 April— … in 20 years time, the people of Queensland and Australia will look back at this side of politics and say this is the greenest government they have ever seen.

From taking an axe to tree-clearing laws to cancelling every single renewable energy project and recommencing uranium mining, there is nothing in this government’s record that is environmentally respectful, environmentally sensitive or environmentally sustainable. I have compiled a list of the LNP government’s environmental achievements over the past 14 months. I table a copy of that environmental record for the benefit of the House. There are even pictures, so even members opposite can follow it. Tabled paper: Poster titled ‘The Greenest Government in Queensland History?’ [2852].

Over the weekend Greg Roberts wrote in the Australian— Newman’s environmental agenda is more destructive than that of former National Party premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who at least protected national parks and launched initiatives to preserve the wilderness values of Cape York.

…

For all his defects, Bjelke-Petersen kept an environmental leash on extremists in the Nationals’ ranks. Not so Newman. Now it is open slather.

The LNP likes to claim that it is planning for the future with its 30-year Queensland Plan, but it fails to see the long-term consequences of its actions. The CSIRO presentation at the Queensland Plan summit clearly highlighted the need to protect the environment, with one of its ‘megatrends’—more from less, increasing demand for limited resources—showing the ever-increasing conflict between development and food production.

It is no use holding flashy summits to talk about what will happen in 30 years time if we cannot grapple with the decisions we are making now and their impact on our environment and on a whole range of other issues in the short, medium and long term. Because the Minister for Natural Resources was not present in the House today, I did get someone to take a photo of the very special award. I table a copy for the benefit of the House. Tabled paper: Poster depicting a trophy named ‘Golden bulldozer award 2013, winner Mr Andrew Cripps’ [2853].

(Time expired)

5 Jun 2013 Adjournment 2043

Townsville Triathlon Festival Hon. DF CRISAFULLI (Mundingburra—LNP) (Minister for Local Government, Community

Recovery and Resilience) (12.16 am): I would like to place on the record of this House my great sense of pride in a fantastic event that has been secured for my home city of Townsville.

Mr Johnson: Where’s Townsville? Mr CRISAFULLI: A long way from Longreach, I am here to tell you! Next year, the Townsville

Triathlon Festival will play host to a 2013-14 national qualifier for the world championships Olympic-distance triathlon. This is a really big coup. What this means is that, for the first time, this event will feature an Olympic-length triathlon—a 1,500-metre swimming leg, a 40-kilometre cycle leg and a 10-kilometre run—held on a circuit encompassing our magnificent Strand and Pallarenda. It will also have existing categories such as the corporate triathlon and the fun run/walk. This is something I have been involved in for a long time.

This event in many ways mirrors the great city of Townsville. That is, despite the fact that it has come of age and moved from what was a very small triathlon held in the suburbs of Townsville, in my electorate of Mundingburra, to a world championship qualifier event, the event has not forgotten where it has come from. Whilst there will be world-class athletes descending on my city and competing, there will still be the opportunity for part-time enthusiasts like myself to compete. That is the joy of Townsville. I have seen the city become a world-class city in recent years, but it has never forgotten its roots. It is still a place where people matter. It is still a place where people of different ages, abilities, ethnic backgrounds and disabilities can make a contribution. That is why I am so proud of the great city of Townsville.

This event will move to July. To my mind, with that move comes a great opportunity for the city to promote itself during the winter months. When the rest of the country—indeed, even this part of the state—is suffering some winter blues, in our part of the world it is absolute paradise. That presents a golden opportunity for us to promote ourselves. In that month we will be holding events like the Australian Festival of Chamber Music, the V8 Supercars, some wonderful horse-racing events and now this world-class qualifier for triathlon. Townsville is a great city with a great future. I commend this event as an important event on our calendar.

Pumicestone Passage Hon. MF McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (Minister for Energy and Water Supply) (12.19 am):

Today in Caloundra a petition was launched in relation to the Pumicestone Passage. For those who do not know, the passage is a pristine body of water—a Ramsar site of world significance. This body of water is absolutely magic, particularly in the morning. When you sail down it you see mangroves and birds. You experience the silence that comes from simply being in touch with nature.

This pristine body of water is potentially under threat from various sources, one of which is overuse by recreational watercraft and the number of people who are coming to use it, with development right across Caloundra and indeed the Sunshine Coast.

The petition asks that there be a plan put in place to manage the body of water and the type of watercraft that can use it, identifying jet skis as a major concern for vegetation, for the environment, for dugongs and for other users of the passage. Whilst I appreciate the intent of the petition—and it is one that I support in that it is important to maintain the beauty of these bodies of water not just in Caloundra but right across the state—we also have to understand that places like Caloundra and the Sunshine Coast are indeed tourist destinations and there needs to be a balance struck between the two. Whilst we want people to come to the Sunshine Coast, we also want them to enjoy what we have available for them and their families. However, we must understand that simply banning jet skis and other types of watercraft is not the answer per se. We need to get the balance right and understand what we can do to attract these families to the coast for two or three weeks at a time, bearing in mind it is the family who comes to the coast and not the jet ski itself. They spend money in our shops, they spend money in our tourist destinations, they travel across the Sunshine Coast and they incorporate and become part of our economy.

Whilst I certainly endorse the concept of the petition and wish it well, the understanding clearly is that a balance has to be struck. The greatest threat will of course be from the development of Caloundra South, with a housing population of 25,000 dwellings and a population of some 50,000-odd people. They will want to use the passage and they will also have family and friends who will come with them to use the passage, and I say good on them. However, we have to make certain that we do

2044 Adjournment 5 Jun 2013

not overuse the passage or use it to death. Let us strike the balance and let us understand the balance between tourism and the environment. As I said before, being on this body of water in the mornings is absolutely ideal. It is like being one with nature, and we cannot afford to lose such beautiful spots.

Rockhampton Electorate, Alcohol Abuse Mr BYRNE (Rockhampton—ALP) (12.22 am): I rise to place on record my long-held and

increasing concerns about the societal effects of alcohol or, more importantly and particularly, the availability and abuse of alcohol in our communities. On nearly a daily basis as a member of parliament the knock-on effects of alcohol abuse or the societal fixation with alcohol have been brought to my attention. For the benefit of members, I will represent some of the matters that present the common thread of alcohol abuse.

The first example is that of juvenile offenders. Consistently those children are going after alcohol or substances that can be abused or cash that can be easily converted to such. Other examples reflect my observations since maintaining an electorate office in the CBD of Rockhampton. I have had at least 20 confrontational, unpleasant and potentially explosive interactions with drunken vagrants during normal business hours. At certain times the density of these sorts of individuals in the CBD becomes all pervasive and grossly intimidating to law-abiding citizens going about their normal business.

In the past few weeks I have personally encountered symptomatic incidents in the CBD. The first was a young female being publically beaten to the ground by a drunken male. The second incident involved two well-known retailers being aggressively threatened by a drunken thief. The third involved me coming upon a drunk rendered unconscious lying in the middle of the main road in the middle of a workday afternoon. Most Rockhampton locals would simply attribute this to being another one of the never-ending aberrations that seem to occur on our streets. These sorts of events are not isolated and they are not acceptable. I could talk about the goings-on in public housing in Rockhampton or what happens in nightclub precincts particularly on a Friday and Saturday night after midnight. What I can say is that we have a problem in our communities. It may well be one of the most important social issues impacting on the next generation. It is not adequate for us to collectively turn a blind eye. Education of itself will not deal with the issues adequately, nor will handing out punishment regimes. Let us be in no doubt that alcohol abuse is a major cost to the state. Apart from the broad societal destruction, alcohol related events consume enormous resources from our services such as police, health, community services, the judicial processes et cetera.

I have always liked Winston Churchill’s comments comparing virtue and wickedness, and perhaps that may be relevant here: ‘Virtuous motives, trammelled by inertia and timidity, are no match for armed and resolute wickedness.’ I suppose what I am calling for is some armed and resolute wickedness in order to do some good for our communities by addressing this plague on society.

Midge Point, Shoreline Erosion Mr COSTIGAN (Whitsunday—LNP) (12.25 am): This morning I speak out for some very

frustrated, decent country people who reside at Midge Point—a wonderful coastal community where locals believe homes are potentially in danger of literally slipping into the waters of Repulse Bay. From my observations, having seen the situation firsthand and having lived not too far away at Bloomsbury, these fears are genuine and were exacerbated by Tropical Cyclone Ului, a category 3 cyclone that hit the Mackay-Whitsunday region in March 2010 causing considerable damage. The shoreline at Midge Point was seriously eroded, and with Mackay well known for its big six-metre tides—the biggest on the eastern seaboard—this is indeed a big worry for locals, especially given the history of erosion in this community.

What is disappointing is that for two years after Cyclone Ului nothing happened under the former Bligh Labor government—except obstruction from the now defunct department of environment and resource management, known to government members as the ‘department of no’. It should also be pointed out that the former Deputy Premier, Treasurer and previous member for Mount Coot-tha has spent many a holiday over the years at Midge Point but failed to get any result for these poor people, who wonder when another big cyclone will impact on their community. Locals simply want an opportunity to defend the shoreline. They are not looking for handouts, just a fair go, especially after a previous offer by at least one benevolent local landholder to provide decent sized rocks to address this situation. That is right: local people taking ownership of the situation at hand. For two years there has been much anticipation in the community of seeing a shoreline erosion management plan

5 Jun 2013 Adjournment 2045

prepared by Mackay Regional Council. But sadly, if you ask the locals, this document became secret squirrel business—almost to the point that you had very good reason to think that this document was coming out of the KGB, not council. I understand council’s new CEO, Barry Omundson, is heading to Midge Point in the near future. I had the pleasure of meeting Barry. He seems a very decent bloke who gets things done, and I sincerely hope something can be done to address this situation.

I commend the Midge Point Progress Association for its ongoing campaign for action and particularly acknowledge people like Navio Zeglio, Mike Leyland, Colleen Bertwistle, Ben Hancock and many others who have been fighting for action, many of whom attended the recent AGM. I, too, attended that annual general meeting and, as I indicated to members and members of the community at large, I will do everything in my power to get an outcome here for local people, especially those poor souls who fear their homes will one day disappear into the ocean unless something is done sooner rather than later.

Broadwater Electorate, National Sorry Day Miss BARTON (Broadwater—LNP) (12.28 am): It gives me great pleasure to rise this evening

to inform the House of a fantastic event that I attended in the great Broadwater electorate on National Sorry Day, 26 May. This was an event organised by the Kirrawe Indigenous Corporation and was an Indigenous art, craft and food festival. The theme of the day was ‘Stand up against violence’. The reason for this was that it was the end of Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Month in May. The Queensland government was very proud to be able to support this event to the tune of $2,875. It was a fantastic event. It was a great opportunity for those of us in my community to be able to come together from all walks of life so that we could experience some fantastic dancing from local Aboriginal groups as well as Torres Strait Islander dancing, which I found particularly interesting. It was the first opportunity I had had to see some Torres Strait Islander traditional dancing. There was a lot of craft and some great bush tucker, which everyone enjoyed tucking into. There was also a barbecue that was organised by the Men’s Shed.

I would like to pay tribute to the organiser of the day, Rosemary Norman-Hill, who is from the Kirrawe Indigenous Corporation. I had a message on the day that I think is particularly important. I said that it does not matter who you are, it does not matter where you come from, it does not matter what you look like, or what you do; at no point in time is domestic violence acceptable. As a community we have an obligation to stand up against domestic violence, to rail against it. It is absolutely abhorrent. It was a fantastic opportunity for us as a community to send that message to not only the perpetrators of domestic violence but also, importantly, to the victims so that we could say to them, ‘We as a community support you. We as a community will welcome you with open arms if you need to come and talk to us.’

Domestic violence is a scourge in our society and, as a community, we must do everything that we can to stop it. It is in no way, shape or form acceptable at any time in any place. It gave me great pleasure to be able to officially open the event. I would like to pay tribute to the Minister for Communities, the Hon. Tracy Davis, and thank her department for their support of the event. It was a fantastic day and I look forward to next year’s event as we work together as a community to stand up against violence, because it is incumbent on all of us to work together to send that message and to show our support to the victims and to show them that we care.

Harlaxton State School Mr WATTS (Toowoomba North—LNP) (12.31 am): I wish to bring to the attention of the House

one of the schools in my electorate where I was fortunate enough to attend the National Day of Action Against Bullying and Violence. This happened a little while ago, but in recent times I have taken other opportunities in this House to speak about the range crossing. It was a great pleasure to attend the Harlaxton State School in recognition of the third annual National Day of Action Against Bullying and Violence. This school is particularly important to me, because it is the primary school of my children’s grandfather and he reminds me of that every time I go there.

The students of Harlaxton State School joined hundreds of thousands of other Australian students in taking a united stand against bullying and violence. On that day, many Australian students stood proudly alongside their school communities and voiced their intolerance in respect to any kind of bullying and violence within their schools. I would like to recognise and applaud the wonderful work that is being undertaken at the Harlaxton State School to provide a safe and supportive learning

2046 Adjournment 5 Jun 2013

environment for all attending students. Special recognition should be given to the Principal, Leonie Hultgren, teachers, staff and P&C representatives, parents and friends who all attended on that particular day.

Harlaxton State School might be considered to be a small school, with only 110 students in attendance, but it is mighty in spirit. During my visit I was given the great honour of announcing the incoming 2013 school leaders, namely, Taylah Lynch, Shauni Butler, Nykiah Duncan, Jordan Parsons and Joel Cashin. These students have effectively demonstrated the school’s core values. I understand that in 2004 Harlaxton State School introduced three core values into their schooling program: respect, resilience and relationships. This is all part of the school’s program to make the whole child, which is the school’s main focus. Each of those core values encompasses the issue of bullying and defines clearly the school’s intolerance and strong desire to eliminate any kind of bullying and violence within the school precinct.

Unfortunately, the issue of bullying extends far beyond the school gates. Fortunately for the students of Harlaxton State School, lesson plans and strategies are being put in place on a daily basis as part of their ongoing classroom learning activities to assist each and every one of them to deal with the impact of bullying. The National Day of Action Against Bullying and Violence provides a focus for schools to say, ‘Bullying, no way!’ This will strengthen the great work and everyday messages that are being delivered at Harlaxton State School. I appreciate the opportunity to bring this matter to the attention of the House.

Cattle Industry Mr KATTER (Mount Isa—KAP) (12.34 am): I rise to elaborate on the question that I asked

today in this House regarding the offer of low-interest loans from the federal government to the struggling cattle industry. It was a legitimate question with no provocation intended. It was a genuine appeal to help the battling cattlemen in Western Queensland. Some of these men are on their knees and I have had personal contact from neighbours of some producers who fear they may take their own lives before the banks move in.

In Queensland, the average farm debt rose from $700,000 two years ago to $1.2 million in 2012 and now it is at $1.4 million and increasing. Some contributing factors to this increase in debt include the BJD outbreak, live-export bans, dry seasonal conditions and the high Australian dollar. This is the environment that some people are facing and some lifelines have been thrown.

I have tried to be gracious by suggesting in the media that the government package of $11.2 million is welcome, but in retrospect that was far too generous an appraisal by me. When the sugar industry was in crisis in the 1980s, the government came forward with, in today’s terms, what would be worth over $300 million. Why? Because that funding was from a government that valued industry above the virtue of the fiscal balance. We have on the table an offer of $60 million in low-interest loans that has been sitting there for at least four weeks as far as I am aware, perhaps longer. To be fair, there may be some slightly onerous covenants associated with that offer, but in the interest of transparency we must know what they are. People need at least some hope of goodwill from the government. Otherwise this can only be interpreted as playing politics. I truly hope that is not the case. In the meantime, I will not be the one having to deal with my conscience if these producers are foreclosed on.

Some rationale that I have heard is that this offer will only keep people battling away longer. That is precisely what it will do. It will keep people in the game longer. That may be only a small number of producers but, who knows, the seasons could come early and prices could improve and these people could get back on their feet if they are given the right to survive for that bit longer. I also heard that there was concern expressed that these loans presented a risk to the government if they were defaulted on, but I also read that that risk has been mitigated now by the federal government.

There are not a lot of opportunities to receive assistance money like this. I think we should grab it with both hands. I have knowledge of people in that position right now in my electorate and I am sure that they would jump at this opportunity. I plead with the government to consider these people and to take whatever steps that are necessary to make this happen.

The only rationale I have heard in relation to this issue is that the money is coming from federal Labor, which contributed to this situation. Certainly, it precipitated the abominable decision to ban live exports to Indonesia. But I could not care less where the money comes from. It could come from the

5 Jun 2013 Adjournment 2047

Callithumpians if it helps keep some of our valued cattlemen alive for a bit longer. I do not care at all where the money comes from. The response from the Premier to my question this morning was a personal indulgence. In my opinion, it was politicising the situation.

(Time expired)

Mount Coot-tha Electorate, Traffic Congestion Mrs RICE (Mount Coot-tha—LNP) (12.37 am): Over the past two years I have received

feedback from hundreds of local residents who are frustrated with the traffic congestion through Bardon, and particularly the level of rat-running in local streets. Residents have told me that what was most frustrating was the broken promises by the previous government to address these issues along the Metroad 5 corridor and particularly at the Macgregor Terrace intersection. There is no doubt that this is a complex issue and there is no doubt that there is a need for a multifaceted approach given that this route is a major thoroughfare through a densely populated suburban area. But empty promises such as those made by the previous government are certainly not the answer.

For more than 12 months I have been working closely with the Minister for Transport and Main Roads, and I acknowledge the minister for his assistance and concern for these issues in Bardon. Given the legacy of debt and the extremely poor financial situation that this government inherited, the minister confirmed that it was not possible to provide a full upgrade of the Macgregor Terrace intersection in the short term, because we must focus on paying down Labor’s debt and regaining the state’s AAA credit rating. However, the minister has always been open to any practical, common-sense measures that could be taken immediately that can assist the issues.

As a result, and following much discussion with experts within the Department of Transport and Main Roads, I am pleased to advise that a 19-car car park, including one disabled car park, will be constructed on Queensland government owned vacant land on the corner of Simpsons Road and Jubilee Terrace in Bardon. The car park will provide off-street parking to improve access to local businesses and help to improve the flow of traffic through the Macgregor Terrace-Jubilee Terrace intersection. This car park is a practical and common-sense solution as part of the first stage in addressing these issues. TMR considers that the use of this site for car parking, in conjunction with the removal of hourly parking on the outbound side of Macgregor Terrace, but retaining a short loading zone park, will reduce traffic congestion and, in turn, help to address rat-running in local streets.

In addition, TMR has also be been working closely with the Brisbane City Council in relation to traffic light sequencing at the intersection of Macgregor Terrace, Jubilee Terrace and Coopers Camp Road and it is expected that this will also positively impact the flow of traffic through the intersection. The plan for addressing the issues of traffic congestion and rat-running in local streets in Bardon is one that will involve continual monitoring and evaluation. These results will then be analysed along with the effect of the completion of the Legacy Way tunnel, particularly in relation to heavy vehicle traffic, which will be used to inform future options. The car park construction is expected to be completed at the end of June and I thank those residents who provided me with their feedback and ideas to address these issues. I am proud to be part of a government that is prepared to make common sense decisions and in this case have the confidence that they will have a positive impact rather than make grand promises that can never be delivered.

First Contact Memorial Project Mr KEMPTON (Cook—LNP) (12.40 am): It is little known that the first European contact with

Australia was in 1606 when the Duyfken, or Little Dove, of the Dutch East India Company sailed down the west coast of Cape York under the control of Captain Willem Janszoon in search of a land where there was reputed to be an abundance of gold. Contact was made with the Tjungundji people in Port Musgrave. The ship’s log was ultimately lost and there is no direct record of events, although the charts were used in a subsequent voyage as soon after as 1623 when the ship’s log of that voyage described— In the afternoon we sailed past a large river (which the men of the Duifken went up with a boat in 1606, and where one of them was killed by arrows of the blacks). To this river, which is in 11 degrees 48" latitude, I have given the name of Revier de Carpantaria on the new chart.

Had the Dutch been colonists not traders Australia may well have had a completely different mantle today. The First Contact Memorial Project was established in 2006 and Mapoon was selected as the most favourable site following lengthy discussion with the Netherlands embassy, the Queensland government and the Mapoon community. With the support of Rio Tinto Alcan, historian

2048 Attendance 5 Jun 2013

Geoff Wharton and other sponsors, a memorial has been erected on the site at Cullen Point where the first contact with Indigenous people was made in 1606. The memorial comprises a replica of the vessel the Duyfken cut from aluminium and erected on a wall to give the effect of a silhouette of the vessel against the water and skyline of Port Musgrave. On the sail a little dove is depicted, which represents the Duyfken, and the hero bird of the Yupungathi people, a Torresian Imperial pigeon, which is, incidentally, related to the dove. On the wall are 12 bronze plaques containing cultural and historical information about the Mapoon people, their country and the first contact history. All in all, it is a very impressive sight.

It was my pleasure to represent the Premier on the 27 May 2013 at the official opening of the First Contact Memorial. The official party comprised Her Excellency Penelope Wensley AC, the Governor of Queensland; the Ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Mrs Anniemeike Ruigwrok; the leader of the Netherlands senate, Fred De Graaf; and Mayor Peter Guiverra along with traditional owners and many local people. The ceremony was very moving with some heartfelt speeches and traditional dancing. Whatever differences existed over 400 years ago in 1606 have now well and truly been put to rest between the people of the Netherlands nation and the people of Mapoon in an act of generosity and reconciliation.

Question put—That the House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 12.43 am (Thursday).

ATTENDANCE Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Byrne, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox,

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