RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS - Queensland Parliament ...

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 

Thursday, 7 March 2013 

Subject 

Page 

PRIVILEGE ........................................................................................................................................................................... 461 

Speaker’s Ruling, Alleged Deliberate Misleading of a Committee by a Minister ........................................... 461 

Tabled paper: Correspondence regarding alleged deliberate misleading of a committee by a 

minister. ............................................................................................................................................ 461 

MOTION OF CONDOLENCE ................................................................................................................................................ 461 

Prest, Mr WG ..................................................................................................................................................... 461 

PETITION .............................................................................................................................................................................. 465 

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................... 466 

Open Data .......................................................................................................................................................... 466 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Premier, 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2013 ................................ 466 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development, 

Infrastructure and Planning, 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2013 [2182]. .......................................... 466 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Treasurer and Minister for Trade, 1 January 2013 to 

31 January 2013. .............................................................................................................................. 466 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Health, 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2013. ................ 466 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Education, Training and Employment, 

1 January 2013 to 31 January 2013. ................................................................................................. 466 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Police and Community Safety, 1 January 2013 

to 31 January 2013 ........................................................................................................................... 466 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, 1 January 2013 

to 31 January 2013. .......................................................................................................................... 466 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Transport and Main Roads, 1 January 2013 to 

31 January 2013. .............................................................................................................................. 466 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Local Government, 1 January 2013 to 

31 January 2013. .............................................................................................................................. 466 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Housing and Public Works, 1 January 2013 to 

31 January 2013 . ............................................................................................................................. 466 

FS SIMPSON 

SPEAKER 

NJ LAURIE 

CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT 

LJ OSMOND 

CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER

Table of Contents – Thursday, 7 March 2013 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 


Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection, 


Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, 1 January 2013 

to 31 January 2013. .......................................................................................................................... 466 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Energy and Water Supply, 1 January 2013 to 

31 January 2013. .............................................................................................................................. 466 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services, 


Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Science, Information Technology, Innovation and 

the Arts, 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2013. ................................................................................... 466 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing, 


Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Small Business and the 

Commonwealth Games, 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2013. .......................................................... 466 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and 

Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Premier, 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2013. ........... 466 

International Women’s Day ............................................................................................................................... 467 

Resource and Regional Town Action Plan ...................................................................................................... 468 

Tabled paper: Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning—Regional 

and Resource Towns Action Plan, March 2013. ................................................................................ 468 

Office of Best Practice Regulation ................................................................................................................... 468 

Bus Services ...................................................................................................................................................... 469 

Tabled paper: Document, dated 11 September 2012, indicating Annerley Labor branch 

officebearers. .................................................................................................................................... 470 

Western Queensland River Systems ................................................................................................................ 470 

STATE DEVELOPMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE ................................................................... 471 

Report ................................................................................................................................................................ 471 

Tabled paper: State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee: Report No. 19— 

Commonwealth Games Arrangements (Brand Protection) Amendment Bill 2013. ............................. 471 

LEGAL AFFAIRS AND COMMUNITY SAFETY COMMITTEE .............................................................................................. 471 

Report ................................................................................................................................................................ 471 

Tabled paper: Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 23—Criminal 

Law (Child Exploitation and Dangerous Drugs) Amendment Bill 2012. .............................................. 471 

NOTICES OF MOTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 472 

Disallowance of Statutory Instrument .............................................................................................................. 472 

Disallowance of Statutory Instrument .............................................................................................................. 472 

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 472 

School Group Tours .......................................................................................................................................... 472 

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE .......................................................................................................................................... 472 

Costello, Mr P .................................................................................................................................................... 472 

Conflict of Interest, Costello, Mr P ................................................................................................................... 473 

Queensland Plan ............................................................................................................................................... 473 

Member for Redcliffe ......................................................................................................................................... 474 

Brisbane Airport ................................................................................................................................................ 475 

Tabled paper: Twitter extracts #bnelateagain regarding the Brisbane Airport. ................................... 475 

Health Services .................................................................................................................................................. 475 

Tabled paper: Australian Electoral Commission—details of Donor Annual Return 2011-12— 

Paul Ramsay Holdings Pty Ltd and Ramsay Health Care Ltd............................................................ 475 

Commission of Audit ........................................................................................................................................ 476 

Commission of Audit ........................................................................................................................................ 477 

Ministerial Diaries .............................................................................................................................................. 478 

Gold Coast, Tourism ......................................................................................................................................... 479 

Council Amalgamation, Vote ............................................................................................................................ 479 

Government Administrative Precinct, Redevelopment ................................................................................... 480 

Green-Tape Reduction ...................................................................................................................................... 481 

Hospital and Health Boards .............................................................................................................................. 481 

Crime and Misconduct Commission Inquiry ................................................................................................... 482 

Indigenous Communities, Safety ..................................................................................................................... 483 

Health, Federal Funding .................................................................................................................................... 484 

PARLIAMENTARY CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMITTEE ............................................................................................ 484 

Report, Motion to Take Note ............................................................................................................................. 484 

QUEENSLAND MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION BILL ...................................................................................................... 489 

Second Reading ................................................................................................................................................ 489 

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ................................................................................................................................... 501 

Police Citizens Youth Club ............................................................................................................................... 501 

Colleges Crossing ............................................................................................................................................. 501 

PARLIAMENTARY CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMITTEE ............................................................................................ 502 

Documents ......................................................................................................................................................... 502 

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ................................................................................................................................... 503 

Whiskey Au Go Go Nightclub ........................................................................................................................... 503 

Petrie, Amcor Cartonboard Mill ........................................................................................................................ 504 

Woodridge ......................................................................................................................................................... 505


Mundingburra Electorate, Youth Crime ........................................................................................................... 505 

Public Transport, Buses ................................................................................................................................... 506 

Queensland Plan ............................................................................................................................................... 507 

South-East Queensland, Waterways ................................................................................................................ 507 

Beaudesert Electorate, Schools ....................................................................................................................... 508 

Mills, Lt Cmdr CA, OAM, RFD ........................................................................................................................... 509 

Rugby League ................................................................................................................................................... 509 

Algester Electorate, Schools ............................................................................................................................ 510 

Blyth, Ms D, AO ................................................................................................................................................. 510 

Beenleigh Rotary Club, 60th Anniversary ....................................................................................................... 511 

Hicks, Mrs L ....................................................................................................................................................... 511 

International Women’s Day .............................................................................................................................. 512 

Positive pARTnerships Program ...................................................................................................................... 513 

Southport Electorate, International Women’s Day .......................................................................................... 513 

Mama Rene’s ..................................................................................................................................................... 514 

Ambulance Services ......................................................................................................................................... 515 

Palos Family ...................................................................................................................................................... 515 

Tablelands Regional Council, Draft Planning Scheme ................................................................................... 516 

Morayfield Electorate, SES and Rural Fire Brigade Volunteers ..................................................................... 516 

Maryborough Hospital, Rehabilitation Unit ..................................................................................................... 517 

Pease Park (Innisfail Showgrounds), Dedicated Power Supply ..................................................................... 517 

Fuel Theft; International Women’s Day............................................................................................................ 518 

Gillard Government ........................................................................................................................................... 519 

Seniors Online Security Forum ........................................................................................................................ 519 

Gympie, Floods Events ..................................................................................................................................... 520 

LAND PROTECTION LEGISLATION (FLYING FOX CONTROL) AMENDMENT BILL ......................................................... 521 

Portfolio Committee Report, Government Response ..................................................................................... 521 

Tabled paper: Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee: Report No. 14— 

Land Protection Legislation (Flying fox Control) Amendment Bill 2012, government response. ......... 521 

PRIVILEGE ........................................................................................................................................................................... 521 

Alleged Deliberate Misleading of the House by the Premier .......................................................................... 521 

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ................................................................................................................................................. 521 

Error in Ministerial Statement........................................................................................................................... 521 

QUEENSLAND MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION BILL ...................................................................................................... 522 


Consideration in Detail ..................................................................................................................................... 525 

Clauses 1 to 7, as read, agreed to. ................................................................................................... 525 

Clauses 8 to 13, as read, agreed to. ................................................................................................. 527 

Clauses 14 to 60, as read, agreed to. ............................................................................................... 527 

Clauses 61 to 64— ........................................................................................................................... 527 

Tabled paper: Queensland Mental Health Commission Bill 2012, explanatory notes to 

Hon. Lawrence Springborg’s amendments. ...................................................................................... 527 

Division: Question put—That the amendments be agreed to. ........................................................... 528 

Resolved in the affirmative................................................................................................................ 528 

Clauses 61 to 64, as amended, agreed to. ....................................................................................... 529 



Clause 73, as read, agreed to. .......................................................................................................... 532 




Schedule, as read, agreed to. ........................................................................................................... 533 

Third Reading .................................................................................................................................................... 533 

Long Title ........................................................................................................................................................... 533 

MOTION ................................................................................................................................................................................ 533 

Sessional Orders ............................................................................................................................................... 533 

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION BILL .................................................................................................................................... 533 


Tabled paper: Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 19—Commercial 

Arbitration Bill, government response. .............................................................................................. 533 

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ................................................................................................................................................. 546 

Crime and Misconduct Commission ................................................................................................................ 546 

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 7 March 2013, from the Chair of the Crime and Misconduct 

Commission, Mr Ross Martin to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Hon. Jarrod Bleijie, 

regarding the release of documents in relation to the Fitzgerald Inquiry that should not have 

been made public. ............................................................................................................................ 548 

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 7 March 2013, from the Attorney-General and Minister for 

Justice, Hon. Jarrod Bleijie, to the chair of the Crime and Misconduct Commission, 

Mr Ross Martin, regarding the release of documents in relation to the Fitzgerald inquiry that 

should not have been made public. .................................................................................................. 548


COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION BILL .................................................................................................................................... 548 


Consideration in Detail...................................................................................................................................... 571 

Clauses 1AA to 43, as read, agreed to. ............................................................................................. 571 

Schedule 1, as read, agreed to. ........................................................................................................ 571 

Third Reading .................................................................................................................................................... 571 

Long Title ........................................................................................................................................................... 572 

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL .................... 572 


CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMISSION (ADMINISTRATIVE NEGLIGENCE RECTIFICATION) AMENDMENT BILL .... 604 

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 604 

Tabled paper: Crime and Misconduct Commission (Administrative Negligence Rectification) 

Amendment Bill 2013. ....................................................................................................................... 604 

Tabled paper: Crime and Misconduct Commission (Administrative Negligence Rectification) 

Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes. ......................................................................................... 604 

First Reading ..................................................................................................................................................... 605 

Declared Urgent; Allocation of Time Limit Order ............................................................................................ 605 


Tabled paper: Letter, dated 6 March 2013, to the Attorney-General and Minister for 

Justice, Hon. Jarrod Bleijie, from the chair of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct 

Committee, Mrs Liz Cunningham MP, regarding a request for urgent legislation in relation 

to released Fitzgerald inquiry documents. ......................................................................................... 607 

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 7 March 2013, to the chair of the Parliamentary Crime and 

Misconduct Committee, Mrs Liz Cunningham MP, from the Attorney-General and Minister 

for Justice, Hon. Jarrod Bleijie, regarding a request for urgent legislation in relation to 

released Fitzgerald inquiry documents .............................................................................................. 607 

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 7 March 2013, to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, 

Hon. Jarrod Bleijie, from the chair of the Crime and Misconduct Committee, Mr Ross Martin, 

regarding a request for urgent legislation in relation to released Fitzgerald inquiry documents. ......... 610 

Consideration in Detail...................................................................................................................................... 614 

Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. ................................................................................................... 614 

Clause 4, as read, agreed to. ............................................................................................................ 615 

Third Reading .................................................................................................................................................... 615 

Long Title ........................................................................................................................................................... 615 

MOTION ................................................................................................................................................................................ 616 

Referral to the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee .................................................................. 616 

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT ................................................................................................................................................... 618 

ADJOURNMENT ................................................................................................................................................................... 618 

Coronial Inquest, Arnold, Ms V and Leahy, Mrs J ........................................................................................... 618 

International Women’s Day ............................................................................................................................... 619 

Burnett Electorate, Casual Labour ................................................................................................................... 619 

Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Horticultural Industry Concerns and Abuses’, dated 

28 November 2012. .......................................................................................................................... 619 

Natural Disaster Events of 2013; International Women’s Day ........................................................................ 620 

Great Keppel Island, Resort .............................................................................................................................. 621 

Clean Up Australia Day ..................................................................................................................................... 621 

North Queensland, Rail Contractors ................................................................................................................ 622 

Australian Sprintcar Championship ................................................................................................................. 622 

Newman Government ........................................................................................................................................ 623 

HeartKids Queensland ...................................................................................................................................... 624 

ATTENDANCE ...................................................................................................................................................................... 624

7 Mar 2013 Legislative Assembly 461 

THURSDAY, 7 MARCH 2013 

The Legislative Assembly met at 9.30 am. 

Madam Speaker (Hon. Fiona Simpson, Maroochydore) read prayers and took the chair. 

PRIVILEGE 

Speaker’s Ruling, Alleged Deliberate Misleading of a Committee by a Minister 

Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, on 5 December 2012 the Leader of the Opposition 

wrote to me alleging that the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice deliberately misled the House 

in statements made during estimates hearings held on 11 October 2012. In accordance with standing 

order 269(5), I wrote requesting further information from the Attorney-General and Minister for 

Justice. I table the correspondence in this matter, including a response from the Attorney-General 

dated 20 December 2012. 

Tabled paper: Correspondence regarding alleged deliberate misleading of a committee by a minister [2179]. 

The Leader of the Opposition claims that the Attorney-General misled estimates in answer to a 

question on notice about the number of complaints about transcripts by the State Reporting Bureau. 

This allegation has arisen due to what the Leader of the Opposition believes to be a discrepancy 

between the answer to a question on notice made on 11 October 2012, in which the Attorney-General 

said there were three written complaints, and a result of a right to information request made on 

22 October 2012 to the Attorney-General’s ministerial office which indicated that no such documents 

were held there. 

The Attorney-General, in his response to the matter of privilege, has detailed that the 

information requested was held in the department of justice’s office and not in the ministerial office to 

which the RTI applied. On the evidence before me, there is no prima facie case of deliberately 

misleading the House or a committee. I will not be referring the matter. 

MOTION OF CONDOLENCE 

Prest, Mr WG 

Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Leader of the Opposition) (9.33 am): The description ‘Labor 

Party stalwart’ is often used and, in the case of Bill Prest, is a well-deserved description of a humble, 

hardworking and caring man who gave everything to his family and community. William George Prest, 

or Bill, is a Labor stalwart in the truest sense of the term. He served as the Labor member for Port 

Curtis for 16 years, from 1976 to 1992. Prior to that he had a long and distinguished career in local 

government where he rose to become the mayor of Gladstone City Council. 

Bill was born on 2 April 1926 in Longreach. His early life was touched by hardship, as was all 

too common in the 1920s. His mother passed away when he was only 12 months old and 

subsequently he and his siblings were raised by his mother’s sister and her husband. Of course times 

were difficult in the Depression years in rural Queensland and Bill had to leave school at 13 to support 

his family, as so many young men and women did at that time. He worked as a butcher, in the post 

office, as a grocer and finally as a shearer before he started working for the railways at the age of 21. 

He was transferred to work in various towns across Queensland before finally being sent to 

Gladstone, where he would meet his wife, Pat, the daughter of a publican. Bill and Pat were married 

in 1953—on election day—and a private function was held at Pat’s father’s pub so that it would not 

have to lose a day’s trading because of the election. 

Bill was passionate about his local community from the very beginning. Once settled in 

Gladstone, he immersed himself in work for the local school P&C, helping to develop the oval and to 

plant new gardens in place of red dust and dirt. In 1970 he first stood for public office with the then 

Gladstone Town Council—21 candidates stood for six positions and Bill was elected sixth, beginning 

a dedicated career as an elected official that would last for 22 years.

462 Motion of Condolence 7 Mar 2013 

Bill became deputy mayor in 1973 after being returned at the election as the highest polling 

alderman. Surely this was a sign of how quickly he had made his mark through his hard work and 

down-to-earth nature. In 1975 Bill was appointed mayor when the previous mayor resigned. Then, 

when Gladstone changed from a town to a city, he became the first mayor of the new Gladstone City 

Council. As mayor he oversaw the construction of new water infrastructure, sewerage, kerbing and 

the beautification of the city. All through this time he still worked at the railways doing split shifts 

around council meetings. For a man so dedicated to his family, juggling his work at the council and 

with Queensland Rail must have been very difficult. But higher office beckoned, and Bill contested a 

by-election for the seat of Port Curtis in 1976 after the death of the Labor sitting member, Marty 

Hanson. 

Bill served many difficult years in opposition, and when the Goss government was elected in 

1989 he became the government whip. Bill was an ideal whip. When he needed to be tough he was 

tough, but he also had a gentle side. My father served in parliament with Bill from 1984 to 1992. I 

know from stories my father Henry has told me just how entertaining Bill could be as a person but 

also how much he genuinely cared about others. When I asked Henry what were his enduring 

memories of Bill, he said that behind the bluff and bluster there was a very kind-hearted man. As I 

said, he was the whip in the Goss government. According to Henry, he took the backbench under his 

wing as if they were his own family. When Judy Spence, who was a new backbencher at the time, 

gave birth to son Jack, Bill would ensure that she could leave parliament at a reasonable hour to be 

with him. This was even to the extent of taking her place in the chamber on roster himself. 

He was very passionate about his electorate of Port Curtis and the community of Gladstone. 

He was an old-style Labor politician, following in the steps of men like Ben Chifley, who came to the 

parliament from a working life in the railways. The one thing that could be said of Bill—and I think that 

this would be the one thing all of us in the House would want people to say of us when we leave this 

place—was that you could always trust what he said. Bill loved his family, especially his kids and 

grandchildren. At his funeral his son, Darryl, and former member for Rockhampton, Robert 

Schwarten, both remarked that whenever Bill was with kids he would be able to produce a handful of 

lollies to keep them entertained. 

Bill’s long career in elected office shows just how well respected and known he was throughout 

his community. His service over many years in state parliament and in local government revealed a 

dedication and a desire to put others first and to make the Gladstone community, and Queensland as 

a whole, a better place. His is an example of what we should all aspire to. I would like to take this 

opportunity to pass on my condolences to Bill’s family and friends, especially his wife, Pat; his three 

children, Darryl, Patricia and Elizabeth; his eight grandchildren; and his great-grandchild. My thoughts 

and prayers go out to them today. 

Hon. CKT NEWMAN (Ashgrove—LNP) (Premier) (9.38 am): William George Prest, better 

known to all who knew him as Bill, was born in Longreach on 2 April 1926, and was educated at the 

Longreach State School. After leaving school Mr Prest took up employment as a general store worker 

before turning his hand to shearing across large parts of Central Queensland. In 1947 Mr Prest joined 

the Queensland Government Railways and worked for many years on the railways as a guard. During 

this time, he was a delegate of the Australian Railways Union and also became involved with the 

Australian Labor Party, serving as president of the Gladstone branch of the ALP from 1965 to 1976. 

In 1970 Mr Prest was elected as an alderman on the Gladstone City Council. During his time 

on the council he rose to become deputy mayor and then took the top position of mayor in September 

1975. I understand that Mr Prest will forever be noted in the history books of Gladstone as being the 

last mayor of the town of Gladstone and then its first mayor when Gladstone became a city. 

In February 1976 the longstanding member for Port Curtis, based in the Gladstone area, and 

ALP representative, Martin Hanson, resigned from the Queensland parliament. Mr Prest was selected 

by the ALP to contest the Port Curtis by-election, and on 29 May 1976 he was elected to this House. 

Following his election, Mr Prest resigned as mayor of Gladstone City Council and went on to serve as 

the member for Port Curtis until he decided to retire at the state election of September 1992. 

During his time in the parliament, Mr Prest served in many parliamentary positions. He was a 

member of a number of parliamentary committees from 1977 to 1989. He was leader of opposition 

business in the House from 1981 to 1982 and 1983 to 1989. He was a temporary chairman of

7 Mar 2013 Motion of Condolence 463 

committees from 1987 to 1989 and was a member of a parliamentary delegation to the Solomon 

Islands, Papua New Guinea, Japan and South-East Asia in 1979. Mr Prest also served as opposition 

spokesman on numerous ministerial portfolios from 1976 to 1983 including the portfolios of railways 

and local government, which of course he had a good firsthand knowledge of given his working 

background. 

Following the election of the Goss government in 1989, Mr Prest became government whip in 

the first ALP government in this state in 32 years. I am sure that this would have been a very proud 

moment for Mr Prest after having served many years in parliament in opposition. Mr Prest continued 

to serve as government whip until his retirement from the parliament in September 1992. William 

George Prest passed away peacefully on 8 December 2012 and a funeral service to celebrate his life 

was held at Our Lady Star of the Sea Catholic Church, Herbert Street, Gladstone on 12 December 

2012. 

I place on record the government’s thanks for the years of service Mr Prest gave to the 

institutions of our democracy and to the Queensland community. I particularly note that he is clearly 

one of the old guard of the Australian Labor Party—someone with a solid, working-class background 

who was at the front line as a shearer and a railway man. I have always had great respect for those 

sort of knockabout people with that sort of background. 

On behalf of the government, I take this opportunity to extend my sympathy and that of the 

House to Mr Prest’s family and friends. I move— 

1. That this House desires to place on record its appreciation of the services rendered to this state by the late William 

George Prest, a former member of the parliament of Queensland, and 

2. That Madam Speaker be requested to convey to the family of the deceased gentleman the above resolution together 

with an expression of the sympathy and sorrow of the members of this parliament on the loss that they have sustained. 

Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (9.43 am): I wish to join the 

opposition leader in expressing my condolences to the family and friends of Bill Prest, who passed 

away on 8 December last year. I attended his funeral on 12 December 2012 along with the member 

for Gladstone, Liz Cunningham. William George Prest, or Bill, served as the Labor member for Port 

Curtis for 16 years from 1976 to 1992. He is also remembered for his time as Gladstone mayor and 

as a member of the Gladstone Harbour Board. 

Prior to his election, he worked in a number of jobs in the shearing industry before working for 

Queensland Rail as a guard. Bill was born in Longreach, and his humble beginnings instilled in him a 

desire to seek public office to represent and help working-class Queenslanders. He saw that the only 

way circumstances would change for his fellow workers was if they had a representative in parliament 

to advocate on their behalf. 

Bill was passionate and unapologetic for his principled stance on many issues and was 

unafraid to voice his opinions regardless of what others thought. He was elected in a 1976 by-election 

as a result of the sudden death of the previous member and another Labor stalwart, Marty Hanson. 

Bill was immediately thrust onto the front bench of the Labor opposition, joining the legendary cricket 

team led by Tom Burns. He served as government whip in the Goss government and did a formidable 

job of rounding up recalcitrant members for votes. In a tribute to Bill read out at his funeral, Wayne 

Goss highlighted Bill’s reliability and dedication to the role of whip, which was exactly what was 

needed to oversee the huge parliamentary reform agenda undertaken by the Goss government with 

many parliament days sitting well into the night. 

Bill was also a passionate advocate and promoter of the Gladstone region. His service to his 

local community was recognised in 2010 when the Gladstone port access bridge was named in his 

honour. His service was well attended by family and friends, some of whom travelled long distances 

to pay their respects. His son, Darryl, spoke at the funeral about his generous and caring father who 

was devoted to his family and of his great love for his grandchildren. Robert Schwarten, who knew Bill 

for more than 40 years, also spoke at the funeral. He spoke of a true Labor bloke who served in 

parliament to make a positive difference in people’s lives. He spoke of his dedication to Labor 

principles and his commitment to helping working-class people. Bill is survived by his wife, Pat, who 

was his lifelong love, and the support base of his children. My thoughts and prayers go out to his 

family.

464 Motion of Condolence 7 Mar 2013 

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (9.46 am): In making these comments, I acknowledge 

the assistance of Bill’s son, Darryl, in providing much of this information. Some of it has already been 

said, I must say. William George Prest—or ‘Bill’, ‘Hammey’, ‘Daddy Bill’, ‘Dad’ or ‘Pop—is survived by 

his wife, Pat, and three children—Pat, or Trish, and husband Ken; Darryl and wife Kerry; and 

Elizabeth, or Liz, and husband Rohan. He has eight grandchildren—Anthony, Cameron, Nathan, 

Graham, Cole, India, Jett and Paris—and one great-grandchild, Eliza. 

Bill was born on 2 April 1926 in Longreach to William Fredrick and Amelia Maud. Bill had an 

older brother, George, and an older sister, Bubba. When Bill was 12 months old, their mother died 

and their father, William, a meatworker, wandered off. Bill’s aunt Sue and her husband, Tom 

Faulkner, who already had a daughter, Amelia, took to raising Bubba and Bill. As has been said, 

times were tough with the Depression years passing and the war years approaching. He went to 

Longreach State School and, along with many at that time, left school at 13 to begin working to assist 

the family. His jobs have been already mentioned. He worked as a butcher, at the post office, at the 

grocery store and in shearing sheds before landing a job at the age of 21 with Queensland Rail. 

He was transferred to a lot of places including Hughenden, Blair Athol and Baralaba, but when 

at 23 he was transferred to Gladstone with Queensland Rail many of his friends said he would not last 

in Gladstone because he would miss the bush too much. He proved them wrong. While in Gladstone, 

Bill met his future wife, Pat Rabbitt, a daughter of the publican at the Queens Hotel. They were 

married on 9 May. Pop Rabbitt, ever the businessman—and I never met this gentleman—did not want 

to lose a day’s trade by having to close the pub on election day so it was decided they should get 

married on election day, and the function meant the pub could operate until polling shut at six o’clock. 

Maybe it was an omen of things to come, Darryl said—dad and elections. 

Between May 1954 when they moved into 3 Lord Street, which was his lifelong home in 

Gladstone, and August 1964, Bill and Pat’s family was born and Bill’s involvement with the P&C at 

Central School commenced. He used to hand out at Central State School even after his retirement. It 

was always Central State School that you would see Bill handing out for Labor. He always had a radio 

by his side. On Saturday mornings he listened to the latest scratchings and in the afternoons he 

listened to the races and the Sunday football. He would listen to see whether the game was 

worthwhile watching on tele. His comment after the game would be, ‘Good to see the Norths got up,’ 

because it spoiled it for anyone who wanted to watch the game that night. 

As has been said, Bill stood for the council in 1970 and was successful in gaining one of the six 

positions. In 1973 he was elected as the highest polling alderman and then became deputy mayor 

and replaced Roy Swenson as mayor when Roy resigned and became town clerk. It has already 

been noted that Bill then moved to the seat of Port Curtis on the passing of Marty Hanson. I can still 

remember Bill opposing the name change for the electorate from Port Curtis to Gladstone. His 

opposition was not because he was not proud of Gladstone but because he felt, as I do, that Port 

Curtis better reflected the electorate. He resigned from his other positions and took on a full-time 

position as MLA for Port Curtis. 

Bill was always one for nursing babies. With Bill and Pat’s brothers and sisters, there were 

always babies to nurse. He was always present at school sports days, grandfathers days and award 

presentations. He attended them not necessarily as just the MLA but also as a grandad seeing how 

the grandkids were going. He attended school fetes, presentation dinners and sporting events as part 

of the job and to listen to what the community needed to tell him. 

He had a good singing voice. I do not know if he sang down here although I believe he did in 

the lifts. Often people at seniors events—not without a great deal of effort—would get Bill up on the 

stage to sing. At the end of the event he was always found in the kitchen washing or wiping up. 

Bill had a love of racing. He owned trotters. At one stage he owned the fastest—this is what I 

am told; Darryl would tell me the truth—racehorse in Central Queensland. It was too fast to race in 

Gladstone so they said, ‘Let’s take it to Rocky.’ Its track work was too good for Rocky. They said, ‘We 

won’t get the odds. Let’s take it to Brisbane.’ Alas the horse bit off half its tongue and they could not 

put a bit in its mouth to train it. So the fastest horse from Central Queensland never raced. True story! 

Bill was not wealthy when he retired but he wanted for nothing. If the grandchildren were 

coming to visit he was happy. Many a day was spent baking strawberry or caramel tarts, sausage 

rolls or biscuits with Pat. There was always something there for the kids to eat. Darryl said his sons 

remember the strawberry Quik in Bill’s office or the soft drinks in the downstairs fridge. The boys and 

their friends always knew there would be a feed and a cold drink at pop’s.

7 Mar 2013 Petition 465 

He was not one to push for photos in the paper or names on buildings, but recently a men’s 

accommodation building and, as has already been stated, the bridge over the railway line for ‘route B’ 

were named after him. He said he accepted these not for himself but so his grandchildren could see 

that people appreciated what their pop had done for the community. 

Bill was an ordinary man with down-to-earth values and was extremely generous to all the 

children and grandchildren along with his wife of 59 years, Pat. His family was the love of his life. 

From humble beginnings to a humble end, he was an ordinary man who achieved extraordinary 

things for the Gladstone community and, most importantly, for his family. On behalf of the Gladstone 

community I would like to thank Bill Prest for his service to the people of Gladstone and district. May 

he rest in peace. 

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (9.52 am): I rise today to speak to the passing of William 

George Prest, the former member for Port Curtis. He was born on 2 April 1926 and passed away on 8 

December 2012. I think the Leader of the Opposition summarised it very well as did the member for 

Gladstone, the Premier and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in relation to some of the attributes 

of Bill Prest. 

I came into this place in 1989 and I think there is now only one other member, the member for 

Warrego, who served in this chamber while Bill Prest was also here. He was a larger than life 

character. He was a colourful character but the part I admired most about Bill Prest was that he was 

the last of the true, real Labor people. He was a Labor stalwart to his back teeth and he was a man 

who was fiercely proud of his Labor traditions. 

Born in Longreach, he grew up in a working-class family and entered the shearing industry 

where he started his working career. As the Leader of the Opposition said, from there he went on to 

be a Queensland Rail employee for many years before moving to Gladstone. 

Bill Prest held the position that I hold today; he was the chief whip of the then Goss 

government. Many of the members were absolutely bloody terrified of him. I hope that is not the case 

with me! The government members of the day used to refer to it as the ‘Bill Prest charm school’. I do 

not think Annastacia went far enough this morning. Her father probably told her more about Bill than 

she was letting on. However, he was a colourful character. He was one of those blokes who said what 

he thought and meant what he said. I think he drove that bargain wherever he was. 

As member for Gladstone from 1976 to 1992, he certainly made his mark, as the member for 

Gladstone said. He also made his mark during his term as the mayor of Gladstone on the Gladstone 

Town Council and then Gladstone City Council. When Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen went to Gladstone 

when it became a city, Bill was the mayor of the city. 

I put on record today my condolences to his wife, Patricia, and to his surviving children, 

grandchildren and great-grandchildren. May he rest in peace. 

Question put—That the motion be agreed to. 

Motion agreed to. 

Whereupon honourable members stood in silence. 

Madam SPEAKER: Question time will begin at 10.25 am. 

PETITION 

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

Bus Service, Route Closures 

Ms Trad, from 801 petitioners, requesting the House to stop the planned closure of the following bus services: 220 Wynnum to 

City; 225 Wynnum to Carindale; 240 Capalaba to Wynnum; city express 214 Cannon Hill to city and 232 Cannon Hill to city 

[2180]. 

Petition received.

466 Ministerial Statements 7 Mar 2013 

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 

Open Data 

Hon. CKT NEWMAN (Ashgrove—LNP) (Premier) (9.57 am): My government is an open and 

accountable government, a commitment demonstrated by our open data initiative. Information that 

has never been seen in Queensland before is now being released for the public to analyse. Yesterday 

I gave some detail about how many data sets we have made available and how Queenslanders can 

have their say on how that information is used both now and into the future. 

Today this government is setting a new standard in transparency by releasing my diary and the 

diaries of all cabinet ministers. I am not aware of an Australian Prime Minister or, indeed, Premier 

ever having made their diary and those of their ministers publicly available in this way. Of course, it 

has been done overseas such as in the UK where David Cameron releases his diary. Prime Minister 

Cameron says he wants to bring the operation of government out into the open. We share those 

same values and have reflected the UK model in the how, why and when we go about releasing this 

information. 

So today I table here in the parliament my diary for January, along with the diaries of all of my 

ministers. This document outlines all portfolio related meetings and activities from official diaries, and 

I have to say that I am impressed to see how hard the ministry has been working, especially 

considering that this is for the month of January. 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Premier, 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2013 [2181]. 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, 1 January 

2013 to 31 January 2013 [2182]. 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Treasurer and Minister for Trade, 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2013 [2183]. 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Health, 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2013 [2184]. 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Education, Training and Employment, 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2013 [2185]. 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Police and Community Safety, 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2013 [2186]. 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2013 [2187]. 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Transport and Main Roads, 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2013 [2188]. 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Local Government, 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2013 [2189]. 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Housing and Public Works, 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2013 [2190]. 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2013 [2191]. 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection, 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2013 [2192]. 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2013 [2193]. 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Energy and Water Supply, 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2013 [2194]. 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services, 1 January 2013 to 31 January 

2013 [2195]. 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, 1 January 2013 to 31 

January 2013 [2196]. 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing, 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2013 

[2197]. 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Small Business and the Commonwealth Games, 1 January 

2013 to 31 January 2013 [2198]. 

Tabled paper: Ministerial diary—Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting 

the Premier, 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2013 [2199]. 

Ms Palaszczuk: Well, they’re not reading the Costello report! 

Mr NEWMAN: I will come to her in a moment. We have said for some time that we will be 

doing this. We have had to work through the privacy issues, which is why they are being tabled here 

today. In the future they will go straight online one month at a time. Isn’t it a refreshing change to have 

this information fully available to the public? This is an open government that has nothing to hide. It is 

a shame that the Labor Party did not share these values—these same values—while in government 

and it is disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition will not do the same thing now. She simply 

will not tell the people of Queensland who she is meeting with. Today I urge her once again to be 

open, accountable and transparent. What does she have to hide? What does the Leader of the 

Opposition have to hide? We do not know where their registers of contacts with lobbyists have gone 

from when they were in office. We do not know who they met with in relation to the Health payroll

7 Mar 2013 Ministerial Statements 467 

system. We do not know who they met with in relation to the privatisation of QR or the privatisation of 

the Port of Brisbane. We do not know what lobbyists came through the door because it is a big, dark, 

black Labor secret. 

The information I have tabled today is the information that the people of Queensland deserve to 

see—and under this government, in contrast with the Labor Party, they will see. For the first time they 

will be able to see how the machinery of government operates and have confidence that the high 

standards we have set are being followed. They will be able to hold us to account and they will be 

able to provide informed feedback on the way we are governing as we work hard to get this state—a 

great state with great opportunity—back on track. 

International Women’s Day 

Hon. CKT NEWMAN (Ashgrove—LNP) (Premier) (10.01 am): The opportunities that are 

available to women in today’s society are vast and unlimited. In the early 1900s women were exposed 

to social unrest and inequality. Women hastened on, however, with 15,000 of them marching through 

the streets of New York in 1908 demanding shorter hours, better pay and voting rights. In 1909 the 

first National Women’s Day was held in America and from there the movement has grown. Their 

dedication to have a voice has meant that women today have every opportunity available to them and 

we are now seeing a significant change in attitude and awareness on women’s role, participation and 

equality within society. 

Tomorrow we celebrate International Women’s Day and I encourage every member in this 

House to get involved to mark this auspicious day. Across the globe we see different regions 

celebrating the cause of women in many different ways—from appreciation, love and respect to the 

celebration of women’s economic, political and social achievements. This government has committed 

to a number of initiatives to support women in Queensland. We have our $10 million scholarships for 

women studying in male dominated industries. The first round saw 141 of the scholarships being 

offered in December last year. With 27 women changing careers, 25 looking to return to study and 89 

as school leavers, it is very encouraging to see and the Queensland government is proud to be 

supporting them through this scholarships initiative. 

We began rolling out the Mums and Bubs program earlier this year to support new mothers and 

give the best possible start to their new families. Yesterday we announced a ministerial advisory 

committee as a way to deliver a plan to identify opportunities to encourage more females to be 

involved in sport. More and more we see women everywhere stepping up into the limelight into those 

leadership roles. We have a number of Queensland women nominated for the Rural Industries 

Research and Development Corporation Rural Women’s Award, and that is outstanding. We have the 

contributions from a broad range of backgrounds and experiences from the women who sit with me in 

this chamber. Madam Speaker, we see you performing as the first female Speaker for Queensland 

and I congratulate you on this unparalleled accomplishment in the history of Queensland. 

I want to note today that our predecessor parties have a proud track record in this area of 

women’s achievements. Dame Enid Lyons, a great hero of my late father and indeed my mother, was 

the first woman elected to the Commonwealth House of Representatives and the first woman in 

federal cabinet. Irene Longman was Queensland’s first female parliamentarian, winning the seat of 

Bulimba in 1929 for the Country and Progressive National Party. Sallyanne Atkinson was the first 

female Lord Mayor of Brisbane elected in 1985. In 1991 Joan Sheldon became the first female Liberal 

Party Leader in Queensland and of course went on to be Deputy Premier and Treasurer. I am proud 

of my own mother, Senator Jocelyn Newman, who entered parliament in 1986 and served firstly in 

opposition in various shadow ministry positions and then was the family and community services 

minister but particularly minister assisting the Prime Minister, John Howard, for the status of women. 

I personally am just so lucky to be surrounded by three beautiful, strong, independent women 

at home, and I am thankful for every opportunity available to them. Me and the dog are the only males 

in the household! 

A government member: And you’re often with the dog! 

Mr NEWMAN: Luckily, I have never had to share the doghouse with him! I am particularly 

thrilled to note that my youngest child has just decided to enter a previously male dominated field, and 

that is my own original training as a civil engineer.


I am also looking forward to hosting an event in celebration of this important day in my 

electorate of Ashgrove tomorrow with local small businesswomen. In particular, I thank Raewyn 

Bailey, indeed a prominent businesswoman in this state in the HR field, for agreeing to be the guest 

speaker and to inspire many of the women I have asked to come along. Madam Speaker, 

International Women’s Day is marked on 8 March every year. I note that you are having a function 

tomorrow and I note that many members of our team are attending the UNIFEM breakfast at the 

convention centre. I indeed welcome all Queenslanders—men and women—to celebrate the 

achievements of women everywhere. 

Resource and Regional Town Action Plan 

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

Infrastructure and Planning) (10.06 am): Our government is committed to developing Queensland’s 

strengths in tourism, agriculture, resources and construction. This includes cutting red tape and 

regulation and speeding up project approvals for business to help Queensland’s economy grow and 

to create jobs. A significant part of cutting red tape and regulation is the raft of planning reforms 

currently underway to simplify and clarify the planning framework to make planning and development 

across Queensland more effective and more responsive. These reforms include changing the 

Sustainable Planning Act 2009 to make it the most cost-efficient, time-effective planning framework in 

Australia; developing a single state planning policy to establish a new approach to state planning 

policies that simplifies and clarifies the state interest; establishing a single state assessment and 

referral agency to streamline and standardise the assessment process; and reviewing the 

infrastructure charges framework to introduce a well balanced framework that is equitable, 

transparent and fair. 

However, some communities are dealing with localised issues, particularly in relation to the 

mining boom, which require specific short-term actions. This includes the current lack of housing 

affordability, pressure on local governments to assess an increased number of development 

applications in a timely manner, infrastructure costs and delays, and the availability of land for 

development. The Resource and Regional Town Action Plan has been prepared by the Department 

of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning to address these issues to identify short-term 

initiatives and on-the-ground projects which can be underway in the next 12 to 24 months and to 

respond to these local issues while at the same time complementing the planning reforms underway. I 

table for the benefit of the House a copy of that action plan. 

Tabled paper: Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning—Regional and Resource Towns Action Plan, 

March 2013 [2200]. 

The action plan targets specific regional cities and towns across Queensland that are critical to 

the resources industry and focuses on the issues and concerns raised through consultation with 

stakeholders and local councils in those cities and towns. Workshops were held in Dalby, Roma, 

Mount Isa, Emerald, Toowoomba, Cairns, Rockhampton, Bundaberg, Gladstone, Moranbah and 

Mackay. The workshops targeted a range of stakeholders with essential roles in the development 

industry, including local and state government representatives and town planners, builders and 

developers. 

The information and ideas gathered at these workshops have been used to inform the action 

plan that I tabled for the benefit of members today. In the action plan the outcomes are divided into 

two sections: issues and responses that were common across the resource communities and issues 

and responses that were specific to a particular community. The action plan is presented for local 

governments to consider and it provides a basis for agreeing on a list of key actions to be 

implemented over the coming 12 to 24 months. This resource towns action plan will contribute to 

ensure that our mining towns provide access to great jobs, a great lifestyle and provide great services 

into the future. 

Office of Best Practice Regulation 

Hon. TJ NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (Treasurer and Minister for Trade) (10.09 am): Prior to 

the last election this government made a commitment to reduce red tape and regulation by 20 per 

cent. Why did we do that? Because we knew that business in Queensland was struggling to cope with 

the increasing weight of regulation being introduced by the previous Labor government, which was 

stifling investment and development. As part of that commitment the government has established the 

Office of Best Practice Regulation within the Queensland Competition Authority to routinely run the 

magnifying glass over existing and proposed regulations.

7 Mar 2013 Ministerial Statements 469 

The Office of Best Practice Regulation—or OBPR—delivered its interim report in October last 

year. It pleases me to inform the House that the government recently received the OBPR’s final 

report—a report that provides the government with the framework to establish an overarching 

regulatory management system to, in effect, try to stop the flow. The OBPR will provide an annual 

update that measures the government’s progress. We are changing the culture of government from 

one that promotes red tape to one that actively reduces it. Championing this reform agenda is the 

Assistant Minister for Finance, Administration and Regulatory Reform, Deb Frecklington. 

The Newman government will consider the OBPR’s final report before formally responding to it, 

but it has already committed to adopting the majority of the report’s 50 recommendations. The 

assistant minister will this week release a report card highlighting the Newman government’s progress 

in its first year. It also details our plans for the next 12 months. For example, when bringing forward 

any proposal that imposes a new regulation or procedure on small business, ministers will now be 

required to put forward up to three options to reduce or offset regulatory burdens. A reduction target 

for each portfolio will also be included in the key performance indicators of directors general. 

Agencies will also need to seek the Office of Best Practice Regulation’s advice as to whether a 

regulatory impact statement—or RIS—is required for any regulatory proposal. 

Unlike those opposite who say one thing and do another, our actions underline our strong 

commitment to making Queensland an easier and simpler place in which to do business. Since 

coming to government we have fully implemented more than 150 red-tape reduction reforms. A 

further 170 reforms are currently underway. Some of these achievements include streamlining the 

approvals process for all environmentally relevant activities—or ERAs—saving on average $20,000 in 

application costs, 150 pages of paperwork and 68 days of processing time. From 31 March, more 

than 9,400 small business operators will now no longer need to apply for a licence or pay an 

application fee and will no longer need to submit an annual return. These changes will save small 

businesses more than $6 million in annual fees and will let them get on with what they do best: 

contributing to a thriving economy and generating jobs. 

On Tuesday, parliament voted to remove the Bligh government’s waste levy—a $373 million 

tax on Queensland businesses. And, of course, one of the biggest reforms has been to increase the 

payroll tax exemption threshold to $1.1 million this financial year, increasing over six years. The 

payroll tax cut will increase job security, allowing small businesses to retain workers rather than lay 

them off. The member for Nanango has been working tirelessly in this space to ensure that all 

ministers work together to ensure that this great state is a great state with great opportunity and an 

attractive place in which to live, work and do business. 

Bus Services 

Hon. SA EMERSON (Indooroopilly—LNP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (10.13 am): 

The Newman government is committed to improving the affordability, reliability and frequency of 

public transport. In line with that commitment, today I will release the outcome of the South-East 

Queensland bus network review. By removing duplication and restructuring poor performing routes, 

the review recommends a network of 335 routes across South-East Queensland compared to the 

current 446. Under our plan, there will be more services operating across South-East Queensland 

than in the final months under Labor. 

I think most people would be shocked to read this morning that the network that Labor left us 

had 52 per cent of services carrying seven or fewer people—52 per cent carrying fewer than seven 

people. Meanwhile, other routes were so full that they were leaving people behind. Labor increased 

funding by 22 per cent over three years but patronage flatlined. Labor paid for its poor management 

by increasing fares by 15 per cent year after year, after year, after year, after year. The Newman 

government has already halved Labor’s planned 15 per cent fare increases for 2013-14, but we want 

to do more. That is why this bus review is so important. 

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the thousands of public transport users who 

provided feedback for the review. The message we received was loud and clear: people wanted a 

simpler, more frequent bus network. That is what this network plan delivers. In Brisbane, the frequent 

network will be expanded from the existing 19 BUZ routes to 26 new high-frequency routes that will 

make up the go network. We will also be introducing these services to the Gold Coast for the very first 

time. The go network will provide a bus every 15 minutes or better. It will operate from at least 7 am to 

7 pm seven days a week. In Brisbane, more than 800,000 people will have access to the go network.


The report also addresses infrastructure constraints, consolidates CBD departure points and 

simplifies the network. I am confident that this will create a much more attractive bus network for 

users. 

Regrettably, Labor is still not on board with the need to fix our bus network. Labor wanted to 

keep the same inefficient and complex network and maintain just one policy—and that was Labor’s 

only policy on public transport—of 15 per cent increases every year, year after year. I would like to 

take this opportunity to thank the Assistant Minister for Public Transport, Steve Minnikin, the member 

for Chatsworth, for the work that he has done in the creation of this report. I know that he is looking 

forward to working with TransLink, bus operators and the community as we implement the new 

network. 

Labor may not be very good at running public transport, but it is very good at running fear 

campaigns. We have already had the opposition transport spokesperson out there in the City South 

News with a concerned bus user criticising our plans to build a better bus network. I sound a word of 

warning. Be aware of the sort of tactics employed by the Labor Party, because sometimes your 

concerned bus user is not who they claim to be. In fact, they can actually be a Labor stooge. I refer to 

the article from 28 February talking about resident Cam Crowther. When we spoke to the newspaper, 

apparently there was the transport spokesperson there and suddenly who appeared? This innocent 

bystander waiting to give an objective viewpoint about the buses. He just appeared out of nowhere. 

Can I say that the opposition transport spokesperson did not say that they knew this person at 

all, were aware or them, or who they might be. But guess who they might have been? I have here a 

document indicating the membership of the Annerley branch of the Labor Party. There is the 

president of the ALP Labor branch, Cam Crowther. I am happy to table that. He is an innocent 

bystander—the president of the Annerley ALP branch. 

Tabled paper: Document, dated 11 September 2012, indicating Annerley Labor branch officebearers [2201]. 

Ms Palaszczuk: When was the last time you caught a bus? 

Mr EMERSON: Wrong person to ask. When was the last time the Leader of the Opposition 

caught a bus I wonder? 

Can I say that it is not just that Cam Crowther—that innocent bystander who casually 

appeared—is the president of the Annerley branch of the ALP, I have obtained the Labor Party’s 

Annerley Branch Gazette. Who do we have on the back here? A photo of the opposition transport 

spokesman and that innocent bystander, Cam Crowther, who also appears to be the Labor 

spokesperson for Yeerongpilly. What happened to Simon Finn? They have flicked him already. 

We are working to improve our bus services. We are working to improve our network. I was 

wrong before, Labor had two policies: one was increasing fares every year by 15 per cent year after 

year, after year, after year; and a second policy was dishonesty and misleading the public. 

Madam SPEAKER: I call the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines and advise the minister 

that ministerial statements will finish at 10.23. 

Western Queensland River Systems 

Hon. AP CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Mines) 

(10.20 am): The Newman government does plan to implement a balanced approach to the 

management of Western Queensland river systems that will preserve the environmental values of this 

unique part of Queensland while providing jobs and economic growth in local communities. The LNP 

went to the last state election with a clearly communicated view that Labor’s wild rivers legislation was 

flawed. The legislation and associated declarations were another example of the dodgy preference 

deals done between the Greens and the previous Labor government. It locked Western Queensland 

communities into an economic straightjacket shutting out any real consideration of alternative or 

diversified industries that could provide jobs for locals and prosperity for local communities. 

The Newman government simply wants to offer Western Queenslanders the same 

opportunities for economic development that are on offer to Queenslanders in other parts of the state. 

In November 2012 I announced the formation of the Western Rivers Advisory Panel to make 

recommendations to the Queensland government on a new approach to the future management of

7 Mar 2013 Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee 471 

the Cooper, Diamantina and Georgina river systems. Demonstrating our commitment to giving all 

interested stakeholders a clear say on this issue, the panel includes a mix of committed 

conservationists, including representatives of the Lake Eyre Basin Scientific Advisory Board and a 

representative of the Cooper Creek Catchment Committee, Indigenous representatives, local mayors, 

primary producers and the resources sector. I am confident we can achieve a balanced approach to 

the management of these river systems that preserves the important environmental values of this 

unique part of the state and provides opportunities for economic growth. 

In the 21st century economic development and the preservation of the environment are not 

mutually exclusive outcomes. This process is designed to develop a more practical and less onerous 

framework that will preserve the significant environmental values of our western river systems and 

support the agricultural and resource pillars of the economy in this region of Queensland where there 

is an opportunity to promote best practices in co-existence between the two industries. 

The LNP is aware that there is a wide range of views on this issue and I look forward to the 

report from the advisory panel which is due by the end of this month. The Newman government will 

then make informed decisions on the approach to river management that strikes an effective balance 

between the protection of the rivers and sustainable development opportunities for communities in 

Western Queensland, a balance that the former Labor government denied them. 

STATE DEVELOPMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE 

Report 

Mr GIBSON (Gympie—LNP) (10.22 am): I lay upon the table of the House Report No.19 of the 

State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee on its inquiry into the Commonwealth 

Games Arrangements (Brand Protection) Amendment Bill 2013. 

Tabled paper: State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee: Report No. 19—Commonwealth Games 

Arrangements (Brand Protection) Amendment Bill 2013 [2202]. 

The committee has made eight recommendations in its report and is seeking amendments to 

address the issue of ambush marketing and also that games related images and references be made 

a schedule to the bill. 

In recognition of the national significance of the Commonwealth Games, the committee has 

also made a number of recommendations that the Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Small Business 

and the Commonwealth Games undertakes negotiation with the relevant Commonwealth government 

agencies to address issues such as interjurisdictional enforcement and any amendments required to 

Commonwealth legislation, such as the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and the Broadcasting 

Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999 to ensure brand protection for the games. 

Finally, the committee wishes to see the department develop administrative guidelines for 

disposal of seized or forfeited goods under this legislation and consideration be given to placing such 

guidelines in the Commonwealth Games arrangements regulation. I commend the report to the 

House. 

LEGAL AFFAIRS AND COMMUNITY SAFETY COMMITTEE 

Report 

Mr BERRY (Ipswich—LNP) (10.24 am): I lay upon the table of the House the Legal Affairs and 

Community Safety Committee’s report No. 23, Criminal Law (Child Exploitation and Dangerous 

Drugs) Amendment Bill 2012 and I commend the report to the House. 

Tabled paper: Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 23—Criminal Law (Child Exploitation and 

Dangerous Drugs) Amendment Bill 2012 [2203].

472 Questions Without Notice 7 Mar 2013 

NOTICES OF MOTION 

Disallowance of Statutory Instrument 

Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.24 am): I give notice that I will 

move— 

That the Industrial Relations (Mandatory Code of Practice for Outworkers) Repeal Notice 2012, Subordinate Legislation 2012 

No. 193, tabled in the House on 13 November 2012, be disallowed. 

Disallowance of Statutory Instrument 

Ms TRAD (South Brisbane—ALP) (10.24 am): I give notice that I will move— 

That the Transport (Rail Safety) Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2012, Subordinate Legislation 2012 No. 205, tabled in the 

House on 27 November 2012, be disallowed. 

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT 

School Group Tours 

Madam SPEAKER: Today I wish to acknowledge school tours visiting: Northgate State School 

from the electorate of Nudgee and MacGregor State High School from the electorate of Sunnybank. 

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 

Costello, Mr P 

Ms PALASZCZUK (10.25 am): My question is to the Treasurer and Minister for Trade. I refer 

to the Treasurer’s attendance as guest speaker at an LNP QForum fundraiser in Melbourne on 

15 December 2011 and ask: as shadow Treasurer did he tell guests Mr Costello would play a major 

role in an LNP government; did he urge guests to use the services of a Costello related lobbying firm 

ECG Advisory Solutions; and does the Treasurer see any conflict of interest in this matter and his 

appointment of Mr Costello to the Commission of Audit? 

Mr NICHOLLS: Can I say how delighted I am to get a question from the opposition after all this 

time sitting here. A year into the job I think this is the first question that the Leader of the Opposition 

has asked me and, of course, it does not focus in any way, shape or form on the fiscal position of the 

state. She does not seek to ask a question about growth. There was a big story in the paper today. 

Obviously those opposite get their questions from various news organs. They trawl over them and try 

to find the answers. Nor does she seek to find out how we are going to repay the massive debt, the 

$62 billion heading towards $85 billion. What does she do? She trawls around and picks up a little bit 

of bottom feeding that is going on out of the newspapers, out of the media and all those sorts of 

things. 

Let me make this abundantly clear: the premise of her question is utterly false. If she had 

bothered to consult with her colleague, the shadow Treasurer, she would know that he has already 

spoken about this, because I have already spoken about this. On 18 September last year in Cairns I 

was asked did I speak to Mr Costello and I said that I had had a conversation with Mr Costello and he 

said, ‘Come back once you have won the election, if you win it, and we will talk then.’ That was a 

disclosure that was made. It was reported in the Cairns Post on 18 September. The shadow 

Treasurer, showing all the nimbleness for which he is renowned, leapt on that statement and 

proceeded to give me a hard time about it. Let me say very clearly that the government had made no 

decision on the appointment of any of the commissioners in December 2011. We made no decision 

until after the results of the election on 24 March were known to us. We made that decision after 24 

March, after the results of the election. 

I see that there is a report of some comments that allegedly are attributed to me. I categorically 

and emphatically deny those comments. They were not made. They are a flight of fancy by someone 

who was obviously up to some form of mischief. They were categorically not made, as anyone who 

was at that business breakfast will attest. I was invited to attend to explain what the problems were 

facing Queensland prior to the election and what the LNP was proposing to do, as I did at many

7 Mar 2013 Questions Without Notice 473 

functions. I made the commitment, as we made in our election manifesto, that we would appoint a 

commission of audit to look at the state’s finances and what did we do? We made an appointment of 

commissioners Professor Sandra Harding, Dr McTaggart and Mr Costello. 

Conflict of Interest, Costello, Mr P 

Ms PALASZCZUK: My question is to the Treasurer and Minister for Trade. Will the Treasurer 

advise if the full secret version of the Costello report contains disclosure of Mr Costello’s interests in 

the lobbying firm ECG Advisory Solutions—has he read that far? 

Mr NICHOLLS: Let me make it abundantly clear: on the day of Mr Costello’s appointment, his 

full details, including his involvement with ECG, were released. Oh dear! Were you reading the report 

when he was appointed? Were you reading it then? Did you then say, ‘Oh no, what does ECG do?’, 

or did that one just gloss over you as you were driving the Tarago off to a meeting somewhere? 

Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, I ask you to put your comments through the chair. 

Mr NICHOLLS: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I should have said, did the Leader of the 

Opposition read the terms of the appointment or did that pass her by when she was in the Tarago on 

the way to a meeting somewhere? Mr Costello’s business involvements were clearly stated on the 

day of his appointment. When we announced it we said, ‘These are the qualifications of the people 

here’. Let us look at those qualifications, because I think it is important that we have some 

understanding of those appointments. Mr Costello is Australia’s longest serving federal Treasurer. Mr 

Costello was responsible for two upgrades to Australia’s credit rating up to AAA. Mr Costello paid 

back $96 billion worth of Labor debt. Mr Costello steered Australia through the Asian financial crisis 

and he formed a system that saw Australia have the resilience and the money in the bank when the 

global financial crisis hit. Mr Costello was appointed by the federal Labor government to the board of 

the Future Fund and he is an adviser to the World Bank. That is Mr Costello. 

Professor Sandra Harding is a dean of the business school at QUT and subsequently Vice 

Chancellor of James Cook University in North Queensland. We know they hate North Queensland. 

We know they hate regional Queensland. The member for Mackay does not want anything going on 

in his electorate. 

Mr MULHERIN: I rise to a point of order. As I have said previously, I support the summit in 

Mackay. It is good for tourism. 

Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order? Take your seat. 

Mr NICHOLLS: The member for Mulgrave does not want to see the Bruce Highway upgraded. 

What did we do? We appointed— 

Mr PITT: I rise to a point of order. I find those comments offensive and I ask that they be 

withdrawn. 

Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer? 

Mr NICHOLLS: I withdraw. They do not like rural and regional Queensland. They object to us 

appointing people to a Commission of Audit. They carefully brush over the other members of that 

Commission of Audit. Dr Doug McTaggart was appointed by the Labor Party to head the Queensland 

Investment Corporation for a decade. When it comes to a flaky, flippy floppy sort of opposition, there 

is none better than the ALP here in Queensland. 

Queensland Plan 

Mr COSTIGAN: My question without notice is to the Premier. Can the Premier please update 

the House on how all members can participate in the development of the Queensland Plan? 

Mr NEWMAN: As I have said recently, I am so excited about this process of working over the 

best part of this year to create the Queensland Plan, a plan that is all about what Queenslanders want 

for this state over the next 30 years. It is a plan for Queenslanders for the whole of this state of 

Queensland. It is a great opportunity for the state to come together and actually build consensus in a 

true spirit of collaboration and have a shared vision for the future. In particular, it is about 

Queenslanders and Queensland leading the way. That is particularly pertinent at the moment when 

we have a Prime Minister who seems to think that she and her government are the only smart people; 

that the people in Canberra are the only smart people; that nowhere else in Australia are there people 

who might have great ideas about educating our kids, building better roads, creating better hospitals 

or ensuring that this state goes forward economically.


I believe in Queenslanders. I think that at times those opposite do not believe in Queensland, 

because they are all too happy to say, ‘We’ll just sign on’. Let us look at all the national partnerships 

that they signed up to that are all about saying that this state will be run from Canberra. In 1975 this 

state was the first state in Australia to introduce totally free primary school education. We can lead the 

way again for this nation. We do not have to do what Canberra says. The beaut thing about this 

process—and I give those opposite this challenge today—is that it will be an inclusive process. All 89 

members of parliament get to be involved. 

Ms Palaszczuk interjected. 

Mr NEWMAN: They are interjecting. One would think that they would be really happy that I am 

prepared to have a true bipartisan process where they get to be involved, but they just interject. They 

are not interested. This week we heard the Leader of the Opposition announce that they are going to 

have a policy on Labour Day. One year, one policy. I say to Queenslanders that they have been in 

opposition for a year and on Labour Day we might see a policy. Do they mean May Day or do they 

mean the public holiday for Labour Day in October? It might be a longer wait than we all think for that 

policy. Everyone is invited to be part of this process. It will be a great process— 

Opposition members interjected. 

Madam SPEAKER: Order! There are too many interjections from my left. 

Mr NEWMAN: Interjections from the ‘no’ opposition: no policies, no ideas. They have one 

policy after a full 12 months. I am offering all members of parliament the opportunity to select local 

representatives from their electorates, such as the mums and dads who regularly deal with the local 

schools, the sporting clubs and hospitals; such as retirees who have seen government ideas come 

and go and want to really get behind the future; such as workers who are balancing work, life and the 

cost of living. I am looking forward to being in Mackay. 

(Time expired) 

Member for Redcliffe 

Mr MULHERIN: My question is directed to the Premier. Does the Premier have full confidence 

in the member for Redcliffe? 

Mr NEWMAN: Yes, I do. I say again today that I have seen absolutely nothing that would 

disqualify him from representing the people of Redcliffe. I note that in the past 48 hours the Leader of 

the Opposition was drifting around Redcliffe, interestingly with a lady by the name of Yvette D’ath. I 

speculate on what this could mean. Why would the Leader of the Opposition be up there with Yvette 

D’ath? We can speculate. Could this be a future state candidate? Is this one of the highly talented 

people, a recycled member, whom the Leader of the Opposition would like to bring back? 

We know that the Leader of the Opposition is into recycling. She would like to bring back Kate 

Jones, so we could easily see a $370 million job-destroying waste tax brought back into this state. We 

could have Cameron Dick, another one of the wreckers. What was Cameron Dick’s approach to 

getting tough on crime? We will all remember when he was down at the Greek Club with Michael P 

Smith from 4BC and Paul Pisasle. What did the then Attorney-General say to Queenslanders? He 

said, ‘Everything’s right. There is no problem with crime. You don’t have to worry about paedophiles 

and bikie gangs and gun related violence or alcohol problems in our pubs. You do not have to worry. 

Everything is sweet’. Those are the people whom the Leader of the Opposition wants to recycle. They 

are the wreckers and the people who did not listen and she wants to bring them back. 

I have full confidence in my team. I do not have any confidence in recycling the people who 

took Queensland into a position where it has an $11 billion fiscal deficit this financial year and over 

$62 billion worth of debt. This team, including the member for Redcliffe, is doing something about the 

problems that those opposite created. 

Honourable members interjected. 

Madam SPEAKER: Order! Members, there are too many interjections across the chamber. 

Mr NEWMAN: I have full confidence in my team because they are working as a team to 

address the issues that those people created. Queenslanders have lower rego to pay this year and 

next year because of this team’s actions. Queenslanders have $7,000 less tax to pay on the family 

home because of this team. Queensland businesses no longer have a job-destroying waste tax


because of this team. Queenslanders in small business have less payroll tax to pay because of this 

team. Do I have confidence in this team? You bet I do have confidence in this team, because they are 

working for Queenslanders and they are open and accountable! Still we have not seen the Leader of 

the Opposition’s diary and still we have not seen their lobbyist contact registers, but they can see that 

from us. 


Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I allowed that question but technically I was in 

error. I remind members for the future of standing order 113(1) and particularly that questions have to 

relate to a matter of administration for which the minister is responsible. 

Brisbane Airport 

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

Development, Infrastructure and Planning. Can the Deputy Premier identify any contribution federal 

Labor members Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan have made to the current discussion to secure a 

second runway for Brisbane Airport? 

Mr SEENEY: I thank the member for the question. It is a good question to ask because over 

the last week or so Queenslanders have been engaged in a discussion about the problems around 

traffic congestion at Brisbane Airport. I think we have clearly established in here over the last couple 

of days that the two federal members who are most responsible for that traffic congestion, the two 

federal members who are most responsible for the delays, are Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan. They 

have led a campaign against a second runway since 1998. Following the election of the federal Labor 

government in 2007, the approval that was given by Mark Vaile in the coalition government never 

progressed. That is why we have the congestion that we do today. 

So we would expect in the discussion that has been occurring around Queensland in the last 

week or so that we would get some contribution from Wayne Swan and, particularly, Kevin Rudd. A 

search of the media clippings for that period shows absolutely nothing—absolute silence from Kevin 

Rudd, the former Prime Minister; absolute silence from Wayne Swan. 

An indication, if you like, of the extent of the interest in this subject is Twitter traffic on 

#bnelateagain that the Courier-Mail have set up asking people to detail their experiences. I have here 

some 40 pages of tweets from people who have been very keen to detail their experiences going 

around and around in the skies over South-East Queensland or northern New South Wales or stuck 

in the terminals at Brisbane Airport because of the lack of a second runway. There are some 40 

pages of them. Something like 600 or 700 people have taken the opportunity to detail their 

experiences. I table those for the benefit of the House. 

Tabled paper: Twitter extracts #bnelateagain regarding the Brisbane Airport [2204]. 

But there is not one tweet from Kevin Rudd. Kevin Rudd is Australia’s foremost political 

Twitterer. If you have a look at Kevin Rudd’s Twitter site Kevin Rudd has put out 7,703 tweets, but he 

cannot do one about the Brisbane Airport issue—not one. He follows 370,000 people and he has over 

a million followers. None of them know what Kevin Rudd thinks about the Brisbane Airport issue 

because Kevin Rudd has become Twitter mute. Kevin Rudd has suddenly become Twitter shy. He 

has become shy at expressing his view about an issue that 600 or 700 other Queenslanders have felt 

the need to express a view about. Queenslanders deserve to hear from Kevin Rudd about what he 

thinks should happen about the second runway at Brisbane Airport. 


Health Services 

Mr WELLINGTON: My question is to the Premier. I table a copy of an extract from the 

Australian Electoral Commission and the Queensland Electoral Commission returns for 2011 and 

2012 which show Paul Ramsay Holdings and Ramsay Health Care combined donating more than 

$500,000 to the Liberal Party, and I ask: in light of the state government’s new way of delivering 

health services in Queensland, what probity safeguards are in place to make sure healthcare 

providers chosen by the government are not chosen because of their connections or donations to the 

Liberal Party? 

Tabled paper: Australian Electoral Commission—details of Donor Annual Return 2011-12—Paul Ramsay Holdings Pty Ltd and 

Ramsay Health Care Ltd [2205].


Mr NEWMAN: In relation to this question, the first thing is that I have not seen the return and I 

am not involved in the detailed fundraising activities of the LNP. There is a complete separation 

between the party’s activities on that front and the political or parliamentary wing. 

I will say this to give the honourable member some confidence. We have not made any 

decisions in relation to outsourcing or the private delivery of such services. Members might well find 

that it was the case that the previous government had done business with Ramsay Health Care. I 

think members would find that. It is hardly surprising that one of Australia’s leading private healthcare 

providers would be involved both in the past and in the future with the Queensland government. 

The way these things happen is that should we make a decision to go to some sort of private 

sector delivery there will be a proper, competitive tender process that will not be run by the cabinet or 

the minister. It will be run, as the member knows full well, by officials in the department with the 

support of our centralised procurement people in the department of the Minister for Housing and 

Public Works—from outside as well. There will be plenty of scrutiny. There will be probity auditors 

from independent accounting firms involved. It will be done properly, openly and transparently and 

there will be vigorous competition. 

I go now to the purpose of doing these things. We need to find ways to save money for 

Queenslanders. We need to drive our dollars further. We heard only the other day in answers to 

questions in the House or in a ministerial statement that if we go to the Costello report it is a fact that 

on a case mix basis of cost per patient in Queensland it is costing around $5,400. In Victoria it is only 

costing $4,400. Queenslanders are paying a higher cost of deliver. 


Mr NEWMAN: I do not know why these people interject because these are important issues 

that they once believed in. They once actually believed in them. I know that because Peter Beattie set 

up the Service Delivery and Performance Commission division in his October 2005 budget. But do 

members know what he did? He suppressed reports. When Anna Bligh came in what happened to 

the person heading that up—Leo Keliher? He was not around anymore because those opposite from 

about 2009 did not care about spending money wisely. They were quite happy to waste money. That 

is why we saw things like the Health payroll debacle and the Tahitian prince. They did not work hard 

enough for Queensland. 

Commission of Audit 

Mr PUCCI: My question without notice is to the Treasurer and Minister for Trade. The 

Commission of Audit recommends the sale of some government businesses. Is the Treasurer aware 

of any views on the sale of government businesses? 

Mr NICHOLLS: I thank the member for Logan for his question—incisive as always. Yes, I am 

aware of some views in relation to some of the recommendations contained in the Commission of 

Audit. Let us remember that the Commission of Audit reinforced advice that was provided to the 

incoming government in the incoming Treasury brief. That is that the state of Queensland’s finances 

are unsustainable and require urgent remedial action in this term of government. 

The QTC—the Queensland Treasury Corporation; the independent bankers to government— 

said that together with the volume of debt on issue and interest and the projected further borrowings, 

Queensland is entering into unchartered waters. This was supported of course by the Queensland 

Audit Office, whose report was out earlier this week, which said that Queensland’s debt had 

ballooned, its expenses had ballooned and had not been supported by any subsequent rise in 

income. It was becoming unsustainable. What did the Costello report say? It said that all those three 

reports were dead right and we need to do something about it. One of the things they said we have to 

do is stop the rot. We took that case to the budget and we did that last year in the budget that I 

delivered on 11 September. 

What does the second stage report say in its executive summary? It recommends that 

government should consider selling some government businesses. This has been supported by 

comments and statements by groups such as Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, the Australian 

Industry Group, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland. They all support the thrust of 

the Costello report.


Imagine my surprise when I found someone slightly more closely aligned to the union 

movement and read their views in relation to privatisation. There was of course the member for Inala, 

the now Leader of the Opposition, and the member for Mulgrave, the now shadow Treasurer, who 

congratulated Andrew Fraser on selling Forestry Plantations Queensland, Queensland Motorways 

Ltd, the Port of Brisbane Corporation, the Abbot Point Coal Terminal and QR National and said they 

were proud to be part of a Bligh government that did that. 

I was looking at some websites only earlier this week. Imagine my surprise when I looked on 

the member for Mulgrave’s website and what did I find? ‘Mythbusters #2—Sale of Assets.’ It is still 

there—the member for Mulgrave selling the myths of the sale of assets. There he is, the man arguing 

against it—I table that for benefit of members of the House. 

Tabled paper: Webpage of Mr Curtis Pitt MP, member for Mulgrave, titled ‘Mythbusters #2—Sale of Assets’ [2206]. 

He says— 

MYTH: The Government is selling off businesses that are highly profitable. 

FACT: All together the five businesses brought in about $280 million in dividends and tax equivalent payments ... However, 

over the next five years the businesses will require around $12 billion in investment, some of which will be spent on QR’s 

operations ... 

What else does he say here— 

MYTH: There’s no way that these asset sales can be in the interests of workers. 

FACT: Privatisation does not always mean a reduction in worker numbers. 

There a number of examples around the world, like Canadian National— 

Madam SPEAKER: Time has expired. 

Mr NICHOLLS:—the national railway of Canada— 

Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, the time has expired. 

Mr NICHOLLS: Madam Speaker, they speak with forked tongue. 

Commission of Audit 

Mr PITT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I really appreciate that. My question is to the Treasurer 

and Minister for Trade. 

Government members interjected. 

Madam SPEAKER: Order, members! We will allow the member to ask the question in silence. 

I call the Manager of Opposition Business. 

Mr PITT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I refer to the government’s refusal to release both the 

interim and final Costello reports for Queensland taxpayers to read for themselves and ask: when 

these reports are finally made available, will the Treasurer commit to releasing the exact same 

documents provided by the commission to the government without editing or alteration in the 

meantime? 

Mr NICHOLLS: Unlike the devious minds opposite, we do not go down that path. I thank the 

honourable member for his question of course. But that was something dreamt up in the think tank of 

the opposition here. Of course we will release it in the form that we got it. Of course it is going to be 

released that way. We would not be making any alterations to the report. Why would we? Why would 

we be making any alterations? They ascribe to others their own motivations and their own ideas. Only 

the Labor Party would think along those lines. Only the Labor Party would get a report and say, ‘We 

don’t like what it says, so we’re going to doctor it before we release it.’ And they have form. I can 

recall a report into the transport system back in 2008-09 by the then member for Lytton, Paul Lucas, 

in relation to a white paper on transport reform. He did not like it. Do you know what he did? He pulled 

it straight down off the web and did not want it disclosed. 

Let me reflect on some of the other policy consistencies of the member for Mulgrave, because I 

had not quite finished reading from the mythbusters fact sheet. On his website on 5 March under the 

banner of Curtis Pitt MP was ‘Mythbusters #2—Sale of Assets’. The fact sheet says— 

MYTH: The government is paying investment bankers millions of dollars to sell these assets. 

Mr Newman: Oh dear!


Mr NICHOLLS: Oh dear! This was something that the Labor Party was doing—paying all those 

bankers walking around millions of dollars. It goes on— 

FACT: Put simply, we are doing this to get the best price for taxpayers. 

That is the answer. That was the fact. Here is the fact sheet. 


Madam SPEAKER: Order, members! I call the Treasurer. 

Mr NICHOLLS: One of the great fans of the sale of government businesses is the member for 

Mulgrave because, in his own words, he said they have gone from ‘strength to strength’ since being 

privatised. That was the member for Mulgrave’s view after the sales. So not only did he support them 

beforehand, not only does he still support them because he has his mythbusters fact sheet sitting on 

his website, dated 5 March, but he also claims that the business ‘has gone from strength to strength 

since it was privatised’. The Leader of the Opposition has the same comments. 


Ministerial Diaries 

Mr CRANDON: My question without notice is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. 

Will the Attorney-General update the House on how the government is fulfilling its commitment to 

openness and accountability through the release of ministerial diaries? 

Mr BLEIJIE: I thank the member for Coomera for the question. Can I start by congratulating 

the Premier on taking the first step in Australia’s history of releasing, making public, information about 

not only his diary but also that of his ministers. So the government is an open and accountable 

government. We encourage all governments across Australia and all oppositions across Australia to 

be just as open and accountable. We have also this month started to release RTI information. We 

believe as a government in the push model. We want to push information out of government and not 

have people in Queensland trying to extract it from government and not have people in Queensland 

not get the information they desire. So we believe in the push model. I wish the Labor Party believed 

in the push model. 

So we have also this month started RTI. When an applicant receives the RTI information, 

ministers log it on their website so all Queenslanders, all media outlets, can have access to exactly 

the same information that is available. But we look to the Labor Party who say they are open and 

accountable and that for the last 10 years they had an open and accountable government. I put a 

question to the opposition leader: where is her diary? Where are the meetings? Where are the 

lobbyists registers from the three former ministers opposite? Put your hands up. The member for 

Bundamba is showing a zero. Did they not meet anyone? Did they not have any meetings? Did they 

not have any RTI requests? Did they not meet lobbyists? They are the questions. They are no 

different to their federal counterparts. They are no different to Julia Gillard. 

I refer to an article from The Conversation in which Professor John McMillan says that, 

although the Prime Minister is not legally required to release information, the FOI ‘implicitly 

encouraged’ the release of information. So the Prime Minister is under a bit of pressure to release 

some information as well. Professor McMillan was quoted as saying— 

“There is undeniably a strong public interest in knowing what ministers are doing officially and who they are addressing,” 

Of course this relates to the SMH requesting information from the Prime Minister’s office and 

the Prime Minister’s response was: ‘That’s going to be too hard for my office to do and it’s going to 

take far too long,’ so they refused access to the information. In Queensland the Premier today 

released our diaries, and the 22 staff of the overresourced opposition opposite will no doubt be all 

upstairs trawling through all of our diaries. This article goes on to say— 

Following the 2010 election, Ms Gillard claimed she would lead an open and transparent government—publically releasing the 

diaries offers her the chance to cement that commitment. 

“What the Australian people told us, and they told us this in no uncertain terms on that day and on the days that have followed, 

is this: that we will be held more accountable than ever before ... 

If the Prime Minister wants to be held more accountable than ever before in this nation’s history 

then I call on her to follow the lead of the honourable Queensland Premier and release the 

information. 

(Time expired)


Gold Coast, Tourism 

Mrs MILLER: My question is to the Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Small Business and the 

Commonwealth Games. With Easter holiday bookings for the Gold Coast already down by 15 per 

cent, why is the minister doing absolutely nothing to help the council restore the area’s devastated 

beaches and lure holiday makers back? 

Madam SPEAKER: Is the member tabling the document? Otherwise we do not use props in 

the chamber. 

Mrs MILLER: No, no. I am tabling the document. 

Tabled paper: Gold Coast Bulletin, dated 7 March 2013, detailing Gold Coast beaches [2207]. 

Mrs STUCKEY: Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. What a pleasure to finally get a 

question about tourism. After some 36 question times and 270 questions, I am asked what I, as 

tourism minister, am going to do to put sand back onto beaches on the Gold Coast. The tourism 

industry is recognised by this government as one of the four pillars of our economy. Therefore, it is 

receiving attention that it never received under the Labor government. It is now a stand-alone portfolio 

with a tourism cabinet committee. I am very proud to say that it also has a whole-of-government 

initiative called DestinationQ. That means that we are focusing on tourism across the whole of 

Queensland and supporting that in a big way. 

No one could be a stronger sand advocate than me. Let me tell the House a little bit about sand 

on the Gold Coast. For over a decade now I have been calling for better management and flexibility of 

what we call the Tweed sand bypass, because we recognise the importance of sand replenishment 

on our beaches. This is a council and government agreement with New South Wales. The Gold Coast 

has a long history of its beaches being continually eroded. It has also long been the responsibility of 

our local councils to make sure that their foreshore management strategies are adequate. Only last 

week I called an urgent meeting with Mayor Tate, Tourism and Events Queensland and Gold Coast 

tourism to discuss this very issue. 

A government member: Well done! 

Mrs STUCKEY: Thank you. In less than 24 hours I had the stakeholders plus the engineers 

from council at the table. We had an agreement at the end of that meeting that it would be unwise to 

be pumping sand and moving sand around before Easter with other inclement weather patterns that 

have been predicted. Where does that leave us now? That leaves us in the position of now contacting 

all of our tourism operators. I had a report only 10 minutes ago from Gold Coast tourism to say that, 

whilst Easter bookings are a little down on what they were last Easter, we are very confident that they 

will bounce back. The main reason that people are not booking is, firstly, it is a common trend to book 

fairly late and, secondly, all of this bad media is doing no help at all. 


Council Amalgamation, Vote 

Mr KEMPTON: My question without notice is to the Minister for Local Government, Community 

Recovery and Resilience. In 2007 the former Treasurer, Andrew Fraser, as local government minister 

shocked local government with a raft of forced amalgamations. Can you please advise the House 

which communities will be having their say this weekend? 

Mr CRISAFULLI: I thank the member for Cook for the question and acknowledge that two of 

these referendums are happening in areas that he represents. I pay tribute to him for that. He 

mentioned the involvement of the former local government minister. I am somebody who wants to 

look to the future when it comes to rebuilding local government, but it would be wrong not to briefly 

mention ahead of what is probably the most important day in the history of local government in this 

state how we got there and why five years on communities still feel so passionate about this issue. It 

is because, despite the fact that local government acknowledged that change needed to happen and 

that there had to be mergers and efficiencies, the way in which this was conducted showed a 

complete lack of trust and respect for what is a beautiful level of government that is closest to the 

people. 

It tore the soul out of communities. They had embarked on a journey of making this happen. 

They were doing it through a process called size, shape and accountability, and in a moment of 

madness the former local government minister woke up and spilt blood on the floor of local 

government. To look to the future, there is an election this Saturday in the areas of Noosa and


Douglas. That was our election commitment. Our commitment was to allow communities to put 

forward a bid with a focus on Noosa and Douglas, but we have also received successful bids from 

both Mareeba and Livingstone. In many cases this is the most important vote that people will ever 

engage in because faces come and go, politicians change and you can be a rooster one day and a 

feather duster the next. But this is a special vote. It is a vote about the structure of governance for 

your area. 

I have visited each of these areas and I have walked the streets. I have not been there pushing 

a view. I have not said ‘go yes’ and I have not said ‘go no’. I have just asked people, ‘Are you aware it 

is happening? Do you have enough information to cast your vote?’ I have been impressed at the level 

of engagement in these communities. I say to people: please arm yourselves with the facts. Please 

make an informed vote and know that the government will support the decision that is made. 

I have been asked: what is a good result this weekend? A good result will be a strong voter 

turnout. I remind people that voting is compulsory. There will be fines issued if people do not vote. 

From my point of vote, whether it is zero yes votes or four yes votes or anywhere in between, it will be 

a success because there will be a line in the sand and local government will finally be able to move 

on after what has been a dark decade—a decade of being battered, bullied and bruised and used as 

a collection agency for any crazy idea those opposite had. This Saturday marks the beginning of 

something special. Whether it is 73 or 77 local governments, they will know that they are valued in 

this state. 

Government Administrative Precinct, Redevelopment 

Mr HOPPER: My question is to the Premier. The Premier has announced to the House that the 

new building on 1 William Street will cost taxpayers nothing. Can the Premier please outline to the 

people of Queensland how the Premier negotiated this rent free deal on Queensland’s most 

expensive real estate? 

Mr NEWMAN: Firstly, for the benefit of the honourable member, I did not negotiate any lease 

deal and neither did the Treasurer or the Deputy Premier. To amplify my response to the earlier 

answer I gave to the member for Nicklin, the professional public servants within Projects Queensland, 

supported by other agencies, are the ones who negotiate these arrangements. We as politicians do 

not get involved, and that is done at arm’s length. 

In relation to 1 William Street, these are the benefits of the project. Firstly, one of Australia’s 

largest superannuation funds, Cbus, is making the investment. It is putting the money up; Queensland 

taxpayers are not. Secondly, in relation to the office requirements for the Queensland Public Service 

in the Brisbane CBD—and I have said this before; sadly, the honourable member was not listening 

when I outlined some of the specifics in terms of square metres—the government has both properties 

that it owns and commercial tenancies that it leases right now from private sector firms. 

The idea behind this is to move Queensland Public Service agencies into the new building. 

That will save—I inform the honourable member—at least $60 million a year. It will save $60 million a 

year because a modern, efficient building being built and paid for by Cbus with its modern, efficient 

floor plates will mean we will not need as much floor space. The buildings the government currently 

occupies do not have efficient floor plates. They were built in the sixties, seventies and early eighties, 

and they are not conducive to teamwork and collaboration and the sort of work environment that, 

frankly and unashamedly, Jim Soorley delivered in terms of a project called Brisbane Square, which I 

inherited as the Lord Mayor. If you want to see the difference—it is chalk and cheese—we will 

arrange a visit for you. 

The final thing that this project does is create 1,000 jobs for hardworking construction workers, 

both men and women, over the next three years. That is why people like David Hanna from the 

Builders Labourers Federation have supported this. I have not seen any statements, but I believe it is 

the case that Mr Michael Ravbar from the construction division of the CFMEU also supports it. They 

support it because it will mean jobs for their workers, their people and their members. That is why this 

is a great project for Queensland, because it helps us with our quest to make the Queensland Public 

Service the best Public Service serving Queenslanders in the nation.


Green-Tape Reduction 

Mr GULLEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Environment and Heritage 

Protection. Can the minister please outline what recent initiatives he has introduced to reduce green 

tape and ease the cost of living in Queensland? 

Mr POWELL: I thank the honourable member for his question. I am very proud to inform the 

House that the first piece of legislation that I introduced is about to come to fruition. The 

Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill was passed 

in parliament in July last year and comes into effect on the 31st of this month. This is an outstanding 

example of the work that this can-do government can do to achieve our 20 per cent reduction in red 

tape. 

In addition to streamlining those core approval processes under the Environmental Protection 

Act, this government has gone a step further and last week approved the removal of 20 

environmentally relevant activities for which an environmental approval was previously needed. 

These changes will also take effect from 31 March this year. From next month 9,400 small 

businesses will no longer need to apply for a licence or pay an annual application fee or need to 

submit an annual return. That is 9,400 businesses. That is a saving of $6.2 million each year and it is 

the most significant green tape reform in this regulation in over a decade. It allows small businesses 

to get on and do what they do best, that is, creating jobs and improving the economy. 

What types of businesses are going to benefit? A wide range will benefit, from motor vehicle 

workshops through to cabinet makers and piggeries—businesses up and down the eastern seaboard 

and out west to the border. How has this green tape reduction been received? Nick Behrens from 

CCIQ said that these changes would mean that Queensland was no longer Australia’s largest 

overregulator in the area of environmental protection. Kelly Dewer from MTAQ also welcomed the 

changes saying that the government has struck the right balance. Small business operators will no 

longer have to engage in a drawn out process. We are also reducing fees for small sewage treatment 

plants. I know the Minister for Tourism is very pleased to hear this. It will impact on bed and 

breakfasts and hotel operators in a range of communities including my electorate of Glass House. 

It is important to note that, whilst these businesses will no longer need to obtain an 

environmental approval, they will still be required to uphold high environmental standards. The law 

still applies. Environmental standards will be enforced under a new regulatory strategy which reflects 

a fundamental shift in the way we do business in the Department of Environment and Heritage 

Protection. We are speeding up approvals; we are getting out of the way of low-impact, low-risk 

developments; and we are getting my officers out from behind their desks, checking and monitoring 

businesses that do or do not require licences and to make sure that they are complying with their 

approvals. Where necessary, those officers will take swift and strong action under the law. This is a 

can-do approach to delivering on our— 


Hospital and Health Boards 

Mrs CUNNINGHAM: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. In relation to new 

health and hospital boards, is each board responsible for establishing their own misconduct and 

corruption investigative team, effectively an ethical standards unit? If so, how have boards been 

trained and resourced to achieve this? 

Mr SPRINGBORG: I thank the honourable member for Gladstone for her question. I also 

acknowledge her very strong and strident advocacy on behalf of her community, particularly with 

regard to health services and facilities. Over a long period there has been a number of issues within 

Queensland Health about relative accountability which has seen significant reform. Obviously, due to 

the Bundaberg Hospital issue some years ago, we have seen significant compliance, reform and 

accountability, particularly with regard to the oversight of medical practitioners or clinical practitioners, 

the way we receive those complaints and the way those complaints are processed appropriately. I 

think it is fair to say that in this particular field Queensland is a leader in Australia, but there are some 

areas where we do need to have further reform in the future. I have flagged that there will be some 

reform with regard to the Health Quality and Complaints Commission, particularly around 

responsibilities that were delegated to AHPRA some years ago with regard to dealing with complaints 

against clinicians.


With regard to the specifics of the honourable member’s question, I can inform the honourable 

member that it is expected that hospital and health services around Queensland will be establishing a 

more formalised process for clinical and ethical standards complaints that are made to them. That will 

be happening in the transition phase. In the interim we will continue to support those particular HHSs 

as they go down that track. In Queensland Health we have an ethical standards unit which people will 

go straight to if they wish. People can also make complaints to the Crime and Misconduct 

Commission. That does happen and those complaints are often delegated back to the HHS to 

conduct the investigation depending upon the level of the particular complaint, which is very 

appropriate. We also have the Health Quality and Complaints Commission in Queensland. 

The honourable member also asked about training of the HHS staff in this particular area. As I 

understand it, they have actually had briefings. I understand that even the CMC has briefed the health 

services in Queensland about their obligations. 

We do have local accountability. We have accountability through the department of health, 

through the Health Quality and Complaints Commission and also through the CMC. Is there 

appropriate resourcing? Yes, there is. However, I think people should put it in context that often what 

will be dealt with at that level can sometimes be major complaints which then escalate up the line. But 

many of the smaller and minor things will be dealt with at a lower level. If there are systemic issues, 

they will need to be dealt with more broadly across the health system. 

Crime and Misconduct Commission Inquiry 

Mr JOHNSON: My question is directed to the honourable the Attorney-General and Minister for 

Justice. Can the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice provide the House with an update on the 

Callinan inquiry and accountability and integrity in the CMC? 

Mr BLEIJIE: I thank the honourable member for Gregory for his question. I am pleased to be 

able to provide an update to the member for Gregory and to all honourable colleagues with respect to 

Mr Ian Callinan’s and Professor Nicholas Aroney’s inquiry with respect to the CMC. Honourable 

colleagues will recall that when I established the inquiry into the CMC and its functions we had a 

particular purpose. I will now update the House with respect to the terms of reference that I 

announced at the time. When I set up this inquiry I said— 

An Advisory Panel is established comprising IAN ... CALLINAN— 

who all honourable members will know is the former High Court judge— 

and NICHOLAS ARONEY to advise the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice in relation to the matters set out below. 

More particularly— 

... as to whether the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 ... and any other associated statutes and regulations should be amended; 

b) to improve the operation of agencies charged with, or concerned in the operation of the Act with respect to: 

(i) 

the use or any abuse of the powers and functions conferred by the Act; 

(ii) ensuring the maintenance of public confidence in the Act and the relevant agencies— 

and it goes on. The other reason that we set this up was due to a clear attempt by the Australian 

Labor Party Queensland division to mislead the public in Queensland in the election campaign of 

2012 against the honourable Premier and to use the CMC as a political football against members of 

parliament or candidates in that election. I have made no secret of the fact that I thought that it was a 

complete abuse of process to use the CMC in that way. The CMC is required to do the investigations, 

but it was the Labor Party that was using the CMC as a political football, hence, the reason we set up 

the inquiry: to look at ways we can ensure this does not happen in the future. 

The Callinan inquiry is due to report back to me next week, on 14 March. I am meeting Mr 

Callinan this afternoon with what I suspect will be an update on the finalisation of the report. However, 

I am concerned about events of late yesterday that were reported in the media with respect to 

previous Fitzgerald inquiry documents being made accessible to the public. I am also concerned that 

in the press today we see reported in an article— 

THE officer who helped expose police corruption in Queensland says ‘people who stuck their neck on the line’ during the 

Fitzgerald inquiry would be fearing for their safety after sensitive information became publicly accessible.


Yesterday the chairman of the CMC said that it was an administrative error and an oversight. 

That is an unacceptable oversight and an unacceptable administrative error to the highest grade in 

Queensland, potentially putting former informants at risk. That is why the Callinan inquiry is that 

important. That is why I intend to tell Mr Callinan this afternoon that he will be instructed to further 

review the matters of late with respect to the CMC and if they need an extension to do so— 


Indigenous Communities, Safety 

Mr BYRNE: My question is to the Minister for Police and Community Safety. I note with some 

concern that there is growing unrest in Indigenous communities such as Hope Vale, Aurukun and 

Doomadgee, and I ask: what is the minister doing to ensure community safety in these areas? 

Mr DEMPSEY: I thank the member for Rockhampton and shadow minister for the question in 

relation to what is happening not just in Doomadgee but a number of other Indigenous communities, 

particularly over the last couple of days. Some of the unrest has been linked to family arguments and 

the Queensland Police Service is managing the situation in conjunction with the Minister for 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs, Minister Elmes, to ensure that we have 

not only a police response but also a whole-of-government response to not just issues that have 

arisen now but issues that have been ongoing for the last 20 years. These are issues that this 

government is addressing in relation to enhancing the rights and the liberties of these people while 

also addressing a number of issues affecting Aboriginal properties in not just Doomadgee but also 

urban areas across Queensland. 

As the shadow minister for police would know, the job of policing has by its nature an inherent 

risk which brings with it a number of different scenarios. We will always work to minimise those risks. 

We are currently addressing those social issues in those communities, and the Queensland Police 

Service has significantly increased resources to Doomadgee in particular to assist the local officers 

on the ground. The government will do everything possible to protect the members of the community. 

We have to remember that police are there to protect the community, and this government’s firm 

commitment is not to remove police because that is not the answer in addressing these issues in the 

community. Similarly, we will be doing everything in our power to protect the police officers on the 

front line—unlike those in the opposition. One only has to refer to the lack of support from the 

member for Rockhampton in this House. What did he say in relation to supporting this government’s 

motion in relation to assaults on police? 

Mr Pucci: He voted no! 

Mr DEMPSEY: He said, ‘No.’ Thank you, member for Logan. What did he say about illegal 

firearms? He said— 

Government members: No! 

Mr DEMPSEY: What did he say in relation to evade police powers? 


Mr DEMPSEY: He said no again. What did he do in relation to evil predators and child sex 

offenders? 


Mr DEMPSEY: He said no again. But then he did say something— 

Mr BYRNE: I rise to a point of order. This is an important question. All I am asking for is a 

serious answer. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): What is your point of order, member for Rockhampton? 

Mr BYRNE: My point of order is that he is not relevant at all to the question. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The minister shall continue. 

Mr DEMPSEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. But this is what the member for Rockhampton 

did say in this House in relation to firearms offences—and it makes the whole ethos clear in terms of 

the difference between Labor and the LNP—when sympathising with a drug user in relation to firearm 

offences. He said— 

Say there is an 18 year old kid in the country who has his grandad’s gun lying around the house while he is dealing small 

quantities of cannabis to his friends. 

(Time expired)

484 Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee 7 Mar 2013 

Health, Federal Funding 

Mr HOBBS: My question is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to the Senate inquiry 

into the federal government’s funding cuts that have stripped $103 million from Queensland Health, 

and I ask: has the Senate inquiry reported on its findings and does it tell Queenslanders anything 

about the cover-ups of union bosses and Labor state politicians? 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the Minister for Health. You have two minutes. 

Mr SPRINGBORG: As everyone knows, this parliament—at least those on this side—has been 

pursuing this issue now for some months because the Commonwealth government’s retrospective 

health cuts have completely brutalised the health system in Queensland and we are seeing the 

deniers fall over one by one by one by one. Even the union movement is now saying that these cuts 

are a reality and they are impacting upon the system. The Senate committee actually reported today, 

and that Senate committee was made up of members of the coalition and the Greens and the Labor 

Party. There were six recommendations made by that committee. What that committee said today 

was that the Commonwealth government should give the money back. It also said that, when it 

comes to the issue of inessential data and miscalculations like this, there should not be a process of 

retrospective application of these draconian cuts without the proper collection and the proper fixing up 

of that data. 

The Labor Party in Queensland is now completely out on a limb when today even a Senate 

committee says that the health system in not only Queensland but Australia-wide has been affected 

by these draconian cuts by the Commonwealth government. As the chair of the committee said today, 

if a person has had a hip operation or if a child has had a tonsillectomy, you cannot put the tonsils 

back in and you cannot reverse the hip operation. The procedures have been done. I now call upon 

Labor Party members opposite to stop playing politics and to start standing up for the patients in 

Queensland and agree with their interstate health ministers in the Labor Party who all agree that this 

should be reversed in the best interests of all patients and staff in our health system. 


Madam SPEAKER: The time for questions has expired. 

PARLIAMENTARY CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMITTEE 

Report, Motion to Take Note 

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (11.26 am): I move— 

That the House takes note of report No. 89 of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee tabled on 29 January 2013. 

Report No. 89 of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee titled A report on the 

Crime and Misconduct Commission’s investigation of suspected improper conduct of a Crime and 

Misconduct Commission employee was tabled on 29 January 2013. During the 2012 election 

campaign the Misconduct area of the CMC undertook an assessment into allegations surrounding the 

activities of Mr Campbell Newman. These events attracted significant media attention. Consequently, 

the CMC confirmed in a media release on 16 March that on 29 February 2012 the CMC decided that 

it should undertake an assessment of matters which had become the subject of public debate relating 

to alleged donations by a developer to the Liberal National Party’s Forward Brisbane Leadership fund 

in January 2011 ahead of Brisbane City Council’s approval for a Woolloongabba development. The 

media statement stated— 

While the CMC has determined there is no evidence of official misconduct against Mr Newman in this matter, it has decided to 

commence a misconduct investigation into the circumstances of the alleged developer donations. 

In March 2012 the former PCMC became aware of allegations of bias regarding CMC 

employee Ms Kathryn Ellis, the then Director of the Office of the Assistant Commissioner Misconduct, 

in relation to the CMC’s assessment of allegations relating to Mr Campbell Newman, the then 

candidate for the state seat of Ashgrove. These matters came to the former committee’s attention in 

several ways—through media articles, by way of complaint by Mr Jarrod Bleijie MP, then shadow 

Attorney-General, and in notification from the CMC chairperson pursuant to section 329 of the CMC 

Act. In April 2012 the former committee received correspondence from the CMC advising Ms Ellis had

7 Mar 2013 Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee 485 

a minor role in the investigation relating to Mr Newman but that Ms Ellis’s role did not have any 

involvement in the decision to instigate the investigation. A number of instances occurred where the 

CMC chairperson also advised that he did not suspect Ms Ellis actively sought to influence that or any 

other CMC investigation, but the former committee requested the CMC investigate the matter and 

provide the committee with a report. 

The former committee also resolved to ask the parliamentary commissioner, Mr Paul Favell, to 

supervise the CMC’s investigation and for the parliamentary commissioner to provide the committee 

with a report on its supervision of the CMC’s investigation. 

This current committee was appointed in May 2012 and considered the matter on 1 June. At 

that meeting the committee agreed with the former committee’s reservations regarding the CMC’s 

decision to retain the services of Mr Richard Douglas SC in relation to this matter because of the 

potential perception of bias given that Dr Alex Douglas MP, member for Gaven, chaired the previous 

committee. Both the former and current committees and the parliamentary commissioner 

independently expressed the same reservations. 

On 9 July 2012 the CMC chairperson advised the committee that the CMC had decided to 

terminate Ms Ellis’s contract without providing a reason under the terms of her contract of 

employment. The parliamentary commissioner’s report, which is not a report of the committee, 

concluded that the proposed termination of Ms Ellis’s contract was not inappropriate in the 

circumstances. The parliamentary commissioner also concluded that it would not be inappropriate for 

the CMC to terminate Ms Ellis’s employment as a result of disciplinary action. 

The CMC did not act to implement its decision after information in September that Ms Ellis had 

been diagnosed with renal cancer and other health issues. Consequently, the execution of the 

determination by the CMC was delayed. It was decided, and our report concludes, that the CMC must 

act impartially. The committee accepted the parliamentary commissioner’s conclusions that the 

CMC’s procedures and policies relating to the declaration of interest by CMC officers does not require 

amendment and that the activities of the CMC in relation to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 are also 

acceptable. 

The delay in time to finalise this matter was unfortunate. The committee considers that the 

CMC did not act inappropriately in allowing Ms Ellis sufficient time to undergo and recover from 

necessary radical surgery before advising her of the CMC’s decision to terminate her employment. 

However, she did resign prior to the implementation of that decision. 


Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (11.31 am): I rise to speak to report No. 89. I endorse the 

comments made by the chairman, the member for Gladstone. I want to put on the record that the 

matters considered in this report did cover two parliamentary terms and two committees. I understand 

the frustration that some members have with how long it took for the matter to be resolved and for this 

report to come to the House. I assure members that at all times committee members’ deliberations on 

this matter was as thorough as possible and we were very aware of the need to make a timely 

decision as soon as that was possible. 

Unfortunately, there are matters that the committee is not at liberty to share with other 

members. I suppose that sometimes leads to aggravation and anxiety and people jump to 

conclusions that are unnecessary. So all I want to say to all members is to reassure them that my 

experience and involvement in the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee has left me in no 

doubt that all members—all members—have tried to do the best they can under the conditions they 

work with. I urge the Attorney-General to look at the recommendations and perhaps the government 

may make some decisions in relation to our recommendations. 

To me the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee is the most important committee 

that a parliament can have. It is the only committee that continues after a state election and until a 

new committee has been formed. That was what happened in this case. The matters were raised 

during the time of the previous government. The matter was considered during the caretaker period. 

A new government was formed and in due course new members came on board. So I want to allay 

members’ concerns, if they have any, in relation to the ability of the members on this committee to 

always try to do the best they can. I certainly believe that all members have in this case.


Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—Ind) (11.34 am): I, too, wish to speak to this matter. As the former 

immediate chair of the PCMC, I endorse the comments of the previous two speakers, the current 

chair of the PCMC and one of the members of the PCMC. As all members know, I take these matters 

very seriously and at all times keep these matters confidential forever, as they must be. 

The matter concerned was a very, very contentious matter—an extremely contentious matter— 

and there was a demand that was, for some people, reasonably made that it be dealt with in a kind of 

haste that these sorts of matters cannot be dealt with. I do not want to go into any of those things any 

further. There were certainly matters that were raised that became apparent. Certainly, in regard to 

the issue of my brother, who is a barrister in Brisbane and who is an expert in this type of evidence— 

and there are only a few people in that case—as soon as it became apparent, as it has come out 

already, I withdrew from the matter so that there was no room for conflict. I want to state clearly on 

the record that as soon as that was discovered, that was reasonably raised. I am aware of conflict of 

interest matters. These sorts of things occur in one’s professional life and one has to be careful. 

Having said that, I believe what has transpired since has been reasonable and fair to all parties 

and, in fact, has happened within a time frame that is equally reasonable and fair. It is always difficult 

in retrospect for people to look at these matters and say, ‘I would have done this differently. I think it 

should be handled in a different way. I don’t think those matters should be handled exactly in that 

manner. These people may have made a mistake.’ I do not want to address any of those other than to 

say that at all times I believe the PCMC and the CMC itself behaved absolutely magnificently, 

professionally and in a timely manner, as you would expect them to do. They serve the state very 

well. 

There were some comments made about the CMC by the Attorney-General today. I urge all 

members to seriously regard the role of the CMC as the counterweight to what we need in a 

unicameral parliamentary system. We need a strong CMC and by default we need a strong PCMC to 

make sure that the balance is always correct and that is in regard to protecting the public interest at 

all times. Having said that, the matter is concluded and I think it is as it should be. It is always 

disappointing that people would feel that it should have gone another way, or matters should be 

concluded in different ways, but when things are dealt with fairly and people are given a reasonable 

chance to explain themselves and it has been done correctly and reviewed and scrutinised and it has 

been reported on, I would have to say that people should allow that to stand the test of time. 

Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (11.37 am): I am 

speaking today to report No. 89 of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee as the original 

complainant of this matter. I note that a few days prior to the March 2012 election I put in a detailed 

complaint against one Ms Kathryn Ellis from the CMC who at the time, as I still understand, was 

married to Mr Nolan, who was a business partner of Bruce Hawker, the Labor Party strategist running 

the 2012 campaign. There was a photograph released I think in the Courier Mail at the time that 

showed Mr Nolan and Mr Hawker having coffee in one of the shops in Brisbane during the election 

campaign. That is why I made the complaint. 

Upon coming to realise that Ms Ellis was indeed married to Mr Nolan—the business partner of 

Bruce Hawker, Labor Party strategist—and working in the CMC I became very, very much concerned, 

because the subject matter of the complaint, that being the candidate for Ashgrove at the time, had 

an enormous amount of complaints from the Labor Party at the time. Even on page 4 of the PCMC 

report it states— 

The Chairperson of the CMC advised that Ms Ellis had a minor role in the investigation relating to Mr Newman. 

So we had in a minor role in the investigation of Mr Newman the wife of a business partner of a 

Labor Party strategist. I think all Queenslanders should be concerned. That should raise the 

eyebrows of anyone reading a report about someone who is in the crime-fighting corruption watchdog 

in Queensland having such a direct involvement by their spouse with the Labor Party in Queensland. 

So I put in this complaint and it has taken nearly 12 months to get a resolution. 

As the original complainant, I want to place a couple things on the record today. I will deal with 

the Labor Party campaign and the use of the CMC in a minute. This was a clear attempt by the Labor 

Party to politicise the CMC during the election campaign. The member for Nicklin says that I should 

have confidence in the top corruption and crime-fighting body in this state, and I do. Queenslanders 

want confidence in the top corruption and crime-fighting body in this state, but this is the sort of thing 

that puts questions in people’s minds as to that confidence.

7 Mar 2013 Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee 487 

How far will the Labor Party corrupt the truth in this state? We know the member for South 

Brisbane was heavily involved in the 2012 state campaign. She served on this committee for some 

period, as I understand. She was directly involved in Labor Party strategies. She was probably having 

daily meetings with Mr Hawker. All the while the candidate for Ashgrove at the time was being 

investigated by the CMC with the minor involvement of Ms Ellis. 

There are a couple of things that I want to put on the record: firstly, this report took far too long; 

secondly, why is it that the CMC investigate potential corruption issues within the CMC? I referred this 

to the PCMC and by rights they put it onto the CMC commissioner. They have an oversight position, 

but the CMC ultimately did the investigation, came to some negative conclusions, was going to 

terminate Ms Ellis’s appointment and then Ms Ellis got sick so it did not terminate her employment. 

She resigned at the end of last year. As a complainant I am left wondering where is justice in this 

matter? Someone just resigns from the CMC and that is the end of the matter. If I can offer anything 

to the PCMC, particularly to the Committee of the Legislative Assembly, it is that I had complete 

frustration. The committee tabled one letter that I wrote which was the original complaint. I wrote 

numerous letters to the committee which I, under standing orders, cannot table in this parliament 

today. Even as the complainant, even though we are debating this report, I still cannot table all the 

documentation associated with this issue. 

I call on the CLA to seriously look at the relationship between the CMC and the PCMC. 

Members of parliament who are the subject of complaints should be able to talk to other members of 

parliament. Although the honourable the Premier was the candidate at the time and I put in the 

complaint about the CMC where he was the subject of the complaint, I could not talk to the Premier 

about this until today when we are debating this report. I think the CLA should seriously look at the 

freedom of members of parliament to talk to one another about these matters and not have one 

member of parliament with the burden on their shoulders. The timeline should seriously be looked at 

and the CMC should not be investigating misconduct matters involving itself. The other issue is that 

all the letters that I tabled should be put out into the public domain so people can understand the 

complete frustration that I have had over the last 12 months. 

Madam SPEAKER: The minister’s time has expired. 

Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (Manager of Government Business) (11.42 am): I 

move— 

That the Attorney-General be granted an extension of time. 



Hon. JP BLEIJIE: I thank the honourable Manager of Government Business. I do have 

concerns with the secretive nature of the PCMC and the CMC. This issue should be of concern to 

everyone who reads this report. It is no reflection on the great work that Mrs Cunningham, the 

member for Gladstone, is doing as the independent chair of the PCMC. As a complainant who has 

gone through this process over the last 12 months I think we are at a stage where we need further 

reform. 

I believe that the PCMC should have open meetings like other committees have open 

meetings. I believe Queenslanders expect nothing less from an open and accountable committee 

system. I am not sure whether the PCMC or indeed the Ethics Committee have had any open 

meetings in the last two years to talk about these sorts of issues. I believe Queenslanders expect 

nothing less than total independence, openness and accountability. That is not to say that in this 

process the committee has not been, but Queenslanders do not understand that process because all 

they have is a frustrated member of parliament as the original complainant, a report that took 12 

months to investigate and things like the chairman of the CMC advising that Ms Ellis had a minor role 

in the investigation. I acknowledge the issues raised by the member for Gaven. He stepped aside 

from the committee because of his brother. He is of great legal mind and well qualified to address that 

issue, but was put in the position, essentially by the CMC, where there was a perception of bias. I 

understand that issue completely. 

The other issue is that this whole process took nearly 12 months. From the record of the PCMC 

the CMC was going to take action against Ms Ellis in terms of terminating her employment, but then 

she resigned and no further action was taken and the CMC washed its hands clean of any of this 

issue despite the fact there had been some adverse findings. With all due respect, the 

recommendation that has been given for me to adopt with respect to the Anti-Discrimination Act really


has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issue at hand was a serious complaint I had against a 

senior member of the CMC who investigated Mr Newman during the election campaign to a minor 

extent, and then the public are asked to believe that there was no issue because she did not have a 

direct involvement in the outcome of the investigation of Mr Newman, yet the person was allowed to 

resign from the position and no further action is taken. 

I again call on the Committee of the Legislative Assembly to look at how we can open these 

processes for the benefit of all members. I can tell members in this House the frustration and the 

burden I have had placed on my shoulders for 12 months since I put this complaint in. I have not been 

able to speak to any of my parliamentary colleagues about this issue to seek advice. I have not been 

able to speak to anyone publicly about it. I cannot go into the details today because I would be 

referred to the Ethics Committee if I breached standing orders, which is a ridiculous issue in itself. We 

are debating a report, we are debating an issue that went to the PCMC and I cannot report on letters 

that I wrote to the committee in this process as the original complainant. I cannot table all the 

documentation so Queenslanders can have a full understanding of this issue and where I came from 

because I could be referred to the Ethics Committee for breaching standing orders against the 

privileges of the committee. All I can do is speak about what is reported. 

This should be a modern Queensland where we talk about open and accountable government. 

We have had the Premier today releasing diaries; we have had guidelines issued by myself a couple 

of weeks ago where we have the most open and transparent RTI processes—where applications of 

RTI are made available—yet we still in this modern parliament have a closed door operation with 

parliamentary crime and misconduct matters and ethics matters in this state. For the sake of all 

members of parliament, I call on the Committee of the Legislative Assembly to seriously consider 

reforms to the PCMC and the CMC so that the public can again regain that trust in the body that has 

the highest powers with respect to misconduct and corruption matters in this state. 

I know at times I have been at loggerheads with the Independent member for Nicklin with 

respect to the CMC. I genuinely say to the member for Nicklin today that the whole point of Ian 

Callinan’s inquiry into the CMC is to make sure that at the end of the day we have a system that is 

more open and transparent. 

Mrs Miller: It is to get rid of the CMC. 

Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection from the member for Bundamba: so I can get rid of the 

CMC. That is the sort of ridiculous statement from the Labor Party that led to this report in the first 

place. That is the hide of the Labor Party. The Labor Party should hang its head in shame for using 

the CMC as its political football. Any issue the Labor Party had its members would run down and do a 

press conference, particularly Andrew Fraser or Anna Bligh. They would turn up to the press 

conference and say, ‘We are referring Campbell Newman’ or ‘Jarrod Bleijie’ or someone ‘to the CMC.’ 

They would be asked, ‘What is your evidence?’ And they would answer, ‘Well, we don’t really have 

any evidence, but if they investigate surely they will come up with something.’ The corruption 

watchdog should not be used in that manner. It is up to the Labor Party—not the CMC or members of 

parliament or the PCMC—to stop that rot, to stamp out that rot. The member for Bundamba can sit 

here opposite interjecting and shaking her head because she accepts what the Labor Party did. She 

accepts the absolute rot and garbage that the Labor Party put the Premier through as the candidate 

for Ashgrove and other members in this place and, more particularly, his family who ought not to have 

gone through that whole situation. It was all because the Labor Party wanted a quick win in an 

election. 

But was it not a change of story the Friday one week before the election when the CMC chair 

came out and said there are no issues here, nothing further to investigate, no case to answer? Then 

the Labor Party’s little campaign, led by the member for South Brisbane who was in the strategy box 

at the office probably leading this whole campaign against the Premier, came crashing down. The 

next day the Labor Party went flat because Anna Bligh, the Premier at the time, had no answer to the 

question, ‘What evidence do you have?’ 

Mr Choat: She is very quiet now. 

Mr BLEIJIE: I know; I take the interjection. The member for South Brisbane is very quiet. She 

has not said that she was not the Labor Party strategist involved with Bruce Hawker and all the rot to 

the CMC at that time. In Queensland we want a crime-fighting corruption body that is open, 

transparent and accountable, just as Queenslanders should expect. Queenslanders should expect

7 Mar 2013 Queensland Mental Health Commission Bill 489 

nothing less. Queenslanders want an open and integral system of corruption fighting in this state. 

They want a body that is open and accountable itself. Who watches the watchers? That is why it is up 

to this place to ensure that we have a more open and transparent system. 

As I said, the Labor Party should hang its head in shame. The member for Bundamba, who is 

all squawk and talk now, should hang her head in shame for its desperate efforts to win an election. 

This would not have happened if the Labor Party had not tried to misrepresent the facts to win a few 

votes. The member for Bundamba is to be condemned for being a part of it. The member for 

Mulgrave is condemned for being a part of it. The member for South Brisbane is certainly condemned 

for being a part of it, because the member for South Brisbane was at the heart of this. 

We will fix this. We will ensure that the CMC is an open and transparent crime-fighting 

corruption body in this state. I look forward to Ian Callinan’s report being handed down next week or a 

little later, depending on whether they want to investigate matters that have arisen of late. The 

member for Bundamba— 

Mrs Miller interjected. 

Mr BLEIJIE: I will not hang my head in shame. Neither I nor the Liberal National Party used the 

CMC as a political football. The Labor Party brought this on itself. It was not the Liberal National Party 

or the then candidate for Ashgrove; it was the Labor Party. All seven squawkers opposite, who are 

now shaking their heads, should hang their heads in shame. Over years and years they developed 

this process of using the CMC as a political football. The time has come to draw a line in the sand. 

The CMC will be an open and accountable body to the people of Queensland, not the Labor Party 

and not the member for Bundamba. 

I still express my strong dissatisfaction with the result of the CMC investigation into one Ms 

Kathryn Ellis. Ms Kathryn Ellis resigned from the CMC and no further action has been taken with 

respect to that individual. There was an adverse finding. The CMC said it would terminate her 

employment without any reference to why. The people of Queensland ought to know why. We should 

have the strongest possible safeguards in the CMC to ensure that strong people associated with any 

political party ought not be in those positions. 



QUEENSLAND MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION BILL 

Second Reading 

Resumed from 6 March (see p. 431), on motion of Mr Springborg— 

That the bill be now read a second time. 

Mrs FRANCE (Pumicestone—LNP) (11.52 am): Today I am pleased to rise to speak to the 

Queensland Mental Health Commission Bill 2012. This bill shows that the government is concerned 

about and dedicated to addressing the serious issues surrounding mental health and substance 

abuse. The demands of today’s society play a significant role in the suffering of people with mental 

health issues. We can and should provide strong support to those people to assist them in creating a 

better life for themselves. 

The Queensland government is committed to revitalising our front-line healthcare services and 

developing better collaboration and partnerships with our community, while ensuring that we are 

delivering the right services locally. We are focused on investing better in Queensland’s infrastructure 

and also planning well for the needs of our community. Mental illness affects one in five Australians at 

some point in their lives. Depression has been predicted to rise to be one of the greatest causes of 

global disease burden over the next 20 years. There are a number of government organisations, 

NGOs and private sector bodies providing support to people living with those issues. This bill will 

provide the mechanism to ensure that all services complement each other and work together to 

support the recovery of people who are suffering. This will be done by developing a whole-ofgovernment 

strategic plan and by the monitoring and evaluation of the plan’s implementation. 

Last week, on 28 March, I had the pleasure of representing Minister Springborg and opening 

the new $22.4 million mental health facility at the Caboolture Hospital. This facility will provide mental 

health services for adults in the Redcliffe, Caboolture, Bribie and Kilcoy regions. We have 

approximately 60 highly qualified mental health professionals working at the new facility in the areas

490 Queensland Mental Health Commission Bill 7 Mar 2013 

of nursing, medical services and allied health. Our wonderful new facility has seen the addition of 30 

new adult mental health care beds, increasing our available adult acute inpatient beds from 29 to 40, 

and for the first time has seen the provision of 19 new secure rehabilitation units. In addition to the 

acute inpatient and secure rehabilitation units, our new facility includes open dining and common 

areas, and activity areas such as a gym, a basketball court and an Indigenous healing garden. The 

introduction of the new secure units are a significant enhancement to the mental health services 

available in our community and meet the needs for people who cannot be treated in other parts of the 

hospital, as they require long-term rehab support in a safe and secure environment. 

The new facility has been designed around the concept of healing hands and creates an 

environment that is safe, respectful and one that inspires hope for people on their recovery journey. In 

July 2012, the facility hosted the Foundations of Hope Art Exhibition with over 50 pieces created by 

people living with mental illness. The new facility walls are decorated with these impressive pieces of 

art and add to the very light, bright and modern feel of the facility. The community response to the 

new facility has been very positive and I can say I was extremely impressed, not only by the design 

but also by the dedication and commitment of the team that Caroline Weaver and Monica O’Neil have 

hand-picked. The staff and volunteers working at the facility make a world of difference to the 

consumers in their recovery journey. This was attested to at the official opening last week when 

Brooke, a previous consumer, gave a speech about her experiences as a person suffering from 

mental illness. I was very moved by Brooke’s personal story and so very impressed that she had the 

courage to stand in front of everyone and make us all open our minds and our hearts and think about 

the struggles faced by those suffering from mental illness. 

For me personally, opening day at the facility gave me the chance to meet Brooke and other 

residents and see the benefits that this facility is providing for our community. It is wonderful to hear 

stories from the medical staff in the emergency department and our local police about how this facility 

will assist them to do their jobs. Superintendent Michael Brady made the comment that Caboolture 

police have appointed a mental health liaison officer and, with the new facility at the hospital, the 

professionalism between the two organisations has seen the introduction of more efficient 

procedures, with police seeing a significant reduction in the time it now takes to process those in 

police custody into the mental health facility. 

This bill includes a set of guiding principles that the commission and all other agencies must 

regard and they include respecting the rights and privacy of people living with mental health and 

substance misuse issues, and supporting their social inclusion; accessibility of the services; respect 

for Aboriginal custom and Torres Strait Islander traditions; support for the critical role of carers and 

support persons; shared responsibility for mental health and wellbeing and harm minimisation and 

collaborative efforts; and communication and collaboration. Key functions of the commission will be to 

develop and monitor the strategic plan for implementation of mental health and limiting of harm 

associated with substance misuse. This plan will be a key tool to providing benchmarks and 

performance measures and will assist with policy development and justified budget allocations. The 

bottom line is that this bill will enhance the delivery of services to people suffering from mental illness 

and substance abuse. The legislation requires that this strategic plan be developed with extensive 

consultation and that all agencies providing relevant services must have regard to this plan when 

performing their functions. 

The legislation also provides for the creation of the Mental Health and Drug Advisory Council. 

This council will advise the commission on mental health and substance misuse issues and trends, 

and will make recommendations to the commission about performance. This council will provide a 

principal avenue for stakeholders to be directly involved in the operation of the commission. The 

Minister for Health will be required to bring together a group of members who have the skills, 

knowledge and experience to provide high-level advice, communicate effectively and appreciate the 

problems that face the people who are suffering on a daily basis. This advisory council must and will 

identify practical and innovative solutions to ever increasing societal problems. This advisory council 

will operate autonomously. Of course it will be answerable to the minister for the way it conducts its 

business, but it is not subject to the direction of the minister or the commissioner. This advisory 

council must report publicly on its performance and operate accountably, reflecting that it is a publicly 

funded body.


This bill provides for enhanced, open and transparent management of persons suffering from 

mental illness and drug and substance abuse. Minister Springborg and his team should be proud of 

the work that they are doing to address this very important issue. I commend this legislation to the 

House. 

Dr DAVIS (Stafford—LNP) (12.00 pm): I rise in support of the Queensland Mental Health 

Commission Bill 2012, including amendments to the Mental Health Act 2000. Mental health legislation 

needs to recognise the rights of persons living with mental health and substance misuse disorders, 

whilst acknowledging the rights of those they interact with. It requires a balance between paternalism 

and autonomy. It recognises that value judgements have to be made on complex issues. These 

generate a diversity of opinion, as we have already heard during this debate. Fortunately, this bill has 

common sense as its backbone and mental health as its vision, which should relieve the anxiety of 

those who feel the need to challenge it. 

My contribution today builds on more than 20 years of having worked professionally in 

association with mental health teams and so witnessing firsthand the art and science of working with 

all stakeholders, and particularly patients and their support networks, to achieve the best possible 

outcomes. 

This legislation recognises the need for clinician expertise to offer accurate diagnosis and 

optimal medical management; legal safeguards to provide a review of decisions that involve 

restrictions of freedom; and, very importantly, advocacy for sustainable environments that maximise 

quality of life for affected individuals. It provides a whole-of-government approach, recognising that 

antecedents of mental ill health may include environmental factors, as does successful rehabilitation 

and maintenance. The commission is required to include housing, jobs, education and other 

community supports in generating its strategic plans. Optimising all these requirements is a dynamic 

and iterative process. It requires ongoing consultation with key stakeholders, including patient 

advocates, health and welfare providers, legal practitioners and law enforcers, amongst others. 

The Mental Health Commission, in conjunction with the Mental Health and Drug Advisory 

Council, will provide such a forum characterised by independent advocacy, considered debate, 

reasoned decision making and sound recommendations. It will assist in the development of 

performance indicators for service providers. These should focus on the ability of patients to be their 

best both in terms of health and their ability to function meaningfully as members of society. 

Critically, the commission will be an independent and transparent body that will help reassure 

the public that competing and conflicting complexities are recognised and resolved as best as 

possible. This is vital because even with the best knowledge, advice and decision making things do 

go wrong simply due to the complexity and unpredictability of the human mind, particularly when 

clouded by mental illness and frequently associated substance misuse. The commission will play a 

key role in ensuring a system that delivers risk and harm minimisation, recognising that elimination of 

untoward events is not possible without unreasonable restrictions on personal liberty. 

Like all quality initiatives, the work of the commission will be a dynamic process where goals 

are determined, strategies implemented, performance measured and outcomes reviewed on an 

ongoing cyclical basis. Given the importance and complexity of the task, choosing the right people for 

the commission and the council will be a critical success factor, together with ongoing access to the 

expertise of senior officers in Queensland Health, especially the Director of Mental Health, and the 

independent second opinion of the Mental Health Review Tribunal. Similarly, the effective translation 

of the potential of this legislation to the real world of hospital and community interventions is vital. This 

will involve, amongst other actions, setting appropriate and binding service agreements with both 

government and non-government providers and the monitoring of these. 

In my opinion, this legislation is state of the art in taking a whole-of-government approach to the 

holistic care of people at risk of or living with mental health and substance misuse. The ability to 

introduce additional safeguards with due care and independent review is a prudent and responsible 

initiative that will need to be applied in only a small minority of instances. 

I join in congratulating Minister Springborg on his leadership and the rest of the team who have 

contributed to this leading mental health legislation. I commend this bill to the House.


Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—LNP) (12.05 pm): I am very happy to rise to speak in support of the 

Queensland Mental Health Commission Bill and amendments to the Mental Health Act 2000. In so 

doing, I certainly commend the Minister for Health for his excellent work in this area. Mental health is 

an area that has been sorely ignored for many, many years. That will certainly not be happening 

under the Newman government. 

Appropriately, in the lead-up to International Women’s Day this week, one of the four 

Queensland women vying for top spot in this year’s prestigious Rural Industries Research and 

Development Corporation’s Rural Women’s Award, which was announced this week by the Minister 

for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr McVeigh, is a long-time advocate for rural mental health. 

Her name is Alison Fairleigh from Ayr, which is in the electorate of Burdekin. The state winner and 

runner-up titles will be announced at an award ceremony at Parliament House on Tuesday, 19 March. 

If successful, Alison said that she would use the $10,000 winner’s bursary to develop a pilot 

education program for Medicare Locals to improve access to front-line health and mental health 

services for farmers and farming communities. Sadly, male farmers and male farm workers have one 

of the highest rates of suicide in Australia. I commend Alison for her work previously and currently in 

highlighting these mental health issues. 

Across Queensland we have a number of inspirational people addressing Queensland’s mental 

health issues. I would also like to commend the work in my electorate of the Burdekin Mental Health 

Foundation and CORES—COmmunity Response to Eliminating Suicide—who, like various other 

community carers throughout this state, are working tirelessly at raising awareness and reducing the 

stigma attached to mental health. 

Indeed, Premier Campbell Newman and health minister Lawrence Springborg—in the Newman 

government’s Blueprint for Better Healthcare in Queensland—have a vision to rebuild Queensland 

Health and re-establish the state’s healthcare system as one to be admired nationally. This has the 

support of equally visioned LNP colleagues. The LNP blueprint is all about taking Queensland Health 

from repair to recovery, with the focus on placing the patient at the centre of the health system. 

Amendments to the Mental Health Act will do just that—place the patient at the centre of the health 

system. 

Up to half of Queenslanders will experience a mental illness or substance misuse disorder 

during their lifetime. For many, the disadvantage and social exclusion associated with mental health 

and substance misuse issues are sometimes more disabling than the illness itself. Families and loved 

ones also suffer. It would be fair to say that there are no families immune from these illnesses. 

The Queensland Mental Health Commission Bill 2012 establishes the Queensland Mental 

Health Commission, the QMHC, to drive ongoing reform towards a more integrated, evidence based, 

recovery oriented mental health and substance misuse system. It will be responsible for leading a 

cultural change in the way mental health, substance misuse—which includes the misuse of alcohol 

and other drugs—and other human services provided to people vulnerable to or at significant risk of 

mental health or substance misuse issues are planned and delivered in Queensland. 

The prevalence of mental illness peaks in early adulthood, with about 26 per cent of young 

Australians aged 16 to 24 years having experienced some form of mental illness in the past 12 

months. The statistics really are quite alarming and very, very sad. 

The main purpose of the amendments is to include two new mechanisms in the Mental Health 

Act to identify and respond to risks that may arise from an involuntary patient under the act 

absconding from an authorised mental health service. These mechanisms will enable the Director of 

Mental Health to take immediate action in response to a serious risk to a person or the public by 

suspending access to the community for a defined class of patients and create a power for the 

director to apply a monitoring GPS tracking device to a patient who may be at risk of absconding 

when they are accessing leave in the community. 

The amendments to the Mental Health Act 2000 are not just about patient care; they are also 

about the protection of innocent members of the public who may be endangered by mental health 

patients when they are released into our communities. A key component of treatment provided under 

the act is established by the limited community treatment, LCT, provisions. These provisions enable 

involuntary patients, both civil and forensic or classified, to access treatment and leave in the 

community if approval for the leave is granted by their treating authorised doctor, the Director of 

Mental Health, the Mental Health Court or the Mental Health Review Tribunal.


Incidents of forensic patients absconding while on LCT highlighted insufficient capacity in the act to 

effectively and immediately deal with matters that suggest a system issue. Mental health is affecting 

our communities and, unlike the Labor government, this LNP government is not turning a blind eye. 

There are multiple far-reaching impacts on the quality of life of people living with mental health 

and substance related problems. These impacts may include interrupted education, employment and 

vocational opportunities, difficulty in accessing secure housing which then leads to economic 

insecurity, reduced community involvement and social connectedness. People with mental health or 

substance misuse issues are overrepresented amongst homeless and prison populations and among 

recipients of social services such as child protection and youth justice. 

It is in the balanced context of providing a high level of care to mental health patients while 

protecting the rights of those patients and those of the wider community that I commend health 

minister, Lawrence Springborg, and committee members for their work in bringing this bill before the 

House. I commend the bill to the House. 

Mrs OSTAPOVITCH (Stretton—LNP) (12.12 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Mental 

Health Commission Bill. Some of you may know that my first career was that of a psychiatric nurse. I 

started my training at the age of 18 at the largest mental health hospital in New South Wales, Callan 

Park. So I learned from experience, not just from a textbook. There were over 20 different wards all 

tackling a different form of mental illness. I spent time at all of them, so, believe me, I have seen it 

all—the good, the sad and the bad. I know better than most that, with therapy, medication and an 

understanding family and community, a person’s mind can be healed in just the same way as a bodily 

illness can. So I encourage attempts made to bring an understanding of mental illness to the broader 

community. However, the truth is that some people need to be locked away from society, and one our 

reforms tackles the issue of protecting the innocent from those with dangerous disorders absconding 

while on LCT, which is limited community treatment. 

As a former psychiatric nurse, I am always interested in seeing improvements to the system— 

improvements that have been suggested by stakeholders, those experienced in the industry, not 

some bureaucrat or an office or a textbook expert. The establishment of the Queensland Mental 

Health Commission and the Queensland Mental Health and Drug Advisory Council can only be seen 

as an improvement. One of its key functions is to develop and monitor the implementation of a wholeof-government 

strategic plan to improve the community’s mental health and limit harm that drug and 

alcohol abuse causes to individuals and their families. I was astounded to hear the opposition oppose 

such a worthy goal. How could they not understand that only through different services acting in a 

coordinated way a real difference can be made? How could any reasonable person oppose attempts 

to improve the outcomes of those with ill mental health and vulnerable teenagers who are misled into 

thinking that alcohol and substance abuse will not have long-lasting effects on the brain and the 

body? 

As many human beings as there are on this planet, there are just as many ways each one of 

their brains forms attitudes and ways of coping with whatever life serves out to them. Developing a 

healthy mind in our children should be a priority. Discouraging the drinking of alcohol and the taking of 

drugs amongst our teens should be our priority. I listened with great interest to the statistics given at 

the Drug Arm workshop here at the annexe on Tuesday that highlighted the permanent damage that 

binge drinking does to the developing brain and the billions of dollars alcohol poisoning and alcohol 

fuelled violence causes government and the economy but, most of all, the cost to a mother, father, 

sister, brother or friend of an innocent who is murdered or left maimed every week of the year by what 

I call alcohol induced madness. Do you know what that statistic is? 70,000—70,000 in 2010 alone 

and, sadly, 16 per cent of those are assaults on children. That is over 1,000 kids, kids who will likely 

grow up with mental health problems or become offenders themselves. How cruel it would be to not 

try do something about that horrible statistic and how disappointing it was to not see one member of 

the opposition there at that meeting. 

So any opposition to our strategic plan to support initiatives designed to intervene early— 

indeed, to attempt to prevent mental health and substance abuse issues from emerging in the first 

place—is shameful and completely hypocritical to claims that they care about those with ill mental 

health. Well I care. Since the age of 18 I have listened to other people. My theory is that everyone just 

needs someone to talk to who cares enough to listen. I find it curious that after all these years since 

nursing, my role as a member of parliament is again one of listening.


I encourage everyone who really cares about other people’s mental health to try to listen more, 

especially to our spouses, our children and our friends. And this leads me to speak of what I see as 

an epidemic of depression and suicide—something that has probably touched everyone here in one 

way or another, and I have certainly had my fair share of it. My stepfather took a rifle to his head, my 

husband’s grandmother hung herself and, most tragically, two dear friends’ teenage sons also took 

their own lives. I have to wonder whether if there had been some program similar to the RSL’s Men’s 

Sheds at least some of these suicides could have been prevented. 

I close by bringing to the attention of the opposition that this plan is a living document. It is 

dynamic and can be improved when new ideas with proven effectiveness come to light. In my 

experienced opinion, there is absolutely no downside. I commend this bill to the House. 

Mr HOPPER (Condamine—KAP) (12.17 pm): This is good legislation. In supporting this bill I 

would like to put forward a few suggestions about mental health in our rural sector. I suggest that the 

minister include additional specific measures to support those affected by mental illness particularly in 

the rural sector in Queensland. The minister is very, very aware of the push that has gone on around 

Cecil Plains and some of the farmers in that area who have suffered horrific floods. There are more 

farmers suiciding each year, more chronic depression and more substance abuse than ever before in 

the bush. 

Mental health for rural communities needs greater input particularly after the current floods and 

the damage that has worsened an already dire situation for an already disadvantaged rural 

community. Most of the carers of patients of mental illnesses are family members. Our farmers are 

suffering with increased production costs, labour hire constraints with the skilled workers going to the 

mining sector, the cost-of-living increases and the lack of stability in the marketplace for the very 

produce they stay out in the regions to create. 

With agriculture being one of the four pillars of progress in the LNP’s strategy for this state, it is 

very sad to see such slow and inadequate measures following in the wake of a natural disaster like 

the Queensland floods. There is little long-term planning to create levee banks around towns and 

provide strategic mapping to flood-prone land along the waterways which would assist these farmers 

when planting in flood-prone times of the year. 

Let us get down to the root causes of mental health in these areas. The DPI’s research centres 

where this very kind of training could have been offered are now closed. I think it is very sad. People 

with mental health issues are overrepresented among lower socioeconomic groups that often rent or 

live in parts of the community that are more likely to be flooded. As the cost of living continues to 

climb with the proposed sell-off of government owned corporations like our power suppliers, the 

reality is that these families will be left further behind, and the gap between the haves and have-nots 

continues to grow. We can only expect, then, an increase in mental illness. 

I would like to raise a situation that was brought to my attention just this morning. There are 19 

families in the Bundaberg region who lost their homes. They were living in caravan homes as 

permanent residents in a caravan park. They moved to the showgrounds to be looked after. The 

council is now kicking them out of the showgrounds, turning off the power and locking the toilets. I 

think that is absolutely disgusting. I call on the member for Bundaberg and Minister for Police to act 

immediately. This is right in the middle of his electorate and he should show some leadership. I have 

been told that he has turned a blind eye to the situation. I hope that is not true. I bring that to the 

attention of the Minister for Health. Nineteen families in Bundaberg have absolutely nowhere to go. 

The council is kicking them out of the showgrounds, locking the toilets and turning the power off. 

Mr GULLEY (Murrumba—LNP) (12.22 pm): I rise in support of the Queensland Mental Health 

Commission Bill 2012. Before I commence, I would like to acknowledge how privileged I am to have 

in the gallery my parents, Bruce and Jannie Gulley, or ‘oma’ and ‘opa’ as they are known in my family. 

Unfortunately, the member for Moggill just left the chamber as they are two very good voters in the 

electorate of Moggill. I apologise for giving away the intentions of my parents. 

Firstly, I applaud the minister on this reform. Before I talk more specifically about this bill, I see 

mental health as one of the last great frontiers for society to tackle. Before question time the Premier 

spoke about International Women’s Day. We as a society have made great progress in the equal 

treatment of women in the last century or so. As a society we have also made great reforms and seen 

improvement in our treatment of foreigners. Clearly our society is a lot better in treating and handling


racism than previously, but in many ways I see mental health as the last great frontier for society to 

tackle. I applaud beyondblue and the work of Jeff Kennett in the last decade or so. He is one of the 

great reformers we have in Australian society. I am very pleased that the minister is tackling this 

important issue. 

In the minister’s opening remarks, he cited that one in five Queenslanders suffer a mental 

illness each year. I am one of six children. If you do your maths, the maths do not bode well. I will 

share with the chamber today that I spent my childhood with a young lady of my age who suffers from 

mental illness. I can share from my personal experience that mental illness is not fun. I must share 

with the Deputy Speaker that I scribbled out a word that I usually share to describe the life that my 

sister leads. It is an unparliamentary word, but it is not fun. I am very pleased that we as a society and 

we as a chamber are able to address some of the issues that my sibling faces. 

I applaud the minister for this reform. I applaud the minister for establishing the Queensland 

Mental Health Commission to drive ongoing reform towards a more integrated, evidence based 

mental health substance misuse government support system. In today’s speech I would like to focus 

on clause 11, which talks about the commission’s functions. Amongst the functions listed in clause 

11, the commission is charged with undertaking and commissioning research into mental health and 

substance abuse issues. The clause also gives functions to the commission that support and promote 

the wellbeing of people with mental illness and substance abuse. I support that. In particular, I want to 

note and focus on the provisions included in clause 11 that provide for the QMHC to contribute 

directly to the efforts to mitigate the negative experiences of people living with mental health and 

substance abuse. 

Clause 11 deals with empowering the new commission with the promotion of community 

acceptance and awareness programs to reduce stigmatism and discrimination of sufferers. At this 

point I would like to acknowledge that we should never forget personal responsibility. We should still 

expect personal responsibility from mental health and substance abuse sufferers but within the 

framework of a person’s capacity. That capacity is clearly different for every person on that journey. 

That said, society’s positive and negative attitudes and general treatment of sufferers directly 

influences the outcomes for sufferers. Stigma and discrimination negatively impact on sufferers’ 

confidence to access the help that is widely available and that this commission will hopefully promote. 

This will be a long and potholed journey not just for the commission but for society and, most 

importantly, for the people whom this bill is intended to support. There are multiple layers of barriers 

that impede sufferers from reaching their fullest potential in life. In my maiden speech that is a topic 

that I spoke on. We are here to ensure that each one of us in society is able to reach their fullest 

potential. We in this chamber should be charged with removing those barriers. 

I am encouraged that clause 11 tackles issues such as individual resilience, social 

connectedness and quality of life. I also note that clause 11 requires the QMHC to take into account 

that mental health issues may impact on groups within our broad society differently. I support the 

direction to consider the different needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, cultural and 

linguistic communities, and regional and remote communities. 

I have great confidence in the minister. After listening to the minister at the last health luncheon 

that we attended, I noted his comments that we are an outcomes focused government, not an input 

focused government. I have great confidence that the minister will tackle these issues of accessibility 

and delivery of mental health issues not from an input focused, tick-a-box approach but from a 

genuine desire for outcomes. 

I can vouch that mental health and substance abuse is a complex and difficult field not only for 

individuals but also for families and the community. Most of the bill and my speech are focused on 

this government’s renewed efforts to support mental health and substance abuse sufferers, but 

government cannot do this alone. I also note that the best outcomes come from where a sufferer 

exercises his or her best decisions within their own capacity and when society also comes along on 

that journey. 

The provision of mental health solutions for individuals and society will be an ongoing and 

never-ending task. However, that does not mean we should not give this important field the full 

resources and legal framework that it deserves. I applaud the minister for this important reform which 

I believe is one real and strong step in society’s journey to accepting and supporting sufferers of 

mental health and substance abuse. I commend the bill to the House.


Mr KING (Cairns—LNP) (12.29 pm): I am very pleased to rise in this House to speak to the 

Queensland Mental Health Commission Bill 2012. First I pay tribute to my parliamentary colleagues 

on their contribution to this bill, in particular the member for Logan and the member for Stretton who 

gave very personal recounts of experiences with mental illness. 

I wish to refocus the debate back on why this bill is so important, which is because mental 

illness is such a huge issue in our community, particularly in my electorate of Cairns. In the middle of 

2011 I was working as a journalist and I was contacted by a Cairns father Terry Carmady who wanted 

to tell his family story. Terry’s son John Mark Carmady did not say goodbye when he left his parents’ 

home on the afternoon of 25 May 2011. It was just a couple of hours before his beloved Queensland 

side were due to take the field against the blues in the first of the State of Origin clashes that year. His 

father, Terry, thought it was somewhat strange that his 23-year-old son walked out of the house 

without a word of farewell. Terry shrugged his shoulders and thought that John Mark was going to 

one of his regular sessions at the gym. An hour or so later, about 5 pm on this Wednesday evening, 

John Mark, the 23-year-old young man, sent a text message to his ex-girlfriend. John Mark asked her 

to tell his family that he was sorry for what he was about to do. John Mark committed suicide shortly 

after he sent that text message. His family buried him on 1 June 2011. He was 23 years old. 

During the many hours I spent with Terry Carmady and his family talking about his family’s 

ordeal, they showed me the order of service booklet from John Mark’s funeral. It featured an array of 

snapshots from his young life. There were photos of him smiling proudly in his soccer uniform as a 

boy and another showed him posing with his brother and sister in a family portrait. Another showed 

him wearing his beloved Queensland State of Origin jersey as a teenager. There was even a photo 

taken at the hospital shortly after his birth alongside a certificate to announce his arrival into the world 

on 13 April 1988—coincidentally the same day and month as my sister’s birthday. 

I never met John Mark, but looking at those photos was absolutely heartbreaking. He was 

smiling in every single photo. His family described him as a fresh-faced larrikin. They gave him the 

nickname ‘Sunshine’ and his mates gave him the unusual nickname of ‘Junior Burger’. His brave 

family and friends will carry the burden of his early death for the rest of their lives. I was and will 

forever be humbled by the Carmady family’s bravery and willingness to speak publicly about their loss 

in the hope that it can help others. 

When meeting the Carmady family, they told me that just a few months earlier John Mark 

himself was consoling a friend, a peer, through her grief after her brother, another friend who was 

aged in his twenties, killed himself. The suicide of John Mark was followed in Cairns by further tragic 

news when, at just 13 years of age, Declan Crouch took his own life in a lonely pocket of dense 

swampland at Machans Beach. I have spoken to Declan’s mother, Ruth Crouch, on numerous 

occasions since her young son’s death. I, too, commend her bravery in speaking up about the issue 

of youth mental illness and suicide and in launching a public appeal for awareness to improve 

services and support in the Far North Queensland region. I commend the health minister for providing 

emergency funding for the youth mental health program called the Time Out House in Cairns, for 

which Ruth Crouch has been a passionate advocate. This emergency funding will allow the service to 

seek a more sustainable long-term funding model from all levels of government. 

These personal encounters with this type of tragedy and many more over the years have led 

me to lend my full support to this bill and the establishment of the Queensland Mental Health 

Commission. The commission will ensure government, non-government and private sector services 

will work together to support people living with mental health issues and to minimise harm to people 

living with substance misuse issues. The commission will also operate—and I think this is an 

important function of the commission—as a centre of excellence around mental health and substance 

misuse issues and take a coordinated, integrated, whole of life span approach to care and support. 

The bill also provides for the appointment of a Mental Health and Drug Advisory Council to advise the 

commission on mental health and substance misuse issues to make formal recommendations to the 

commission about performance of its statutory functions. 

With its complex community make-up, high rates—among the highest in the state—of mental 

illness and traditionally low levels of support and services, Cairns and the Far North Queensland 

region will benefit greatly from the establishment of the commission and other measures contained in 

this bill. It is vitally important for so many people right across Queensland, particularly those in my 

electorate of Cairns. I commend the bill to the House.


Mr KNUTH (Dalrymple—KAP) (12.35 pm): The explanatory notes to the bill state— 

The Bill establishes the Queensland Mental Health Commission ... to drive ongoing reform towards a more integrated, evidence 

based, recovery oriented mental health and substance misuse system. It will be responsible for leading a cultural change in the 

way mental health, substance misuse (including misuse of alcohol and other drugs) ... 

I fully commend this bill and I commend the minister for bringing it in. There is a need for 

mental health reform and an overhaul of the mental health system, and I believe this bill does that. 

Out of all the issues that people face, probably the most important will be that of their health. On 

many occasions I have seen people worrying themselves to death or to the point where they are 

driven to oblivion. Rural and regional Queensland has faced many issues over the years such as rural 

decline. We actually held a mental health forum on the tablelands. It was surprising how many 

prominent people within the community came out and put themselves forward as having suffered due 

to mental health. It is so important to address that. Sometimes the right medication can change a 

person’s lifestyle or change a family and a community. 

When Cyclone Yasi came to North Queensland the area it hit stretched from the inland area of 

Charters Towers to the southern tablelands. I appreciate the work that the previous ministers did at 

that time. They brought out psychologists and support workers. Some people were severely affected 

by its impact due to the loss of property value and seeing things for which they had worked their 

whole life destroyed in three or four hours. 

It is getting harder and harder in rural and regional Queensland. We have seen the closure of 

our railways, the downsizing of our hospitals, the downsizing of our medical services and a lot of 

droughts and floods. It is important that we support these people the best way we possibly can but not 

look to things we can cut. The continual cutting of services or access to them can lead to these kinds 

of mental health problems. 

I commend the minister. I argued with him in relation to the closure of the Healthy Lifestyle 

Program at the Charters Towers Neighbourhood Centre. Two shadow ministers came to Charters 

Towers, went through the neighbourhood centre and said what a great service it was and then it was 

cut. The Healthy Lifestyle Program that was held at that centre had a lot of elderly people doing 

Pilates, walking and all sorts of exercises. There was proof that the health in that community 

improved while that program was in place. 

So I wanted to bring that to the minister’s attention. I believe that Men’s Sheds are a great and 

wonderful thing. A Men’s Shed will open within the next few weeks in Charters Towers. It is surprising 

not only how many participants were involved in building it but also how many people want to get 

involved with the Men’s Shed once it is open because they believe it is an opportunity to talk things 

out and to be with people who are lonely in order to help resolve mental health problems. Minister, 

this bill really goes a long way. It is great stuff and I fully commend the minister for the work that he 

has put into this. I fully commend this bill to the House. 

Hon. MF McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (Minister for Energy and Water Supply) (12.40 pm): I 

rise to make a contribution to the Queensland Mental Health Commission Bill 2012. I want to start by 

congratulating my colleague the Minister for Health, the Hon. Lawrence Springborg, who is also a 

close personal friend of mine. This government came to power in March of last year and one of the 

tasks it had in front of it was to try to overhaul the health system to get it back into some sort of order 

and to provide better services for Queenslanders. The minister has taken that task by the scruff of the 

neck and has worked very hard to achieve exactly that. It has not been an easy task. We could have 

sat back and been content with the way things were, but this minister understood the necessity to go 

forward with a bold plan to change the culture, to change the way we do things and, more importantly, 

to give Queenslanders a long-term better health service. I say to him that he has done all that and 

more. Health is always a difficult task. With Health under the Labor government and names such as 

Nuttall, Robertson, Lucas and Wilson, we can begin to understand the diabolical state that this 

system was in under the Labor government. We can understand the issues in that when Paul Lucas 

was at the helm he absolutely destroyed the payroll that was to pay nurses and other Health 

employees on an ongoing basis and in fact delivered the exact opposite. It delivered a system that 

kept pay, that did not make pay, overpaid, underpaid and had a large psychological impact upon 

nurses. 

One of the major issues this state faced was the question of mental health and how we deal 

with the issues we face. I congratulate the minister, because clause 11 of the bill lists the 

commission’s functions. The first one is to prepare a whole-of-government strategic plan in the area 

of mental health. That will be the first time that this government or any government will have a whole-


of-government approach to mental health. What an astonishing idea and, in my opinion, a far-sighted 

idea. I also congratulate the minister with regard to the advisory council being established under 

clause 38 and the capacity of that panel to advise the commission in relation to its functions. Clause 

39 shows that the membership of the panel or council is wide ranging and takes into account many 

diverse ideas, cultural backgrounds and also experiences. In particular, this looks at people who are 

the family members, the service users and support persons of those men and women in this state 

who do need mental health assistance. Again, this is a far-ranging and, in my opinion, long overdue 

approach to mental health. 

Many members have spoken during their contributions about personal issues they have faced. 

Each year I attend the suicide bereavement group annual celebration, if I can use that word, at Cotton 

Tree where we hear from men and women who have lost their loved ones—lost young children, their 

husbands, their wives or their parents—and some of the stories there are heartbreaking. I have made 

it abundantly clear at those meetings that the issue of suicide is one that is in plague proportions 

across this nation in my opinion and I have also made it quite clear that in my opinion we need to 

have a public debate in relation to the why of suicide, under the guidance of experts of course who 

can take from that debate the emotive issues associated therewith and get down to the root causes. 

I also join with the member for Dalrymple—and I never thought that I would hear myself making 

this statement—in that I agree with him with regard to Men’s Sheds. There are two in Caloundra and 

a number across the Sunshine Coast. They are wonderful ideas for men who are lonely, men who are 

elderly, men who are separated and men who are isolated to come together to have a cup of tea, to 

have a bit of a talk with their mates to talk through their problems and to understand the society in 

which they live. People come to the Sunshine Coast under the impression that they can walk into the 

coast, obtain a job, join a community based organisation and get the immediate friendship that they 

need. It does not happen. As you get older, men traditionally find it much harder to mix in society. 

These Men’s Sheds actually go a long way to giving men the opportunity to reconnect with men of 

their own age and indeed with society as a whole. 

It has always struck me as odd that women tend to be able to come together in simple 

formation such as a coffee club or having a cup of coffee down at the local coffee shop and talking 

through their issues, talking through their concerns. Men do not do that. Men in fact lock themselves 

away in their own psyche alone from society, and that starts to spiral down into mental health issues. 

We can learn a lot from women. They talk about any topic. I talk to my wife on a regular basis—when 

she is home—and she will often tell me— 

A government member interjected. 

Mr McARDLE: I take the interjection from the Leader of the House that you cannot blame her 

for being out. She talks to me about what she and her girlfriends talk about, and they talk about every 

topic under the sun. They get their issues off their chest and they get their concerns dealt with by 

talking to their female companions. Men do not tend to do that, and looking around at my colleagues 

in this House I wonder why. We do not tend to do that, and that is to the detriment of men as a whole. 

We need to look at and consider how women do this so successfully, and I think Men’s Sheds are a 

step in the right direction. Mental health should not be an issue that is kept under the carpet. Mental 

health should be an issue that we should be debating and talking about with our families, our children, 

our aunts, our uncles, our communities. When we move from the stigma of mental health, we will 

have the bright light of reality shone upon it and perhaps outcomes can be achieved that for so long 

have been required. I commend the bill to the House. 

Hon. LJ SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Minister for Health) (12.47 pm), in reply: I 

thank all honourable members who have participated in this debate from all sides of the chamber, 

particularly those who have shared so many personal and very passionate and very close 

experiences, because this can be a very difficult topic. Today I am going to start by responding in 

reverse order, and I also want to very much commend my friend and former shadow minister for 

health, Mark McArdle, the member for Caloundra. As I said, he was the opposition’s health 

spokesman prior to the last state election. He did so much wonderful work in preparing the 

groundwork for the reforms and the innovations which we are now bringing through this place and 

that we are making systematically as we reform the health system in Queensland. I also want to very 

much commend the honourable member for Caloundra for his very strong and personal commitment


to the establishment of a Mental Health Commission—something which he promised to the people of 

Queensland at the last state election and something that, by the end of today based upon the good 

grace of this House, will pass through all of its full stages. 

Everyone in this place has been touched by somebody close to them with mental health issues, 

and it can be in a relatively small way or in the most tragic of circumstances, and I am no different. If 

we look at the statistics which are the reality, each single year in Australia one in five people have 

some form of mental health incident. Indeed in the course of their lifetime, one in two Australians— 

half of Australians—will have a major mental health event. I suppose in this day and age we talk more 

about it, we understand it more and we disclose it more, which is very much important. It is very 

difficult to try to suggest, ascertain or even hypothesise if the incidence of mental health issues in our 

community and negative outcomes is greater today than it was 100 or 200 years ago. I suppose we 

will never know. 

As a society, we are now far more open. We talk about these things. Therefore, we may be 

identifying things that have been an embedded part of humanity for such a long period. I note what 

the honourable member for Logan said yesterday in relation to returned service personnel. If one 

goes back 50, 60, 100 years, returned servicemen came back and did not talk about things. They sat 

in the corner, they drank, and they drank themselves to death. That was the reality. As a society, we 

were not aware and did not necessarily understand what was going on. 

The honourable member for Dalrymple talked about the importance of health. Health is an 

extremely important issue. As I say to my own children, there are probably three or four things in your 

day-to-day life that you can determine absolutely. One is your reputation. If you step into politics it can 

be destroyed unfairly, but you can build a reputation and can be largely responsible for how that 

reputation is received. The way in which you treat other people is something that you are totally in 

control of and, indeed, you can have a major influence over your own health. You can do that by the 

sorts of things and the decisions that you make and a lot of health outcomes that are negative can be 

preventable. I am talking about serious, chronic disease related to diet and lack of exercise. I also 

understand that when it comes to mental health, maintaining your mental health could be a little bit 

more complex, but there are things that we can do to assist ourselves along the way. 

I also support what the member for Dalrymple and the honourable member for Caloundra said 

when they both reflected upon the importance of Men’s Sheds. Indeed, I will touch briefly on the 

Healthy Lifestyle Program that the honourable member for Dalrymple mentioned in his community. 

We have reviewed funding in Queensland for the way in which we support certain organisations. That 

support is going to be very much based around not only whether someone feels good about a 

program but also whether a program is delivering its key service objectives. If it is about addressing a 

particular problem in the community such as chronic disease, obesity, health and wellbeing—those 

sorts of things—we will be putting real measurables around them that will be performance monitored. 

If we are not going to deliver outcomes, then the funding will not be available. 

The honourable member for Cairns touched on a theme that I think was flowing through the 

contributions of a number of members and that is the importance of youth mental health. The member 

mentioned the steps that we took recently to provide some interim funding for a pilot program for 

youth mental health in Cairns, which was transitioned from another department to my department. We 

have been able to find funding for that youth mental health facility to operate for at least the next six 

months. Youth mental health is a most unbelievably sad tragedy in our community. Unfortunately, it is 

something that pervades and is pervading at a much greater rate and has an even more profound 

effect than the broader context of suicide, because it happens to someone so young, someone who 

seems to have their whole life before them. Yet they are in such a hopeless place that they take their 

life because their illness has been unsupported or has not been detected beforehand. In my own 

personal cases, probably in one we knew something was happening but did not know what to do 

about it and with another one that was very close to my family we did not know or even could 

understand the warning signs until later. I can really understand how members feel about that issue. 

The honourable member for Murrumba said that mental health and tackling it is the last great 

frontier. That is a bold statement but certainly it is a challenging frontier for us in Health. Indeed, if one 

looks at the figures the issue is certainly going beyond an epidemic and one hopes that it never 

becomes a pandemic. But in many ways we believe it will be addressed by the functions of the Mental 

Health Commission. The Mental Health Commission is not going to be a panacea but it certainly 

provides us with an opportunity to coordinate and elaborate on mental health services in Queensland


in a way that has never been done before. We believe that that is going to not only better utilise 

resources but also assist us in being able to better support people who have real needs with mental 

health issues. 

The honourable member for Murrumba in his contribution also picked up on the thread that 

there is a real opportunity for greater self responsibility. We know that some people cannot always be 

responsible, but there are certain things that can be done. We know that alcohol and drugs are major 

factors with regard to mental illness. People seek them out themselves. They make these choices 

and they are choices that destroy their lives. There needs to be a greater understanding of the 

decisions that people can make that ultimately effect a negative mental health outcome. So we 

appeal to people to be more responsible. Indeed, we also need to build resilience and coping in our 

society. When I speak to people who are experts in the field of psychiatry and psychology they say 

that people often say, ‘I don’t feel right about this bad space in my life,’ and basically want a pill to 

make it better. Sometimes life has its little trials. It is about how we can skill people to cope and have 

resilience and put things in context and understand that not everything in life always goes the way 

they expect it to be. I think that is one of the great challenges as we try to address this issue in the 

future. 

The honourable member for Cunningham talked about the issue of mental health in the rural 

sector. We all understand that. Recently, we have had the impacts of the floods. I can say to the 

honourable member that it is an issue that we are concerned about and it is an issue that we are 

resourcing appropriately. Indeed, in the most affected communities in the Wide Bay we have 

relocated and made available an additional 20 mental health professionals to support those people in 

that community. So we are serious about the issue and we are delivering on it. 

The honourable member for Stretton talked about the important issue of coordination and the 

effects of alcohol and drugs. The honourable member for Burdekin touched on the blueprint and how 

that sets the framework for the way in which we are going to reform health care in Queensland in the 

future. Mental health is a very important part of that framework. The member also talked about one of 

the underlying inhibitors and that is the fact that we have to change the culture, both internally and 

externally, to be able to get ahead of the curve on a range of these health challenges. The 

honourable member for Stafford talked about legal safeguards, in particular for people who would be 

subject to the provisions of this legislation with regard to the amendments to the Mental Health Act. 

That was a theme that was picked up by other members in their contributions. The member for 

Stafford also referred to the fact that the Mental Health Commission is going to have to be very much 

performance monitored to make sure that it is delivering real outcomes. That is the purpose of it. 

The member for Pumicestone talked about collaboration and again talked about the 

experiences of depression—something which so many people who are close to her and others in this 

place experience from time to time. The member for Gregory, again in his usual very passionate way, 

talked about his own personal experiences and the effects of drugs, which was a common theme 

throughout the contributions, and the personal effects of suicide of people he has known and who 

have been very close to him. The member for Pine Rivers talked about the relative disadvantage in 

our society that leads to negative mental health outcomes. That is something we can all understand. 

It is important to ensure that we resource the Mental Health Commission appropriately and all the 

other support agencies. I will come back to that later when I speak in response to the contribution by 

the shadow minister. Resourcing is not everything; it is what you do with the resources that are 

allocated that is the most important thing. You can throw a whole lot of money at a problem and get 

no outcomes or you could throw a whole lot of ideas and very smart clinical designs and get very 

good outcomes from the money that you allocate. The member for Mount Coot-tha talked about the 

effects of social exclusion and, again, her personal experiences with members of her family. 

The member for Gaven talked about a lot of things. Indeed, I think it is very important that I 

respond to some of those issues that he raised, because I think the honourable member for Gaven 

did not specifically understand the application of the legislation and how the amendments to the 

Mental Health Act fit into the overall framework of the Mental Health Act and all the checks and 

balances and all the safeguards that limit the capacity to impede and impact the proper rights of 

mentally ill people. We put the amendments to the Mental Health Act into this legislation as this was 

the first available opportunity. It is not an omnibus bill. It sets up the Mental Health Commission and it 

contains amendments to the Mental Health Act, which are very important given the timeliness of 

some of the challenges that we have faced recently. Obviously, there will be scrutiny of the Mental 

Health Act.

7 Mar 2013 Private Members’ Statements 501 

The member for Gaven asked, ‘How does this interrelate with regard to the national Mental 

Health Commission and its legislation?’ The national Mental Health Commission is not established as 

a creature of legislation; it is a creature of the Prime Minister’s own policy objectives. So it is not 

established by legislation. I would ask the honourable member to do his research a little better. The 

important point to note is that the Mental Health Commission in Queensland will tie in with the aims 

and objectives of the Mental Health Commission at a national level. They are duty bound to 

collaborate. 

After talking about the disadvantage of people with mental health issues in Queensland, the 

member for Gaven went on to describe forensic patients as ‘hopeless, mentally incapable’. I would 

think there is an enormous contradiction between expressing compassion for people who are 

mentally ill and using the term of ‘hopeless, mentally incapable’, because many of these people go to 

have their first treatment experience and end up being cured and never having another incident. I 

think the member for Gaven needs to choose his words more judiciously. 

Debate, on motion of Mr Springborg, adjourned. 

Sitting suspended from 1.00 pm to 2.30 pm. 

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS 

Police Citizens Youth Club 

Mrs OSTAPOVITCH (Stretton—LNP) (2.30 pm): I rise to speak in support of the PCYC. As 

there is no PCYC in my electorate of Stretton I frequently support the closest one to me which is 

Logan Central. I have been involved with the team for well over 10 years and have been a corporate 

member of the PCYC for about six years. At the next sitting of parliament I will be bringing in 

corporate membership forms and I will be asking for members to join and support the PCYC with a 

$30 per annum investment into the future of our youth. 

There is something seriously wrong with a society that enables misguided youth to live a life of 

crime and/or violence by giving them slaps on the wrist and teaching them disrespect for authority. 

Any parent knows that a child will always push the boundaries and that swift and effective punishment 

will almost always result in stopping repeat behaviour. I am a strong supporter of prevention. 

Mentoring is by far the most effective way to help a young person from taking the road to destruction 

and self-abuse. About eight years ago at a Boystown mentoring program I heard that it only takes one 

significant adult in a young person’s life to completely change their lives. That is when I committed to 

being a mentor. I encourage everyone here to consider being a mentor to a young person and if you 

cannot do that then please support the PCYC or a similar organisation because as far as I can see 

they are the only hope that some of these kids have. They give bored kids something to do with their 

afternoon by offering opportunities to learn new skills and participate in sport and healthy activities. 

They are also the facilitators of the Breaking the Cycle program which helped 18 teenagers get their 

licences. 

I am pleased to announce that on 5 April I will again be participating in Doing Time for Youth 

Crime Awareness and this year I will be in Boggo Road jail with my friend Sergeant Jim Bellos. I am 

in good company with the Queenslander of the Year award winner. May I ask my colleagues to 

support my time in jail and get me out quickly—although last year someone actually paid to keep me 

in jail! Either way, please get behind me and the PCYC. Thank you. 

Colleges Crossing 

Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (2.33 pm): Colleges Crossing on state controlled Mount Crosby 

Road is familiar to most Queenslanders from the traffic reports in recent years where it is announced 

that the crossing is closed due to flooding. Downstream is the Moggill Ferry which invariably is also 

closed at the same time. Colleges Crossing is no small rural road, as the previous Labor government 

claimed. It is, in fact, a state controlled road linking Brisbane with Ipswich and carrying some 11,000 

cars a day—although traffic counts have dropped a bit in the last couple of years not surprisingly 

because it has been closed so often. This is a vital link for our community—people live on one side of


the river and work or attend school on the other—as well as for the broader community of Western 

Brisbane and Ipswich for whom this is the major link between these two major South-East 

Queensland cities. 

The fact that nothing has been done is another reflection of the years of neglect that we have 

had under the Labor government. Some $14-odd million was spent by local government in flood 

reconstruction of the park adjoining Colleges Crossing which was washed away shortly after its 

completion—another good example of what the LNP have been banging on about: that we should not 

just be rebuilding things after a flood but we should do them bigger and better. This crossing has no 

pedestrian crossing, despite tens of thousands of people living on either side of it. It has no safe cycle 

link. It is just a river-surface level causeway. This is a very, very big issue for the constituents of 

Moggill and Ipswich West as well as the broader communities around them. This area has no public 

transport whatsoever and Moggill Road is one of the worst commute roads if one has to go down 

Moggill Road to go over the Jindalee bridge. Emergency services are frequently disrupted. 

I have written to the Premier and to the transport minister in relation to this issue. We are very 

keen to see some long-term planning. It would be highly desirable and appropriate to study the 

options of an elevated causeway or a bridge which might stop the constant dislocation of these 

communities. I have extended an invitation from myself and the member for Ipswich West to the 

transport minister to come down and meet with our community to have a look and discuss this issue. I 

look forward to his response to that invitation. I leave members with the question: where else do we 

have a major state controlled road carrying 11,000 cars a day that is closed at the drop of a hat every 

time it rains? 

Debate, on motion of Mr Stevens, adjourned. 

PARLIAMENTARY CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMITTEE 

Statement Regarding the CMC’s Release and Destruction of Fitzgerald Inquiry 

Documents 

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (2.36 pm), by leave: Section 2.47 of the then Criminal 

Justice Act 1989 provided that the Criminal Justice Commission, the CJC, was to assume possession 

and control of all databases and records documents relating to the Commission of Inquiry into 

Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct, more commonly known as the Fitzgerald 

inquiry. 

The Crime and Misconduct Commission, the CMC, is now the owner of the documents relating 

to the Fitzgerald inquiry. The committee understands that the CMC transferred these documents from 

the CMC premises to the State Archives between August 2007 and March 2009. The Parliamentary 

Crime and Misconduct Committee became aware that the CMC had, in error, classified some material 

as accessible to the public when that material should not, because of its nature, be public. 

The committee called an urgent meeting with the CMC yesterday to obtain answers from the 

chairperson of the CMC as to how this happened. Yesterday the chairperson of the CMC was unable 

to adequately explain to the committee exactly how or why this had occurred. The chairperson of the 

CMC advised the committee that the CMC became aware of the public release of the documents 

around May 2012 when a former CJC officer provided advice to the CMC about the public availability 

of the documents. Yesterday the chairperson of the CMC was also unable to adequately advise the 

committee as to which documents were released other than that they belonged to a series of 

documents within the Fitzgerald inquiry documents, whether the documents had been widely viewed 

by the public or whether copies had been taken of these documents. 

Given the sensitive nature of the documents and the need for further detailed information, the 

committee directed the Clerk of the Parliament to issue a summons for the State Archivist to attend 

before the committee. That summons required the State Archivist to produce all documentation in her 

possession which would reveal the nature of the documents that were released, the documents that 

have been viewed, who viewed the documents and whether any copies of the documents were or 

were able to be taken. 

The State Archivist appeared before the committee earlier today. The committee is considering 

the evidence and information she has provided and I advise the parliament that that hearing is 

continuing. The committee received further advice from the chairperson of the CMC yesterday that, in


addition to the public release of confidential Fitzgerald inquiry documents, the CMC has also 

destroyed a number of confidential Fitzgerald documents. The committee understands that these files 

contained intelligence information and were used by the then newly established Criminal Justice 

Commission to commence investigations into the information provided in those documents. The 

committee has required the CMC to provide further information to the committee about what 

documents were destroyed and how and why this occurred. 

The committee considers that the CMC had multiple opportunities to advise the committee of 

the publication of these documents since May 2012 when it first became aware of the matter. The 

committee holds serious concerns that the CMC did not inform the committee of these events until 

late on 5 March 2013. The committee is not satisfied with the response from the chairperson of the 

CMC that he advised CMC officers to ‘fix it’ in May 2012 as there seems to have been no follow up 

action to ensure the ‘fix’ by the CMC was appropriate to the circumstances. The committee 

understands from the chairperson of the CMC that the CMC did not act to address the matter until 

September 2012. It is clear that the CMC did not act to ensure that the matter was appropriately 

addressed. 

The committee considers that the lack of advice to the committee by the CMC prior to the 

articles in the Australian is wholly inappropriate given the reporting obligations of the CMC to inform 

the committee of significant matters. The committee will carefully consider its options in relation to the 

lack of governance within the CMC and the lack of accountability in not advising the committee at an 

earlier time in relation to these matters. 

The committee understands the unacceptable situation that has arisen requires a swift, 

effective response. The committee is considering all options and is in discussions with the Attorney- 

General in this regard. 

The committee has referred this matter to the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct 

Commissioner for a thorough and independent investigation. The parliamentary commissioner’s 

investigation will focus on the release and the destruction of the documents. The commissioner is an 

officer of the parliament, independent of the CMC. The committee expects the parliamentary 

commissioner’s investigation to address the state of knowledge and the roles of CMC officers in 

relation to the reclassification and subsequent release and the shredding of the Fitzgerald documents. 

This should include the governance and accountability mechanisms within the CMC to prevent 

matters like this from reoccurring. 

In relation to the release of the Fitzgerald documents, the committee seeks information on: the 

circumstances of and authorisation relating to the reclassification of the documents which led to the 

release; when the advice was received from a former CJC officer as to inappropriate release of the 

documents; why it took a further four months to action a response; and why there was an inadequate 

response which continued to allow the public access to a wide range of documents. The committee 

will also be looking to see if this error by the CMC has been repeated and whether there are other 

confidential documents in relation to any other matters that may have been released publicly in similar 

circumstances. 

The committee also expects the parliamentary commissioner’s report will address the 

knowledge and actions of CMC officers in relation to the shredding of the Fitzgerald inquiry 

documents, including when it occurred, the internal procedures of the CMC in relation to the 

shredding of the CMC files, and the knowledge, roles and actions of CMC officers in this regard. The 

committee is prepared to use its extensive powers to ensure this matter is thoroughly investigated. 

The committee will inform the House of further developments in this matter as appropriate. 

Resumed from p. 502. 

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS 

Whiskey Au Go Go Nightclub 

Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (2.43 pm): Some time ago I was asked to speak to some new 

information that has come to light involving circumstances surrounding the firebombing of the 

Whiskey Au Go Go nightclub in the Fortitude Valley some 40 years ago. It was originally intended that

504 Private Members’ Statements 7 Mar 2013 

today would be the most appropriate day that I would speak to this new information. Last month I 

received approval from the Clerk of the Parliament and the Speaker of Parliament to refer to this new 

information, which identified people and new evidence worthy of being tested in an appropriate court, 

be it the resumption of the original coroner’s inquest, which was adjourned after a few days, or a new 

judicial inquiry. 

I am a member of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee that has oversight of 

the Crime and Misconduct Commission, which is now investigating various Fitzgerald inquiry matters. 

This morning the Attorney-General referred to this investigation in parliament. I have taken advice 

from the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee and the Clerk of the Parliament and, in light 

of information that has now come to my attention as a result of my membership of this committee and 

in light of possible action this committee may take as a result of this ongoing investigation, I am now 

no longer able to refer to this new information in this chamber as originally intended. 

As a result of these new developments, I will now write to the Attorney-General referring to this 

new information and requesting that the Attorney-General investigate the information as quickly as 

possible. I note that the Attorney-General is in the chamber at the moment. 

Petrie, Amcor Cartonboard Mill 

Mr HOLSWICH (Pine Rivers—LNP) (2.45 pm): Around two weeks ago, the Pine Rivers 

community received the devastating news that Amcor will close its Petrie cartonboard mill by the end 

of 2013. The direct result for our local community is the loss of 220 local jobs. The closure will not 

only impact those 220 workers but also have a significant flow-on effect to hundreds of local 

businesses and contractors. There are three particularly frustrating aspects to this closure 

announcement. The first is that Amcor has cited rising energy costs as one of the reasons for closing 

the mill. If we ever needed a local reminder of the devastating consequences of Labor’s toxic carbon 

tax on local manufacturing, this is a slap-in-the-face reminder. 

The second frustrating aspect of the closure is that some of the products produced by the 

Petrie mill will now most likely be produced overseas. Yet again we wave goodbye to more Australian 

manufacturing jobs. The manufacturing industry employs around 2,500 people in my electorate and 

represents around 10 per cent of the jobs and businesses in Pine Rivers. We cannot afford to see 

more and more manufacturing jobs leave our shores. 

The final frustrating aspect of the closure is the dismissive response of federal Labor to this 

decision. When the issue was raised with Bill Shorten, his only response was to trot out the list of 

government funded employment services that Amcor employees could access once they are 

unemployed. Instead of taking the opportunity to be proactive and provide solutions, Mr Shorten and 

federal Labor are content to fold their arms and not get involved. 

While that might be the Labor way, today I reassure Amcor workers that their LNP 

representatives will not sit idly by and just watch this happen. Last week, the Hon. Peter Dutton, the 

member for Kallangur and I jointly announced that we will be coordinating a local careers expo in 

July, with Amcor employees specifically in mind. We will be running an expo that focuses on 

empowering Amcor employees and other local job seekers to find suitable, sustainable, local 

employment. We will offer Amcor employees resume writing assistance. We will offer one-on-one 

training in job interview techniques. We will provide career planning opportunities and we will link 

them with ongoing assistance and local jobs. Working collaboratively with key stakeholders, we will 

run an expo that will provide tangible assistance to Amcor employees, as well as other local job 

seekers. 

I have stated that one of my key priorities for 2013 is to support local businesses to bring more 

jobs into Pine Rivers. I have no doubt that this careers expo will be a catalyst for growth in local 

businesses. I am committed to building a better Pine Rivers, I am committed to empowering our local 

committee and, whilst losing 220 local jobs in one hit is a setback, I know the strength and 

determination of our local business community will pull us through this tough patch and towards a 

better future.


Woodridge 

Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (2.48 pm): Modern Australia is a country with a history built on 

dispossession, massacres, disempowerment, stolen lands, enforced labour, stolen wages, attempts 

to eradicate native tongue and, until recent history, even failing to recognise our first nation people as 

citizens. However, scattered throughout our history since settlement there are also early stories of 

friendships and of bravery on both sides to heal and to forge better relationships. It is against this 

backdrop that some in our Aboriginal community, when they see injustices and particularly the deaths 

of some of their people, experience an overwhelming sense of loss and hurt, bringing past injustices 

to the fore. In January when hostilities erupted in Douglas Street, what we saw on our television 

screens was not racially motivated. Rather, it was a combination of taking retribution for damage to a 

vehicle, both families feeling aggrieved, the effects of social media to draw in supporters on both 

sides, the heightened media coverage and a sense of fear, allowing the issues to spiral out of control. 

The result was to bring to the surface many of the deeply held grievances mounting within our 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. To the many who live and work in Logan City, and in 

particular in Woodridge, the scenario was distressing and depicted our beautiful community as 

dysfunctional and dangerous. 

In the following week I attended two meetings. One was convened by MultiLink to facilitate an 

apology from the Tongan family involved in the incident. A number of Aboriginal people attended who 

were not actually involved in the incident. However, I listened to a number of the young Tongan men 

involved speak at length and give a sincere apology to the family involved and to our community. 

That night I attended a packed hall with many of our local Aboriginal people and supporters 

from other areas. I sat and listened intently for it was very clear that people were hurting and grieving. 

They were not only disturbed about the Douglas Street incident, but they were extremely distressed 

and grieving for a number of their family members who had tragically passed away in recent years 

through other violent means and altercations. It was a very sobering insight for me to sit quietly and 

listen to those who spoke with such hurt and such passion. 

With now over 200 separate cultures, our community is young and vibrant, with many migrants 

and refugees joining our long-time residents who have raised their families here and would never 

consider living elsewhere. Our community now has a journey to take. Much consultation has already 

commenced and I will keep this House informed as we progress through engagement to action. 


Mundingburra Electorate, Youth Crime 

Hon. DF CRISAFULLI (Mundingburra—LNP) (Minister for Local Government, Community 

Recovery and Resilience) (2.51 pm): I rise to speak on an issue that I have spoken about before in 

this House and will continue to speak about until we get action. It is the issue of youth crime. I 

acknowledge the presence in the chamber of the Attorney—it is great to have him here and he has 

been a great supporter—and, most importantly, pardon the pun, my two partners in crime from the 

north, the member for Townsville and the member for Thuringowa. 

I have spoken before about the issues of violence, bullying and robberies. Today I want to talk 

about vehicle theft and some of the high-speed chases that are going on in our great city. I must 

acknowledge the work that the Attorney has done. In August we increased penalties for motorists 

attempting to outrun police to a mandatory $5,500 fine and a two-year loss of licence. Late last year 

some of the nation’s toughest anti-hooning laws, which sees dangerous drivers facing the prospect of 

their car being crashed or forfeited if they are caught hooning twice within five years, came in. They 

could not have come soon enough and there is a long way to go. 

Recent figures show that vehicle thefts in Queensland have increased at a rate of knots over 

the last five years. But it is on the ground where I am truly blown away by some of the stories. I was in 

a taxi the other night and I asked the driver how often he worked. He said he worked seven nights a 

week. I asked why he had such dedication. He said because they are struggling to get drivers 

because of the concern that young hoodlums are racing around in stolen motor vehicles. 

Today I would like to start a conversation in my community about police pursuits. It is an issue 

that the commissioner and the minister have said will be discussed over the course of this year, and I 

welcome that. I will always back the police officers with their knowledge on the ground. What I have


seen in recent times though is a culture where these little grubs taunt police. They go up beside 

police, spin their wheels and rev their engines and know that they can speed away because they are 

a protected species. That has to end. 

I understand that we need to find a balance between the tragedy of an innocent person being 

killed in a chase and the open slather that is occurring now. I suppose the question to my community 

is: is the risk of having these turkeys racing around at 200 kilometres an hour on suburban streets a 

greater danger than a police pursuit or the threat of a police pursuit? That is the question I want to 

pose today. 

Has the pendulum swung too far in the other direction? It is a conversation we must have. It is 

something that the officers on the ground are best placed to make a decision on. I would hope that 

their input is paramount as this debate unfolds. Above all, all I want is a safe city for my kids to be 

able to drive around in into the future. 

Public Transport, Buses 

Ms TRAD (South Brisbane—ALP) (2.54 pm): I rise to speak about the shambles that is the 

Newman government’s bus review. In July last year the transport minister announced that he had 

instructed TransLink to review all bus services in South-East Queensland, with the final report to be 

delivered within six months. Eight months later and today the transport minister has finally released 

his shambolic response. 

The LNP’s review was based on only two criteria—patronage and cost benefit. This sounds 

great in a news grab, but it leaves no room to help those who need it most—pensioners who catch a 

bus to the doctors or students who travel to their weekend jobs. The daytime and weekend services 

these Queenslanders rely on are not always full, but they are essential. 

Based on this flawed reasoning, today we find out that the government is axing 111 routes, with 

massive cuts to frequency and running times. It was little wonder, given the extent of the savage cuts, 

that the recommendations were only open for community feedback for two weeks right before 

Christmas. That is right, the extent of this government’s consultation was sticking its plan on a 

difficult-to-use website for two weeks and hoping people would accidentally stumble upon it. 

The LNP has left commuters behind on this issue. Queensland commuters even after today’s 

announcement are left wondering when their routes will be cut and how they will be affected. That is 

why this week Labor launched a petition calling on the Newman LNP government to stop the cuts to 

local bus services. Any cuts to services will only hurt those most in need of accessible and reliable 

public transport. 

Mr Minnikin interjected. 

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Miss Barton): Order! Member for Chatsworth, the member for 

South Brisbane is not taking your interjections and I would ask you to please stop interjecting across 

the chamber and let her be heard in silence. The member for South Brisbane has the call. 

Ms TRAD: Any cuts to services will only hurt those most in need of accessible and reliable 

public transport—pensioners, students, families; particularly those with lower incomes. Within 24 

hours of launching the petitions we have beaten our goal of 500 signatures. At last count the total was 

628. Indeed, earlier today I did table in this House a petition with over 800 signatures from those in 

the bay suburbs. 

There is no doubt that our public transport network should continually be reviewed to ensure 

efficiency and effectiveness, but when you conduct a review you should actually talk to the people 

who are going to be affected. Clearly, those opposite—particularly the transport minister and the 

assistant minister—do not want to listen to the concerns of working Queenslanders. They will not 

listen to bus drivers about bus safety and now they will not listen to commuters before they cut the 

buses— 

Mr Minnikin interjected. 

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Chatsworth, I have asked you to stop 

interjecting across the chamber and have told you that the member for South Brisbane is not taking 

interjections. I would ask that you please heed my ruling. The member for South Brisbane has the 

call.


Ms TRAD: The minister and assistant minister will not listen to bus drivers about bus safety 

and now they will not listen to commuters before they cut the buses they rely upon. 

Public transport, just like public health or public education, should not be about turning a 

profit—it should be about people. Quite frankly, what is happening here is this government is running 

down the public transport system to sell it to the highest bidder. It is plain and clear for all to see. 

Mr Bleijie interjected. 

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr Attorney, you are not in your correct seat! 

Queensland Plan 

Mr SHUTTLEWORTH (Ferny Grove—LNP) (2.57 pm): I rise this afternoon to speak briefly 

about my support for the Queensland Plan and encourage my 88 colleagues in this House to provide 

support to the Queensland Plan. We heard earlier today about the collaborative and inclusive 

approach to undertake a review and determine the 30-year future for Queensland. I would like to 

briefly outline why I am speaking today—the day when obviously everyone has had a briefing on this. 

After the Premier made his announcement I thought straight off the bat that this was going to 

be an initiative where we could all at a local level engage very actively and efficiently with our 

communities to bring them along on this very exciting ride of looking at the future in Queensland. 

What we have produced in Ferny Grove is a brochure that went to the distributor on Monday of this 

week. Around 12,000 brochures will be delivered over the course of the weekend and early next 

week. We have also purchased full-page ads in the local papers—the Samford Village Pump and the 

Hills Echo. Hopefully this will ensure there is blanket coverage across the electorate inviting all 

members of the electorate, from whichever politic sphere or whichever community group they 

represent, to engage actively with my office and express their concern about the way we are heading 

or how they would like the future to unravel. 

As a result of that, in late April I will be holding a community forum at one of the local school 

halls, the Ralph Took Auditorium, which holds about 350 people. I am very encouraged by the early 

indications that we already have a number of people registering their interest. Hopefully as a result of 

the survey, which will go out this coming week, we will receive a number of initiatives across a 

number of departments and we will be able to establish smaller, focused groups to fully develop their 

plan that we will be able to take to the summit in Mackay in May and also to the second summit later 

in the year in September. 

As I said, I am very encouraged by the early indications of interest throughout the community. I 

actively encourage all 88 of my colleagues in this House to also engage with their local electorates to 

ensure that at the end of this process we have a very meaningful, collaborative and inclusive design 

for the future of Queensland that will be to the betterment of all of our local districts as well. 

South-East Queensland, Waterways 

Ms MILLARD (Sandgate—LNP) (3.00 pm): I rise today in the House to speak about a topic 

that has long been close to me and that clearly affects the Sandgate electorate—and that is 

protecting South-East Queensland’s waterways. It has been estimated that the waterways of South- 

East Queensland have environmental, social and economic values worth around $5 billion each year, 

so keeping our waterways healthy for recreational use and ecological sustainability is a weighty issue. 

Unhealthy waterways are costly on many levels, and this has attracted the attention of all three levels 

of government through many programs and numerous buckets of money, and with engagement from 

a range of experts. 

Cabbage Tree Creek catchment, which covers 45 square kilometres through the residential 

and industrial areas of northern Brisbane to Moreton Bay, has had its own fair share of attention. 

Nonetheless, having been a Sandgate local for 15 years and from my very early days of pre-election 

campaigning, it became clear that programs for our local waterways were numerous, disparate, 

lacked coordination, involved limited community consultation and indicated some duplication. And 

before I make it sound like the answers are all very simple, let me make it clear that my own factfinding 

mission has been a little like sweeping the leaves from the forest floor. Snippets of information 

keep falling and you can never quite get the clean-up started, but one has to start somewhere and I 

have done just that. 

So what is an MP like me who is not a water expert doing dabbling in water issues? I am 

working for my community and, despite routine water testing by our local council, upgrades to the 

Sandgate sewerage plant and a newly introduced SMS warning system, which are all appropriate and


good activities, Cabbage Tree Creek still endures unacceptably high bacteria levels—a result of D to 

F on our healthy waterways report card for at least the last seven years, which is a definite fail. This is 

where I am reminded that the state government ultimately has constitutional rights to our water and 

that we must remain the regulator and overseer of healthy waterways. 

I recall the words of our Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection and member for 

Glass House, Minister Powell, when he spoke about the state government’s recent contribution of 

$4.6 million in case and in kind investment towards improving South-East Queensland waterways— 

We need to continue to strengthen partnerships, and investments in collaborative programs, to reduce water pollution loads 

and restore degraded waterways. The future of Moreton Bay and the region’s waterways and beaches, depends on this. 

On my part, I was pleased last week to chair, with the support of the Department of 

Environment and Heritage Protection, a stakeholder group with 15 participants from groups including 

Healthy Waterways, Northern Catchments Network, Maritime Services Queensland and community 

representatives from our local bayside suburbs, and other groups with similar interests, to start a 

robust dialogue about the priority issues and causes relating to the persistently poor health of 

Cabbage Tree Creek. We want to work towards an action plan that will see the catchment as an 

example of best practice in coordinating efforts towards real improvement, while bringing the 

community along with us. So let me be clear: ultimately it is our gorgeous bayside community that has 

the most to gain or lose, and my eye is clearly set on the outcome of a healthy Cabbage Tree Creek 

that will be a source of pride to the Sandgate electorate, which is a part of what makes our area a 

great place to live. 

Beaudesert Electorate, Schools 

Mr KRAUSE (Beaudesert—LNP) (3.03 pm): I wanted to speak today about some of the 

wonderful schools that I have in my electorate of Beaudesert. There are 25 state schools. Some of 

them are: Canungra, Darlington, Tamborine Mountain, St Bernard, Boonah, Kalbar, Roadvale, Warrill 

View, Beaudesert, Jimboomba, Woodhill, Aratula, Maroon, Hillview, Rathdowney, Tamrookum, 

Gleneagle and Cedar Creek. There is an assortment of wonderful small schools, and small schools 

form a very important part of our community in rural areas. 

I attended a small primary school—in fact, it was probably a large school compared to some of 

these. We had about 60 students. Darlington State School, which I visited on Monday, has 13 pupils 

this year, with one teacher and teacher aides as well. They have a wonderful school community. I 

was there on Monday presenting the school leaders with their badges for 2013. They were very well 

regarded in the community. In addition to me, the federal member for Wright was there, as well as the 

Scenic Rim Regional Council mayor and the local councillor. So we had four elected representatives 

present at a leadership ceremony for Darlington State School. It was quite an honour for that little 

school, I think. 

A few weeks ago I visited Canungra State School and presented the leadership badges there 

as well. They are a very active school community. One of the things that they are most active in is 

looking after Canungra Creek. I was quite privileged to be able to announce to the Canungra State 

School community that they had been successful in applying for a grant under the Everyone’s 

Environment program, administered by Minister Powell’s department—a grant in the vicinity of 

$10,000, which will enable them to carry out a lot more restoration work on the banks of Canungra 

Creek, which was damaged again during the recent flood events in my electorate. That will allow 

them to put in place more trees and native vegetation so that that creek bank will survive into the 

future. I take my hat off to that community as well. 

I also recently visited Tamborine Mountain State School and attended their leadership 

ceremony. They have a thriving music program. They have a great school community, led by 

Principal Jason Smith, in addition to St Bernard State School, which is also on the mountain. Both of 

these schools were impacted by the recent storms which affected Tamborine Mountain. The way in 

which the school community has bounced back and got back into a routine so quickly after the 

devastating event up there is testament to the whole community. 

I cannot forget to mention the QuoCKa Reading Program, which is in place now at Boonah 

State School and Kalbar State School, where high school students assist primary school students in 

developing their literacy programs. We have some great schools. I am very proud of them and I look 

forward to working with them throughout the whole of 2013.


Mills, Lt Cmdr CA, OAM, RFD 

Mr HATHAWAY (Townsville—LNP) (3.06 pm): I take this opportunity to add to the 

parliamentary record the achievements of one community focused and dedicated person in my 

electorate of Townsville recently recognised in the Australia Day honours for his efforts in community 

service—Mr Chris Anthony Richard Mills. In the Australia Day honours list Lieutenant Commander 

(Retired) Chris Mills OAM, RFD was recognised for the Medal of the Order of Australia. Let me outline 

a bit about this former Royal Australian Navy officer, solicitor and resident of Townsville. 

Chris Mills entered the Royal Australian Navy in March 1967 as a midshipman, and his service 

to the nation as an officer in the RAN was completed some 35 years later, retiring as a Lieutenant 

Commander. Throughout those 35 years, Chris served on the following Her Majesty’s Australian 

Ships: Anzac, Sydney, Vendetta, Snipe, Derwent, Paluma, Moresby, Perth, Attack, Advance, Bass 

and Banks. His last sea billet was as the sailing master, executive officer and relief commanding 

officer of the sailing training ship Young Endeavour. Chris also saw operational service in Vietnam on 

board HMAS Sydney. 

With a strong focus on looking after the needs of sailors and service personnel, he has also 

had policy and staff positions with the Directorate of Naval Service Conditions and also with the 

Directorate of Naval Personnel Services. After his transfer to the Royal Australian Naval Reserves 

and completing his law degree, Chris continued his commitment of service to the people by working 

as a volunteer and pro bono for a number of local service and charity organisations. 

His list of achievements include: volunteer legal adviser to the Townsville Region Committee on 

the Ageing since 1999, and honorary member since 2005; coordinator of the Elder Abuse Steering 

Committee from 2006 to 2009; volunteer legal adviser to the Townsville Community Legal Service 

since 1999, and life member since 2009; volunteer at the Townsville Homeless Persons Legal Clinic; 

honorary solicitor with the North Queensland Competitive Employment Service; a member of the 

Vietnam Veterans Federation; founder of the Alzheimer’s Australia North Queensland support group; 

and member of James Cook University’s ethics committee. Chris has also spent time on the board of 

the Townsville District Rugby Union Association. He is also a life member of the Townsville District 

Rugby Union Referees Association. One of his greatest and ongoing achievements was to work with 

the Townsville Region Committee on the Ageing, which led to the creation of a seniors’ legal service 

for Townsville and more recently in his capacity with the Vietnam Veterans Federation’s recent 

opening of the Townsville Men’s Shed. 

It is also for this list of achievements and ongoing service to his community that Chris was 

recognised on Australia Day this year as the Townsville City Council’s 2013 Citizen of the Year. While 

I count myself very lucky to have Chris as a friend, the people and city of Townsville are far more 

fortunate in having him as part of its community. Well done Chris Mills OAM, RFD. I salute you. 

Rugby League 

Mr COSTIGAN (Whitsunday—LNP) (3.09 pm): I rise this afternoon with the NRL season 

starting tonight to extend my best wishes to all local rugby league clubs, their players, supporters and 

sponsors across the Mackay-Whitsunday region for the 2013 season. I have long maintained that 

rugby league is part of Queensland’s social fabric, especially in the north where the Foley Shield is 

part of folklore from Mackay to Mossman and west to the Isa. In my beautiful part of the world it is still 

the No. 1 game in town, with many local products making the big time over the years. I refer to people 

like Wendell Sailor, Dale Shearer, Martin Bella, Kevin Campion, Neville Costigan, Travis Norton— 

who, I might add, happens to be a constituent of mine—Paul ‘Bear’ Bowman, Mike McLean, Clinton 

Schifcofske, and the list goes on. They have all progressed to State of Origin, for those who do not 

follow rugby league. 

Within my own electorate we have three rugby league clubs on the senior front that participate 

in the eight-team Mackay competition—namely, Magpies, Norths based at Glenella and Beaconsfield 

in Mackay’s north respectively, and the Whitsunday Brahmans, playing out of Proserpine and pulling 

in players and supporters from Bloomsbury to Bowen. This year marks the 40th anniversary since 

Whitsunday’s one and only Foley Shield success. The Foley Shield, as many well travelled members 

would know, is a North Queensland icon, having started in 1948. 

Mr Minnikin: Go the Daisys!


Mr COSTIGAN: I take the interjection from the member for Chatsworth. The Daisys from the 

Isa are very much in the thick of it. At its peak it was the biggest rugby league competition in terms of 

geography in the world. That ’73 side is revered around the Whitsundays. Names like the late Jimmy 

Hill, the late Matty Best, Laurie Goldman and my old mate from Bowen Keith Shiels are all fondly 

remembered for their heroics in the ’73 final against Innisfail. 

Last Friday I had the good fortune to attend the season launch of the North Queensland 

Cowboys, now preparing for their 19th season. It was great to be alongside the federal member for 

Herbert and my state colleagues including the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, the Minister 

for Local Government, Community Recovery and Resilience and the members for Townsville and 

Thuringowa—the latter being someone whom I envy given that his electorate is the home of the 

Cowboys, the team that brings us northerners together. 

I wish coach Neil Henry, his staff, co-captains Johnathan Thurston and Matthew Scott the very 

best for 2013, starting with Saturday night’s game against the member for Gregory’s beloved 

Bulldogs. Good luck, Vaughan; you will need it. To the Cowboys’ feeder side, the Mackay Cutters, I 

say good luck, too. I look forward to attending their first home game of the year on Saturday, 23 

March for the big derby game against the member for Keppel’s local team, the CQ Capras. I have 

been fortunate to have been involved in rugby league all my life as a junior league player and as an 

administrator. I love the game. It is not the only sport in my electorate, but it is the greatest game of 

all. 


Algester Electorate, Schools 

Mr SHORTEN (Algester—LNP) (3.13 pm): I wish to bring to the House’s attention the 

wonderful educational institutions that are in the electorate of Algester: Algester State School, Boronia 

Heights State School, Grand Avenue State School, Pallara State School, St John’s College, St 

Stephen’s and Forest Lake State High School. They are wonderful educational institutions and I enjoy 

every single moment when I get to visit them. I have had plenty of opportunities to visit them over the 

last couple of weeks, as all honourable members would have, with their leadership inductions. Every 

year a new cohort of students comes through and they go to an election where their peers judge them 

on their ability to write and publicly speak on what they would bring to the role of leadership. I have 

been very honoured to be invited as a community leader to present the badges to the school captains 

and the school vice captains. I would like to read into the record a couple of the captains and school 

vice captains whom I have had the absolute honour of presenting badges to over the last couple of 

weeks. 

Last week I attended Algester State School. What a wonderful school it is, with 1000-odd 

students led by a wonderful principal, John Enright, a fantastic teaching staff and a great cohort of 

kids. I was very honoured to be able to present Kira Chipizubov, Talisha Hansen, Liam O’Brien and 

James Vaka with their school captain pins. 

Today I was very privileged to be granted leave to attend Grand Avenue State School, which is 

the biggest state school in my electorate and one of the biggest in the state. A total of 1,217 kids go to 

Grand Avenue. I was very honoured to be part of the ceremony today to present leadership badges to 

the school captains—Liam Portelli and Paris Knapp—and to the school vice captains—Thomas 

Cameron and Luisa Sekona. These young people are the future leaders of this state and possibly 

even our nation. I am always encouraged when I visit my schools by the leadership that these young 

people show. We are talking about year 7 students. They grow up a lot quicker now. My daughter 

turned seven yesterday and I do not know where those seven years went, but it went very fast 

indeed. 

Blyth, Ms D, AO 

Mr CRANDON (Coomera—LNP) (3.16 pm): I rise to pay tribute to Denise Blyth OAM the 

Coomera electorate nominee for the inaugural Queensland Inspiring Women-Speaker’s Awards. We 

will be celebrating the awards at a breakfast tomorrow morning in the Premiers and Speakers halls. 

Denise Blyth is a tower of strength to us all and definitely demonstrates the hallmarks of a true 

pioneer, which is the theme for this year’s awards. Denise joined the Coomera branch of the 

Queensland Country Women’s Association, the QCWA, in 1981 and has held the positions of vice 

president, president, secretary and treasurer numerous times. For example, she was president from 

1984 to 1988 and 1999 to 2000; vice president from 1983 to 1984, 1996 to 1998 and 2001 to 2002;


secretary from 1995 to 1996 and 2004 to 2007; treasurer from 1991 to 1995; and acting treasurer 

from 2005 to 2007. She was awarded a ‘For Service Bar’ in 1996. They are not lightly given, I can 

assure honourable members. 

She also held the position of divisional president and state council member for the southeastern 

division. She was also an entrant and finalist for Country Woman of the Year in 1995. Denise 

has been instrumental and a driving force behind the relocation of the QCWA hall at Hillview to a 

parcel of land beside the Coomera branch hall and organising it to open on the 50th anniversary for 

the division in December 2010. This hall now holds records and archives from branches all over the 

division which she is still tirelessly sorting. Not only has the Coomera branch benefitted from her hard 

work; she has helped others stop the closure of branches and urged them to carry on. 

For many years, especially at Christmas, Denise has been taking items collected by various 

branch members to Majella House, a women’s refuge on the Gold Coast. As another example of her 

efforts, in the 2010-11 floods the QCWA collected items for Grantham. Denise made contact with a 

Grantham resident who came down, and for many weeks she met with him and gave him goods to 

take back to Grantham. This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the work she has done without 

expectation of reward for her efforts. Denise displays an inspirational sense of leadership and 

community spirit, working tirelessly for the benefit of the community. Denise will do anything needed 

to help her community. The local and broader community is a much better place because of Denise 

and her altruistic commitment to help out others. 

Beenleigh Rotary Club, 60th Anniversary 

Mr BOOTHMAN (Albert—LNP) (3.18 pm): On 3 March this year the Rotary Club of Beenleigh 

celebrated its 60th birthday, a major milestone in any organisation. This momentous occasion was 

celebrated with a dinner at Windaroo Cottage. It was marvellous to see so many community leaders 

turn up to mark this historic event. 

The federal member for Forde, Bert van Manen, was there, as was my good colleague Mr 

Michael Crandon, the state member for Coomera, who is a past president of the club. Logan City 

Councillor Don Petersen and Councillor Jenny Breene were also there, along with Mayor Pam Parker 

who gave a good speech about the great work that the Beenleigh Rotary Club does in the area. 

It was also my great pleasure to award the Beenleigh Rotary Club the Albert Community 

Organisation of the Year award for 2013 for outstanding dedication to the community after 60 years of 

civic service. I am joking when I refer to the Rotary Club of Beenleigh as the local Beenleigh mafia 

because they seem to have their fingers in every single pie in Beenleigh. They even control the flow 

of alcohol from the local Beenleigh Rum Distillery as one of its members is the manager of that rum 

distillery. 

Six decades of commitment to the local community of Beenleigh is nothing short of absolutely 

incredible. It started in 1953 when 20 community minded local businesses decided to start a local 

Rotary Club with a passion to create a better world. Charter President Jack Short and Rotarians of 

the club set about raising money for the community to set up service projects to better serve others. It 

is certainly a great credit to them. 

Over the last 60 years, the club has actively helped multiple organisations throughout the 

Beenleigh area such as Blue Nurses, Meals on Wheels, Youth Club, Air Sea Rescue et cetera. They 

have helped a phenomenal number of community groups. Along with other local clubs they also run 

the very successful Beenleigh & District Cane Festival. Over the past 12 years this festival has raised 

over $500,000, which is also a great credit to them. 

The Beenleigh Rotary Club is not just bound to local issues. They are a truly international club. 

They have been helping rebuild schools in Papua New Guinea and Samoa. I thank this wonderful 

club of which I am a member for its 60 years of civic service. I hope they will have another 60 years of 

fantastic civic service to the community. 

Hicks, Mrs L 

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (3.21 pm): I wish to bring to the attention of the House this 

afternoon the great work done by Lorna Hicks, the coordinator of the Emerald Neighbourhood Centre 

who retired on 31 January. President of the Emerald and District Social Development Association 

Paul Bell said that he and the committee feel a great loss with Lorna’s announcement of her 

retirement. We know that we are moving into uncertain times without her leadership. However, the 

good news is that Lorna has accepted the role to become the inaugural patron of the Emerald and 

District Social Development Association.


At the 2013 Australia Day celebrations in Emerald, Mayor Peter Maguire recognised Lorna’s 36 

years of service to the community by presenting her with the inaugural Central Highlands Regional 

Council Community Champion Award. In presenting Lorna with this award, Councillor Maguire said— 

It is with a great deal of pleasure that we acknowledge the wonderful work of Lorna Hicks for the dedication and love of the role 

that she has put into her work for Emerald and surrounding communities. Many long hours and not just weekdays but also 

weekends Lorna has been out there helping others through thick and thin and doing her bit for a range of community groups 

and organisations including her own at the Neighbourhood Centre. It is a sad time as we say thanks for her immense 

dedication but we wish Lorna all the best in her retirement and say go and enjoy your retirement and all the best in the future. 

On hearing the news of Lorna’s retirement, the federal member for Flynn, Ken O’Dowd, said— 

How blessed was Emerald when Lorna Hicks came to town with her husband in 1954. During the next almost 60 years, Lorna 

has gone about her business helping those in need. Who could put a figure on the number of people she has helped in that 

time? Lorna has always gone over and above the call of duty whenever her community has needed her. Well done Lorna and 

God bless you on your retirement. 

My own words at the time were— 

Lorna’s retirement is bittersweet. Lorna is a mighty woman with a heart of gold. I have never heard her say a bad word about 

anyone and I have never heard anyone say a bad word about her. Lorna’s belief that there is good in everyone is proof positive 

of her own goodness. They say goodness is so rare in history that those who are good should take precedence over those who 

are great. Lorna certainly takes first place in my book. She has been an absolute pearl. Lorna has given her all to Emerald, 

both the smallest and the greatest among us, with unfailing kindness, courage, generosity, truth and persistence for nearly four 

decades. I wish her every blessing in her retirement. 

May God give her and her family those special graces as she enters her retirement. I can 

assure you we will miss her greatly. I say thank you to Lorna for the work she has done, not only for 

Emerald and the Central Highlands but also for those who do not know she has helped them. 


Dr ROBINSON (Cleveland—LNP) (3.24 pm): Tomorrow, Friday, 8 March, is a very special day 

in the Queensland calendar. It is International Women’s Day. It is a day for women to celebrate what 

it means to be women. Women celebrating womanhood is an important social, cultural and economic 

thing. I have to admit that as a poor and simple male, I—perhaps we—do not always understand the 

women in our lives or what womanhood is about. After all, if you follow John Gray’s reasoning in his 

book Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus, us Martians have no idea about secret 

women’s business. However, there is hope for us Martians. Men can understand the fairer gender 

and form loving, supportive and meaningful relationships with them. 

So I encourage men to celebrate with them on International Women’s Day. I look forward to 

being one of a few thorns among 200 roses who will attend a breakfast tomorrow hosted at the 

Queensland parliament by Madam Speaker, Fiona Simpson. I acknowledge and congratulate Madam 

Speaker, not only for being appointed as Queensland’s first female Speaker of the parliament but also 

for her initiative to honour International Women’s Day with this breakfast. The focus of Queensland 

Inspirational Women awards for 2013 is ‘honouring pioneering women from throughout Queensland’. 

Inspirational women abound in our communities. This inaugural breakfast is an opportunity to publicly 

recognise and honour inspirational women from all over Queensland. It gives me great pleasure to 

participate in this event and to select an individual who has led an inspiring life and achieved much. 

There are many women in Cleveland and the Redland city community who would have been 

worthy recipients of this award. After a good amount of consideration and with the assistance of 

others, I selected an amazing woman as the 2013 recipient, Auntie Margaret Iselin of Dunwich, North 

Stradbroke Island. Auntie Margaret, a Quandamooka elder, has served her people with distinction 

throughout the span of her lifetime on the island. She is one of the finest Indigenous leaders in this 

nation. She holds fast to Indigenous traditions, loves the younger generations, is passionate about 

bush tucker and understands our modern world and how Indigenous Australians can prosper in it. 

According to the MMEIC, Margaret Iselin, Minjerribah Moorgumpin elder, was born in 1930 at 

Myora Mission on North Stradbroke Island. Over the years she has lived there, she has made an 

amazing contribution in all kinds of ways. In particular, she has a passion for helping young people. 

Her door is always open to them and no one is ever judged. She has been a mentor to many young 

people on the island and helps them with community service opportunities and in all kinds of ways. I 

congratulate her today on winning this award. 

I also recognise some other important women in my life: my wife, Julie; daughters, Laura, 

Melissa and Susannah; my mother, Lauris; my mother-in-law, Clare, and my staff as well. 

(Time expired)


Positive pARTnerships Program 

Mrs RICE (Mount Coot-tha—LNP) (3.27 pm): As the member for Mount Coot-tha, I am always 

keen to support and promote grassroots initiatives that ultimately contribute to our strong sense of 

community and support local business. On 18 February this year the Milton community mural was 

officially launched. The Milton mural is part of Queensland Rail’s Positive pARTnerships program and 

is situated under the Milton rail underpass at the end of Park Road. For Queensland Rail the Positive 

pARTnerships program is about improving QR properties and highlighting the work of up-and-coming 

artists within Brisbane. Importantly, the program aims to work with community groups, local schools 

and other stakeholders to jointly produce high-quality public artwork and instil community pride in rail 

infrastructure. I have been told that today the Positive pARTnerships program has delivered 90 

projects which cover more than 19,000 square metres across the QR city network. This includes 

station buildings, subways, bike lockers, car park banners, ramps and lift wells. On behalf of the 

Milton community, I would like to thank QR for contributing to our local area and leaving a fantastic 

piece of public art for everyone to enjoy. As a resident who frequently passes the mural, I can see 

that the Positive pARTnerships program does make a huge difference to the suburb. 

These sorts of things do not just happen overnight. QR’s project was conceptualised thanks to 

the input of residents and businesses and involved lots of coordination and hard work. QR conducted 

around 12 months of community consultation to better understand the identity and spirit of our area. 

Our local Westpac at Milton and Style Magazine sponsored a magnificent Milton photo competition to 

boost community participation and provide input. The photos from the competition were used to 

design the mural and gave QR’s lead artist Dan Brock a theme and sense of direction. When work 

began on the underpass in mid-November 2012, QR documented the making of the mural on its blog. 

This was a great way for locals to keep up with the transformation and appreciate the incredible 

amount of work, paint and talent that goes into creating a mural. The mural features 304 square 

metres of paint and depicts iconic scenes including Milton State School, the XXXX Brewery, local 

business like Pia Du Pradal and La Dolce Vita, the soon-to-arrive CityCat terminal and local leaders 

including Lynne Brown from the Brisbane Inner West Chamber of Commerce and Roberto from La 

Dolce Vita. Locals are very proud of the masterpiece at the end of Park Road. Many of the 

businesses have experienced challenges over the last few years, not least the 2011 flood. The 

traders regularly meet to discuss opportunities to boost business and encourage locals and visitors to 

the area, and this mural is just the beginning of the new and exciting opportunities to make Milton 

magnificent. There are a number of QR staff whom I want to thank for their contribution to the mural, 

including Martin Ryan, Susan Purnell, Giano Terzic, Dan Brock, Josie Prestipino, Kerrith Giese and 

Rod Bunter. You have all contributed to the very deep sense of pride we all feel for our magnificent 

Milton. 

Southport Electorate, International Women’s Day 

Mr MOLHOEK (Southport—LNP) (3.30 pm): Tomorrow we will observe International Women’s 

Day—a global day of recognition of women’s rights and a celebration of inspiring women throughout 

history. In the early 1900s the first International Women’s Days were celebrated as part of the 

ongoing campaign for equality. Women wanted to work, to vote and to hold public office. It is a 

testament to their determination and will that today women hold equal rights to men at home, at the 

office and in society. Young women finishing school face endless career opportunities and 

possibilities, many more than those available to women at the beginning of last century. 

Locally, International Women’s Day presents an opportunity to again celebrate and recognise 

those women—those community heroes—who dynamically and passionately work towards better 

outcomes for my local community. May I just say that there are a whole host of inspirational women in 

Southport, all doing important and amazing things for our community. Vicki Batten is just one of these 

women, the CEO of FSG Australia, an organisation dedicated to providing assistance to members of 

the community who are less fortunate than others with a focus on social justice and human rights. 

Vicki’s commitment and passion for these issues is clearly evident and has a tremendous impact on 

the lives of FSG’s clients and staff.


Our local councillor Dawn Crichlow is yet another woman doing fantastic things for Southport. 

You will struggle to find a Southport resident who does not know Dawn and what she has done for the 

community. Dawn has been fighting for Southport since being elected to council in 1991 and is the 

patron of many Gold Coast organisations—a testament to her keen interest and dedication to the 

community. In today’s Gold Coast Bulletin, Dawn is championing the expansion of the Gold Coast 

rapid transit system and the possibility of a connection to the heavy rail. Dawn and I share the same 

passion for the reinvigoration of the Southport CBD. Dawn has always prioritised Southport’s needs 

and will continue to be an inspirational and hardworking councillor for years to come. 

This year, however, I have nominated Neighbourhood Watch advocate Karen Bulmer from my 

electorate to receive the Queensland Inspiring Women-Speaker’s Award. Community champion 

Karen Bulmer says Crestwood Heights is a community referred to as ‘Pleasantville’ by local police. 

What a great accomplishment for this Crestwood community—to live and maintain a neighbourhood 

that has a reputation for kindness, compassion and a great sense of community. Karen has been the 

friendly coordinator of Southport 10 Crestwood Heights Neighbourhood Watch for the past seven 

years and, as with many Neighbourhood Watch groups, their job is to keep an eye out for any 

suspicious activity in the area and to report anything unusual to the police. Karen and the Crestwood 

Heights Neighbourhood Watch group are evidence that residents can play a vital role in the protection 

of their communities. This group has previously supplied information to our Southport police which 

has directly led to the arrest of burglars targeting the Crestwood Heights area. Karen’s dedication to 

and support of her Neighbourhood Watch group is nothing short of amazing, and I want to 

acknowledge both her and the Crestwood Heights group and other Neighbourhood Watch groups in 

the area for their commitment. 

Mama Rene’s 

Mr MINNIKIN (Chatsworth—LNP) (3.33 pm): I rise with great pride in this House to 

acknowledge the exceptionally good work of Mama Rene’s led by Pastor John and his wife, Diane 

Dowell. This charitable foundation is based in my electorate of Chatsworth and I am proud to highlight 

its important charitable efforts in this chamber today on behalf of the residents of the Chatsworth 

electorate. Mama Rene’s is a charity that works with homeless and disadvantaged individuals in 

Brisbane. Every Tuesday and Friday evening Pastor John, Diane and their selfless volunteers 

conduct a street kitchen in the Brisbane CBD providing a hot meal, a drink and, most importantly, a 

chat. Mama Rene’s is committed to assisting individuals who may be in a crisis or who have fallen on 

hard times. Pastor John and his wife Diane open up their home at Carindale to anyone who may need 

support in their time of need. A roof over your head and a shoulder to lean on is essential to getting 

back on your feet. People like Pastor John and Diane are examples of the many unsung heroes in the 

Chatsworth electorate. 

The charitable foundation is named after Pastor John’s mother, Rene, who inspired him to 

devote a life to charity. His mother Rene took in returned soldiers to assist them when they fell on 

hard times after World War II. This explains why Pastor John and Diane named their organisation 

Mama Rene’s—to pay tribute to the charitable acts of his magnificent mother. Pastor John and his 

wife Diane have for many years committed their lives to charity. They ran ministries in Kalgoorlie and 

Adelaide before settling in Brisbane, where they founded Mama Rene’s. In 2008 they were both 

acknowledged for their charitable efforts and awarded a Pride of Australia medal. Mama Rene’s is 

also a public benevolent institution which is endorsed by the Australian Taxation Office, with 

deductable gift recipient status. Last week I had the privilege of presenting Pastor John with a 

certificate acknowledging their latest grant from the Gambling Community Benefit Fund. They 

received just under $26,000 which went straight towards purchasing a new van to cater for their 

expanding needs as a charitable organisation. 

I also had the pleasure of seeing the new van sitting proudly on the driveway in their house in 

the Chatsworth electorate. Mama Rene’s has a strong relationship with Foodbank, another fantastic 

organisation in its own right, which provides the food that it prepares for the street kitchen. However, 

Mama Rene’s is always keen to develop strategic partnerships with businesses and organisations 

which may be interested in donating or providing resources to assist its charitable endeavours. I have 

seen for myself the outstanding work that Mama Rene’s does in the community. I have attended on 

Tuesday and Friday evenings as a volunteer in its street kitchen at Fortitude Valley. I have seen 

firsthand the importance of its presence in the community and how much it is indeed appreciated. I 

stand proud in the House to acknowledge the very important work of Mama Rene’s and commend its 

work to the House.


Ambulance Services 

Mrs SMITH (Mount Ommaney—LNP) (3.36 pm): The Newman government delivers. The 

Newman government delivers on its promises, and part of our six-month plan was 130 ambulances 

being delivered. The electorate of Mount Ommaney was a recipient of one of those ambulances and 

as part of that I went along for a ride and did a 12-hour shift with staff from the Centenary Ambulance 

Station based at Darra. How outstanding are our paramedics! Jason Sundorp and Chloe Bree were 

the two paramedics that I went on the road with during a 12-hour shift, and it was such an eyeopening 

experience. The variety of cases that were presented to us and the area that we needed to 

cover was truly fascinating. I saw dedicated workers who not only were very experienced but also 

showed compassion and professionalism. They are truly amazing people. We attended five of the 

hospitals in that 12-hour shift and there was one thing that I noticed which, again, shows that the 

Newman government is delivering. The paramedics themselves were saying how the system has 

been streamlined. Chloe gave me the example that in a normal 12-hour shift sometimes she could be 

waiting at the ambulance bay to admit a patient through emergency for up to six hours. That is no 

longer occurring, and we witnessed this time and time again. The paramedics themselves are thrilled 

with that. They are seeing the real difference and the real benefits from a Newman government which 

does not just talk but delivers. 

What was also noticeable was the emergency departments. The Minister for Health has 

referred to the redesign of the work flow, which has made such a difference. So it is not always about 

spending the money and not getting the results; as a government we have done some simple things. 

We have looked at it and delivered on our promises. 

I say to Jason Sundorp and Chloe Bree: you are outstanding and amazing people. I have 

always had the utmost respect for our paramedics, as I do for our police and fire services, but that 12- 

hour shift was a real eye-opener. I encourage every single member to get out there and see the great 

work our paramedics do. 

Palos Family 

Mr GRANT (Springwood—LNP) (3.40 pm): I rise to honour the wonderful Palos family, who live 

in the Springwood electorate and who have lived through decades of severe testing owing to ill 

health, and to inform the House that they are very grateful to the government for providing supported 

accommodation for their 18-year-old daughter, Elizabeth. I would like to share their family story as 

told by George Palos— 

Our daughter Elizabeth was born in 1994 at Brisbane Mater Mothers hospital. In her early years, she was a bright, bubbly and 

very active little girl. In her second year at school, we began to notice that there was something not quite right with her. Her 

school teachers found Elizabeth aloof and not concentrating well and that she needed constant one-on-one supervision. 

Finally, at the request of the school it was recommended that Elizabeth be enrolled at a special school. 

In 2005, when Elizabeth was aged ten, her mother died of pancreatic cancer, at forty eight years of age, leaving behind a 

husband and four children. 

At the age of twelve, an MRI of Elizabeth’s brain diagnosed that she had a very rare progressive genetic condition known as 

Vanishing White Matter Disease, which meant that as she grew older, the white matter encapsulating her brain would 

deteriorate and would cause her brain to shut down her systems gradually, leading to an early death. Life expectancy is 

currently known to be till the third decade of her life. 

I remarried in March 2007 to a lovely and wonderful wife Faun. She had no previous experience in raising a family member with 

a disability. At first life looking after Elizabeth seemed to be manageable. Elizabeth was quite mobile and active. However she 

developed epilepsy and needed to be on medication, and her health continued to decline. She needed assistance with toileting, 

and was not able to dress herself. She needed assistance with brushing her teeth and hair, and with feeding. She later became 

immobile, and needed to be in a wheelchair. Her speech and language became impaired as did her hearing. Her cognition also 

became impaired and slowly, she became withdrawn. Her personality as we knew it, just was not there anymore. We lost our 

little girl gradually. 

Over recent years, life had become increasingly difficult in supporting Elizabeth at home. We both became very weary and 

experienced burnout. We became isolated in our home as it was easier to stay at home than go out. We realised that we could 

no longer look after her. We became physically and emotionally drained. 

We eventually sought assistance through Disability Services in making an application for Supported Accommodation. Finally 

we were approached by Disability Services when a placement became available for Elizabeth at their Supported 

Accommodation unit in Loganlea. 

The staff at the unit are very approachable and behave in a professional manner. They have Elizabeth’s best interests at heart 

and she is well supported with her needs. We thank the staff for making this transition experience a most enjoyable one. 

George and Faun Palos.


Tablelands Regional Council, Draft Planning Scheme 

Mr KNUTH (Dalrymple—KAP) (3.43 pm): I wish to raise the issue of the anxiety created in the 

Tablelands community by the overlays contained in the recently released Tablelands Regional 

Council draft planning scheme. I acknowledge the efforts of the government to address 

inconsistencies and the unnecessary regulatory burden left by the former government. However, a 

meeting yesterday in my electorate hosted by AgForce and attended by the member for Barron River 

demonstrated that the fundamental issue of property rights is the issue that is being avoided by 

industry representative groups and the government. 

The erosion of property rights and the autonomy of local governments has occurred over 

decades and comes from many influencing factors. But the most influential is the invasive and 

destructive agenda of extreme environmentalists to stop development and shut down the agricultural 

industry in the area. The amendments to the planning laws last year failed to address the imposition 

on the rights of landowners caused by the 2031 regional plan. Unless this plan is revoked in its 

entirety, local governments will be restricted in how they plan for the future of their communities and 

landowners are restricted in how they plan for their families. Land that has been earmarked by 

owners as part of their superannuation plan or to provide financial security for their children has been 

effectively stolen by the government through planning regulations. Property owners are forced to pay 

rates on land for which they are merely managers. 

The 2031 regional plan was the greatest attack on property rights in the history of Queensland. 

The criteria was oppressive and the terms of reference were drawn up by the conservation movement 

that is determined to shut down growth by closing our agricultural industry and stopping urban 

development in regional areas. By far the greatest concern raised by the community is the biodiversity 

overlays, which are a continuation of planning regulations based on the assumptions contained in the 

2031 regional plan. 

The environmental ideology contained in the biodiversity regulations not only are an impost on 

land ownership rights but also are inconsistent and result in poor planning mechanisms, which restrict 

growth and threaten food production. Areas that need to be protected are left open for development 

and land that should be developed is locked up because of inaccurate data and a lack of consultation 

with local communities when mapping areas. The need for planning and development regulation is 

obvious. Nobody is saying to throw out all the planning and allow completely unregulated 

development. The landowners are asking for flexible, locally managed planning schemes that are 

developed in close consultation with the community. 

Most landowners are interested in conserving the natural beauty and biodiversity of their land 

without the big environmental stick of the government coercing them into restrictive covenant 

arrangements every time they need to build a shed. If the government is serious about workable 

planning laws guiding regional growth, autonomous local government and doubling food production, 

then it will throw out the draconian 2031 plan and return planning decisions to local councils. 

Morayfield Electorate, SES and Rural Fire Brigade Volunteers 

Mr GRIMWADE (Morayfield—LNP) (3.46 pm): Last week I was honoured to have the Assistant 

Minister for Emergency Volunteers, the honourable Ted Malone, join me in my electorate to thank 

local SES and rural fire brigade volunteers for the outstanding work they do in our community. On the 

day the assistant minister joined me, we visited the office of Inspector Neil Kelso, who is the QFRS 

rural area director. Inspector Kelso was able to show us the very large region that his team covers 

and gives us a presentation of the mapping software they use to monitor conditions around his local 

area. We then visited the team of volunteers at the Rocksberg Moorina rural fire brigade. Meeting 

such an energetic team of volunteers at this site was definitely a highlight of the day. The chairman of 

the brigade, Mr Ben Matthews, was able to take the assistant minister on a tour of the facilities and 

showcase the equipment the fire bridge has and highlight any areas where improvements may need 

to be made. Currently, the assistant minister is undertaking a review and it was fitting that on that day 

he was able to visit that site. It was refreshing to have an assistant minister who has firsthand 

knowledge of being a rural fire brigade officer attend a facility like this. To stand there and listen to 

him talk to the volunteers of this brigade and have an understanding of what they were talking about 

was really refreshing for us all. 

That brigade recently sent six people to Bundaberg to assist in the flood recovery program 

there. On arrival in Bundaberg First Officer Troy Ellis, Nathan Ward and Patrick Grixti were sent by 

Army Blackhawk helicopter to extinguish a fire that was raging out of control on a property that had


been cut off by floodwaters. At that stage three other volunteers—Mitchell Young, Michael Lawler and 

Bradley Mussig—were going house to house with urban search and rescue crews to assess damage 

and later helped the mud army clean up. By all accounts these six fine young volunteers did an 

outstanding job. On behalf of my colleagues in this place who represent the Bundaberg area, I thank 

them for their assistance and for everything they do in their local areas. 

That day Chad Inglis and Troy Inglis also joined the crew at that brigade. They put up their 

hands to join the volunteers based on a campaign we were running locally to attract people to join the 

SES or a rural fire brigade crew to help out in their local areas. I thank them for their assistance. 

On the same day the SES National Emergency Medals were awarded the Moreton Bay 

Regional Council hub. These medals are awarded to people who have rendered sustained service in 

response to a nationally significant emergency in Australia, such as the Victorian bushfires in 2009 

and the Queensland floods in 2011. Carrollyn Hennessy and Hank Van den Ende attended those 

awards and were recipients of a medal. Hank is the local controller for the Moreton Bay Regional 

Council. He looks after seven groups. I thank him for his outstanding work. I put on the record that I 

stand here today in my orange tie in honour of all of those volunteers in those SES and rural fire 

brigade crews. I thank them for everything that they do in their communities. 

Maryborough Hospital, Rehabilitation Unit 

Mrs MADDERN (Maryborough—LNP) (3.49 pm): At the beginning of February, with the Rotary 

Club of Maryborough City and the Quota club of Maryborough I was privileged to be taken on a 

guided tour of the new rehabilitation unit at the Maryborough Hospital. I say ‘new’, but in actual fact it 

is located in what was formerly known as the Lady Musgrave Ward. This building was completely 

gutted and rebuilt internally to provide for four single wards and two wards of four beds each, giving a 

total of 16 beds. Included in this facility are ensuites to the wards, a full home-style kitchen, dining 

room and media room, a bathroom, lounge rooms, a treatment room, consulting rooms and a large 

fully equipped gymnasium. 

In this particular facility, gone are the charts at the end of the bed. Instead, there is a state-ofthe-art 

electronic headboard, the first of its kind in Australia. This headboard not only allows staff, 

patient and carers to know the stage of treatment for the patient, but it is a teaching tool to enable 

patients to understand and learn to use their medication correctly. This is a key factor in the treatment 

process as research shows that the majority of people do not know how to take their medication 

correctly. Specialist staff have been recruited and now residents in Maryborough and Hervey Bay 

requiring rehabilitation will be able to access a top-quality facility locally rather than having to travel 

away to another location. This is so important in terms of a rapid response to providing treatment and 

for family support for the patient. 

Another pleasing aspect of this facility is that by utilising an existing building, using local 

contractors and a local hospital project manager, millions of dollars was saved in comparison to 

building a completely new facility from the ground up: an environmentally and economically sound 

outcome which still provides the very best. Despite the money that has been saved there is one 

important component which is still required and that is a garden. Patients who need rehabilitation 

need to also learn outdoor skills such as stepping down over a concrete kerb, walking along different 

types of paths, learning to hang out clothes, water the garden and collect the mail. There were some 

funds left over from the construction and the local community is currently fundraising to allow the 

construction of this much-needed healing garden. Much thought and planning has been put into the 

design of this garden so that it is not only a nice place to be but also provides all the teaching aids 

needed to give patients the skills they need to again live in their homes. On behalf of the community I 

offer our sincere thanks to all who have been involved in this project which provides a much-needed 

facility locally. 

Pease Park (Innisfail Showgrounds), Dedicated Power Supply 

Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (3.52 pm): An ongoing and important issue for the Innisfail 

community is the need for better and more reliable power supply at the showgrounds. This is not a 

new issue for the Pease Park Management Committee or the Innisfail and District Show Society. 

About 20 years ago a four-hour blackout was experienced on Show Thursday that caused a great 

deal of chaos. Several options have been looked at over the years. While there have been CBD 

power upgrades, because of the infrequent use of an increased power supply by Pease Park, more 

regular users are understandably allocated power. In recent years the show society has relied on 

hiring generators which comes at a significant cost.


Another issue is the need to upgrade show pavilions 1 and 2 so that they can be used for 

public purposes in the case of natural disasters. For example, a one-in-50-year flood level affects 

Warrina Home. Around 190 elderly or frail clients—many of who are high needs—as well as staff, in 

total around 300 people, would benefit from an upgrade. Nearly 80 people used the venue during 

Cyclone Yasi in its current form. Since that time, the Cassowary Coast Regional Council has done 

some costings around what it would take to retrofit cyclone rated roller doors. This will cost around 

$15,000. I know Councillor Mark Nolan is pushing hard on this, not only in his local government role 

but also as chair of the Pease Park Management Committee, to ensure that this is included in this 

year’s Cassowary Coast Regional Council budget. In order to ensure a dedicated power supply 

during such events, a 300kVA to 400kVA generator would be needed to service the building, 

particularly to support the clients from Warrina Home. This would also address issues facing the show 

society. After two major cyclones in five years and regular wet season flooding there is a strong case 

to be put. 

It was on this basis that I wrote to the Minister for Local Government last year seeking his 

support for this proposal. In my letter there was no attack on the government. This is certainly not a 

partisan issue, simply an issue of importance to many people in Innisfail and surrounding areas. 

However, the response from the minister was a half-smart political swipe at both me and the former 

member for Mulgrave, who he suggested had not kept his commitments. It appears that the minister 

has based his understanding of this issue on a newspaper report in which a journalist may have over 

egged the former member’s promise to work on this issue, which certainly did not include a funded 

commitment, just hard work. 

In his response the minister did not address the details in my letter which included matters 

related to local disaster management. Not only is he the Minister for Local Government but he is also 

now the Minister for Community Recovery and Resilience. His political response was critical of the 

problem not being solved when Labor was in power. I guess we were distracted providing $14 million 

in funding for the Jubilee Bridge, more than $40 million for water and sewerage works and $2 million 

to support a new library for Innisfail. I was disappointed that the minister’s response was not befitting 

of the office that he holds. It was all about excuses rather than engaging that can-do ethos that the 

LNP crow about so often. 

Again, this is not a political issue. I ask that the minister give proper consideration to funding for 

power reliability and work with me on behalf of the Innisfail community to ensure the future of the 

area’s biggest annual event and improved local disaster management options. 

Fuel Theft; International Women’s Day 

Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—Ind) (3.55 pm): The incidence of people driving off without paying for 

fuel at the Gold Coast is increasing. In the Coomera police district from the start of January to 21 

February 117 offences were reported. This is resulting in a waste of police resources because police 

can spend up to three hours investigating the thefts. Almost half of these offences were committed at 

the BP station near the Pacific Motorway at Coomera. Many offenders are wearing clothes or items to 

prevent them from being identified on surveillance cameras. As a result, 18 service stations, including 

Freedom Fuel, 7-Eleven stores and a few BP stations, mainly in the Coomera police district and at 

Ashmore and Benowa, are adopting a new procedure where the pumps would be turned off until 

customers remove items of clothing such as hoodies, hats, sunglasses and scarves. These stations 

will be identified by signs fitted near the pumps asking people to remove items which hinder their 

identity. Generally offenders are not first-time offenders and many are in stolen vehicles with stolen 

numberplates. Such is the theft of plates that during a 90 day period 575 numberplates were stolen in 

the Logan, Gold Coast and Coomera police districts. This is a widespread problem. Unfortunately, 

law-abiding citizens may be slightly inconvenienced by being asked to remove items that hinder 

identification. People can put their items back on when the pump has been activated. Those people 

who, for personal, medical or religious reasons, do not wish to remove such items, may be required to 

produce ID or prepay for the fuel. 

I congratulate Martin Webb, the crime prevention coordinator from the Coomera police district, 

for his work on the program. Due to the illicit trade in numberplates and their use in fuel thefts, they 

are of little use for prosecution. Car registration stickers can now be identified through the use of new 

high-resolution cameras. In fact, the cameras are relatively cheap. The price has come down to $500. 

For those members who are facing this problem in their own communities I ask that they share the


information widely. It is absolutely critical that we maintain the use of car registration stickers and 

even make their use and display more enforceable, in particular on the lower left-hand side of the 

windscreen or on the rear of the vehicles. I would also like to thank Sergeant Peter Gordon of the 

Nerang police and local service station owner Tony Wharton for their assistance in this matter. 

Tomorrow is International Women’s Day. Here in Queensland the theme will be Queensland 

Women Building Connections. It has been mentioned a couple of times today. I am hosting a lunch 

for women in my electorate office at which three women, all connected to the Gaven electorate, will 

form a panel and speak about the ways women build connections through family and social networks 

and community services that enhance their personal wellbeing and build stronger more inclusive 

communities. I wish them all a great day. 

Gillard Government 

Mr DAVIES (Capalaba—LNP) (3.58 pm): As someone who has worked in the finance sector as 

well as owning my own financial services business, the need to be constantly vigilant of financial 

scams and cons cannot be underestimated. Be it the Triad card-skimming operation, the Russian 

mafia ID theft and password fishing or the old Nigerian 419 money transferring scam, those with 

nefarious intent will always come up with new and devilishly ingenuous way to separate good people 

from their hard earned money. 

I would like to take the time to inform and warn the House, my electorate of Capalaba as well 

as the wider Queensland population of a new and insidious scam that has recently come to light. This 

time it is not the Triads, the Russian mafia or even the Nigerians trying to scam good Aussies out of 

their cash; this group is a home-grown outfit, as sneaky and as cunning as any Nigerian scammer. I 

speak today of a group known as the ‘Gillardians’. The ‘Gillardians’ hail from our nation’s capital and 

are today planning the mother of all financial scams on the Australian people. 

I refer to the federal government’s plan to take money from dormant bank accounts. That is 

right: accounts that have not had any transactions for over three years will be taken by the Gillard 

government in a shameful grab for cash and a significant attack on property rights by an increasingly 

desperate and immoral government. This grubby cash grab seeks to fleece hardworking Australians 

of over $109 million this financial year alone. The Treasury Legislation Amendment (Unclaimed 

Money and Other Measures) Act 2012 amends the Banking Act 1959 to lower the threshold for 

unclaimed moneys, which are transferred from banks that hold the accounts to the Australian 

Securities and Investments Commission. 

Who voted to get this nasty piece of legislation through? Obviously, it was voted for by the 

federal Labor members, joined by all the Independents except Andrew Wilkie, who sided with the 

coalition. Bob Katter did not vote. He was not there to stand up for his constituents—surprise, 

surprise! And the same Greens who recently made a huge song and dance about their messy divorce 

with Gillard’s Labor voted with great gusto for this nasty piece of legislation. While they may be 

divorced, it is obvious that they are still friends with benefits. 

People should be able to leave their money in their own bank for as long as they wish without 

fear that the government might come and steal it. Labor is a financial illiterate and an economic 

vandal and the budget chickens will now come home to roost. This is a disgraceful cash grab by 

Gillard and Co. We desperately need a change of government in Canberra. 

Seniors Online Security Forum 

Mr DILLAWAY (Bulimba—LNP) (4.01 pm): I thank the member for Capalaba for the excellent 

segue. I rise in the House today to talk about the success of my recent free seniors forum and 

morning tea, which I held at the Cannon Hill Community Sports Club in the heart of my electorate of 

Bulimba, with representatives from the Public Trustee and online security task force in attendance. 

The safety and wellbeing of the citizens of Bulimba is of the utmost importance to me. What is often 

overlooked is the fact that many threats to society do not come in physical forms. Online safety and 

protection is increasingly relevant and becoming more of a concern as technology rapidly advances.


The event was a great success with important information being presented that focused on the 

prevention of scamming and potential online threats and hazards. It seems that our younger 

generations that have grown up with technology are accustomed to its changing formats and adept at 

adjusting to advances in technology. However, for many seniors it is overwhelming trying to 

comprehend how to utilise technology, let alone being aware of the potential threats it presents. 

Online security is becoming more and more relevant in this day and age as more and more 

services are transferred to online systems, be they government or private enterprise initiatives. Dr 

Cassandra Cross, a committee member of the Carindale PCYC, has been working with the QPS on 

the seniors and online fraud research project since 2009. The project aims to fill the gaps in 

information and training available to combat internet risks. 

The Carindale PCYC has been able to fill an important void of education on a topic of concern 

for many seniors through the seniors online security project. This has been a collaborative project 

with the assistance of the QPS, Brisbane Seniors Online and many other seniors and seniors groups 

across the state. The initial phase of the seniors online security project won a bronze award for crime 

prevention at the 2011 QPS Awards for Excellence, as well as the Queensland Police Citizens Youth 

and Welfare Association 2011 for crime prevention. 

Dr Cross presented aspects of this project to the seniors of Bulimba, educating them on ways 

to safely negotiate the online environment. The forum provided simple strategies that all seniors can 

use to allow them to use their computers in a safe and confident manner. The benefits of technology 

are immense and seniors should be provided with the skills and knowledge to protect themselves 

against the inevitable dangers that are present, so that they are not afraid to use their computers. 

Feedback suggested that two key messages came through loud and clear. First, do not be 

afraid to ask friends and families about unusual requests from online sources. Secondly, trust your 

initial gut feeling. I would like to thank Dr Cross and the Carindale PCYC, the Public Trustee and the 

many people who assisted in facilitating this forum. The PCYC does a great deal in supporting our 

community. I must advise the House that this Saturday night my esteemed colleague from 

Chatsworth will be donning the DC cap and headphones and dusting off the old vinyls to be guest DJ 

at the Blue Light Disco. My forum was of great benefit to many seniors and we are now equipped to 

combat security risks online. I recommend that all other members take the opportunity to educate 

their seniors, and themselves for that matter, in 2013. 

Gympie, Floods Events 

Mr GIBSON (Gympie—LNP) (4.04 pm): The headline read, ‘A kick in the guts’. It would be 

easy to think that this was referring to the recent flood event in Gympie, but no. The kick in the guts 

came from Australia’s Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, when, despite the floodwaters being at their peak, 

she failed to recognise Gympie or provide any financial assistance to the community. That was 

despite the fact that Gympie is the home of the first Australian Labor Prime Minister, Andrew Fisher. 

He was a man with integrity and a man who upheld real Labor values, not those that we see from the 

hollow Labor Party members of today. 

It was a kick in the guts as western Sydney was being sandbagged to prevent the flood of 

votes storming out of there as the Australian people say ‘No more!’ to a federal Labor government, 

because they are sick and tired of the way it treats the Australian population. At the time the Prime 

Minister was making her announcement, my community needed assistance and was cut off by 

floodwaters. The Prime Minister was asked, ‘What about Gympie?’, but apparently she was living in a 

news vacuum. She was happy to receive any request from Gympie. I say to the Prime Minister and to 

her colleagues from the Labor Party who sit in this chamber, shame! The people of Gympie deserve 

assistance. The people of Gympie require assistance. This is the fifth flood in two years, the fourth in 

12 months and the second within four weeks. 

Businesses in the Gympie community are resilient when dealing with floods, but scratch the 

surface and we can see that they are struggling. One business owner told me that it cost $30,000 to 

move out and move back in after each flood event. Their credit cards are maxed out. They have no 

savings and they do not know what will happen should this potential cyclone form into a low and

7 Mar 2013 Ministerial Statement 521 

cause another flood event. The economic aftershock that occurs within my community ripples far 

beyond those directly affected. I have spoken to business owners who did not have any sales in the 

four weeks since the January flood event and then they found themselves hit again. In Mary Street, 

Gympie, the owners of the Dick Smith store spent $400,000 on refurbishing after the January flood 

event. They opened on Monday morning, closed Monday night and by Tuesday they had to pull out 

the stock because the waters had come in once again. 

Yet what do we see from a Labor Prime Minister? A kick in the guts and nothing offered! If 

Labor Party members in this parliament have any backbone, they should be calling Julia Gillard and 

demanding action and demanding support, otherwise they are as hollow as the federal Labor Party. 

LAND PROTECTION LEGISLATION (FLYING FOX CONTROL) AMENDMENT 

BILL 

Report, Government Response 

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

(4.07 pm): I seek leave to table the government’s response to recommendations directed to the 

government in the parliamentary committee report on the Land Protection Legislation (Flying fox 

Control) Amendment Bill, which was introduced by the member for Dalrymple. 

Leave granted. 

Tabled paper: Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee: Report No. 14—Land Protection Legislation (Flying fox 

Control) Amendment Bill 2012, government response [2208]. 

PRIVILEGE 

Alleged Deliberate Misleading of the House by the Premier 

Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Leader of the Opposition) (4.08 pm): I rise on a matter of 

privilege suddenly arising, having had a chance to consult the record. Today the Premier suggested I 

was hiding my diary as opposition leader and my diary as a former minister. The Premier said, ‘She 

simply will not tell the people of Queensland who she is meeting with.’ 

The Premier knows full well I have replied to a letter he sent to me in February on this matter. I 

replied telling him I was seeking advice from the Integrity Commissioner and the Privacy 

Commissioner. In addition, the Premier’s own office has sought access to my ministerial diary and his 

own RTI officer would know that. 

In light of these facts I intend to write to Madam Speaker about what I consider to be the 

Premier’s attempt to deliberately mislead the House on this matter. I have no problem releasing 

information about my official meetings as opposition leader and have said that publicly. However, I 

will not be intimidated into divulging details of meetings with people who have been sacked by this 

government or who have allegations of any government wrongdoing. 

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT 

Error in Ministerial Statement 

Hon. GW ELMES (Noosa—LNP) (Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and 

Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Premier) (4.08 pm), by leave: Yesterday I spoke about 

the Australian South Sea islander community and the significance of this year, the 150th anniversary 

of the arrival of the first South Sea islanders in Australia. I wish to correct the record relating to a 

number I indicated in my statement. The figure of 62,000 relates to the number of South Sea 

islanders brought to Queensland between 1863 and 1904 as indentured labourers to work in our 

primary industries. I unintentionally misled the House. I do apologise and wish to correct the record.


QUEENSLAND MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION BILL 


Resumed from p. 501, on motion of Mr Springborg— 


Hon. LJ SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Minister for Health) (4.09 pm), continuing in 

reply: Before lunch I was responding specifically to some of the questions which had been raised by 

honourable members during the course of the debate on the Queensland Mental Health Commission 

Bill which we are debating in parliament today. I was responding to some of the issues raised by the 

honourable member for Gaven. There are a couple of other issues that I would like to respond to. 

The honourable member for Gaven basically indicated that he believed it was not broken and 

therefore it did not need to be fixed. I can assure members that there are certain aspects of the 

operation of the Mental Health Act with regard to the appropriate supervision of forensic patients 

which need some degree of additional supervision. As I outlined yesterday, after the events last year 

which led to some discussion publicly there was actually a review of the conditions around some of 

the patients at a particular facility. It was found that some of the monitoring orders around some of 

those people were not being appropriately applied or that needed a proper review. 

I say to the honourable member that it is as a consequence of these reviews and that incident 

that we were able to find some of the shortcomings. That is what we are trying to address here. We 

are trying to establish a process where we are able to ask the Director of Mental Health to review the 

circumstances around a particular class of patient or around a particular facility to make sure that 

there is no risk to patients and no risk to the public and that if there does need to be some rectification 

then that process will be properly undertaken. I cannot force the Director of Mental Health to do 

something. Under this legislation I can simply request that the Director of Mental Health look at a 

particular matter. The Director of Mental Health will actually take their own advice insofar as what they 

seek to do beyond that. 

The honourable member indicated that the Director of Mental Health represents the 

government. The Director of Mental Health does not represent the government. The Director of 

Mental Health is an independent statutory officer who stands aside from the government and is not 

even accountable to the director-general. He or she will be an independent statutory officer. People 

need to understand that. 

We need to make sure that we have a process whereby if there is a public interest issue we 

can ask for it to be reviewed—a process similar to that which the Attorney-General has where he can 

request a review of a determination of the District Court or Supreme Court or one of the other quasijudicial 

bodies. We think it is appropriate that there is that opportunity. 

I will look at some of the comments made by other members of parliament. The member for 

Logan spoke very passionately about his own experiences as a serviceman and the fact that friends 

of his were not able to take the pressures that obviously came from being in a theatre of conflict and 

not being supported. I can say to the honourable member opposite that this is something that I am 

very much concerned about given my own son is actually in the Australian Infantry in a front-line 

position and this year— 

Mr Cripps: And proud, too. 

Mr SPRINGBORG: Very proud; exceptionally proud of what he has achieved. I know that later 

this year he could potentially be called to serve if there is a conflict somewhere around the world or 

could be involved in some other activity within our nation. I understand the member’s views. I am sure 

that other members in this House understood them as well. 

I think we can all appreciate the contribution of the honourable member for Ferny Grove. He 

now very much understands what the new monitoring provisions are about. He objectively had some 

concerns in relation to what was being put forward. When he was able to fully understand the entire 

context of the legislation and how everything interfaces within it he was very comfortable with the 

monitoring provisions contained in the amendments to the Mental Health Act. I very much commend 

him for that. 

I respect the role of parliamentary committees. Indeed, I was the deputy chairman of the 

Committee System Review Committee which actually recommended that we have a new way of 

reviewing legislation in Queensland to make sure that if there are real issues those issues can be


considered and there is a chance to make some subsequent amendments. There are some minor 

amendments to this legislation which were recommended to us by the committee. Hopefully they will 

pass through this place later today. 

The member for Townsville spoke about the coordination of the Queensland Mental Health 

Commission. It is very important that we make sure that it is coordinated, and it will be. He also talked 

about the monitoring requirements. 

The member for Redcliffe mentioned the complexity of mental health issues. There are many 

complex mental health issues. One of the great challenges we have as we establish the Mental 

Health Commission is to make sure that the resources are appropriately targeted to get the best 

benefit for the people we are seeking to assist. 

The member for Woodridge spoke again about her own experiences with people with mental 

illness and the impact on families. I can assure the honourable member that that is something that not 

only she appreciates but I appreciate from personal experience. I think every member in this place 

appreciates that. 

The honourable member mentioned the impact on carers and the issue of dual diagnosis. They 

are very important matters, honourable member. Other members have touched on the issue of drug 

induced psychosis. It behoves us to in no way whatsoever take our foot off dealing with the serious 

scourge of drugs in our society. Anyone who actually says that drugs are recreational and have no 

impact on people should look at the issue of dual diagnosis and the impact that that is having on our 

mental health system. It is profound. It can actually lead to what is a latent mental health issue 

coming to the fore. Someone who may not have actually had a mental health issue may, because of 

drug dependency, end up with a serious mental health issue. It is one of the real challenges that we 

have. I acknowledge that the honourable member raised that. 

The member for Capalaba reflected on the record of the previous government. He also has a 

deep, abiding and passionate understanding of mental illness and how alcohol and drugs can be a 

major precursor to that. 

The member for Kallangur understood quite clearly the purpose of the legislation and explained 

it in detail. I thank him very much for his stewardship of the committee and for the enormous amount 

of research he was able to do. He brought that insight and understanding into this parliament. 

I would now like to respond specifically to the issues raised by the honourable shadow minister 

in her dissertation on the bill before the parliament. She raised the issue of consultation and what 

consultation there had been. The consultation framework around the development of the Mental 

Health Commission has been undertaken in Queensland over the last couple of years, at the very 

least. There is no doubt that what we have brought before this parliament today is different in part 

from what was being proposed initially by the previous government in Queensland. 

The honourable member actually indicated that she was most concerned that our version of the 

Mental Health Commission did not have the commission being responsible for a budget and being 

able to direct that budget. Indeed, in the consultation documents that I have seen and from 

discussions with proponents out there in the mental health sector I believe there is overwhelming 

concern and opposition to the notion that we should have a Mental Health Commission which is given 

the resources and is the one that decides where those resources are spent. The greater degree of 

comfort amongst the community was that there should be a Mental Health Commission which stands 

aside, directs policy, aims for coordination and aims for best practice with regard to the delivery of 

mental health services in Queensland and oversees how they are distributed and the effect they 

actually have whilst not being involved in the direct distribution of the money. It can actually make 

recommendations to government and no doubt we will take those on board. 

If we look at Western Australia where they have had a model where the commission is actually 

responsible for not only the policy but also the financial management, I understand now on the advice 

available to me that they are stepping away from that and going more towards this particular model. 

Also, in New South Wales the model is very much about a policy coordination body, and that is what 

this is about.


The member also fretted terribly about the fact that we are only going to make available a 

limited number of staff to support the commission. Once again—and the honourable member for 

Murrumba summed this up—we are about outcomes; we are not about inputs. The Labor Party have 

always managed the way they do things by the amount of money they throw at a problem. They 

would love to build another bureaucracy out of the Mental Health Commission. Indeed, the previous 

Premier of Queensland when asked in this place about why she was looking at splitting the health 

department in two said that it had just got too big—the bureaucracy was too big and we needed to 

have another health department in Queensland. So they were going to split it into two because one 

was not big enough, rather than doing what we have done and that is looking at cutting the 

department in half, full stop, reducing its size. That is what we should be about. 

Indeed, she asked a question about the resources of the commission and who we will have 

there in addition to the full-time commissioner who will be appointed as equivalent to a senior 

executive officer. The initial structure will be one SO1, one SO2, two AO8s and two AO7s. So they 

will be pretty senior officers, and of course there is an opportunity for us to look at the resources as 

necessary. But this is a policy body. This is a body that is about not only looking at how we actually 

establish a mental health framework that meets the needs of people who have a requirement for 

mental health services in this state but also the coordination of those services, and it is able to 

leverage off and actually guide and direct the policy in this state. That is the importance of this body. 

Indeed, if we look at the most successful models around the world when it comes to mental health 

commissions, it is the lean and focused organisations that really do make the most difference. 

The honourable member also mentioned the issue of gag orders, which was quite strange in 

the context of this debate. It is very true that, as the custodian of the disbursement of $1 billion of 

public funds to groups and organisations outside of Queensland Health, I am going to make sure that 

we get the best value for our money, and I think everyone should understand that. When we asked 

after we came to government in Queensland for a list of the organisations which were being funded in 

this state, I was told after three months of frustration, ‘Minister, we are having difficulty because no 

minister has asked for this for 10 years.’ These were not service agreements, as the honourable 

member said. These were gratuities thrown at a whole bunch of people that the Labor Party was 

favouring in one way or another. Many of them were noble organisations with noble intent, but there 

was no quid pro quo of what do we actually get for the money that we spend. 

Some of those organisations were funded for political advocacy. That was actually in their 

criteria. We are not funding organisations for political advocacy. If they get the majority of funding 

from me, they will actually be focused on delivering a service to the people of Queensland. We have 

enough advocacy organisations. If they want to advocate on behalf of individuals, they can do that. 

There is no-one stopping them from advocating on behalf of individuals. All we are saying is that, 

when it comes to the issues of legislative change, it is members of parliament who decide this. We 

already have one taxpayer funded opposition. How many more do you want to fund in the state of 

Queensland? 

Mr Cripps: Well-resourced too. 

Mr SPRINGBORG: Yes, they are well-resourced too. That is the core responsibility. In Health I 

pay organisations to deliver health services to the community, and in the future they we will have 

very, very strict KPIs around them. 

There will be enormous transparency with regard to the Mental Health Commission. It will 

report to me and obviously report to the parliament. It is going to be a very transparent organisation 

and will be able to be judged by what it achieves. 

The other issue that was raised by the honourable member was that of alcohol and drugs. We 

have had a fragmentation over a number of years where alcohol and drugs have basically sat outside 

of the mental health sphere. We are about bringing them into the sphere so that we can provide a 

coordinated approach because they are so intricately linked, as a number of members, including 

members opposite, have mentioned during the debate over the last 24 hours. It is very important that 

we bring them back into the mental health framework so that there is no longer a fragmented 

approach, and that is what it is about. 

Community based treatment from my perspective is very, very important. Indeed, the 

arrangements which I am signing with the Commonwealth government are very much around a 

community based focus. If it is around funding for more acute clinical facilities, I am saying that I am 

not really interested in that at this stage. I am interested in the funding which is focused on community


treatment options because I believe they are the ones that really are efficient and that make a 

difference, and we have some wonderful examples of that throughout Queensland. That is not to say 

that we do not need the more acute options. I think everyone understands that. But I agree that 

community based treatment is extremely important and, unashamedly, that is where I would like to 

see us go. I would hope that as a part of the core remit of the Mental Health Commission it seriously 

looks at that, and I am sure it will. 

Again, the honourable member fretted about the issue of the release of information to do with a 

patient and The Park. I say to the honourable member that there has been no breach of any 

provisions of any laws. The honourable member should ask her own members of parliament if any of 

them are actually subject to information from these very same people at The Park who were 

concerned about the way that this particular patient was being treated and the cost of treating this 

patient—information that was shared by those people to one of her own members. So maybe she 

might seek to look around in that particular field. 

This is good legislation. It will reform the way that we deal with people with mental illness in 

Queensland. Not only that, with the amendments to the Mental Health Act, it ensures a proper 

balance with the safety and security of the community. 


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


Bill read a second time. 

Consideration in Detail 

Clauses 1 to 7, as read, agreed to. 

Clauses 8 to 13— 

Mr PITT (4.27 pm): I am currently standing in for the shadow minister for health who is caught 

up in a committee meeting, so I am a ring-in at this point in time. Clauses 8 to 13 are about 

establishing the Mental Health Commission without the power originally recommended in the first 

report of the Queensland Mental Health Commission Advisory Committee and agreed to by the 

previous government. The original intention, as many members would have heard, was about the 

commission having the powers of a department of the Crown to hold the allocation for all moneys for 

the provision of mental health services. 

While the establishment of the Mental Health Commission is a positive move for mental health 

reform in this state, it has been the view that this really will be a hollow shell without any real powers 

or budgets to drive reform. I think this has been covered quite extensively throughout the debate. But 

when the original consultation was being undertaken, one of the questions asked of various 

stakeholders was: ‘We all know we want the Mental Health Commission to have teeth. What kind of 

teeth would you like it to have?’ It came down to having sharp, pointy teeth or thicker, gnashing sort of 

teeth—the difference being that the sharp, pointy teeth were probably all about the idea of being able 

to be a very, very independent body that was able to lob hand grenades and be a fierce advocate and 

often disagree with the government versus a group that might be able to do that over a long, slower 

burning period but have the ability to control the purse strings. That was a pretty important point. 

I respect that the minister says that through his consultations and the groups he has spoken to 

he has not had the feedback that that model is supported. Can I say, Minister, that a large number of 

people whom we have spoken to through that process, including the advisory committee, suggested 

that that was absolutely the case—that people did want it to have the power to be able to control 

purchasing not only to be able to put those services out to the private sector, if required, to private 

providers but also to be able to cover the public sector areas of mental health and for them to be 

competitive. 

I think this is a missed opportunity. It is disappointing to see that this is not going to be the 

case. It is certainly something that the Labor opposition will be looking at in greater detail down the 

track. It is not something that we support, but I do not intend calling a division on this clause. We 

support the Mental Health Commission as an entity. We certainly support it because it was a Labor 

initiative, which I do not think many LNP backbenchers have acknowledged. They think this has come 

out of thin air.


I remember debating the former shadow minister, the member for Caloundra, prior to the 

election. It was a spirited debate. We basically agreed on 90 per cent of things but not on the 

structure. I think that has been missed today. There seems to be a lot of finger-pointing or claiming of 

credit by the LNP in relation to this particular body. 


Mr SPRINGBORG: Over the last 24 hours or so that we have been debating this legislation I 

think everyone has displayed a clear understanding of the core remit and structure of the commission. 

It is a policy body. It is about making sure we can develop the best possible policy practices in the 

area of mental health in Queensland. Its obligation is to consult widely and to ensure integration of the 

various aspects of mental health care across government departments. Also, it will have a very 

important role in interfacing very strongly with the National Mental Health Commission. Indeed, only a 

few months ago I had a discussion with Professor Allan Fels, the inaugural chair of the National 

Mental Health Commission, about what we were proposing in Queensland and how this is one of the 

most important issues that we as a society have to address. We have already set that framework for 

consultation. We have already set that framework for engagement. We have already set that 

framework to ensure we will have a commission which is very focused on its core remit. 

Fragmentation is something which has been of major concern across Queensland. That 

fragmentation across the various government agencies, whether it be in the area of health, housing or 

disabilities, is something that we all agree needs to be addressed. I have never said as a part of my 

contribution that there has been principled objection across the chamber about the need for a Mental 

Health Commission or, indeed, generally what its purpose should be in seeking to make the lives of 

people with mental illness in this state better. Where we seem to have some difference of opinion is 

around that particular structure. 

The honourable member for Mulgrave indicated a moment ago that he believes that a structure 

of a Mental Health Commission responsible for not only policy but also the distribution of funds and 

oversight is the best way to go. We do not feel that is the case. Indeed, from the majority of 

consultations I have had, both here in Queensland and elsewhere, it is evident that the mental health 

sector does not actually believe that that is the way to go. There may be some, but the majority of 

those who have come forward are saying that they believe this is a better way to go. 

Mr Pitt: How times change. 

Mr SPRINGBORG: Times change. As I indicated earlier to the honourable member, unless I 

have misunderstood the advice to me, Western Australia is now looking at stepping away from the 

model they used of a Mental Health Commission which oversees funding and policy. The reason is 

that sometimes you can become so embedded in an issue and can become conflicted by the fact that 

you are setting the policy and also distributing the funds. Therefore, you can be less objective in the 

assessment of the effect. If you are making mistakes, you will not necessarily want to admit that the 

funding decisions you made were not the right ones. 

I think it is important to have a lean, focused, well tasked Mental Health Commission in 

Queensland that absolutely understands its core remit, that is completely transparent and that will set 

policy. One of the things it has to do is look at what our policy needs to be, what our framework needs 

to be for a new approach to mental health in Queensland. I actually concede that the framework we 

have had to date—the plan which takes us through to 2017—has been reasonably well put together. I 

think it has guided us reasonably well. But things obviously need to be changed along the way, and I 

believe that this commission will be able to assist us. Either way, this is a good opportunity for us to 

look at the plan we have had to date—its application, what is good about it, how we need to take it 

forward. 

As I have already indicated, there is an enormous amount of support in this parliament in 

relation to community treatment options. I think community treatment options generally provide some 

of the most cost-effective and better outcomes. We saw a wonderful example on the southside of 

Brisbane the other day. I was in Christchurch last year looking at one of the NGOs delivering this 

service. You can see the outcomes. We all understand that they are good outcomes. 

Mr Pitt: Stepping Stone. 

Mr SPRINGBORG: Yes. Very, very good. There are various options out there, but that will 

never take away from the fact that we need to have investment in acute care. That is fair enough as 

well.


The other concern raised during the process of consultation was the lack of effective interface 

in the original consultations with the private and not-for-profit sectors. I note that the honourable 

member earlier conceded that even under a Mental Health Commission model proposed by the 

previous government—where not only the policy but also the funding was set—there would be 

opportunity for distribution in that particular area. So it did need to be looked at because there are 

things that we do that constantly change. No doubt, at some time in the future this legislation will need 

to be tweaked or modified. Legislation never remains unchanged. 

From our perspective, we believe, based on our consultations and our objective analysis of 

what is working in Queensland, interstate and overseas, that a model of a Mental Health Commission 

established as a policymaking, coordination body that can really focus on that and be supported by 

the resources of government is the best way to go. That will leave distribution of funds and the 

objective assessment of that distribution of funds to a body which is independent and which does not 

face the conflict that they hold the cash and have to spend the cash. That means they are not torn 

between differing obligations. We believe that this is the best way to do it. That is what we have put 

before this parliament. We believe, based on our consultations, that those in the sector also support 

this as being the best model of delivery. 




Mr SPRINGBORG (4.37 pm): I seek leave to move amendments en bloc. 

Leave granted. 

Mr SPRINGBORG: I move the following amendments— 

1 Clause 63 (Amendment of s 191 (Decisions on review)) 

Page 33, line 3, ‘Section’— 

omit, insert— 

(1) Section 

2 Clause 63 (Amendment of s 191 (Decisions on review)) 

Page 33, after line 7— 

insert— 

(2) Section 191(3), ‘subsection (2)’— 

omit, insert— 

subsection (2)(a) to (c) 

I table the explanatory notes to the amendments. 

Tabled paper: Queensland Mental Health Commission Bill 2012, explanatory notes to Hon. Lawrence Springborg’s 

amendments [2209]. 

These amendments are about clarifying particular matters which were identified by the 

committee to ensure consistency in the application of the legislation. I think the amendments are 

pretty well self-explanatory. They have the support of the committee. 

Mr PITT: Clauses 61 to 64 as they originally stand are about empowering the Director of 

Mental Health to require monitoring of patients on limited community treatment. This may include 

requiring patients to wear electronic ankle bracelets. We expressed some concerns about these 

issues in the debate. Evidence presented to the Health and Community Services Committee stated 

that the electronic tagging of patients can be detrimental to patient recovery as it can undermine the 

therapeutic relationship with the treatment team, which is central to recovery. 

It is without evidence of effectiveness in the recovery of mental health patients, it is not costeffective 

and it may contravene the United Nations principles for the protection of people with mental 

illness and the National Standards for Mental Health Services 2010. The real question to be asked is: 

does the minister believe that he or the Director of Mental Health is in a better position than the 

treating psychiatrist of a forensic patient to assess the risk associated with limited community


treatment? This is a concern because essentially people want to see a clinician, not a politician, 

making the decision. We do have concerns about this and they have been expressed during the 

debate. We will not be supporting these clauses. 

I will also say that it is a bit concerning that these amendments which amend the minister’s 

amendments seem to have been brought in at the last minute. I would have thought that the 

government would have had plenty of time to do this before now. There is a concern that the minister 

may not be focusing as much on the area of mental health as he could be because it is one 

department all wrapped up in Queensland Health, and that is a concern. If that is the case, maybe if 

there were less focus on privatisation of public services this bill may have taken a higher priority. 

I wish to pick up on something that was mentioned during the minister’s contribution today. He 

criticised a member for suggesting in their contribution that someone should be treated in a certain 

way. I think he used the term ‘curing somebody’. You are never cured when you have mental health 

issues. All of us are on that spectrum of mental health, whether it is ill health, being functional or 

whatever the case may be. People in the community certainly need to recover; they are never cured. I 

think that is a very important point to make. If we are going to be talking about language I think we 

should be talking about people’s mental health and their recovery rather than ‘being cured’. 

Division: Question put—That the amendments be agreed to. 

AYES, 68—Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Cripps, Crisafulli, Davies, C Davis, T 

Davis, Dempsey, Dillaway, Dowling, Driscoll, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, 

Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Hopper, Johnson, Kaye, Kempton, King, Knuth, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, 

Malone, Mander, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Robinson, Ruthenberg, 

Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Symes, Trout, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: 

Menkens, Sorensen 

NOES, 9—Douglas, Judge, Miller, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Mulherin, Scott 

Resolved in the affirmative. 

Mr SPRINGBORG (4.51 pm): I wish to make a couple of comments with regard to the division. 

I think it is quite extraordinary that we see those opposite voting against amendments which were 

recommended to correct a drafting error that was picked up by the committee which scrutinised the 

bill. A moment ago the honourable Leader of Opposition Business indicated that we should spend a 

bit more time with regard to the accuracy of drafting. If all that the committee can pick up after three or 

four months of scrutiny is that there are a couple of errors with regard to drafting, I think that is pretty 

well done. I have seen situations in this place involving a range of legislation brought in by the 

previous government where the amendments were much greater and much more substantive than 

the original legislation. 

Mr Bleijie: Lucas had 53 amendments. 

Mr SPRINGBORG: As the honourable Attorney-General says, the previous Deputy Premier 

had 53 amendments to his electoral bill. 

As I indicated earlier in my contribution, whilst we may not necessarily always agree with 

recommendations from a parliamentary committee, it behoves us to properly consider its 

recommendations, particularly when they identify things such as drafting errors, which have been 

minor in this particular case because it was very small indeed. We accepted that and we will be doing 

more of that in the future. That is the beauty of a process where you introduce legislation and you let 

a committee go away and look at it and pick up some things which may not have been identified 

earlier. We understand that the opposition has some concern with regard to the substantive nature of 

the clauses. That is a matter for it, but the amendments simply sought to clarify what was a numerical 

drafting error. 

I want to indicate that I think the honourable member for Mulgrave is right. I used the term 

‘cured’. I think the term ‘recovery’ is a better term, and I suppose we can all use terminology that upon 

reflection could be a little bit better. That is absolutely right because, as the honourable member 

knows, we do not know what we may be subject to from time to time—that is, a latent issue which 

arises relating to dual diagnosis or some other thing that manifests itself later in life or somebody who 

has an ongoing mental health issue and an issue that they may have been born with. I do accept


what the honourable member said. That also brings us to the nub of the challenge that we have—that 

is, ensuring that we get the balance right with community protection whilst also ensuring that we 

understand the needs of the people who are mentally ill in order to assist them with their recovery. 

The honourable member asked the question: who is better able to make a decision? Of course, 

the medical professionals are better placed to make those particular decisions. I am not saying that 

they are not better placed to make those particular decisions. All I am saying, honourable member, is 

that they do not always get it right and therefore we need a mechanism which can provide a greater 

degree of certainty of public safety. All we are doing here is providing an opportunity for the minister 

to be able to ask for a matter to be looked at or for the Director of Mental Health to be able to consider 

the monitoring of a patient who has a mental health condition and has also come into contact with the 

criminal justice system. Indeed, if the Director of Mental Health is concerned after consultation with 

that person’s treating psychiatrist that there needs to be a greater process of monitoring that 

particular patient, then that patient may have applied to them a monitoring device. 

As we said in this place yesterday, and as other members also indicated, we are particularly 

interested in a very small subset of forensic patients who are subject to orders for crimes that have 

been committed which are in what one would say is the most heinous category. There is a very small 

subset of those even where there is concern about whether they can be safely put back into the 

community and where there may not necessarily be a better way of monitoring that particular person. 

As we indicated, there are potentially 18 people and a very small subset of those may be affected by 

this. But we are leaving it to the treating psychiatrist in collaboration with the Director of Mental Health 

or whom they delegate to make those decisions. 

Of course, if there is a concern about the onerousness of those monitoring conditions, that is 

able to be reviewed by the Mental Health Review Tribunal as well. But indeed I think it would be 

wrong to say that those who treat patients always get it right. They probably get it right on the greatest 

majority of occasions, but we do need to have safeguards. Frankly, it is not those who make the 

mistake who are standing up there justifying a mistake that can end tragically. It is often the minister 

or somebody senior in the department who did not make that particular decision. So we need to have 

a guardian of the public interest when it comes to this so that we are providing ourselves with the 

ability to be able to cause something to be reviewed which may actually see a monitoring device fitted 

to somebody. Just the same as the Attorney-General has the right to ask for a matter to be reviewed, 

in the circumstances where we have patients who have been subject to not only the mental health but 

also the criminal justice system we are just seeking the ability to cause a review to happen to cause 

an extra level of safety to be imposed if we believe that there is a concern. Those professionals will 

make that particular decision, as they do in the case of the Attorney-General when a matter is 

reviewed by the court or by another more senior tribunal in Queensland. 

Again, I point to the incidents which have happened in Queensland, as rare as they are. But if 

something goes wrong and it was avoidable, it is not the people who made the original decision who 

have to justify it; it is those who are in public office, and we need to make sure that we get the right 

level of accountability. As I pointed out to the honourable member yesterday, following an incident at 

The Park last year when somebody was absent without authorisation, a review was conducted as a 

consequence of that using the limited provisions that existed and issues were found around the 

conditions that were placed on a very small number of those patients. Having a robust process which 

ensures that things are happening properly can provide balance for the families of the mentally ill, the 

mentally ill themselves and also the community at large, because some families out there are most 

concerned to know that their loved one who has a mental illness can be properly supervised and 

monitored, because they have the same concerns as anyone else. 

Clauses 61 to 64, as amended, agreed to. 



Mr PITT (4.59 pm): I will be brief again on this. Clause 70 seeks to give more weight to the 

rights of other persons than to those of the involuntary patient. Broadly, we think the government is 

undermining the intent of the Mental Health Act to protect the rights of those persons experiencing 

mental ill health. This is a conscious strategy of fearmongering as far as we can see. We do not


believe that this is a necessary component. We would be very interested to see the root and the 

rationale behind this, and I would certainly be interested to hear what the minister has to say as to 

why he has brought this forward. 

My understanding is that there is a suggestion about it equating all forensic mental health 

patients with serious sexual offenders. If the minister does not believe that to be the case he can 

certainly correct the record in that regard, but that is the concern that the opposition has. 

Clause 71 will give the minister a power that he currently does not have to direct the Director of 

Mental Health to investigate, review and report on and consider specific actions at any time the 

minister or his staff believe it to be a significant matter. That clause relates to where they perceive a 

risk to that patient or to the public. This is a very serious matter. I take on board the minister’s 

comments that he is trying to provide this power in cases where he thinks it may be necessary, but 

we believe that it is an attempt at direct political interference by the minister and his staff in the 

function of mental health services. 

I think the Minister for Health can now direct the Director of Mental Health to delegate his 

powers to officials for matters to be considered by the minister as significant. I go back to that 

scenario. I do not think there have been significant concerns to date that that system has failed. I 

believe this amendment is going against the spirit of the Mental Health Act as it stands. The minister 

may well wish to explain again his thoughts on that, but the opposition is not convinced. We have 

concerns and we will not be supporting that aspect of the amendment. 

Mr SPRINGBORG: I can assure the honourable member for Mulgrave that there is no sinister 

conspiracy around this amendment whatsoever. Last year it came to my attention when I was not 

informed of an issue. There was significant public concern about a person who had gone absent 

without authorisation. We then started to look at the provisions of the legislation and our ability to 

review a circumstance where there seemed to be a clear indication of failing in the system, (a) to 

appropriately monitor and, (b) to put the right conditions on someone to start with and also whether 

we were able to properly inform the public at large if a person had gone without authorisation. 

As I sought to dig and delve a little bit deeper into this issue, I found the great irony was that, if 

any of the hundreds of thousands of patients who go into a Queensland hospital each year go 

missing and we are concerned about their health and welfare we are able to release their details to 

secure them and make sure they are safe, but we are not able to do that with this particular subset of 

people who are covered under the Mental Health Act. That was one matter where I said we needed to 

ensure change in that area. We have to have consistency so that if there is a concern in limited cases 

we can bring these matters to the attention of the public. The public can be involved in identifying 

people so that patients can be safely secured and repatriated to the appropriate treatment. 

Does this mean that every single person who is subject to breaching a limited community 

treatment order should be subject to such an action? No, it does not, honourable member. Each year 

many hundreds, if not thousands, of people under the involuntary treatment regime undertake 

something that is unauthorised or do not turn up for treatment and they are of no harm to anyone. 

Everyone understands that. We are talking about a limited risk. Nevertheless, in the past there have 

been examples of people who have not been appropriately monitored or left with appropriate 

authorisation who have gone on to do something that is extremely serious. As we found out, there is a 

limitation on our ability to appropriately ensure that a person is secured, that they have the right sort 

of monitoring, that they have the right sort of support. 

Again, I say that after that incident last year when we conducted a review within the bounds of 

the act at the time, we found a number of cases where the application of the act was found wanting in 

the way it applied to some patients. That was not me; that was the provisions of the act. What 

happened was the catalyst to look at the act. 

This amendment does not give me the ability to say to the Director of the Mental Health, ‘Put a 

GPS monitoring device on patient X.’ It does not give me the ability to suspend someone’s orders. It 

simply gives me the ability to ask the Director of Mental Health to review a set of circumstances and 

the director will make the decision. If there is no problem, if there seems to be an abundance of 

competence and appropriateness around the way a person has been classified, the way a person has 

been provided with appropriate supervision and treatment, I do not think there is any issue. The 

decision will still be in their hands. All it provides is an extra level of safety. Does it relate to an issue


where we are trying to demonise all of these people? No. I think we all have people like this who we 

are close to or who are members of our own family. So we understand the complexity of the issue. 

This is about striking a balance. As we found out, there were some issues where the act was wanting. 

I note the honourable member opposite also talked about whether this amendment breaches 

our provisions under some international treaty. I do not believe that is the case, because in the United 

Kingdom, which is the bastion of democracy and our justice system and its application of natural 

justice and all of those sorts of things, I understand that similarly they are looking at or have adopted 

a similar approach to people in similar circumstances. So I can assure the honourable member that 

this amendment is just about balancing public safety, making sure that people can be appropriately 

monitored and that they have received the appropriate orders. It just gives us the ability to be able to 

ask for a review. Does the member think I will be doing it all the time? No way on earth, because that 

is not what this amendment is about. But when you are in my position and discover what we 

discovered last year, which was objectively brought to my attention, then we need to have some 

clarification around this issue whilst making sure that we respect it in the overall bounds of the Mental 

Health Act, which is the spirit of the act and that is that the person has to be treated in a humane 

environment, which is about treatment, which is about recovery. 

Yesterday in my contribution I made the point that Queensland has been a leader in this area in 

Australia for probably three decades. It goes back to the middle of the 1980s at least with regard to 

the then coalition government in this state deciding that there should be a regime that treated people 

with a mental health illness differently from just plonking them in the criminal justice system. Other 

places around Australia have a different approach. So this amendment preserves the spirit of the act, 

which has been adhered to by both sides of this place over a long period, to understand the need to 

strike a balance and understand the need for some review. That is all that this amendment does. 

In regard to the issue of delegation, of course there needs to be a power of delegation. We 

have the power of delegation in legislation. The minister can delegate, statutory officers can delegate 

because people cannot always do that themselves. The Director of Mental Health may delegate to 

somebody who is equally as well qualified to look at that because of their knowledge of a situation. So 

having a delegation power is nothing sinister in itself. The power has to be delegated to somebody 

who is appropriately qualified and who is aware of the legislative requirements and bounds. 


Clause 73— 

Mr PITT (5.09 pm): This clause inserts a new division 1A in chapter 13, part 1. It addresses a 

perceived serious risk to person or public safety. It gives the minister the powers to direct the Director 

of Mental Health to investigate, review and report to the minister on matters of risk to public safety 

and to consider taking action such as suspending limited community treatment for a patient or for a 

class of patients. 

There may be a denial of natural justice when the circumstances of individual patients within 

classes of patients are not taken into consideration. Mental health experts have pointed out that such 

decisions to suspend treatments in this manner may contravene the United Nations Principles for the 

Protection of People With Mental Illness and the National Standards for Mental Health Services 2010. 

This clause gives the minister the power to direct the Director of Mental Health to investigate, review 

and report to the minister and, of course, consider taking action such as suspending limited 

community treatment for a class of patients. Such suspensions may include limited community 

treatment orders approved by the Mental Health Court or the Mental Health Review Tribunal. 

Suspension could also include all the forensic patients of a specific mental health service, all forensic 

patients in the first three months of their limited community treatment or all the classified patients of a 

specified psychiatrist. 

Such suspensions of limited community treatment can involve the police immediately returning 

a patient from their workplace or educational institution to an authorised inpatient mental health 

facility. This is the intent of clause 74. While the minister’s powers are still limited when it comes to 

forcing the director to undertake specific actions, he can certainly forcefully request the director to 

consider specific action. The action could include notifying the Attorney-General and/or the Police 

Commissioner about matters the minister considers significant. I think we have spelt out our concerns 

about some previous elements. I think some of the arguments would be the same. I have no doubt 

the minister’s response will be largely the same. That does not change the fact that the opposition 

has concerns about this and we wish to put that on the record.


Mr SPRINGBORG: The honourable member for Mulgrave is right in what he said earlier on— 

that is, our arguments will be very much the same and we have ventilated them throughout. If we go 

back to the incidents that raised my concerns late last year and were actually investigated within the 

powers of the department at that particular time, we saw there was a need to look at the 

circumstances surrounding the treatment of some patients. Within the powers vested in the right 

people they did conduct a review and found the need for some corrective action. All we are doing 

here is providing the ability for the minister, as the guardian of the public interest principle, to be able 

to request, through the appropriate independent officer, a desire to review the treatment regime 

around a certain class or a subset of patients if there is some particular concern. 

I used an example before of where we were able to identify the need for corrective action. This 

is a more proactive approach. This is not something that is going to be used willy-nilly. That is not 

what it is about. It is to provide a head of power within the overall safeguards of the legislation. All we 

are asking for is that the minister can direct the investigation of particular matters. We cannot direct 

the outcome. All we are asking for is matters to be looked at, reviews to be considered and leaving it 

in the hands of appropriate people to be able to do that. 

Clause 73, as read, agreed to. 


Clause 75— 

Mr PITT (5.13 pm): This clause amends the offence under clause 526 of the Mental Health Act 

of publishing information identifying patients involved in the proceedings of the Mental Health Court or 

the Mental Health Review Tribunal, for example forensic patients. Two new sections authorise the 

director to allow publication of information about forensic patients if he or she believes there is 

reasonable grounds of a serious risk to a person or to the community. The minister and possibly his 

staff can now formally request the Director of Mental Health to consider such publication. 

Past experience highlights that such publication of information about forensic patients on 

limited community treatment can be sensationalised by the media and used to generate fear in the 

community. That is really at the heart of our argument. As we have heard throughout this entire 

debate, there is already enough of a stigma around mental health. Whilst we are talking about people 

who may be under forensic orders, and I understand that that does come with heinous crimes that 

they may have perpetrated or have had some involvement in, I do think that as a community we have 

to be very careful about how we handle that information in order to ensure that we are not creating a 

sense of fear unnecessarily in the community. That comes down to the safeguards as presented by 

the minister earlier on. 

The minister, and possibly those acting on his behalf, is now protected from civil liability by 

clause 76 of this bill amending section 536 of the Mental Health Act. Again, we wish to express our 

concerns regarding this clause. We will not be dividing on this; we are just expressing reservation. 

This is going to be one of those cases of watching and seeing how this all works in practice. I look 

forward to the minister’s comments in this regard. 

Mr SPRINGBORG: I understand the concerns the honourable member has raised. It is not my 

intention to be publishing the identity of people willy-nilly. That is not what this is about. In recent 

times a couple of forensic patients have been involved in incidents which were very serious. They 

were absent without authorisation. I held media conferences saying we could not disclose their 

identity and when I went back into my office I found that the media had the person up on their website 

from their sources. There is some concern out there and I am saying I cannot disclose their identity 

but it is being published by somebody who has an inside source. We can gather where that may be. 

We can all speculate. It is a ridiculous situation. There is an ambiguity at the moment. 

Under the Hospital and Health Boards Act there is the ability for the chief executive to publish 

information in relation to a patient who they are concerned about. It might be a patient who has 

dementia, a child, someone who has walked out or somebody who has come in and done something 

wrong. They can do that if it means there will be a better outcome. But if it is a patient under the 

Mental Health Act they are not able to disclose that information. It is not something they exercise and 

want to do on all occasions. Most people who are the subject of limited community treatment or 

involuntary treatment orders are probably of more harm to themselves than the general community. 

Disclosing that information is probably more about protecting that particular person.

7 Mar 2013 Commercial Arbitration Bill 533 

This is about making sure that we clear up this ambiguity and we are able to appropriately 

release that information. It has to be read together with the Hospital and Health Boards Act to make 

sure that we understand what this is all about. It provides an appropriate balance. It ensures that 

there is no ambiguity. In relation to any one of the other hundreds of thousands of patients each year 

in Queensland if there is a particular concern the information is able to be released, but, when it 

comes to this particular classification of patients, if there are concerns then we are not able to do it 

under the legislation at the moment because of that particular ambiguity. We want to clear that up. 



Schedule, as read, agreed to. 

Third Reading 

Hon. LJ SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Minister for Health) (5.19 pm): I move— 

That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. 

Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. 


Bill read a third time. 

Long Title 

Hon. LJ SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Minister for Health) (5.19 pm): I move— 

That the long title of the bill be agreed to. 

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


MOTION 

Sessional Orders 

Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (Manager of Government Business) (5.19 pm), by 

leave, without notice: I move— 

That so much of the sessional orders be suspended to allow the dinner break to be from 6.30 pm to 8.00 pm this evening. 



COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION BILL 

Resumed from 30 October 2012 (see p. 2186). 


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

Infrastructure and Planning) (5.20 pm): I move— 


I present the second reading speech for the Commercial Arbitration Bill 2012 on behalf of the 

Hon. Jarrod Bleijie MP, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, who at the moment is engaged in 

some urgent committee business. I present the second reading speech for this bill on his behalf. I 

thank the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee for its report and for its consideration of the 

submissions it received. I also thank the stakeholders who contributed to the committee process by 

providing their thoughtful submissions: the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration, 

the Institute for Arbitrators and Mediators Australia, the Queensland Law Society, the Bar Association 

of Queensland and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Australia. I now table the Queensland 

government’s response to that report. 

Tabled paper: Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 19—Commercial Arbitration Bill, government 

response [2210].

534 Commercial Arbitration Bill 7 Mar 2013 

The committee has recommended that the Commercial Arbitration Bill 2012 be passed. The 

purpose of the bill is, of course, to replace the current Queensland Commercial Arbitration Act 1990. 

In doing so, it adopts the provisions of a model bill developed by the former Standing Committee of 

Attorneys-General, which has been adopted in other states and the Northern Territory. The model bill 

combines domestic commercial arbitration provisions with the United Nations Commission on 

International Trade Law Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. The bill will harmonise 

Queensland’s domestic commercial arbitration regime with the Commonwealth International 

Arbitration Act 1974. 

The purpose of the model bill is to update and modernise existing commercial arbitration law, 

ensuring that Australian arbitration provides more accessible, cost-effective and timely processes for 

the fair and impartial resolution of commercial disputes as an alternative to litigation. This bill will 

ensure Queensland’s adherence to world standards in commercial dissolution resolution. Therefore, it 

is not surprising that key stakeholders have overwhelmingly supported the passage of the bill in its 

current form, which maximises uniformity with the model bill. 

Nevertheless, some stakeholders have raised issues relating to the drafting and operation of 

certain provisions adopted from the model bill. For example, the Bar Association of Queensland made 

six recommendations for amendment to the bill, largely relating to the use of terminology. They made 

suggestions for clarification and the placement of certain provisions. It also questioned the intent of 

provisions describing decisions of the court as final in the context of possible appeals from the 

Supreme Court to the High Court. 

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Australia) Limited raised two concerns. However, they 

noted that they may be best left until after the Queensland bill is passed. The first concern relates to 

section 21 of the Commonwealth International Arbitration Act 2010 and whether it leaves parties who, 

prior to 6 July 2010, had agreed to arbitrate pursuant to the repealed state acts without an arbitral law 

to govern their arbitration. The institute also recommended deleting clause 1(2) from the bill because 

of the perceived clash with clause 20(1). 

In response to these submissions, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee of the 

Queensland Law Society and the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia and the Australian 

Centre for International Commercial Arbitration indicated their support for the passage of the bill in its 

present form in the interests of uniformity, with any amendments to be the subject of subsequent 

review and discussion. Having considered the committee’s report and these submissions, the 

Attorney-General has proposed that the bill be enacted in its present form to maximise legislative 

uniformity. 

The committee made a second recommendation that the Attorney-General consider the 

suggestions for amendment made by stakeholders during the committee’s examination of the 

Commercial Arbitration Bill 2012 in the context of future amendments to the model bill. The Attorney- 

General has given an assurance that he will write to his counterparts in other states and territories 

advising them of the matters raised in the context of the bill for consideration as part of any future 

review of the model bill by the now Standing Council on Law and Justice. The Attorney-General has 

also no doubt in his mind that key stakeholders will monitor the operation of the legislation and advise 

the council should amendments be considered desirable. 

In conclusion, the Attorney-General strongly believes that this bill will deliver for Queensland a 

commercial arbitration framework that cuts red tape and provides more accessible, cost-effective and 

timely processes for the fair and impartial resolution of commercial disputes as an alternative to 

litigation. This will ensure real practical advantage for companies and businesses trading locally, 

nationally and internationally. It is hoped that wider opportunities will also arise for Queensland 

arbitrators and arbitration facilities, with positive flow-on effects to the local economy. I congratulate 

the Attorney-General, the Hon. Jarrod Bleijie, for the effort that he has made to bring this bill before 

the House. On his behalf, I commend the bill to the House. 

Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.25 pm): I rise to contribute to the 

debate on the Commercial Arbitration Bill 2012. From the outset I advise that the opposition will be 

supporting the bill. However, I will raise a couple of issues that I would like the Attorney-General to 

comment on during his address in reply. The bill is the reintroduction of the Commercial Arbitration 

Bill 2011. It is virtually unchanged, apart from two very minor alterations of a rather technical nature.


The effect of the bill is to repeal the former uniform Commercial Arbitration Act 1990 and to establish 

a more up-to-date method for resolving domestic commercial disputes. Providing a cost-effective and 

efficient alternative to litigation in Australia is imperative for the business community and that method 

must reflect changes in international best practice. 

The old act, whilst important and innovative at the time, still reflected the old English arbitration 

acts of 1950, 1975 and 1979. In May 2010, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General agreed to 

update the uniform legislation. The model law was introduced by the then Attorney-General and 

minister for justice, Paul Lucas, on 15 November 2011, but lapsed when parliament was prorogued. It 

largely reflected the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on 

International Commercial Arbitration. The model law reflects the accepted world standard for 

arbitrating commercial disputes. This means that the jurisdictions with which we compete for 

international arbitration work do not have different national and international arbitration laws. This is 

important in the growing move towards the internationalisation of business and commerce. 

I also note that the Commonwealth government passed the International Arbitration 

Amendment Act 2010 to increase effectiveness, efficiency and affordability in international 

commercial arbitration. The two differences between the 2011 bill and this bill are: the schedule has 

been renamed as schedule 1 and, secondly, a new clause 2(5) has been added, which states— 

Notes (other than the Model Law note to section 1) ... do not form part of this bill. 

Clause 1AC outlines the paramount object of the bill, which is to ‘facilitate the fair and final 

resolution of commercial disputes by impartial arbitral tribunals without unnecessary delay or 

expense’. So far, all other jurisdictions in Australia except for the Australian Capital Territory have 

passed legislation adopting the model law. The passage of this bill will bring Queensland into line with 

those jurisdictions. The bill makes five important changes to the current regime that applies to 

domestic commercial arbitration in Queensland. Under the current legislation, where parties have 

agreed to arbitration and one of the parties institutes legal proceedings, the court has a discretion to 

stay the proceedings pending finalisation of the arbitration process. This means that the proceedings 

may be continued even though the parties have agreed to arbitration at the discretion of the court. 

Under this bill, provided there is a valid arbitration agreement and the subject matter of the 

dispute is capable of settlement via arbitration, the court is required to stay proceedings while the 

matter is arbitrated. The explanatory notes to the bill raise the issue of the exclusion of the courts 

under the heading ‘Consistency with fundamental legislative principles’. However, as the notes point 

out— 

In nominating arbitration as a dispute resolution method, parties are making a conscious decision to exclude court jurisdiction 

and resolve their dispute by alternate means. Parties consent to the use of this legislative framework to avoid litigating their 

dispute before the courts, which is more costly and time consuming. 

There are protections built into the system because the courts can still oversee the arbitral 

process and intervene if the process does not comply with the agreement or with principles of 

procedural fairness, relevant public policy and the law. This will avoid the scenario where parties, 

having previously agreed to arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism, seek to disrupt and delay 

proceedings by using the courts to avoid the arbitral process altogether. This clause forms part of the 

model law and it has been adopted unamended by other jurisdictions that have enacted the bill. It is 

important that there be certainty for parties who sign up to an arbitration agreement and this clause 

provides that certainty. 

As clause 1AC provides, the functions of an arbitral tribunal must be exercised so that, as far 

as practicable, the paramount object of the act is achieved. This clause therefore informs the tribunal 

in how arbitration matters are to be conducted. Subject to the subclause and to safeguards which 

protect the public interest, parties are able to agree about how their commercial dispute is to be 

resolved. 

While the bill ensures that, while parties have a fair degree of latitude to determine what arbitral 

procedure will apply to them, this is limited by being subject to the provisions of this act. This means 

that if a situation arises in which the parties’ choice of procedure would result in unnecessary delay 

and expense, which would breach the paramount object of the act, the tribunal will be required to 

override the parties’ choice to better serve the paramount object of the act. 

Tribunals can issue interim measures in order to protect the process and ensure that arbitration 

remains an effective method of dispute resolution. The scope of these orders may be very wide and 

can include security for costs; discovery of documents; the giving of evidence by affidavit; the 

inspection of any property which is or forms part of the subject matter of the dispute; the taking of 

photographs of any property which is or forms part of the subject matter of a dispute; samples to be


taken from or any observation to be made of or experiment conducted on any property which is or 

forms part of the subject matter of the dispute; and dividing, recording and strictly enforcing the time 

allocated for a hearing between the parties. 

The courts also have similar powers and a party may apply to a tribunal for an interim order 

and have that order enforced by the courts. Courts also have the power to issue interim orders such 

as Mareva injunctions and Anton Piller orders. Ex parte orders may only be issued by the courts. 

Whilst it has long been accepted internationally that confidentiality is an integral feature of 

commercial arbitration—and this was thought to be the case under the act as it stands—the decision 

of the High Court in Esso v Plowman meant that confidentiality only applied to parties to an arbitration 

agreement where it was expressly provided for in the agreement. This bill reverses this presumption 

so that extensive confidential obligations apply to the parties to an agreement unless they expressly 

provide to the contrary. These provisions are designed to be helpful in protecting the commercial 

interests of the parties by the disclosure of commercially sensitive information or from harm to any 

party’s commercial representation stemming from public knowledge of the dispute. 

Under the current act, judicial review is available on the grounds that the award contained a 

manifest error of law or that there had been some procedural unfairness to one or both parties 

because of misconduct on the part of the arbitrator or the arbitration or award has been improperly 

procured. This bill provides specific grounds upon which an arbitral award may be set aside by a 

court. An application must be made within three months from the date of receipt of the award. 

An appeal can also be made to a court only if the parties have agreed before the end of the 

appeal period—again, three months and with the leave of the court. The court must not grant leave 

unless it is satisfied that the decision of the tribunal is obviously wrong, if the question is one of 

general public importance or that the decision is at least open to serious doubt. This means that 

where parties have agreed to an arbitral agreement the decision of the tribunal will have greater 

determinative effect. Hopefully this will eliminate circumstances such as occurred in Cole v Gebauer. 

When the last in a long line of decisions had been made in relation to the arbitration in that case, 

proceedings had been on foot for some 10 years and 21 days. 

Part 8 of the bill provides for greater recognition and enforcement awards than is currently 

available under the act. Courts are required to enforce awards except in limited circumstances where 

refusal of enforcement is permitted—the grounds for which are set out in the bill. The process for 

enforcement of awards is much simpler and more efficient and orders of the tribunal may, by leave of 

the court, be enforced in the same way as a court order. Once such leave has been granted, 

judgement may be entered into the terms of the order. 

Consultation on the bill has been conducted with a number professional organisations including 

the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration, the Queensland Law Society, the Bar 

Association of Queensland, the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators, the heads of jurisdiction and the 

Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. Again, as a member of this House, I am indebted to them for their 

thoughtful observations that they have submitted to the committee. They have been of enormous 

assistance yet again, and I particularly would like to mention the Law Society and Bar Association 

who are so often called on to make submissions on legislation and without exception make thoughtful 

and considered suggestions on the proposed bills, often in very tight time frames. 

The Bar Association and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators have made some suggestions on 

the proposed amendments to the bill. However, both have recognised the importance of uniform 

legislation and the fact that amendments to the bill would bring it out of kilter with other jurisdictions. It 

has been suggested that perhaps dialogue could be commenced with the Attorneys-General and the 

other jurisdictions to perhaps give consideration to some of the suggestions they have made. I ask 

the Attorney-General, through the Deputy Premier, whether he would be prepared to undertake to 

consider whether the issues that are of concern to the Bar Association and the Chartered Institute of 

Arbitrators should be raised at an interjurisdictional level when the next review of the act is being 

undertaken. 

This is an important piece of legislation. A number of previous Attorneys-General have played a 

very large part in the development of this legislation. I would like to echo the words of the former 

Attorney-General when he introduced the bill and said— 

The updated commercial arbitration framework contained in this bill will ensure Queensland is in keeping with national and 

international standards for facilitating fair and final resolution of commercial disputes in a timely and cost effective manner. 

It will promote Queensland as a jurisdiction in which parties conducting business both in Australia and in Asia Pacific region 

can access commercial arbitration services which accord with international norms. 

I commend the bill to the House.


Mr CHOAT (Ipswich West—LNP) (5.38 pm): I rise to speak on the Commercial Arbitration Bill 

2012. It gives me much pleasure to contribute to this debate as a member of the Legal Affairs and 

Community Safety Committee. The bill concerns arbitration which is a dispute resolution process 

wherein parties refer a commercial dispute to an arbitrator for fair determination. Awards which are 

the result of arbitration are enforceable in a manner like that of any court judgement. Arbitration and 

its processes have a significant impact on commerce and industry as it is commonly used by the 

banking, insurance and finance sectors as well as in construction, manufacturing and parts of the 

logistic industries, all of which contribute significantly to the Queensland economy and the great 

opportunities this state offers. 

Arbitration is a productive and outcomes-driven process which enables parties to achieve 

results in the most efficient, effective and economic way avoiding costly and time-consuming litigation 

proceedings. The bill applies to domestic commercial arbitration only and specifically recognises that 

the Commonwealth act administers any international commercial arbitrations. It prescribes the form 

and scope of agreements established for the purposes of arbitration and provides also for the 

selection and appointment and management of arbitrators and in setting out their powers. 

The bill provides for certain procedural provisions including applying confidentiality regimes to 

parties and consensual opt-out provisions. It very clearly addresses the making of awards and 

termination of proceedings including dealing with costs and settlements. Important measures include 

the outlining of preconditions for court applications to have an award set aside or processes 

associated with appeals on a point of law. The bill recognises interstate awards as binding and allows 

applications to the courts for enforcement. 

New model commercial arbitration legislation was agreed by the Australian Standing 

Committee of Attorneys-General and settled in July 2011 to address issues that arbitrations had 

become too litigious, with proceedings resembling more and more of those of a court. There is also a 

compelling need to modernise and update the uniform commercial arbitration acts to be certain that 

arbitration provides an efficient and economical alternative to litigation consistent with international 

best practice. 

All Australian states and territories other than Queensland and the ACT have passed legislation 

in line with the model bill. The model bill is based on the UN Commission on International Trade 

Law’s Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. The bill is also consistent with the 

Commonwealth International Arbitration Act 1974 and supplemented by provisions relevant to the 

domestic commercial arbitration setting. This bill rectifies this situation so that Queensland also 

provides an environment where modern dispute resolution processes are available to enterprise and 

industry, along with relevant associations and individuals. 

I congratulate the Attorney-General and his department for taking this important bill forward, 

which will ensure that Queensland industry and commerce sectors have access to a modern and 

world-class system for commercial arbitration. I commend the bill to the House. 

Mr BERRY (Ipswich—LNP) (5.42 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Commercial Arbitration 

Bill 2012. My unqualified support is made on two bases. Firstly, there have been five submitters, all of 

whom support this bill. Secondly, the bill is part of a legislative process, where the Standing 

Committee of Attorneys-General agreed to introduce uniform arbitration laws by a 2009 decision. 

Those who are actively involved in arbitration in Australia are able to recount the long and tedious 

journey to have a uniform law apply in Australia. 

Before the now proposed uniformity law, each state and territory enacted its own legislation. 

Just on that point, it is probably an overstatement to say that it is a uniform law but effectively it is a 

law that mirrors a plan. ‘Uniform’ is not quite the right word, but it is about as close as we will get for 

the moment. Taking up the baton, New South Wales enacted its uniform legislation in 2010. So we 

have a position where a decision was made in 2009, New South Wales followed suit reasonably 

expeditiously in 2010, but here we are debating this bill in 2013. It is astounding for the previous 

Queensland Labor government not to have made the Commercial Arbitration Bill law before it lost 

government in March 2011 by the overwhelming defeat of the Liberal National Party. 

It is not surprising for arbitrators, businesses and lawyers to have felt a sense of frustration in 

waiting for the uniform model law arbitration laws to be passed. My government fully recognises and 

understands the language and culture of business and, with that understanding, moves to legislate 

these important laws within its first year in government, recognising that business is a large complex 

cog in a complex system of cogs requiring the oil of arbitration to keep the cogs turning by ensuring 

that disputations are resolved expeditiously. One has to understand business and commerce to grasp


the importance of this law. It is extremely important to business. It is extremely important for the 

reason that, if we do not keep up with the latest trends globally and otherwise, then business will do 

business elsewhere. They will arbitrate elsewhere, not in this state. 

Commercial arbitrations have been a part of Queensland’s business and legal landscape since 

1990. Furthermore, Queensland business has embraced arbitration with gusto, and I also say that 

Queensland lawyers have responded accordingly. Queensland is a place where mediation and 

arbitration is in its DNA. We settle a lot of disputes. Courts are not used as in other states, and I do 

not single out New South Wales particularly, but we have a culture of arbitration and mediation. 

Commerce is now more global. Participants in arbitrations still require the basis of the success of the 

arbitration process and all those things that come with it, such as—and I state the obvious, but I do so 

for the purposes of this speech—privacy, which is still afforded to participants; expeditious 

determination of the disputation; an ability to control the costs and the arbitration process; an arbiter 

with a certain field of expertise, and the level of representation is able to be chosen by the participants 

to ensure that it is expeditious, that there is an air of privacy and that there is that expertise coming 

through which makes the process simpler. 

Commercial arbitrations have other matters to consider which also have become increasingly 

important, and this is highlighted in this bill and really makes Queensland one of the hubs of 

commerce in Asia. We cannot necessarily assume these days that English is the primary language 

used in arbitration. This bill refers to the language of choice being agreed upon in an arbitration 

agreement. It may be that English is not the appropriate language to use. This bill will assist in that 

process. 

The settlement where the arbitration is to take place is also a relevant matter. Queensland is a 

global player in the world of commerce. Just the number of contracts we have between China, 

Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia suggest that we need to take— 

Mr Rickuss: We’re almost displacing London, I feel. 

Mr BERRY: Indeed. I take that interjection. Queensland is the hub of South-East Asia. I just 

make a brief excursion to say that the Queensland Law Society had LawAsia for five or six or seven 

years, as I understand. As a result, they look to us as to what we do here, as to how we manage 

business and what processes and what legislation we have in place. We have a very good reputation 

in this state as being a leader, particularly in arbitration. It would have been a more positive 

experience for this legislation to have followed on the heels of 2009 instead of having to wait until 

2013. But having said that, we are here today in the first year of the Newman government— 

Mr Rickuss: Conciliatory type government. 

Mr BERRY: Indeed—well, more than conciliatory; it is expeditious, recognising the important 

place that business and commerce has in this state. By being in a position of enacting this legislation 

in our first year again just emphasises the place that commerce and business stands with this LNP 

government. The commercial arbitration legislative scheme has come from a parochial law position to 

one that now transcends the globe. 

I just make a brief excursion to quote Chief Justice Spigelman, whose words in 2009 to the 

legal profession of New South Wales amplified the frustrations of business when he described the 

then commercial arbitration system as being ‘now hopelessly out of date and requiring a complete 

rewrite’. 

He also said that any delay in enacting the UNCITRAL model law on international commercial 

arbitration would be embarrassing. So why did we wait until 2013? Responsibility for this 

embarrassment falls squarely at the feet of the previous government, I would respectfully submit. 

This legislation really is fiscally neutral. It only required the previous government to make and 

pass this legislation but business waited. Now, fortunately, we are at that portal where now we move 

on to the Asia position. We are one of the leaders in the legal sphere in Asia. 

The enactment of the Commercial Arbitration Bill 2012 will now bring Queensland industry and 

business into commerce of the 21st century, all thanks to a vibrant, purposeful and directional 

government which has the plan. I comment on the bill to the extent that there are comments made by 

the Bar Association of Queensland, which effectively, as I think I can best describe it, had the 

suggestion of a really procedural nature—relocating sections and so forth. There is not much point in 

my commenting more on that. It has already been referred to in that if there is a further review then 

those matters can be looked at.


Mr Khory McCormick, writing in his capacity as Chairman of the Queensland Law Society 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee, spokesperson for the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators 

Australia—he is the chairman of the Queensland chapter—and Vice President of the Australian 

Centre for International Commercial Arbitration, takes a pragmatic approach in pressing for the 

passing of this legislation with any consequential amendments to be made as and when necessary 

after review. 

Mr Rickuss: You would have great experience in arbitration. 

Mr BERRY: I say to the member for Lockyer that Mr Khory McCormick is really one of the 

international lawyers involved in arbitration. His words carry with not only Queensland lawyers but 

also Australian lawyers a good deal of weight. When he says that this bill must pass, regardless of 

what the Bar Association says—those things can be fixed up—then we certainly take some heed. 

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Australia raises two issues in its submissions. First, does 

section 2 of the International Arbitration Amendment Act 2010 (Commonwealth) apply to arbitration 

agreements entered into before 6 July 2010? Keep in mind that this was based on the 

Commonwealth act and not so much our act. Of course, some time has transpired between the 

enacting of the Commonwealth arbitration legislation and the legislation we have today. Effectively, 

this legislation is catch-up legislation. It is allowing business in Queensland to be competitive in the 

arbitration process and to simply move on with commerce. Secondly, the issue of arbitration forum 

was of concern. However, section 20(1) of the bill clearly establishes that arbitration participants are 

free to agree on the place of arbitration or, failing agreement, that it will be determined by the tribunal. 

Clearly, the time for the passage of this bill into law is well and truly overdue. One can only wonder 

why the bill was not passed in 2011 or 2012. But we are in 2013— 

Mr Rickuss: Procrastination. 

Mr BERRY: Member for Lockyer, we are here now to make this law. I feel proud to be part of a 

government that is making decisions and getting on with the plan. Again, it has been left to an 

enthusiastic, vibrant, goal oriented government to get to the forwards and kick another goal. I 

commend this bill to the House. 

Miss BARTON (Broadwater—LNP) (5.53 pm): I must say that I am a little anxious about 

following the member for Ipswich. I certainly will not be as impassioned or vibrant, but I am certainly 

very proud and pleased that I am able to rise and make a contribution to the Commercial Arbitration 

Bill. 

Dr Flegg interjected. 

Miss BARTON: Yes, member for Moggill. I do think the member for Ipswich was thinking about 

his old career and perhaps charging in six-minute increments. My experience of law school is that it is 

something that is ingrained in Laws 101. 

Mr Hart interjected. 

Miss BARTON: I take the interjection from the member for Burleigh: the government has gone 

broke! 

I do take great pleasure in rising to speak on the Commercial Arbitration Bill. I think it is 

important that we acknowledge that the committee secretariat of the Legal Affairs and Community 

Safety Committee have again worked very hard on the consideration of this bill. I think we are, if not 

the busiest committee in this parliament—it is certainly a committee that I enjoy working with, and the 

secretariat do a fantastic job of making sure we meet all of our time lines and that we present wellresearched 

and— 

Mr Dillaway interjected. 

Miss BARTON: Yes, member for Bulimba. There are quality people on the committee as well, 

but the secretariat do a fantastic job. As the member for Bulimba said, we do have fantastic members 

on this committee. I would also like to acknowledge my colleagues. 

I think it is important to note that the opposition leader has indicated that the opposition will be 

supporting this bill. I think that is a fantastic thing for business in Queensland and a fantastic thing for 

commercial arbitration in Queensland. At the end of the day, this bill is seeking to bring Queensland in 

line not only with the rest of the states and territories, other than the ACT, but also with what the rest


of the world is doing. I think it is important to note that this is about having uniformity and consistency 

across Australia. I do think it is important to note that, with the exception of the ACT, all of our state 

and territory colleagues have introduced or passed legislation that is similar to this. Of course, this bill 

is modelled on that which was agreed to by the former Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. 

As I said, this is a bill which will ensure uniformity and consistency in commercial arbitration 

across Australia. I think that is a good thing. The reality is that, as the business world continues to 

grow in Australia, we see businesses that are operating in not just one state but across a range of 

states. I think for us to be able to provide certainty for those businesses, that they will be able to 

arbitrate any commercial disputes, is a good thing. It also will see uniformity with some of our 

international partners. 

Of course, as some of my colleagues have said, this particular bill is adopting the model bill 

that has been outlined by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. I do think that 

is a good thing because, whilst we do have businesses that work right across Australia, we also have 

some fantastic businesses based in Queensland that work right across the world. I think it is a good 

thing that we are looking to see uniformity and consistency for all of these businesses. 

I do note that this bill seeks to in some regard restrict some of the freedoms businesses have in 

terms of litigation options that are available to them, but my observation would be that we are 

becoming somewhat of a litigious society and that is not necessarily a good thing. If we can 

encourage people to sit down and talk about the issues they are facing and try to work something out, 

perhaps over a cup of tea, that is not necessarily a bad thing. I would certainly encourage all 

commercial entities to look at arbitrating disputes before they consider litigation. Whilst we are 

restricting some of their rights and freedoms, we are not completely abolishing them and we are 

providing avenues for them. If arbitration is not working and it is not proving to be the right path for 

them, there will be options available to them. I think that is also a very important thing. 

Some of the other outcomes we will see from this particular bill, in addition to the uniformity and 

consistency that I have mentioned, are more cost-effective, more transparent and more timely 

processes for business. I think that is a great thing. One of the things that businesses across 

Queensland and across Australia are facing is increased red tape. One of the things this government 

is focused on is making it a lot easier to do business. I think that is one of the good things we can take 

out of this particular piece of legislation. 

I am sure there are many businesses right across Queensland that will be very excited to know 

that one of the things this bill will be achieving is reduced red tape. It is not only going to be good for 

business in terms of reduced red tape and reduced ‘bureaucracy’; it is also going to be good for our 

courts. It will certainly have a positive effect on the judicial system, which is of course, as we know, 

already incredibly busy, particularly with people like the member for Ipswich charging in six-minute 

increments. This will be a very good thing for the court system because it means that fewer people 

will be litigating matters. 

At the end of the day, if people are taking commercial disputes to courts that is not a good 

thing. I appreciate that there are some people who are simply not able to arbitrate matters, and I 

certainly welcome the fact that it is open to those parties to take their matters to court if that is what 

they need to do, but certainly I think one of the great things we are able to do is encourage people to 

sit down, talk about their disputes and realise what is the best outcome for both parties without getting 

too many people involved. I think that is an incredibly positive outcome of this piece of legislation. 

I said that my contribution would be brief and I do not know that this is necessarily my definition 

of brief; I think it is about medium. I think that I am able to charge for the third six-minute increment or 

part thereof, if memory serves me from my time at Bond law school. So I will leave— 


Miss BARTON: And of course my time working for Senator the Hon. George Brandis has 

ingrained in me a love of the six-minute increment when it comes to charging people for services 

rendered. 

Mr Costigan: He’s a good mentor.


Miss BARTON: He is indeed. I am sure the member for Whitsunday also appreciates the 

mentoring skills that he offers him. I could spend a long time talking about the great skills of Senator 

George Brandis, but I am not sure that the member for Ipswich would appreciate that. 

I will, of course, remind people that this is such an incredibly important bill. This is one that 

does have bipartisan support. So I would urge all of my colleagues to support it as we work to help 

businesses right across Queensland and Australia provide uniformity and consistency as they are 

looking to arbitrate their disputes. I commend the bill to the House. 

Mr DILLAWAY (Bulimba—LNP) (6.00 pm): It is difficult to follow such great colleagues and 

esteemed colleagues as the members for Ipswich, Ipswich West and Broadwater. I rise this afternoon 

to speak in support of the Commercial Arbitration Bill 2012. I congratulate the Attorney-General and 

Minister for Justice on this bill’s introduction to the House and acknowledge the work of my 

colleagues the members of the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee and the research 

team in their examination of the bill. The primary purpose of the bill is to bring Queensland’s 

commercial arbitration laws up to date and to modernise the process. It replaces the Commercial 

Arbitration Act 1990 and provides for the conduct of commercial arbitration in the great state of 

Queensland. 

Commercial arbitration is a formal dispute resolution process where two or more parties refer a 

dispute to an independent and impartial third person known as the arbitrator for determination. The 

result takes the form of an award and is equivalent to a court judgement. It provides a more costeffective 

and efficient process to settle commercial disputes. It acts as an alternative to lengthy and 

expensive court proceedings by providing a third independent and impartial party to act as the 

arbitrator. 

We all know how in the past lawyers have been the true winners—and often the only winners— 

when it comes to lengthy court proceedings. 

Miss Barton: Six-minute increments. 

Mr DILLAWAY: I take that interjection and the earlier interjection from the member for Ipswich 

when he said it depends on how much you are actually charging. Of course, I cast no aspersions on 

my esteemed colleagues in this House and some of my friends who are lawyers. But let us be frank: 

we all have a lawyer joke or two in our kit-bag and we do not mind sharing it when we stand around 

the barbecue or the water cooler. But commercial arbitration is a great means and is used in resolving 

commercial disputes— 

Mr Langbroek: Tell us one! 

Mr DILLAWAY: I will not take that interjection. I do not think it would be classed as 

parliamentary language, but I thank the Minister for Education. Maybe he would like to share one if he 

chooses to join this debate. 

Commercial arbitration is used in resolving commercial disputes and is commonly used in the 

insurance, construction, engineering, oil, gas and shipping industries and also by our beloved banking 

and financial services. This bill comes about as a result of the decision made by the former Standing 

Council of Attorneys-General in 2011 who addressed the need for commercial arbitration reform as 

the process had become too resemblant of court proceedings and in effect was no longer a means to 

come to a cost-effective outcome. 

A model bill was agreed on that would modernise the system. The model bill put forward by the 

Standing Council of Attorneys-General adopts the United Nations Commission on International Trade 

Law Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration with supplemental domestic provisions for 

local commercial arbitration. This bill is a product of Queensland’s commitment to reform its domestic 

arbitration laws in line with that agreement and of its commitment to an intergovernmental agreement 

providing national consistency. It is these types of intergovernmental agreements that have a benefit. 

I do not believe, however, that the federal Labor government’s approach to many other matters that 

diminish the state’s powers is necessarily required. 

This decision by the former Standing Council of Attorneys-General was made to address the 

concerns that over the years commercial arbitration had become too ineffective, defeating its 

purpose. This bill delivers on the need to restore independence to the process. This bill will govern 

Queensland’s domestic commercial arbitrations in a manner that is consistent with the national model 

bill agreed to by the former Standing Council of Attorneys-General in 2011. This bill will harmonise


Queensland’s domestic commercial arbitration regime with the Commonwealth International 

Arbitration Act 1974. This bill will also provide more accessible, cost-effective and timely processes 

for the fair and impartial resolution of commercial disputes through arbitration and will ensure 

Queensland’s adherence to world standards in commercial dispute resolution. 

The achievements of this bill will include promotion of greater autonomy and participation of 

parties, finality of awards, protection of confidentiality and access to alternative methods of dispute 

resolution. Parties will be given a greater say in how proceedings are structured. 

In the absence of agreement, the arbitrator will be defaulted with the decision about 

procedures. It gives the arbitral tribunal new powers to order interim measures in allowing an 

arbitrator to act as a mediator, conciliator or other non-arbitral intermediary. It is fair, it is flexible and it 

is cost-effective. The integrity of the process will be preserved with the concerns about an arbitrator’s 

impartiality, independence or qualifications forming a basis for a challenge to his or her appointment. 

This can be resolved by agreement of involved parties or as a matter of last resort in default by the 

court. 

This bill directly relates to domestic commercial arbitration in Queensland. This legislation has 

been passed in all other Australian jurisdictions including New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria, 

Tasmania—have I missed any—and WA, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and 

Queensland. The delay in the passage of the bill was a result of the March election last year, which 

saw the Newman government come into power. However, before it lapsed, the former committee 

reported strong stakeholder support for the passage of this bill. The previous submissions that were 

made have been considered in great detail by the current committee in its examination and tabled 

report. 

As the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration raised in its most recent 

submission, previous submissions that the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration 

made and matters raised have been taken into consideration in the present draft bill. Once again, the 

committee found considerable stakeholder support for this bill in refreshing the commercial arbitration 

process. 

In its submission, the Bar Association of Queensland raised the important issue of uniformity 

across Australian states when dealing with commercial arbitration, stating that an unsatisfactory state 

of affairs will ensue if disparate legislation exists across the states, and it highlighted the need for this 

bill to be a matter of urgency. 

One of the policy objectives of this bill is to maintain a high level of consistency between 

Queensland’s commercial arbitration regime and similar legislation already adopted in other 

Australian jurisdictions and to harmonise Queensland’s domestic commercial arbitration regime with 

the Commonwealth International Arbitration Act 1974. 

An important component of this bill is that it protects the finality of awards made by recognising 

them as binding and providing for applications to court for enforcement of such awards. With the 

possibility of commercial disputes arising between interstate parties, this is fundamental to ensure 

awards are recognised under all Australian jurisdictions. As my esteemed colleague the member for 

Broadwater indicated, many businesses in Queensland and across Australia now actually operate 

across borders. Of course, one of our key objectives as a government is to ensure that those larger 

organisations have an opportunity to establish their businesses here in Queensland, because we are 

open for business. 

I want to highlight a few of the other key aspects of the bill. The bill also defines the form and 

scope of the arbitration agreements. The bill also provides for the selection, appointment and 

challenge of the arbitrators. The bill also sets out an arbitrator’s powers. The bill also contains 

procedural provisions. The bill also applies a confidentiality regime to the parties and the arbitral 

tribunal alike but contains a consensual opt-out provision. I also note that the bill addresses the 

making of awards and termination of proceedings, including costs and settlement. Finally, I also note 

that the bill outlines preconditions for applications to a court to have an award set aside or to appeal 

on a question of law. 

In conclusion, I stand in great support for this bill and understand the urgency with which it 

needs to be passed to align Queensland with other Australian jurisdictions. It delivers on the need to 

modernise Queensland’s domestic arbitration laws so that we are not left in the dark but rather 

encourages domestic dispute resolution as an alternative to court proceedings. It also ensures that


Queensland’s legislation reflects international best practice and supports arbitration as an efficient, 

cost-effective alternative to litigation. I congratulate the Attorney-General once again for acting on 

Queensland’s commitment to national consistency where it is appropriate and look forward to seeing 

the positive flow-on effect it will have on industry and the Queensland economy, because industry 

needs to get on with what it does well and, unless you are a law firm, that is building for the future, 

mining our rich resources and creating wealth—not to be tied up in the courts. 

Mrs Frecklington: There are plenty of lawyers creating wealth. 

Mr DILLAWAY: I take that interjection. There are a lot of lawyers still creating wealth. 

Mr Johnson: All of them! 

Mr DILLAWAY: All of them, and I take that interjection from the member for Gregory. Of 

course, this bill enables our state to build on the four pillars of the economy that we indicated during 

our election campaign and that ministers are working very hard with to ensure that this is a great state 

with great opportunities. I commend the bill to the House. 

Mr WATTS (Toowoomba North—LNP) (6.12 pm): I rise to join the debate to support the 

Commercial Arbitration Bill 2012. The main objective of the bill, put simply, is to allow business to 

operate and get on with what it does best. Unfortunately, Queensland finds itself in a situation where 

we are not leading the pack in terms of the other states in that this harmonisation bill has already 

been passed in many other jurisdictions, as has been previously mentioned. It is unusual for 

Queensland to be behind the pack and something that the Newman government would very much like 

to change. This bill, as I said, put simply, should make business easier, but let me go over the 

objectives of the bill. 

The bill will govern Queensland domestic commercial arbitrations in a manner consistent with 

the national model bill agreed to by the former Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. When it 

was preparing that model bill, that was done in reference to the United Nations Commission on 

International Trade Law. So the bill is not only applicable for us in Queensland but also needed to 

ensure that business can be done effectively across state borders and effectively across international 

borders, and the arbitration model and rules will still stand. 

The bill replaces the current Commercial Arbitration Act 1990 in Queensland. As I have said, 

principally it is to adopt the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law with some 

supplemental domestic provisions for local commercial arbitration in Australia and certainly within 

Queensland and interstate. It is designed to maintain a high level of consistency between 

Queensland’s commercial arbitration regime. Similar legislation, as I said, has been adopted 

everywhere except for the ACT, and I am sure that it will be catching up with the rest of Australia 

shortly. It will also provide a more accessible, cost-effective and timely process for the fair and 

impartial resolution of commercial disputes through arbitration. It will also ensure Queensland’s 

adherence to world standards in dispute resolution, and that is important. If Queensland wants to be 

taken seriously on the world stage, it is important that we have world’s best practice in many areas. 

Obviously commercial dispute resolution is an area where it is fundamentally important to ensure that 

we are certainly at pace with the rest of the world. 

Why was the bill necessary? Ultimately, we had got to a situation where commercial arbitration 

had become incredibly litigious in Queensland and the whole point of arbitration was to try to replace 

some of the legalistic and court processes to simplify things for business. It is in the DNA of our side 

of politics to want to make things simpler for business to get on with business, but by its very nature 

business from time to time will have a dispute. A mechanism that is efficient and effective is 

something that is fundamentally important to have and will bring us up to date. The previous 

arbitration act is outdated and, as I said, has become quite litigious and therefore it is well and truly 

time for it to be updated, and it is with great pleasure that I can take part in updating that. 

While talking about joining the debate, I should also mention my role on the committee. The 

committee has been a very busy committee which has had a lot of legislation referred to it from the 

Attorney-General as we have tried to get law enforcement back on track in Queensland. This was one 

of many bills that have been referred to the committee. As someone who has been involved in 

business all my life, it was good to see a bill that can help business. We have done a lot about law 

and order with our anti-hooning legislation and other legislation to ensure that justice is being done in 

Queensland and people are being appropriately punished.


Mrs Frecklington: Red-tape reduction. 

Mr WATTS: I take the interjection relating to red-tape reduction. This bill will also reduce red 

tape for people in business, and they have to be competitive on a world stage. To be competitive on a 

world stage, you need world’s best practice if you get into a dispute with another business. You need 

a quick, efficient methodology to deal with that. That is certainly not what Queensland had. I certainly 

will be supporting the bill but want to talk more about the background as to why the bill was needed 

and what exactly is involved. 

Arbitration is a formal dispute resolution process in which two or more parties refer their 

commercial dispute to an independent third party—the arbiter—for determination. The results of the 

arbitration, known as the award, are enforceable in the same manner as any court judgement. From a 

business’s point of view, once they have that judgement, it is enforceable and has commercial validity 

and they can use the normal judiciary to ensure that it is complied with. Commercial arbitration is 

commonly used in many industries and in some industries that are very important to business in 

Queensland. The construction industry is one where disputes will often arise and arbiters will be used 

to settle those disputes. If we want to get our economy going again, we know that construction will 

form one of the four pillars and therefore we do not want construction being held up for a long time 

with people arguing and in dispute over the way forward. Having a mechanism to deal with that 

effectively is certainly very important for Queensland and the construction industry. 

Likewise, you cannot have a good construction industry without good engineering. This is an 

area that often is in dispute. To reduce the litigious nature of a dispute and to be able to get that done 

efficiently I think is also important. 

Some really important industries for Queensland in the coming 20 or 30 years, starting pretty 

much from now, and ones that will certainly be affecting people on the Western Downs in my area are 

the gas, oil and resources industries generally. These industries are critically important to us in 

Queensland and certainly to businesses in Toowoomba that service a lot of those industries. 

Mr Dillaway: What a great city. 

Mr WATTS: Toowoomba is a great city. I take that interjection. I love Toowoomba. Where is 

Toowoomba? It is at the heart of Queensland. 

Mrs Frecklington interjected. 

Mr WATTS: It borders the Nanango electorate. I take that interjection as well. 

Mr Dillaway: The home of Clifford Park. 

Mr WATTS: It certainly is the home of Clifford Park. I must make mention of the sports 

minister, who currently is in convalescence. I must thank him for his contribution to getting a grass 

track back on the racecourse. 

Mr Berry: A great minister. 

Mr WATTS: A great minister. Certainly, I know the industry at Clifford Park is very excited. 

There is another industry where arbitration may be used from time to time. Certainly, the racing 

industry is a big industry on the downs. I return to the oil and gas industries. These are industries in 

which a lot of businesses are coming in from overseas and setting up offices here in Queensland. 

Miss Barton: Just like you. 

Mr WATTS: I will not take that interjection. I should mention that I was born overseas of an 

Australian father and an Australian grandmother, I might add. As these businesses come in, I think it 

is very important that, when it comes to best practice, they understand that Queensland is up to date 

with the rest of the world. It is a great state in which to do business. We need to be able to show 

those industries as they arrive in Queensland that if they get into dispute it is not going to drag on 

endlessly and cost a lot of money. If that does not happen, they will simply go to other countries to 

carry on their business. If we want to be commercially competitive on an international scale, we need 

to make sure that we have best practice legislation. That is exactly what the Commercial Arbitration 

Bill 2012 is. It brings us into line with the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and 

how it views this area of legislation. 

Mr Berry: And the 21st century.


Mr WATTS: And the 21st century. As I have said, arbitration is intend to provide parties to 

disputes with cost-effective, expedient access to enforceable determinations as an alternative to 

lengthy and public court proceedings. I know there are a few lawyers here who will be disappointed to 

hear that their colleagues in the industry might not be making as much as they would. I still think the 

lawyers will have their place, but Queensland would like to make sure that industry can get on with 

what it does, which is operating efficiently and effectively. The less they need to get into fights that go 

through our judicial system, the better. 

The Queensland Commercial Arbitration Act 1990, which currently governs the conduct of 

domestic commercial arbitrations in Queensland, is one of a series of substantially uniform laws 

across Australia that are commonly referred to as the uniform commercial arbitration acts, which were 

developed under the auspices of the former Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The new 

model commercial arbitration legislation was agreed to by that standing committee and settled in July 

2011. Here we are, 2013, and we are still looking to get that legislation enacted in Queensland. As a 

government, we hope to do much better in the future in making sure that we are leading the pack and 

not following it. 

There were a couple of criticisms of the previous legislation. As discussed previously, disputes 

became too litigious and proceedings were increasingly resembling those of a court. So there was a 

need to modernise and update the uniform commercial arbitration acts to ensure that arbitration 

provides an efficient and cost-effective alternative to litigation, which is consistent with international 

best practice. We have spoken a little bit about international best practice today. If we want 

Queensland to be a place where people can come and do business and be effective and make sure 

they are competitive on the world stage, we need to have best practice in all areas, whether that be 

infrastructure—something like the Toowoomba range crossing will always help business. 

Mr Dillaway: Has Gillard given money for that? 

Mr WATTS: I take that interjection. No. Julia Gillard has not given any commitment at all to the 

people of Queensland with reference to the range crossing. I have an open invitation for her to come 

and stay at any of our beautiful motels located along James Street where she, too, can listen to the 

6,000 B-doubles that drive through the heart of my city, rumbling through. I look forward very much to 

her coming to Queensland, bringing her federal election roadshow, arriving in Toowoomba and telling 

us that she will fund 80 per cent of the estimated $1.6 billion that the business case has outlined. 


Mr WATTS: I take that interjection. My friend and colleague Ian Macfarlane will very much be 

looking forward to that. As I am talking about being internationally competitive in business, with the 

changes to the Commercial Arbitration Act that we are looking to bring forward, infrastructure is 

critically important. My friend and colleague Ian Macfarlane has secured funding for that road. I am 

sure that not only will those companies that are coming to Toowoomba from overseas to be involved 

in the CSG industry be very pleased to know that our commercial arbitration legislation is meeting 

world’s best practice but also they will look forward very much to our infrastructure matching that 

standard. 

Mr Berry: And they can arbitrate here in Queensland. 

Mr WATTS: They certainly can arbitrate here in Queensland. At the moment, those decisions 

will be able to be enforced across all the borders of Australia, except for the ACT, which I am sure will 

fall into line shortly. 

Mr Johnson: There are a lot of the businesses in Toowoomba that will welcome this 

legislation. 

Mr WATTS: There certainly are a lot of businesses in Toowoomba, particularly businesses that 

are starting to deal internationally more and more. Wagners in Toowoomba is a company that is 

involved in the construction and gas industries. It is very important for them to make sure that, if they 

get into dispute with some of these big international players, they have a forum in which they can 

arbitrate that dispute effectively. I am sure Wagners and many other businesses in Toowoomba will 

not want to be caught up in long and expensive legal wrangling. 

Mr Berry: There are some great lawyers in Toowoomba.

546 Ministerial Statement 7 Mar 2013 

Mr WATTS: There are some great lawyers in Toowoomba. Some of them are good friends. I 

take that interjection from the member for Ipswich. I would always put a Toowoomba lawyer in front of 

an Ipswich lawyer. But that is a debate for another day. 

This bill will apply to all domestic and commercial arbitration. It recognises that the 

Commonwealth act will govern the international and commercial arbitrations 


Mr WATTS: I have a copy of the bill. I thank the member very much for that. 

Miss Barton: Have you read it? 

Mr WATTS: Yes, I have been through it. Certainly, the committee went through the bill at great 

length. I would like to thank the secretariat that supports the committee. It does a great job in ensuring 

that the committee members are well briefed and that all the details have been followed. Certainly, 

when it comes to fundamental legislative principles we rely on the secretariat of the committee to 

make sure that they are followed closely. 

After examining the bill and in consideration of the policy objective which, of course, is to make 

sure that we are not wasting our time in courts and spending too much money, I certainly support the 

bill and I note that many of the submitters to the committee supported the bill. I would like to thank the 

Attorney-General and Minister for Justice for bringing Queensland up to speed. I hope very much 

going forward that I do not have to stand up here and apologise for Queensland being one of the last 

states that has adopted this kind of legislation in the future. When we need something to be effective 

and efficient, Queensland should be leading the pack. I look forward very much to the Attorney- 

General ensuring that we lead the pack and not follow it. I would like to thank the Attorney-General for 

introducing the bill. I commend the bill to the House. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Ruthenberg): Order! The House will now break for dinner and, 

according to the motion to suspend sessional orders, will resume at 8 pm. 

Sitting suspended from 6.30 pm to 8.00 pm. 

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT 

Crime and Misconduct Commission 

Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (8.00 pm), by 

leave: Colleagues, I want to bring to the attention of the House a serious matter which I have been 

following with interest in the last 48 hours with respect to the Crime and Misconduct Commission and 

the release of certain documents that ought not to have been released with a classification change. I 

spoke about this in the chamber this morning, both in questions without notice on two occasions and 

in the debate of committee report No. 89 of the PCMC with respect to the CMC and Ms Kathryn Ellis, 

a former employee of the CMC. 

I think colleagues should be concerned in relation to the events of the last 48 hours with 

respect to the CMC and what has transpired. I think there is a certain level of concern in the 

community, particularly with respect to people who may have been mentioned in documents that were 

entrusted to the CMC being held in the State Archives. We know through media reports that a number 

of documents have been accessible by members of the public for over eight months. Minute by 

minute as this drama unfolds it concerns me more greatly as Attorney-General of this state. 

I offered the opportunity today for the CMC chair to make a public statement; to come out and 

tell the public what in fact has happened, what has gone wrong, who has accessed these documents 

and what he wants us to do about it. I requested information from the CMC. I table a letter that I 

received in my office from the CMC at 5.30 this afternoon, but I will read the contents into Hansard 

because I think it is important for the information of members who are not involved with the PCMC of 

this place and who have not been reading the newspaper as this drama has unfolded as the day has 

gone on. I think it has come to a point in time tonight where we have to put the record straight for the 

sake of my honourable colleagues in this place who ought to know what is going on because the

7 Mar 2013 Ministerial Statement 547 

information has not been publicly available. Mr Martin, the chairperson of the CMC, wrote a letter to 

me on his letterhead dated 7 March— 

Dear Attorney-General 

It is apparent that the Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) has been instrumental in the release of information dating 

from the time of the Fitzgerald Inquiry that should not have been made public. 

The reasons for that are still being examined. 

Preliminary advice received indicates that on the present state of the law, the retrieval and security of that information is 

problematic. 

I understand that there is some hesitation by the government to act in proposing short term corrective legislation limited to the 

prevention of the republication of information gained from the Fitzgerald Inquiry without the CMC requesting that legislation. 

I make that request. My request is contingent on seeing a copy of the draft legislation proposed. 

Yours sincerely 

Ross Martin SC 

Chairperson 

As legislators I find it abhorrent that I would, as Attorney-General, receive a letter suggesting 

that anything that the CMC wants this parliament to do or act on for the benefit of the CMC in 

assisting to cover up the mistake it made many months ago is contingent on the chairman of the CMC 

perusing the government’s legislation. I have responded accordingly to Mr Martin tonight. This letter 

was sent off approximately 10 minutes ago— 

Dear Mr Martin 

I refer to you letter dated 7 March 2013 which was only received at 5:30pm. 

I note that examinations are currently underway as to how the CMC allowed the release of information gained from the 

Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry that should not have been made public. 

As you would be fully aware, to request a Government to pass legislation within hours of a request is extraordinary and totally 

unsatisfactory. 

This Government will not pass legislation simply for the sake of covering up the CMC’s inability properly perform its functions. 

The people who have accessed these documents, prima facie, have done so lawfully. 

The normal, standard and publicly accepted ways of consulting and due process are proposed to be abandoned, and, in 

addition, Parliamentary Counsel will need to draft legislation in an unrealistically short time frame. This is a recipe for bad public 

policy and bad legislation. 

Any responsible Government would only accede to such an extraordinary request with caution and only after a full case was 

presented for such a course of action. 

In this case your short and cursory letter, with a caveat at the end, is totally unsatisfactory. 

Despite requesting this extraordinary short turnaround time for legislation, it appears on the face of it that the CMC has known 

about these issues for months. 

You have requested corrective legislation limited to the prevention of republication of information gained from the Fitzgerald 

Inquiry. 

However, your letter is profoundly deficient in that it contains no detail for the type of corrective legislation you desire. 

In short, the Government has been placed by the negligence of the CMC and by an extraordinary request made at the very last 

moment, in an unsatisfactory situation. This also applies to the Legislative Assembly. Neither the Government nor the 

Parliament can be expected to accede to requests of such a nature other than in extraordinary circumstances. 

The Government will use its best endeavours despite this totally unsatisfactory state of affairs to ensure that the public interest 

is protected, but I place on record my concern and grave disappointment the way in which the CMC has conducted itself. 

The Government will reluctantly attempt to assist the CMC with corrective legislation. However, prior to any such corrective 

legislation, I require more particulars of the type of corrective legislation required and the reason for it. I also require additional 

information with respect to whether the CMC has pursued other options to rectify the situation, such as a court injunction. 

I require your response by 10pm. 

Yours sincerely 

Jarrod Bleijie MP 

Attorney-General and Minister for Justice


I table a copy of both letters. 

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 7 March 2013, from the Chair of the Crime and Misconduct Commission, Mr Ross Martin, to the 

Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Hon. Jarrod Bleijie, regarding the release of documents in relation to the Fitzgerald 

Inquiry that should not have been made public [2211]. 

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 7 March 2013, from the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Hon. Jarrod Bleijie, to the chair 

of the Crime and Misconduct Commission, Mr Ross Martin, regarding the release of documents in relation to the Fitzgerald 

inquiry that should not have been made public [2212]. 

As I have indicated in the letter, the government will reluctantly try to assist, but to do so in 

such extraordinary circumstances, with extraordinary people working behind the scenes, we have to 

be convinced, and I am not convinced by the letter that the CMC chair wrote and sent at 5.30 this 

afternoon. The CMC chair allowed a full day to go by. He could have gone out and made public 

statements as to why this legislation was required. The government and I are certainly of the view that 

if there are issues of protection of those in the community that have been named in these documents 

lawfully accessed by members of the public or journalists, if there are dangers in relation to their 

safety and their wellbeing, then we ought to know before this House is put into the predicament of 

passing such rushed legislation. 

Honourable colleagues, I bring these matters to your attention because of the serious nature of 

the request and, as I indicated this morning, the continual battle that we have with the secretive 

nature of the crime-fighting body—more particularly, the PCMC and the CMC. We must address 

these issues. Colleagues, this is the start of the process tonight. We may be in for a late night as we 

await a response from the CMC chair. I will update the House after 10 pm this evening if I have 

received the required response and then government will be in a position to ascertain whether we 

proceed with corrective legislation that is in the best interests of those named or not. 

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION BILL 


Resumed from p. 546, on motion of Mr Bleijie— 


Mrs FRECKLINGTON (Nanango—LNP) (8.09 pm): I rise to support the Commercial Arbitration 

Bill 2012, which seeks to update Queensland’s commercial arbitration law and align it with other 

Australian jurisdictions. I thank our Attorney-General, who has just spoken so eloquently in the House 

on very serious issues that are before the House this evening, for bringing this legislation before the 

House today. Along with all the other Newman legislation that we have brought before this House, 

this bill goes a long way to reduce red tape and regulation for business operators within this great 

state of Queensland. I take this opportunity to mention that the Office of Best Practice Regulation has 

released its report on the reduction of red tape and regulation within the state of Queensland. That 

report card was released today. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berry): Order! One moment, member for Nanango. The amount of 

audible noise involved in conversations makes it a little difficult to hear. If members could give due 

respect to the member speaking, I would very much appreciate it. 

Mrs FRECKLINGTON: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your protection. 

Mr Deputy Speaker, you are a former solicitor, as I am, and I know that you, too, understand the 

importance of the option of arbitration in the commercial sector. However, over recent years there has 

been criticism by all those involved that the system has become too litigious and out of date. Whilst I 

would never criticise the legal system, in this case the options of having arbitration, mediation or 

conciliation—ideas outside of the doors of court—certainly provide a wonderful opportunity for all of 

our good businesspeople to try to save time and money and cut down on onerous red tape. This bill 

will benefit Queensland businesses by modernising and updating Queensland commercial arbitration 

law, therefore helping us to adopt international best practice and strengthening the attraction of 

arbitration as an alternative to lengthy and costly court processes. All states except Queensland and 

the ACT have now passed this legislation and I believe it is time that Queensland got on board so that 

businesses across Australia know what they are doing when it comes to their business practices. 

This model bill is based on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model 

Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Importantly, as we come in line with other states, the 

arbitration process will become more appealing to companies as a national uniform law will most 

likely result in more efficient processes. I wish to talk on that point. I ask members to imagine a large-


scale organisation of a commercial nature that works across borders such as a trucking business. 

That company may have trucks that travel from the Northern Territory and through this wonderful 

great state— 

A government member: Beautiful country. 

Mrs FRECKLINGTON: Yes, the beautiful country of Queensland. Its trucks may travel through 

areas such as the electorate of the member for Gregory and then through Callide, the country of the 

Deputy Premier. The trucks may then travel down through the amazing part of Queensland that is the 

wonderful South Burnett and through beautiful Somerset, which is full of immense water plains. The 

same trucking company may collect a few things and then keep on trucking through Logan. Its trucks 

would head down to the wonderful areas of the Gold Coast that are represented by the members who 

sit behind me, such as my lovely parliamentary colleague the member for Broadwater. The trucks 

would cross the border into New South Wales and head down through Sydney to Melbourne. 

Obviously such a company deals with organisations throughout the different states. What if a dispute 

arises? What should they do? In this area, the laws across the states need to be the same. Such a 

national company would be able to go into an arbitration situation in the state of Queensland just as it 

would should it be working out of its offices in Sydney. It would then be able to use this arbitration 

system, rather than tying up the court system that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I well know— 

Mr Johnson: That all you lawyers make a fortune out of. 

Mrs FRECKLINGTON: I will not take that interjection from the member for Gregory, because 

that is another opportunity for businesses in Queensland— 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nanango, I want to take a moment. I will not warn 

the member for Gregory for talking in terms of lawyers. I want kinder words. 

Mrs FRECKLINGTON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I do thank you for your protection, particularly in 

relation to the member for Gregory. 

Mr Johnson: I’m a lawyer, too; I’m a bush lawyer. 

Mrs FRECKLINGTON: Let me talk about bush lawyers for a moment. 

A government member: There is one in front of you. 

Mrs FRECKLINGTON: There is one in front of me and we also have the member for Callide. 

At times he decides he is just like us, but he always calls himself a bush lawyer as well. As all good 

lawyers such as yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Attorney-General and I know— 

Mr Bleijie: I’m retired. 

Mrs FRECKLINGTON: So am I. We are ex-lawyers. However, this legislation provides 

opportunities for lawyers in the form of an alternative business: we can become arbitrators. To get 

back onto the bill, in Queensland’s current resource boom climate, this legislation is particularly 

important as commercial arbitration is most commonly used to resolve disputes in the oil, gas, 

engineering, construction, shipping and finance industries. 

Mr Dillaway: They are all growth industries. 

Mrs FRECKLINGTON: I will take the interjection from the honourable member. They are all 

growth industries for this wonderful state of Queensland. I believe that this bill will make commercial 

arbitration a more attractive option to parties by enabling the private, fast and fair resolution of 

disputes by an impartial arbitrator without excessive legal costs. The bill also allows parties to choose 

their own arbitrator. The bill allows a party to the dispute to undertake arbitration in the language of 

their choice, which is a wonderful aspect of the legislation. Last night I attended an event at the 

wonderful Greek Club. A couple of Greek business owners who do not speak English could choose a 

Greek arbitrator to resolve their dispute. It is important to note that this bill applies only to domestic 

commercial arbitration and expressly recognises that the Commonwealth act governs international 

commercial arbitration. 

I reiterate how important this bill is for getting the state of Queensland’s businesses back on 

track. I will tell members what effect this bill will have on organisations. Let me talk about one of my 

local construction companies. Homezone Projects is a great local building company. Should they 

have a dispute, they will not need to go and pay one of the local lawyers a lot of money. They could 

employ an arbitrator to get their dispute solved very quickly.


I would like to congratulate the Attorney-General and his staff for their hard work and effort. I 

acknowledge the hard work of the members of the committee and you, Mr Deputy Speaker Berry, as 

chairman, in looking at this bill. This goes a long way towards the reduction of red tape that was given 

to us by the previous Labor government. I commend this bill to the House. 

Mr BOOTHMAN (Albert—LNP) (8.20 pm): I am not too sure that I can beat the transport issue. 

The member was talking about going down to the Gold Coast. She has to go through the electorate of 

Albert to get the Gold Coast. The electorate of Albert is the gateway to the Gold Coast. We are the 

main manufacturing hub. 

I am certainly pleased to speak in support of the Commercial Arbitration Bill 2012. Once again, 

the Newman government is committed to bringing commercial arbitration into line with national and 

international practices. Commercial arbitration has been a hot topic in my electorate of Albert in 

recent times. I have actually had business owners come to me and talk about the frustration they 

have suffered when it comes to these potentially lengthy processes. 

The electorate of Albert is positioned at the northern end of the Gold Coast and the southern 

end of Logan. We have massive industrial potential in the northern section of the electorate—around 

the Yatala region. That area goes into the Coomera electorate. We need to ensure that we attract 

businesses to the area. We need to ensure that we reduce red tape and that the legislation is set up 

in such a way that it attracts businesses to our area. Business owners need a cost-effective and 

efficient process that is in line with international best practice. It is hard enough to run a business 

without all this additional aggravation. 

This bill certainly combines the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model 

Law on International Commercial Arbitration and domestic arbitration provisions. This is certainly 

welcome. When I was speaking to my businesses about this they were happy that this legislation is 

being put through. It puts us in step with the other states, apart from the ACT— 

Miss Barton: It’s not a state. 

Mr BOOTHMAN: Territory. I take the interjection from the member for Broadwater. 


Mr BOOTHMAN: They are a little bit behind the eight ball on this one. We went to the last 

election with our policies relating to a four-pillar economy. When it comes down to it, we need to get 

our four-pillar economy going. One of the crucial pillars of the economy is the construction industry. 

There is certainly a lot of development going on in the Albert region. There are a lot of foreign 

investors coming in. There are also a lot of interstate investors. Streamlining the commercial 

arbitration system will help promote my region and attract businesses to the area. I am certainly very 

happy about that. 

The most important issue for me is getting jobs for last year’s school leavers. They are out 

searching for jobs. Upper Coomera State College is doing an absolutely fantastic job when it comes 

to students attaining university placements. Over 20 per cent of students attained university 

placements. These individuals will need jobs in the future. Therefore, we need to attract business to 

this state. This new legislation will do this. Our commitment and the wonderful job the Attorney- 

General has been doing in bringing this new legislation in will help our businesses. Cutting red tape 

and streamlining processes certainly makes a huge difference to businesses. 

I have quite a large population of New Zealanders in the Upper Coomera region. One of the 

things they say to me is, ‘How do we get a job in the mines?’ 

Dr Flegg interjected. 

Mr BOOTHMAN: I take the interjection from the member for Moggill. These individuals are 

desperately looking for suitable employment. It is crucial that governments actually promote 

businesses. It is crucial that we are proactive. I take my hat off to the Attorney-General for his hard 

work on this legislation. 

The Gold Coast City Council has indicated that by 2030 the number of jobs in the Yatala area 

will almost triple. It is a massive development area. It is the factory region for the Gold Coast. People 

can get their fibreglass pools, concrete tanks, building materials—you name it—up there. We have 

the famous Carlton & United Breweries factory just beside the highway. 

Mr Hart interjected.


area. 

Mr BOOTHMAN: I take the interjection. It is fantastic. I will not talk about the beverages there. 

Miss Barton: Try the Burleigh Brewing Co. 

Mr BOOTHMAN: We have competition down in Burleigh, but I have a bigger factory in my 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berry): Order! Member for Albert, are you taking interjections? 

Mr BOOTHMAN: No, I am not taking interjections from the member for Burleigh because he 

has a smaller beverage factory than me. 

The bill defines the scope and form of arbitration agreements. This includes appointments of 

arbitrators and the powers and procedures arbitrators follow. In addition, the legislation contains the 

power to create awards and terminate any proceedings. I also understand the awarding of costs and 

determining settlements is provided for in this bill. 

This legislation gives the parties a lot more say. For instance, if parties cannot agree the 

decision defaults to the arbitrator. Furthermore, safeguards are included if concerns do arise about 

the arbitrator’s independence or qualifications. In this instance a challenge can be mounted to resolve 

the disagreement through arbitration or alternatively through the courts. In addition, for checks and 

balances applications to set aside awards are restricted to specific points. These include breaches of 

natural justice, arbitration agreements as they concern the awards and court decisions in respect of 

the legality of arbitrating a particular disputed issue. 

Arbitrators will have the powers to make decisions and preserve evidence and nominate costs. 

This is binding upon the decision for court applications. Furthermore, the bill outlines conditions if the 

matter needs to proceed to the courts. I must add, the bill recognises interstate awards and gives the 

court the power to enforce them. 

The bill also includes additional procedural matters, which includes a requirement for parties to 

provide statements of claim and defence at the commencement of the proceedings. This also 

includes powers for arbitrators to make an award on settlement and/or the appointment of an expert. 

Again, I just want to highlight how important it is to attract businesses into our areas. When it 

comes to the schools in our areas, we have to get our school leavers into jobs. The government 

needs to be proactive. The Attorney-General is doing a fantastic job. He is a proactive AG. I take my 

hat off to him. I take note of all the other legislation he has been putting through in recent times. When 

it comes to law and order, I can tell members that my neighbourhood watches are over the moon 

about the hard work this man is doing. It is really terrific and I certainly take my hat off to him for that. 

Miss Barton: You don’t have a hat on. 

Mr BOOTHMAN: I know. I do not have a hat on. I take the interjection. But if I did I would. I just 

want to say thank you to the AG for bringing in this legislation and getting our state back on track by 

reducing the red tape and all the draconian bureaucracy which, as a former small business owner, I 

can certainly understand. It is pretty tough out there. So good on you, AG. 

Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (8.30 pm): That contribution from the member for Albert was 

certainly a very difficult one to follow. And that could have two meanings: it was difficult to follow or it 

is difficult to follow it! This bill was all about keeping disputes out of court, and I feel I am a very wellqualified 

member to speak about that. Having had a lot of business experience before I came into this 

place, I realise how easy it is for commercial disputes to end up this way. On reading this bill, I was 

very impressed with how strong the conditions are. I am not even a bush lawyer like the member for 

Gregory or a real lawyer like the Attorney-General or Mr Deputy Speaker— 

Mr Bleijie: Are you a real doctor? 

Dr FLEGG: Come and see me and find out. But even bush lawyers like the member for 

Gregory can think about the loopholes that people might use to try to get out of regulations like this. It 

is very important to create a consistent business environment that is conducive to business operation 

in this state and in this nation being competitive. An important part of that is the nationally consistent 

nature of this particular bill. It is a model law so that means that the various jurisdictions in Australia 

will be consistent with each other and will be consistent with the federal arrangements. 

In particular, I note that the parties to a contract agree in contracting that they will submit 

themselves to binding arbitration. This is a case that on entering into a contract the participants in that 

contract make a binding agreement that, should their contract fall into disrepute, they forgo the right to 

go to court and they will submit themselves to a binding decision by an arbiter. This should help to 

unclutter our legal system and—


Miss Barton interjected. 

Dr FLEGG: Well we want to unclutter it, but I did Google ‘commercial lawyers Brisbane’ just to 

have a look. I found that there are quite a lot of them, but I am quite sure they will still find enough 

work to do. 

In my previous job as Minister for Housing, this was a particular issue that we had a look at in 

relation to what are called BCIPA payments. Particularly in the area of energy infrastructure with 

pipelines and some of the big projects that we have in Queensland where some of those contracts 

can be quite substantial, you may be dealing with a contractor, even a reasonable sized contractor— 

you might be dealing with a multibillion dollar principal in a contract—who, should they come to an 

expensive legal dispute, may win just because they have deeper pockets. I think that this is a 

provision that will make Queensland a more attractive place and will make people feel safer in 

entering into commercial contracts. 

Mr Deputy Speaker Berry, you would be aware of some of the very famous disputes that have 

arisen in the commercial contract area. I think there was a famous precedent with one of the valves 

on Rheem hot-water systems which at one point was the longest running litigation in Australia. These 

sorts of disputes are utterly debilitating for the business participants. So I refer to that as a sort of 

David and Goliath issue where, if you have deep enough pockets, you can run a case in court, you 

can keep it going, you can appeal it if necessary. I think this assists to create a much more level 

playing field. 

I note that consultation was done in the previous iteration of this bill. My understanding is that 

the opposition, naturally enough given the history of this, are planning to support it. So I think that in 

the area of consultation we can be satisfied that that has been adequately dealt with. 

One phrase that appears in this bill that I think is very, very important to the functioning of this 

bill is that the decisions made in arbitration should be ‘fair and final’—‘final’ particularly being the vital 

word. If you have a situation where decisions of the arbitrator can be appealed or are not final, then 

you are going to have a situation that probably takes you back to where you started from. 

Clause 7 of the bill defines what an arbitration agreement is. I refer back to my earlier comment 

that this is an agreement entered into by parties when they contract because they perceive it to be to 

their mutual benefit. So the nature of that agreement is defined quite clearly in the bill. It is the 

agreement by which parties submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which 

may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. So it is 

important to have a good understanding of what the arbitration agreement is. 

Issues such as the number of arbitrators that would be involved on a particular tribunal to 

decide these matters are available for the participants in a contract to agree upon. There are some 

circumstances laid down under which the appointment of a particular arbitrator can be challenged. In 

some instances that challenge can go to the court. But the bill is well put together and it minimises the 

circumstances under which disagreement over a particular arbitrator could lead to such a dispute. 

Mainly it would revolve around the area if there were some concern about the impartiality or 

independence of an arbitrator. A situation that could conceivably arise in areas that are very dispute 

prone would be that very large corporations may in fact be arbitrating on a regular basis, and it would 

obviously be undesirable if they had the same arbitrators all the time who might be getting a 

substantial portion of their work from one or a small number of clients. That may raise some concerns 

around impartiality. 

Interestingly, there is a provision that, should the contract itself of which an arbitration clause is 

part be found to be null and void, this does not automatically void the agreement to go to arbitration. 

This is a very important clause. I am very pleased to see that the Attorney-General has inserted this 

clause in the bill because, Mr Deputy Speaker, you know what could happen in those 

circumstances—that is, somebody who was unhappy with his prospects at arbitration could attempt to 

avoid arbitration by contesting the validity of the contract itself. Even those sorts of behaviours have 

been foreshadowed here. 

We have a group of interim measures. For example, while awaiting arbitration particular 

decisions may need to be made to keep a particular project viable or to keep a particular project safe. 

So those interim measures that could be enforced have been laid down as well. There are provisions 

around the conduct of the arbitration, for example agreeing what language or languages it is to be 

heard in or whether oral hearings will be allowed. There is also provision for the subpoena of people


to attend. There is provision to require the provision of documents. These are necessary powers that 

an arbitrator must have to be able to come to a full, fair and final solution. There are provisions should 

somebody refuse to attend an arbitration and there are also some provisions that deal with 

information that may come up within the course of the arbitration tribunal that deal with confidential 

information. I commend the bill to the House. 

Mr HART (Burleigh—LNP) (8.40 pm): I thank the member for Moggill for giving me 10 minutes 

to recover my composure after the speech from the member seated beside me! I will endeavour not 

to enter into a debate as to who has the biggest brewery. After all, we know that it is not the size that 

counts but the taste of the beer. 

I rise to speak in support of the Commercial Arbitration Bill 2012, introduced to the parliament 

on 30 October 2012 by the Hon. Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the member for Kawana. 

This bill, like many other bills that the Newman government has introduced, is about streamlining 

processes to make it simpler for Queensland residents and particularly Queensland businesses to 

undertake commercial arbitration rather than necessarily be forced into the world of litigation. 

As we move into a national and global business environment, this bill creates a high level of 

consistency with the national arbitration regime and similar legislation already adopted in other states 

and territories. As I personally experienced before becoming a member of this House, the difference 

in the cost and the time commitment when involved in arbitration rather than litigation can be 

enormous and more complex when working across multiple jurisdictions within Australia. The passing 

of this bill will be welcomed enthusiastically by businesses across Queensland. 

This bill also harmonises the Queensland domestic commercial arbitration regime within the 

Commonwealth International Arbitration Act 1974. Once again, this will assist in arbitration across 

multiple jurisdictions. The benefits to those involved will be lower cost and, hopefully, speedier results 

and outcomes. By allowing more cases to settle through arbitration rather than litigation, pressure 

should be reduced on the state court system, which we acknowledge is under a load that leads to 

higher costs for those involved and lengthy lead times that are inconsistent with business continuity. 

As previously noted, we are increasingly part of a national and worldwide business community. 

This bill ensures that Queensland businesses are supported by adherence to world standards in 

commercial dispute resolution. 

It has been increasingly said that arbitration to date has become too litigious and the 

advantages of an arbitration action have become lessened when it comes to cost and time. However, 

the former Standing Committee of Attorneys-General agreed to update and modernise the uniform 

acts, thus ensuring they reflect international best practice. This in turn supports arbitration as an 

efficient and cost-effective alternative to litigation. I would like to quote from an excellent article by 

correspondent Ben Christoffel of Norton Rose Australia on 2 February this year. He says— 

The changes introduced in section 1AC of the Arbitration Bill are aimed at ensuring that arbitration in Queensland is an 

efficient, cost-effective alternative to litigation. The Arbitration Bill aims to achieve this objective by: 

1. enabling parties to agree how their commercial disputes are to be resolved; and 

2. providing arbitration procedures that enable commercial disputes to be resolved in a cost effective manner, informally 

and quickly. 

This section is a reminder that one of the main advantages of commercial arbitration, in the domestic context, is the ability of 

parties and arbitrators to tailor arbitration procedures for the most efficient resolution of the dispute. 

Parties may have a preference for an arbitration that is as formal as court proceedings or for something that is relatively 

inexpensive and quick. 

There is often difficulty when the parties have varying views of where on the line between these two extremes the arbitration 

should sit. Parties may also have differing expectations to that of the arbitrator, and, as can often be the case, those 

expectations may sit outside the realms of practicality and reality. 

Regardless, these issues should be taken into consideration by the arbitrator to ensure that procedures are appropriate to the 

nature and value of the dispute. 

That is an excellent overview of section 1AC of the bill. 

There are a number of changes which, when passed, will mean that arbitration in Queensland 

will be more time and cost-effective for all involved. This is reinforced with changes in section 5 of the 

bill, which has been somewhat controversial in some circles. This effect comes into play when parties 

agree to the process of arbitration to resolve a dispute. This section ensures that by agreeing to an 

arbitration process they are excluding the court system as a method to resolve the dispute. They are 

making a conscious decision to do so. And the result of the arbitration will be binding on all parties. 

This means that there will be no more changes in direction part way through a process if a relevant


party is, for example, not happy with the proceedings. Once there is an agreement to settle a dispute 

by arbitration, no longer will that party suddenly be able to say that they wish to change direction and 

will now go to court to have the matter resolved. This allows certainty and clarity at the 

commencement of a proceedings. 

Until now there were numerous examples in commercial disputes of a sudden switch from 

arbitration to, say, the Supreme Court being used as a tactic to stall or extend the time frame to come 

to a resolution. I am sure we have all heard of those instances. You only have to read our 

newspapers to see these sorts of things happening. In fact, this tactic has often extended a dispute by 

many years. Once the matter becomes bogged down in the court system, it just seems to hang there 

and hang there. This section has been adopted unamended by all jurisdictions that are based on the 

modern bill. 

The other amendments that take effect in this bill all work together to achieve desired aims of 

time efficiency, cost efficiency and lessening court involvement in arbitration matters. 

Importantly, this bill is part of the state government’s ongoing plan to reduce red tape and 

reduce the cost of doing business in Queensland while endeavouring to free up litigation through the 

court system. What this bill achieves is legislative harmonisation with all other jurisdictions and is 

another step in the process of making it easier to do business in Queensland. 

I commend the Hon. Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the member for Kawana, for the 

work associated in bringing this bill to the House. I also thank the chair and members of the Legal 

Affairs and Community Safety Committee for their work on this legislation. It is a great pleasure to 

commend this bill to the House. 

Mr PUCCI (Logan—LNP) (8.48 pm): I rise today to contribute to the debate on the Commercial 

Arbitration Bill 2012. We have heard a lot of talk about lawyers during this debate. I am no 

commercial lawyer, although I do live in what I call country—the best country—and I am not a bush 

lawyer. However, I have travelled significantly around the world in many different countries and I have 

had to handle quite a few ‘disputes’. You could call me a bit of a sea lawyer. I speak on this bill with 

that in mind. 

The current act is consistent with the uniform Commercial Arbitration Act previously developed 

by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General—the SCAG—across Australia. The bill is yet 

another example of our government’s commitment to cut red tape and streamline processes acrossthe-board 

in Queensland. The current model for arbitrations has become too litigious. It is just too 

hard, it takes too long and it is very confusing and bulky. 

Mr Watts interjected. 

Mr PUCCI: I am getting there. Realising this issue, the SCAG agreed to undertake strategic 

remodelling to update and modernise practices that are currently employed. Such a modernisation 

will reflect measures that are in line with the best practices on an international level as well as 

supporting arbitration as an efficient and cost-effective alternative to litigation. Currently, clauses 

affecting arbitration in Queensland restrict the rights and liberties of individuals and corporations by 

limiting access to the courts in commercial arbitration matters. 

I talked to some wonderful manufacturing businesses in my area of Logan, because 

manufacturing is one of the largest industries in Logan. BDS Pty Ltd in Magnesium Drive in the 

Crestmead-Browns Plains area manufactures quality shop fittings and display and shelving systems 

all over Australia. If they were to have a dispute it would affect them financially, it would affect their 

employees and it may even affect their ability to help the BDS Logan Thunder, the women’s 

basketball team that they sponsor. If honourable members want to see a quality women’s basketball 

team play they should come and visit Logan Thunder. I also have the Costa mushroom exchange, 

which ships mushrooms Australia-wide. That is a wonderful place to visit, too. If honourable members 

ever want to taste the sweetest mushrooms in Brisbane or Queensland they should come and visit 

Logan, where my largest employer, the Costa mushroom exchange, is located. This legislation will 

help these businesses survive. 

Recently I met with two constituents of my great electorate of Logan whose difficulties with the 

arbitration system proved to be a frustrating process to say the least. Our government is 

wholeheartedly committed to improving services in our great state. This bill will ensure that efficient 

and effective practices are in place. My constituents’ angst stems from the tedious process that is


involved in arbitration procedures and how significantly it impacts on the financial viability of their 

businesses, as I was saying earlier. In order to promote commercial growth within our communities, 

the administrative avenues for dispute resolution should not hinder or impede the process. 

Honourable members would have heard me speak about this many times. We have the greater 

Flagstone area which will one day house 120,000 people. Yarrabilba is being built right on the border 

of my electorate. Park Ridge is being built up. There is also North Maclean, where the Costa 

Exchange is located. That is going to be an industrial area. If we want to attract businesses to these 

growth areas, the largest growth areas in South-East Queensland, we need legislation like this. This 

is the type of legislation that is going to help businesses grow and get our great state with great 

opportunities back on track. Again, it is up to our government to take the steps needed to get the 

arbitration system back on track. I do acknowledge that Her Majesty’s loyal opposition is supporting 

this bill— 

Mr Bleijie: And Her Majesty’s government. 

Mr PUCCI: And of course Her Majesty’s government. I welcome the opposition’s support of the 

bill. To that I say better late than never. 

This bill will ultimately result in a more cost-effective process for both the judicial system and 

plaintiffs hearing cases before the courts. Furthermore, this bill will address court intervention at 

various stages to ensure the arbitral process is conducted in accordance with the arbitration 

agreement, principles and procedural fairness, relevant public policy and the law. The inclusion of 

these clauses will provide parties with the clarity and the certainty about the extent of judicial 

intervention and is consistent with the proposition that awards should be final and binding. 

This legislation is about keeping it out of the courts, saving money and saving businesses. 

Clauses will not include a time limit for parties to give their written consent for an arbitrator to continue 

to act. This increases the power that parties will have in the process to ensure that the best process is 

followed and that an outcome that is in the best interests for all parties concerned is achieved. That is 

important because it is not necessarily about getting the fastest outcome, but getting the best 

outcome for all parties concerned in the dispute. That is an important part of the legislation. 

The clauses also provide that an arbitrator is not liable to prosecution for an act or omission 

done in good faith as an arbitrator or as a mediator. Further, clauses in the bill protect an arbitrator or 

umpire from negligence unless the offence is fraud. The proposed immunity is consistent with 

immunity provided for conciliators and adjudicators which has been recognised as appropriate by the 

former scrutiny of legislation committee. 

I want to thank the honourable Attorney-General, the honourable members of the Legal Affairs 

and Community Safety Committee as well as the support staff for their efforts in the delivery of this 

bill. It is another example of the great things that this great government is doing for this great state 

with great opportunities. I proudly commend this bill to the House. 

Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (8.56 pm): I rise tonight to speak to the Commercial 

Arbitration Bill. It gives me great pleasure to speak to this very important bill that the Attorney-General 

has brought before the parliament. It is very rare for the Leader of the Opposition to praise the 

Attorney-General and suggest that the work he is bringing forward to this House is a wonderful 

improvement for the business and commercial area, which is one of the four pillars that the LNP has 

concentrated on to get Queensland working again, matters of critical importance to Queensland. It 

was great to see that bipartisan support from the Leader of the Opposition for the Attorney-General. 

The standardisation of the Queensland arbitration laws in accordance with our national laws, 

which are also modelled on the international laws, is an important part of doing business a lot better in 

Queensland. People get wound up in difficult commercial litigations. I have utilised the arbitration 

system. I was very impressed with the attempts that were made to bring about a resolution to the 

disputes in which I was involved. Like many others, I saved considerable amounts through the 

arbitration system. There was also a saving in terms of not tying up valuable legal resources. 

It is marvellous that we have a great number of legal practitioners in the LNP parliamentary 

team and all of them are of eminent reputation such as the members for Ipswich, Beaudesert, our 

Attorney-General of course, Nanango, who spoke earlier, and the member for Broadwater. Many 

others of wonderful experience in many areas of commercial practice see the enormous value that is 

added to our commercial community by adopting this new standard code of arbitration. I also note the


member for Toowoomba North’s very relevant speech earlier when he alluded to businesses in 

Toowoomba expanding and doing a lot of international business. When there are disputes between 

international neighbours, any level of arbitration between Toowoomba traders and their international 

business partners will mean that there will be a commonality in terms of coming to a reasonable 

solution to the dispute at hand. 

Arbitration is, just like politics, all about giving a little bit to get a result. There is no absolute 

winner in an arbitration case. It is up to the very experienced and qualified arbiter to bring together an 

equitable and fair solution for both parties, and the normal route for that to happen is that both sides 

end up not getting 100 per cent of what they have put in with regard to the commercial agreement. 

That is the success of a commercial arbiter and that is why following the guidelines that this bill 

introduces in terms of commercial arbitration will lead to a greater understanding, a greater 

acceptance and a greater utilisation of the arbitration system effectively—that is, the necessity of our 

system right across-the-board to improve the business climate for people in Queensland to do 

business. 

Even the lawyers are prepared to give up some of their very wonderful fees in order to see the 

arbitration system work effectively. But when groups come together and agree with this particular 

bill—esteemed groups such as the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration, the 

Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia and even the Queensland Law Society, the Bar 

Association of Queensland and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators all coming together to support 

this piece of legislation—then you know that the legislators have got it correct, the Attorney-General 

has got it correct and the parliamentary committee system that reviewed this bill has got it correct so 

that we are delivering a much improved system of arbitration for those commercial interests in 


Obviously arbitration reduces the demand on courts and court time, and that leads me to one of 

my favourite subjects—QCAT, which was seen as the focus for the determination of all minor 

disputes et cetera. This arbitration bill will cut down on its workload and gives it the opportunity to look 

at many other areas. Even the racing industry is going to QCAT at the moment. There is a line-up 

way out the door and around the corner for QCAT. Someone mentioned bodies corporate, and they 

are in the QCAT queue. That is a very good one—the QCAT queue. The QCAT queue goes right out 

the door and around the corner with disputes. This arbitration bill will undoubtedly lead to the QCAT 

queue being shorter than it would be if we did not have the commercial arbitration bill. It is very similar 

to other COAG measures coming down through the federal government in terms of model law 

legislation, which obviously makes it easier for people to understand. It is consistent with people 

doing business in other states. They can now understand the arbitration laws of Queensland and the 

processes, so it makes the business climate a lot friendlier for people to come and invest in 


This arbitration bill is a major win. It is not a light piece of legislation. It is a major win for 

commercial interests in Queensland, and again it goes along our much stated trail of reducing red 

tape in Queensland. The Newman LNP government has as its No. 1 priority reducing red tape 

throughout Queensland. By going down this course of standardising and improving the arbitration 

system for Queensland in accordance with national and international arbitration, we are creating a 

better climate for people to do business in Queensland. We are reducing red tape and cutting down 

on the processes that people have to go through. 

Another sector with which I was involved heavily in my previous business life was shopping 

centre leases. There is always acrimony and debate between shopping centre lease owners and 

small traders. This will give a much clearer defined route for shopkeepers to be able to take their 

commercial disputes through this arbitration process with a more certain outcome in terms of a fair 

and equitable arbitration process. The small business sector is one part of our community we are very 

keen to maintain and give every opportunity to thrive. We are very keen to see small business 

protected. By going to this new arbitration system, we are giving those small businesses a greater 

opportunity and greater knowledge to deal in these certain commercial cases, particularly with 

landlords who are not particularly caring of small business concerns and might in other cases take 

them through a very expensive legal process. A lot of small traders cannot afford that process but the 

big shopping centre owners can afford to drag it out through the courts.


This improved arbitration process will undoubtedly lead to a much better facilitation of a quicker 

resolution to disputes, and that in itself takes away some of the time that small business, lawyers and 

all business parties are spending in terms of litigation. It is easier and quicker to go through the 

arbitration process. From my perspective and from my experience, even though you might not always 

agree on the matter and there will probably be a loss to some to a certain degree in the claim, there 

will be the opportunity for a fair and equitable hearing. I commend this bill to the House. 

Mr MOLHOEK (Southport—LNP) (9.07 pm): I am pleased to rise in the House this evening to 

speak in support of the Commercial Arbitration Bill 2012. The Newman government is committed to 

updating and modernising Queensland’s commercial arbitration law in line with national and 

international best practice. Arbitration, as my colleagues would know, is intended to provide parties to 

disputes with cost-effective, expedient access to an enforceable determination as an alternative to 

lengthy, expensive public court hearings. 

It may interest the House to know that in one of my many former careers I had the pleasure of 

being the CEO of a legal firm on the Gold Coast for some 18 months to two years as it was 

transitioning through a range of fairly interesting partnership issues. One of the things that I came to 

learn during that time was that the bane of every legal firm’s life is having to deal with long, 

protracted, expensive litigation cases, often over sometimes fairly trivial matters. The process and the 

cost burden on both the law firm and the clients is quite onerous. The problem with some of these 

very lengthy litigation cases is that in the end nobody seems to win. They are expensive. They are 

quite stressful for all parties concerned. I believe that this bill that we are debating tonight to simplify 

and streamline the arbitration process and to bring it into line with all of the other states of Australia is 

not only a significant step forward but a very important move in terms of red-tape reduction and 

reducing the cost of business and bringing some common standards across the nation, particularly in 

a state like Queensland where we have so many people moving here from interstate. 

My job was not, as we heard from the member for Ipswich this afternoon, to bill in six-minute 

increments. I was not a lawyer. As the member for Mansfield, the Hon. Ian Walker, the Assistant 

Minister for Planning Reform would know, the way a lawyer makes a living is by billing in six-minute 

increments. I am sure the member for Ipswich would understand the importance of even charging 

$1.40 per page for the photocopying and for processing all the paperwork and the recording of 

telephone conversations and emails. That process gets quite expensive. 

Mr Berry: It is hard work. 

Mr MOLHOEK: It is hard work, but it is not particularly a cost-effective process for some 

business operators who are just trying to get on with business and move on with their lives. When you 

have to wait for a court hearing and you are waiting for a solicitor’s advice and you are waiting for the 

other party to get back to you, it can be incredibly challenging and a huge impost on business. I recall 

a case where a client had been overcharged for some repairs to a jet ski. If I recall correctly, at the 

time the jet ski cost about $20,000. It was only about nine months old. I think the owner’s son had 

been giving it a fair thrashing out in the surf. The bill for the repairs came in and it was some $5,500 

to get this jet ski repaired. This client really took exception to that, so he challenged the firm that had 

undertaken the repairs. I can tell members that the matter went on for some 12 to 18 months. I think 

he ended up spending over $10,000 in legal fees and he still did not win the battle. He ended up 

having to repay the repair bill because it was deemed appropriate to do so. 

I want to run through some of the important features of this legislation because it is important 

that we understand fully what we are going to be adopting a little later this evening. Arbitration is a 

formal dispute resolution process in which two or more parties refer their commercial dispute to an 

independent third person, the arbitrator, for determination. The result of the arbitration is known as the 

award and it is enforceable in the same manner as a court judgement. Commercial arbitration is 

commonly used by the insurance, construction, engineering, oil, gas, shipping, banking and finance 

industries when resolving their disputes. Given the LNP’s commitment to the four pillars and our 

determination to really get the construction industry going, our focus on improving tourism as an 

industry across the state and our commitment to lowering the cost of living and to red-tape reduction, 

when you look at all the different sectors that rely on this particular legal process of arbitration to 

resolve disputes in a cost-effective manner this is really important legislation that we are here to 

consider.


Arbitration is intended to provide parties to disputes with cost-effective, expedient access to an 

enforceable determination as an alternative to lengthy, expensive public court proceedings—similar to 

the one that I spoke just a little earlier. Currently, Queensland’s Commercial Arbitration Act 1990 

governs the conduct of domestic commercial arbitrations in Queensland. It is one of a series of 

substantially uniform laws across Australia that are commonly referred to as the uniform commercial 

arbitration acts, which were developed under the auspices of the former Standing Committee of 

Attorneys-General a couple of years ago. 

The new model commercial arbitration legislation was agreed by this Standing Committee of 

Attorneys-General and settled in July 2012 to address criticisms that arbitrations in Australia had 

become too litigious, with proceedings increasingly resembling those of a court and that there was a 

need to modernise and update the uniform commercial arbitration acts to ensure that arbitration 

provides an efficient and cost-effective alternative to litigation, which is consistent with international 

best practice. 

All states in Australia except Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory have passed this 

model legislation. This model bill is based on the United Nations Commission on International Trade 

Law Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. It is also consistent with the Commonwealth 

International Arbitration Act 1974. It is further supplemented by provisions relevant to the domestic 

commercial arbitration setting. 

There was an attempt to bring this bill to the House under the previous government back in 

2011. It was referred to the Legal Affairs, Police and Corrective Services and Emergency Services 

Committee. That committee tabled its report on 16 February 2012 and recommended the passage of 

the bill. Unfortunately, the bill lapsed upon the dissolution of parliament for the general election earlier 

last year. This bill will benefit Queensland businesses by modernising and updating Queensland 

commercial arbitration law and aligning it with other Australian jurisdictions, adopting international 

best practice and strengthening the underpinning attractions of arbitration as an alternative to 

litigation, namely, expediency, cost-effectiveness and autonomy. 

I am pleased to support this bill. I would like to summarise what I see are its main features. It 

applies to domestic commercial arbitration only and expressly recognises that the Commonwealth act 

governs international commercial arbitrations. It defines the form and scope of arbitration agreements 

and it provides for the selection, appointment and challenge of arbiters. It also sets out an arbiter’s 

powers. It contains procedural provisions. It applies a confidentiality regime to the parties and arbitral 

tribunal alike, but contains a consensual opt-out provision. So there is the opportunity for the parties 

involved in an arbitration to opt out of privacy if they are wanting their findings or the results of that 

arbitration to be made public. 

I am pleased to support this bill. It addresses the making of awards and the determination of 

proceedings, including costs and settlement. It outlines preconditions for applications to court to have 

an award set aside or to appeal on a question of law. It recognises interstate awards as binding and 

allows applications to a court for their enforcement. I commend this bill to the House. 

Mr RUTHENBERG (Kallangur—LNP) (9.16 pm): It gives me great pleasure to rise this evening 

to speak to the Commercial Arbitration Bill 2012. I would like to share with members an experience 

my brother shared with me some time ago over some beers around a camp fire. My older brother, 

Neil, is a great outback man. He gets his Outback and away he goes— 

Mr Dempsey: Brokeback Mountain? 

Mr RUTHENBERG: No, no, no. He certainly visits some mountains but he has never had his 

back broke, let me tell you. He is a great man and he takes his family. They have been all over 

Australia in their four-wheel drive. On one occasion they were driving up to the very tip of Australia 

and they got stuck. The drive shaft on their four-wheel drive broke in half. There are not a lot of repair 

places there. Luckily, they were well equipped and had a lot food. They decided they would set up on 

the side of the road. They put up their tent and got their billy out. Neil, being the bushman he is, 

decided to go for a walk. He came across this strange-looking lamp, which is probably not so strange 

up there because there are a lot of different groups who have explored those areas. But being the 

adventurer he is he says, ‘Do you know what? I’m going to give this a go.’ He rubbed this thing and, 

much to his surprise, a genie popped out. The genie says to my brother Neil, ‘I’m a lawyer, but based 

on conventions of my profession as a genie I am going to give you three wishes. But I warn you, as a 

lawyer, every lawyer in Queensland gets double what you ask for.’ You have to understand that my


brother is a businessman. He owns a pest-control franchise. He has had his share of trouble with 

people who will not pay their bills so he has had to use the odd lawyer from time to time. He does not 

have a lot of time for lawyers. 

Mr Johnson: He didn’t have a persuader? 

Mr RUTHENBERG: Oh, he has a persuader, don’t worry about that. That is much to my 

chagrin, because I have a lot of time for lawyers. I think they are great people—most of the time. So 

my brother says, ‘Look, I’ll tell you what, Mr Genie, I would love the most expensive and the best fourwheel 

drive you can conjure up for me right now.’ The genie says, ‘Holy smokes, I can do that for you, 

but remember: every lawyer in Queensland gets two of these.’ And bingo! Out comes this Hummer. 

This Hummer was just beautiful. It was all decked out like you would not believe. ‘Unbelievable! 

Fantastic!,’ Neil says. ‘You ripper.’ He says, ‘Hey, Mr Genie, I’m living in a tent over there. How about 

some land title and the best house you’ve ever seen?’ The genie said, ‘I’m warning you.’ Neil said, 

‘No, no, okay, do that.’ So poof! And all of a sudden the ground starts shaking and up comes this 

house like you have never seen. It was phenomenal. The genie says, ‘Don’t forget, though: every 

lawyer in Queensland just got a house twice as good as that.’ Anyway, Neil goes back and cracks the 

top off one of his beers and sits back and says, ‘Mr Genie, I’m a good fella. I’d like to give a little bit 

back to the community. I’ll tell you what I’d like to do. I’d like to donate one of my kidneys for 

research.’ 

With this bill lawyers will become very scarce. With this bill and arbitration there are many 

people who will be able to negotiate themselves out of dispute. 

Mr Bleijie: I’m going to stand up and take offence to all of this. 

Mr RUTHENBERG: It was a joke. For years I worked with a very large multinational company 

and had occasion to fly around the world from time to time working with customers. This is no joke; 

this is real now. Our contracts typically had dispute resolution clauses in them. Those dispute 

resolution clauses on their own were almost as big as the rest of the contract because every little 

possibility had to be thought about. I remember one time in a little place called Springfield there was a 

power generation company that had two large generating plants and they were wanting to build a 

third one. 

Mr Davies: That’s the home of the Simpsons. 

Mr RUTHENBERG: No, the Simpsons lived in the other Springfield. We were helping them to 

put in some software and do some process work. They were a good customer and we spent a lot of 

time with them, but we came to a point where there was a bit of a dispute. To the credit of that 

company I got a phone call where they said, ‘Why don’t you come over? There are a couple of things 

we need to talk about.’ They were getting a little bit nervous. We went over, and over a period of a 

couple of days we went through what was going on. 

Mr Cox: I thought you were going to tell another joke. 

Mr RUTHENBERG: No, this is fair dinkum. We went through the things that were going on and 

talked it out, because part of the dispute resolution process was that we had to sit down in selfarbitration 

first. We sat down and talked it out because the penalties for both companies for not 

talking it out were very expensive and we wanted to avoid that. We sat down and worked it out and 

came to a resolution and a solution. 

With well-designed process and procedure the same things will happen with this bill. I 

remember another time in Qatar we were working with the world’s largest LNG plant. It was the same 

deal: we came to a point of dispute. We sat down and worked through it. That one took a little bit 

longer but we worked through it and we came to a point of resolution because both sides had the 

desire to come to a point of resolution without getting to the next phase. That is what arbitration can 

do with a willingness to work through problems. 

Shortly in my electorate, along with the electorates of Murrumba and Redcliffe, a railway line 

will start to be built. There will be a billion dollars spent in the next four years installing a very nice, 

new, shiny railway line. It is actually very important for our communities and the economies of our 

local communities. There will be hundreds of companies involved in that process. How good it would 

be to have legislation in place such that if they found themselves at a point of dispute they could 

actually go to arbitration instead of to court. How good would that be?


In my electorate and the electorate of Murrumba is a place called the Narangba Industrial 

Estate. It employs some 1,800 to 2,500 people. There are lots of companies there providing lots of 

employment. There are companies there that I speak with from time to time who are in dispute and in 

court over certain things. It would be fantastic to be able to direct them and point them along the path 

of arbitration so that we can come to a point of resolution of a dispute in a peaceful, less aggravated 

manner. There are jobs available when companies are not spending money in dispute year after year 

after year. They can invest that money in research and development or in capital growth and 

investment. 

This is an incredibly important piece of legislation to allow us to ensure that those companies 

can, in fact, spend time doing what they do best: producing the product or service that they produce. 

This is a great state that has great opportunities. Under the leadership of our Premier things are 

starting to move. We are starting to see little green shoots through the economy. In my electorate I 

talk to real estate agents and they tell me that this year is the best year they have had in years. I talk 

to the lawyers who are acting on behalf of the smaller companies and they are saying that for the first 

time they are starting to see the small companies again invest. I see them as an early indicator for our 

economy. Tonight companies all over Queensland are saying thank you. I say thank you to the 

Attorney-General for introducing the bill, thank you to the folks in the committees who have looked 

over it and, on behalf of those companies across Queensland that have been waiting for this, thanks 

to the folks who are going to vote this up tonight. I wholeheartedly support this bill. 

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (9.26 pm): In rising to speak to the Commercial Arbitration Bill 

2012, I point out that it is a little bit less than 12 months since the Newman government came to 

power in 2012. Over that period of time we have seen a lot of landmark legislation come through this 

House that will make a hell of a difference to many people’s lives. As I said in this chamber yesterday, 

recently a businessman said to me, ‘Big business will look after itself, but you have to look after small 

business.’ That is exactly and precisely what this legislation will do. 

The Newman government is committed to updating and modernising Queensland’s commercial 

arbitration law to bring it in line with other states. For too long now we have been on a different keel to 

those states around us. We are disadvantaged in many ways. I heard the member for Moggill make 

reference to the fact that the companies that have the deep pockets are the ones who are going to 

win every time. We have heard mention of the disagreements between gas companies and local 

farmers in some of the rural areas of Queensland and in the southern area of my electorate in 

particular. It has been a huge impost on some of these people. You do not find those dollars in the 

bottom drawer. People in the farming world, as members are well aware, are price takers and not 

price makers. Their commodities are governed by the seasonal conditions at the time. It is a very 

important factor that certain aspects of the law that govern the workings of the state are fair and 

equitable. It is all right for the big players that are multinational companies with corporate law firms 

behind them or that have their own corporate lawyers fighting their cases on a regular basis. 

This bill adopts the provisions of a model bill developed by the former Standing Committee of 

Attorneys-General and the bill adopts the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law 

Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. That is a very important factor, because today in 

Australia we are trading and doing business deals on the international scene where everything is 

governed or driven by technology. While that technology is very sophisticated and is out there doing 

its job, many times the smaller person can be left behind. 

A lot of people say, ‘Where’s your accountant?’ My accountant is in Toowoomba—and I make 

no reflection on bush accountants, either. My lawyers are in Toowoomba. My point is that we all have 

a centre of commerce where we do our business dealings because we know that that is where we will 

get loyal and credible advice. That is important, whether we are talking about taxation or legal issues 

and so on. Just like with medical issues, you will go where you will get the best outcome. In a lot of 

cases we are talking about the best outcomes for commercial operations. 

We live in a world of technology and it puts the spotlight on Australian business through 

international competition. Therefore, we need to make absolutely certain of the mechanisms that are 

in place to eliminate disputes, which slow productivity, so that we can see better time and cost 

efficiencies. Time and cost efficiencies are essential to the bottom lines of a lot of companies. In 

business, people do not need impediments that will cause their operations waste through unneeded 

expense that may cripple the operation. Today, a lot of small businesses make very small bottom-line


margins. At the moment right across Queensland, right across Australia and right across the 

international scene, small business is suffering because of the international monetary cycle. 

Wherever you live in the world, the almighty dollar will always drive how business operates and how 

we function. 

While it is all very well to talk about small business, this bill is about eliminating red tape to 

create a fairer environment where Queensland falls into line with the other states, with the exception 

of the ACT. I heard one member, and it might have been the member for Capalaba, mention that 

some lawyers might not get as much money out of the operation as they used to. However, it will 

sharpen up some law firms. Backyard lawyers, ambulance chasers, or whatever you want to call 

them, damage the professional standards that are set by the Law Society in this state and country. 

Like doctors, dentists or other professional people, lawyers are very reputable. Many people look to 

professionals with strong standards for advice. This legislation is all about giving the smaller business 

people a better go through national uniformity which is exactly what this legislation will achieve. 

The explanatory notes states that one of the objectives of the bill is to— 

... maintain a high level of consistency between Queensland’s commercial arbitration regime and similar legislation already 

adopted in other Australian jurisdictions 

As I said a while ago, this bill brings us into line with other states. This legislation will break 

down a lot of barriers involving transactions across state borders when negotiations are done, 

whatever the type of business. At the end of the day, that uniformity will decrease costs in a lot of 

ways. A lot of business is now done via the internet. This legislation will expedite the process without 

engaging the corporate sector to advise on trivial things that may be able to be dealt with by a local 

lawyer at a local level. 

The Uniform Commercial Arbitration Acts were developed by SCAG and adopted across 

Australia. The uniform acts reflected international best practice and supported arbitration as an 

efficient, cost-effective alternative to litigation. This is where a lot of cost has crept into people’s 

operations over a period. If they get the wrong advice, litigation can be a breaking factor that has 

caused financial embarrassment to a lot of people. If people do not get the right advice, this is one 

area where we see a lot of people go to the wall, and they find that they cannot redeem themselves 

from the situation. 

I applaud the Attorney-General because, since he has been the Attorney-General in this 

government, he has brought some very responsible and solid legislation into this chamber, especially 

in the area of law and order and now through the Commercial Arbitration Bill 2012. This bill applies 

only to domestic commercial arbitration. It expressly recognises that the Commonwealth act governs 

international commercial arbitration. That means that we are looking after the smaller operators who 

in the past have not had a focus put on them but have been left to wonder how they will get out of 

some of the situations they have found themselves in. 

The accords set down in this legislation will create an environment where people will be able to 

progress a lot of their business transactions through negotiation or arbitration and get an outcome 

quicker. As some members have said in the debate this afternoon and this evening, this is about 

eliminating a lot of red tape. Red tape is the greatest strangler of business and its security in this state 

and nation. I do not know how many thousands of miles of red tape were created by the former Labor 

government. I salute the government that I am a member of for eliminating red tape. The most 

important thing that we have is our young people who want to go into business. This legislation will 

enhance their operations and their initiatives. It will allow them to progress final negotiations without it 

costing them an arm and a leg. 

Mr LATTER (Waterford—LNP) (9.37 pm): Tonight it is a wonderful pleasure to stand here in 

support of this bill. I note comments that were made earlier by the honourable Manager of 

Government Business, the member for Mermaid Beach. He noted and acknowledged that even the 

Leader of the Opposition expressed bipartisan support for this bill. I think it goes a long way to 

demonstrating the importance of this bill and what is being undertaken this evening by the Attorney- 

General when it has such support, including from industry bodies such as the Queensland Law 

Society, the Bar Association and the different arbitration bodies that have an interest in this 

legislation. I think it goes a long way to demonstrating that importance. 

I am going to discuss the reasons for the bill. I note that the existing Commercial Arbitration Act 

is consistent with the Uniform Commercial Arbitration Acts previously developed by the Standing 

Committee of Attorneys-General and adopted across Australia. Of course, in response to criticism


that arbitration had become too litigious, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General agreed to 

updating and modernising the uniform acts and ensuring that they reflect international best practice 

and support arbitration as an efficient, cost-effective alternative to litigation. Indeed, members will 

know that a model bill for this purpose was settled in July 2011. It was based on the United Nations 

Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on Commercial Arbitration and aligned with the 

Commonwealth act to promote national consistency in regulation and the conduct of international and 

domestic commercial arbitration. 

The model bill includes additional provisions which supplement the United Nations Commission 

on International Trade Law with domestic provisions for local commercial arbitration. If we turn to the 

objectives of the bill we find that what we are hoping to achieve is the ability to govern Queensland 

domestic commercial arbitrations in a manner consistent with the national model bill agreed to by the 

former Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The bill also seeks to adopt the United Nations 

Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration with 

supplemental domestic provisions for local commercial arbitration. It seeks to maintain a high level of 

consistency between Queensland’s commercial arbitration regime and similar legislation already 

adopted in other jurisdictions. I believe that the member for Nanango pointed out, and rightly so, that, 

at this point in time, it is only Queensland and the ACT that have not adopted such a model. This 

legislation will bring us into line, as has been said so many times this evening. 

Mr Rickuss interjected. 

Mr LATTER: I think Queensland is a leader in this country. It is good to see that we are taking 

the initiative to get on board with something so important. I thank the member for Lockyer for his 

interjection. 

What we are trying to achieve more than anything is the provision of more accessible, costeffective 

and timely processes for the fair and impartial resolution of commercial disputes through 

arbitration and to ensure Queensland’s adherence to world standards in commercial dispute 

resolution. 

With regard to clause 5 of the bill, I note that it is somewhat restrictive insofar as it limits access 

to the courts in commercial arbitration matters. The limitation on court involvement is justified given 

that, in nominating for pursuing arbitration, parties are making the decision not to include court 

jurisdiction and resolve their dispute by alternative means. Parties consent to the use of this 

legislative framework to avoid the more costly and time-consuming process of litigation. 

In saying that, the bill permits court intervention at various stages to ensure that the processes 

are conducted in accordance with the arbitration agreement and that principles of procedural fairness, 

relevant policy and the law are met. Clause 5 does provide some clarity and certainty about the extent 

of judicial intervention and is consistent with the proposition that awards should be final and binding. 

Clause 27D allows the parties to agree to use the arbitrator as a mediator, conciliator or other 

non-arbitral intermediary to resolve their dispute. If this is unsuccessful, the arbitrator can continue to 

arbitrate with their agreement. This follows the model bill in the interests of uniformity. Any uncertainty 

would be mitigated by clause 24B, which will impose a general duty on parties to do all things 

necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of arbitral proceedings. 

This clause could also nullify privacy and confidentiality rights. If an arbitrator acts as a 

mediator with the agreement of the parties, the arbitrator must treat information provided during the 

mediation as confidential, unless otherwise authorised. Confidentiality was mentioned previously. 

I note that the member for Burleigh paid credit to an article by Ben Christoffel of Norton Rose. 

Mr Christoffel goes to some length in his review of the proposed legislation. I note under section 8 he 

states— 

Under the Superseded Uniform Acts, where a party to arbitral proceedings simultaneously brought proceedings in a competent 

court, the court had discretion to decide whether to stay proceedings in order to let the arbitration proceed. 

Section 8 of the Arbitration Bill provides that if there is a valid arbitration agreement, and the subject matter of the dispute is 

capable of settlement via arbitration, the court is required to stay proceedings while the matter is arbitrated. 

Under the Arbitration Act, section 53 provides that the court has discretionary power to order that a proceeding be stayed until 

an arbitration takes place. Section 8 of the Arbitration Bill simplifies the procedure in applying for a stay in proceedings.


It gives some certainty in that regard. I think that is a good thing. Mr Christoffel continues— 

With the introduction of this section, the courts can maintain their supervisory jurisdiction, which in turn, ensures that if both 

parties have signed up to the arbitration process, parties can not disrupt and delay proceedings by avoiding the arbitral 

process. 

With respect to confidentiality rights, if mediation proceedings are terminated the mediating 

arbitrator may continue to act in the subsequent arbitration proceedings provided that both parties 

agree. If this occurs, the arbitrator is required to disclose confidential information that is material to the 

proceedings disclosed during the mediation proceedings prior to arbitration continuing. 

The disclosure requirement is intended to assist the parties in making informed tactical 

decisions about whether they should consent to the arbitration continuing. It forewarns of potential 

issues regarding the arbitrator’s possible impartiality and bias which might flow from their knowledge 

of confidential information. 

That gives me great comfort. At the end of the day, this proposed bill purely simplifies the 

processes of arbitration, cuts down the costs that are involved with litigious processes and basically 

makes it easier for the parties involved. There is great benefit in this for business and commercial 

industry not just in my area but right across Queensland. I see this as a welcome addition. Should I 

become aware of any issues I would direct commercial interests in my region to take part in this with 

some rigour. I commend the bill to the House. 

Mr SHUTTLEWORTH (Ferny Grove—LNP) (9.47 pm): I rise in the House this evening to 

support the Commercial Arbitration Bill 2012. As many of my colleagues have outlined this evening 

and this afternoon, this bill will align Queensland with the national law that has been implemented in 

other jurisdictions. It will allow us to adopt the United Nations Commission on International Trade 

Law. 

As many members have already mentioned, by and large this bill will ensure that Queensland 

business is reinvigorated to a new level across all of the four pillars of the economy under the 

Newman government. What I would like to raise this evening is a bit of history and instances where I 

have been personally affected by the inadequacies of the previous system and also provide 

encouragement for the many businesses that are operating throughout the Ferny Grove electorate 

and indeed throughout the state of Queensland. 

As I am sure many members are aware, my life prior to entering this House revolved around 

the provision of enterprise software solutions to a number of large companies operating throughout 

many industry sectors in Queensland. Whilst we did focus largely on manufacturing and resource 

industries, we did also have a large footprint within retail, within service industries and within other 

professional companies in operation throughout Queensland. 

The company I worked for previously had their head office situated in Melbourne. I would have 

to say that with any enterprise software solution—and I am sure those opposite would understand this 

when entering into an engagement for the provision of enterprise software—it is rather an intense 

period of discovery in setting up the provisions which the contracts may take. I think perhaps the most 

difficult undertaking that I had at almost every stage of sale was when we got down to the nitty-gritty 

to talk about how dispute resolution may occur, if indeed we ever got to that point. Thankfully I would 

have to say that the company I worked for previously, whilst we did sell payroll systems, never in my 

seven-year history got to the point where we needed arbitration or legal intervention. However, I do 

dwell on the fact that it may well have come in very handy in some previous contractual undertakings 

that the state has entered into in recent times. 

I have to dwell on the point that at the initial stage of engagement in any commercial 

undertaking both parties enter into that engagement with a level of goodwill. Both parties actually do 

enter the engagement where one party is going to provide a level of goods or service and the other 

party is going to pay a level of consideration for the delivery of those goods or service. Obviously at 

some point prior to the need to enter into a legal pursuit or arbitration, something goes astray. But the 

initial need of both of those parties still exists—the need for one party to survive financially through 

the provision of service and the need for the other to receive that good or service at a reasonable 

consideration. 

So I think it is very important to dwell on the point that both parties still have that commitment at 

heart. If resolution can be achieved without the necessity to go through both a timely and a very costly 

undertaking through the legal system, if an amenable resolution can be achieved through arbitration, 

then both parties I am sure will have a much greater chance of a long and prosperous future together.


I come back to the point that in the electorate of Ferny Grove there are around 3,500 small 

business operators. Unlike many of my esteemed colleagues who have spoken this evening, we do 

not have an industrial estate in my whole electorate. We do not have a single industrial estate. We do 

not have a concentration of industry of any particular type in any one area. So most of the 3,500-odd 

businesses that operate throughout the electorate of Ferny Grove are either cottage industries or 

largely run from home— 

Mr Rickuss: Service industries. 

Mr SHUTTLEWORTH: Service industries, professional industries and industries run from 

home. I think it would be fair to say that most of those businesses are very, very innovative as a rule. 

Most are, in terms of the provision of professional services, people who obviously can engage at a 

very high level and deliver substantial outcomes to businesses. But they are somewhat hamstrung by 

the fear or the threat of legal pursuits if things should go astray. 

This is a very important point to dwell on because what we are doing without the 

implementation of a law such as this is constraining the level of innovation which our great state can 

carry forward. Whilst in recent times most of the innovation that I have witnessed has come through 

the IT sphere, when I did sell my enterprise software solutions to various companies I saw some 

outstanding innovations in terms of manufacturing processes, in terms of delivering new service 

outcomes to companies. I think it is very important to say that if people with this level of expertise and 

with the innovation at heart are not willing to pursue that because of fear of litigious outcomes, 

essentially we are stifling the industries of Queensland and in fact the industries of Australia. 

I have heard members mention many times over the course of the last year when talking on 

various bills how our manufacturing industries in Australia are depleting somewhat. I have to say that 

most manufacturers I have had any dealings with are looking always for new and innovative ways in 

which to take their product to market. What often constrains them in doing so is the fear that, if they 

are not successful, any pursuit of that through the legal system will bring their company to their knees. 

I think what this arbitration law does is essentially allow companies such as that to pursue more 

innovative outcomes, to pursue an engagement with large companies, to pursue the fact that they 

have these new and innovative ideas to take forward to the marketplace, and in fact enables them to 

engage in a way which will ensure that over time Queensland’s industries in manufacturing and other 

sectors are taken far further than where they are today. 

Coming back to the bill, I think it is very important that companies like the one I left, which we 

operated in all states of Australia—and in fact its operations had a very, very large footprint in Papua 

New Guinea as well—are now aligned with the capacity to undertake arbitration across jurisdictions. 

That means that they and companies like them would be able to engage in a manner in which they 

are no longer fearful of the fact that they would be held to account in a jurisdiction of law in which they 

were unable to prosecute an argument effectively. 

I come back to the point that in any commercial undertaking the agreement initially is 

undertaken where parties have a desired outcome which has aligned. Arbitration, through its use of 

mediation, through its use of arbitration and so forth, essentially will achieve a much better outcome 

for both companies and parties involved at a much lesser cost and ultimately ensure that 

Queensland’s industries prosper onwards and upwards into the future with new innovations and 

ideas. I commend the bill to the House. 

Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—LNP) (9.57 pm): I do not want to be repetitive, so I will try and take a 

new tack with this Commercial Arbitration Bill. 


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Watts): Member for Lockyer, if you could just wait for a minute. 

Could I have a little bit of order in the House so we can hear the speaker on his feet? 

Mr RICKUSS: Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have found it a bit 

distracting, I must admit. 

I think this is a great piece of legislation that has been brought in by our young Attorney- 

General. You can see that he has that youthful enthusiasm and he is working hard to make sure that 

things actually happen in the parliament. Part of the problem that we have is that some of my older 

colleagues—and one of them is sitting beside me here—have used our adversarial system of law to 

unfortunately make quite a lot of wealth for themselves while taking it away from a lot of the punters


who have worked extremely hard to have money in their pocket until they have gone to see their 

solicitor. So this has been difficult. I think commercial arbitration will work wonders in this situation 

where it is about finding a solution. 

I have had actually been involved in some commercial arbitration. 

Mr Berry: Tell us about it. 

Mr RICKUSS: Thank you, member for Ipswich; I will tell you about it. One involved a seed 

company that had sold us some dodgy seed. The seed actually came up extremely well but it turned 

into nothing. It did not turn into the cauliflower it was supposed to turn into. 

Mr Cox: It was actually supposed to be onions! 

Mr RICKUSS: No, it was cauliflower. I and several other growers had expended quite a large 

amount of money to put this seed in the ground and get the plants to maturity, but unfortunately no 

curds eventuated in the plants. We then went into an arbitration process with the seed company. 

They did come good with some money. It was probably a bit limited, but— 

Mr Berry: You had a lawyer, though, didn’t you? 

Mr RICKUSS: I think we might have had a lawyer, yes. He cost us almost as much money as 

the seed company, which was a bit unfortunate. 

Mr Berry: A win-win! 

Mr RICKUSS: That is right. Arbitration really was a better system than this adversarial system 

that we have now. I congratulate the Attorney-General for bringing this bill to the House. I 

congratulate both sides of the House for agreeing that this sort of measure should be passed. I am 

sure this bill, when passed, will be put to good use. 

Hon. AP CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Mines) 

(10.01 pm): I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on the Commercial Arbitration Bill. I do not 

intend to take much of the time of the House, except to say that I am very pleased that the Attorney- 

General has brought this piece of legislation before the House. 

I understand that Queensland is one of the last jurisdictions in the Commonwealth to put in 

place this piece of model legislation that is required to have a modern regulatory framework for 

commercial arbitration in Queensland. It will be of great benefit to businesses, small and large, which 

have an interest in this. It is also an important cost-saving measure for many businesses that will be 

able to undertake commercial arbitration in lieu of costly protracted legal proceedings which benefit 

no-one but the legal profession. Those members of the House who know me will know that— 

Mr Gibson: You love lawyers. 

Mr CRIPPS: I do not love lawyers. Often I think that the provision of alternative ways of 

resolving disputes between parties is some of the best work that is done by governments and by 

people in the private sector who are able to negotiate agreements that do not benefit legal 

practitioners or the court system. That is no reflection on the profession that the Attorney-General 

loves and it is no reflection on the way that a number of members of this House have made their living 

in the past. But certainly I think it is quite unnecessary for particularly businesses and private 

individuals on many occasions to have to commit large sums of money to resolve matters that ought 

to have been resolved amicably and without too much time being spent that often involves transaction 

costs as well as monetary costs. 

Obviously in view of the time I would like to keep my contribution to this debate short and 

acquiesce to the Attorney-General, who now is keen and eager to respond to the second reading 

debate. 

Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (10.03 pm), in 

reply: I start by thanking all speakers, particularly all the speakers who joined the debate as the night 

progressed who were not anticipating to be engaged in such a lengthy debate— 

Mr Stevens: Rigorous debate. 

Mr BLEIJIE: Rigorous debate on a good piece of legislation. Members, as always, were well 

informed of the most important issues. We had members discussing the four pillars of the 

Queensland economy that the LNP strive to advance. We had the member for Kallangur telling a joke 

about genies in bottles. So I do thank all honourable members for assisting the Attorney-General 

tonight in filling some very important time in the important debate.


Mr Rickuss: It was the issue we were after. 

Mr BLEIJIE: It was. The quality of the debate was excellent. It is good to see the Treasurer in 

the chamber at the moment, because this is the Commercial Arbitration Bill which saves business 

money, cuts red tape and speeds up dispute resolution processes, although I must say that I was 

nearly caused on some occasions when I was in the chamber tonight to rise to points of order relating 

to offensive language by my parliamentary colleagues when they talked about lawyers—about how 

terrible all these lawyers are and how great this bill is because lawyers will now go broke. We heard 

great contributions, though, from the lawyers in the chamber tonight, sticking up for the profession. 

We had the great bush lawyers of the west such as the member for Gregory sticking up for the 

lawyers. I thank the member for Gregory for his great contribution to the debate tonight. 

Mr Johnson: Want to debate me some time? 

Mr BLEIJIE: I am happy to debate the member for Gregory any night of the week. 

If I can summarise the debate in its entirety with 28 minutes of further contribution, I start by 

saying that the bill reflects international best practice. That is why we are doing this. It harmonises 

Queensland’s commercial arbitration regime with other Australian domestic regimes. It has the 

support of stakeholders and the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee. I thank the 

honourable the Deputy Premier for kick-starting the debate tonight when I was unable to read the 

second reading speech. I thank the Deputy Premier for taking the reins at short notice and delivering 

such a great speech— 

Mr Seeney: Riveting. 

Mr BLEIJIE: The riveting speech we had prepared earlier for him. I thank the Deputy Premier. 

This is a contribution to the government’s policy of building a four-pillar economy. This bill 

empowers the parties to have an arbitration process to suit their circumstances. It promotes an 

arbitration process which values confidentiality and expediency and will assist businesses in resolving 

disputes with minimal delay and the expense that goes with it. 

A few weeks ago I attended the international trade law reform convention at the UQ Business 

School in town. I thank the participants in that trade convention. It offered a great insight into this type 

of legislation. 

The Leader of the Opposition claimed that these were Labor laws introduced by former 

Attorney-General Paul Lucas in the dying days of the former government. They were introduced by 

the former government but never debated. 

Ms Palaszczuk: Come on. 

Mr BLEIJIE: I cannot let the opposition leader take credit for these laws just because the 

former government introduced them. They never made it a priority to get the laws debated. 

Mr Stevens: They failed to deliver. 

Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection from the Leader of the House: they failed to deliver. 

Ms Palaszczuk interjected. 

Mr BLEIJIE: I never said that I was going to be nice. If I recall correctly, it was very close to the 

end of the former government’s term when the bill was introduced. Obviously it went through a very 

consultative process with the former committee. I recall that the former Attorney-General came to me 

in the final sitting week of 2011, prior to the election, and asked if we could just run this through. I said 

no, that it required appropriate debate and that in the context of the election campaign and the now 

government’s four pillars of the economy—agriculture, construction, tourism and resources—it was 

important that it was an LNP government that lead this legislation through tonight. I thank all 

honourable members for their contributions but do acknowledge that the former government did 

introduce some laws but never debated them. I am pleased that the Liberal National government is 

actually putting this through for debate tonight. Hasn’t it been a wonderful, long debate? 

In terms of stakeholder support, we have far-reaching support from the Bar Association and the 

Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Australia. They made suggestions for amendments and the Leader 

of the Opposition asked whether we would be prepared to take them on board. I say that we are, but 

first we must put them forward to the appropriate stakeholders when we look at these model laws in 

the future. Members will know that I generally have hesitation in supporting any reform that is a


national or model law reform because I believe that Queensland ought to do it best—and oftentimes 

we do it better than the Commonwealth. This is a particular reform for which industry and businesses 

have been crying out. It certainly saves a lot of money. The honourable the Deputy Premier 

mentioned on my behalf that I will write to my counterparts in other states and territories advising 

them of the matters raised in the context of this debate for consideration as part of any future review 

of the model bill by the now Standing Council on Law and Justice. We will follow through with that. 

I am confident that the key stakeholders will continue to monitor the operation of the legislation and 

advise the council should amendments be considered desirable in the future. 

The member for Ipswich West talks about good legislation. He congratulated the government 

on introducing this type of initiative and bringing it forward, about which I am pleased. The member for 

Ipswich talked about the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee—and I thank the committee 

for its work on this bill. It also suggested that the stakeholders support the bill. The member for 

Ipswich also said it was extremely important for business that we keep pace, otherwise they will 

arbitrate in other jurisdictions. Incidentally, while we are talking about all things other than this bill, we 

announced recently that we are reintroducing the title of Queen’s Counsel in this great state of 

Queensland. We do that because we see the benefit in being a competitive state, competing with our 

counterparts in New South Wales and Victoria. Particularly in the Asian market there is a perception 

that QCs are higher than an SC, which we know is fundamentally not correct. We are in the process 

of working with the Bar Association to reintroduce the title of Queen’s Counsel and abolish the title of 

Senior Counsel. You may ask what the relevance is to this bill. It is relevant because if we are talking 

about commercial disputes, lawyers will still be involved, despite some of the members not wanting 

that. Incidentally, I have just received a letter from a Victorian Senior Counsel stating that he has 

recently written to the Victorian Bar Association asking it to follow Queensland’s lead and reintroduce 

the term Queen’s Counsel to Victoria. 

Mrs Frecklington interjected. 

Mr BLEIJIE: I acknowledge the member for Nanango’s strong support for that initiative. 

Obviously under the guidance of the Treasurer, the member for Nanango supports that initiative. I 

think it is a great initiative and it is fantastic that at the time of the announcement of the change to this 

policy I said that it would be great if we had a situation where learned colleagues in other jurisdictions 

pushed their Bar Associations for the reintroduction of the title of Queen’s Counsel. So it is great to 

see that that debate has now started in Victoria. I did digress a little, but it is important in terms of the 

commercial context of this bill. 

The member for Broadwater said that it is fantastic that the opposition is supporting the bill. 

That is a good start. She also says that the bill is fantastic for business and arbitrators in Queensland. 

The government is continuing to reduce red tape and make it easier to do business. This is 

fundamentally what this government is about. How can business get on with business and do 

business, which is what they do best in Queensland? I have said on many occasions that the best 

thing governments can do for business in Queensland is to get out of their way. The best thing we 

can do as legislators is free up the road blocks and free up the roads in front of business and let them 

get on with business because they do it best. If we do that, if we can reduce red tape, compliance 

costs and government costs of business then businesses can employ people. I congratulate the 

honourable the Treasurer, particularly for the increase in the payroll tax threshold by $100,000, 

because it has allowed business to get on with the job and employ people, contributing to the 

government’s overall target of reducing unemployment in this state by 2.4 per cent in the next five 

years. It is a challenge. No-one is saying it is an easy job to achieve that target but we are certainly 

on the way with these types of bills and legislation. I thank the member for Broadwater for her 

commentary on the bill. 

The member for Bulimba said that it is great to see a bill which will result in the promotion of 

greater autonomy and participation of parties, finality of awards, protection of confidentiality and 

access to alternative methods of dispute resolution—very similar to the explanatory notes. I thank the 

member for Bulimba and look forward to seeing the positive effect that he says it will have on 

industry. That is what we are all about: the positive impact this will have on the Queensland economy 

and industry. 

The member for Toowoomba North, the honourable Deputy Speaker sitting in the chair now, 

gave a great presentation and extended the debate out to dinner this evening. I thank him for his 

contribution tonight. He talked about the dispute resolution mechanisms that will be efficient and 

effective, which are important. That is why they are a part of this bill. The member for Toowoomba


North also talked about being competitive on the world stage. This is where we want to be. We 

believe in competitive federalism but we also want to compete on the world stage. Having these 

international model laws for commercial arbitration in Queensland will certainly allow our businesses 

to compete on this national stage. 

The member for Nanango, who gave a great presentation and was very supportive of the 

government’s QC policy, talked about a trucking company whose trucks travelled through all 

electorates and about how this legislation would improve the processes for them—and this is 

interesting coming from the member for Nanango—and reduce money paid to lawyers. That is 

interesting because the member for Nanango was a lawyer. So I would not have expected the 

member for Nanango to advocate for that sort of regime. In any event, she did. 

Mrs Frecklington: I have the green here. 

Mr BLEIJIE: Absolutely! The member for Albert talked about the importance of promoting the 

growth of business, particularly in Queensland. This is important for all the school leavers in Albert 

and across Queensland looking for jobs. This is what this government is about: creating jobs for 

young people so they can live, learn and earn locally no matter which electorate they live in. 

I thank the member for Moggill for his contribution and for confirming that he is a real doctor. 

He was talking about real lawyers and bush lawyers, and he confirmed that he is a real doctor. He 

also told us that he had engaged in many disputes of his own and that he can come to this debate 

tonight with plenty of personal experience in disputes. I thank the member for Moggill. The member 

for Moggill talked about the consultation on the bill. Having gone before two committees now—under 

the previous parliament and this parliament—it has probably been the most consulted bill. When I 

became the Attorney-General one of the meetings I had was with the associations representing 

commercial arbitration in Australia. They are very much of the view that we should get on with the job 

and bring this bill before the House. They were disappointed that the former government did not get 

their act together and get the bill passed through the former parliament. They are very happy to see 

that this is finally on the agenda. 

The member for Mermaid Beach made a contribution tonight and talked about disputes going 

to QCAT and certain issues with respect to that. He also talked about the fact that the Commercial 

Arbitration Bill will save certain litigation. As a former lawyer, I always find it difficult when we talk 

about saving litigation. However, believe it or not, I think all lawyers aspire to save parties litigation. 

It is more cost-effective if parties can mediate and arbitrate their matters rather than litigating 

their matters. Not only does it cost people a lot less money; mentally it does not impact as much on 

people, because we know that litigation and courts can be a trying experience for many people and it 

is a difficult and confusing process for people to go to litigation and to court. The other issue I would 

mention in that respect is not only the cost but the difficulty if they cannot afford representation and 

lawyers to go to court and then one would be self-represented, which always presents difficulties for 

the individual. 

The member for Southport again attacked lawyers. I will defend lawyers, although I think given 

the majority of the contributors to the debate tonight—I would hasten to say, member for Nanango, 

member for Broadwater, member for Caloundra, member for Clayfield, member for Ipswich—we 

would be outnumbered in terms of the debate tonight unfortunately. We would certainly be 

outnumbered. However, the member for Southport did talk about six-minute increments that lawyers 

are known for. The point is that I will always stick up for the profession of lawyers because at the end 

of the day—I missed the member for Beaudesert of course—people need assistance sometimes to 

travel through these difficult legal processes and sometimes they just need a little hand to do that. 

The member for Gregory, although acknowledging himself as a bush lawyer in the member for 

Nanango’s speech, said that lawyers are reputable people and it is a reputable profession. I thank the 

member for Gregory. 

A government member: Did he say that? 

Mr BLEIJIE: He did say that, Minister, and I could not do anything but agree with the member 

for Gregory. The member for Kallangur made a very interesting contribution tonight. It took me back 

to Aladdin and the 40 thieves and the genie in the bottle with the joke that he made. I am going to 

have to read Hansard tomorrow because I still do not quite understand what the joke was about, but 

I am sure the Hansard reporters will understand it and will be able to make some sense of it, or 

perhaps the member for Kallangur might give a private show later to make me fully understand what 

the joke was about! To the member for Kallangur’s credit, I did ask for a bit of filibustering tonight, so 

thank you and thanks to the Deputy Speaker for not pulling you up for being totally irrelevant to the


piece of legislation you were speaking on. But I digress again. We are getting on with the job of this 

Commercial Arbitration Bill. I thought what I might do in my remaining 12 minutes is just ask some 

rhetorical— 

Ms Palaszczuk: Not that you would know how to do that, Attorney-General. 

Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection. It is not that I like filibustering; it is just that I have always 

got a good contribution to make to the debate, you see. What I thought I might do is ask myself a 

couple of rhetorical questions just in case members were unaware where I stand on this bill and— 

Ms PALASZCZUK: I rise to a point of order. I draw the Attorney to relevance. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Watts): Attorney, if you could keep to the title of the bill please. 

Mr BLEIJIE: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The questions that I am about to pose to myself 

have been drafted by the Department of Justice and Attorney-General and I trust that my trusty 

department staff have been completely relevant. 

Ms Palaszczuk: You should’ve got us to ask them. 

Mr BLEIJIE: I might hand one across that you might want to ask. We must be quick; we only 

have 11 minutes to go. People may ask why we are debating the Commercial Arbitration Bill. 

An honourable member: Why are we? 

An honourable member: Yes, why? 

Mr BLEIJIE: Thank you, honourable members. I could say to you tonight categorically why we 

are debating the Commercial Arbitration Bill. It currently, as we would appreciate, governs domestic 

commercial arbitrations in Queensland and was developed under the auspices of the then Standing 

Committee of Attorneys-General, SCAG, and is a series of substantially uniform laws across Australia 

that are commonly referred to as the Uniform Commercial Arbitration Acts. In April— 

Ms PALASZCZUK: I rise to a point of order—repetition. 

Mr BLEIJIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I actually have not said this because the Deputy Premier— 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. 

Mr BLEIJIE:—gave that speech. So it may be repetitious of what the Deputy Premier said, but 

I actually have not said it quite yet. 

Mr Seeney: So the rule of repetition doesn’t apply. 

Mr BLEIJIE: Exactly. I take the interjection from the Deputy Premier: the rule of repetition 

ought not apply in this instance. In 2009, as I said, SCAG developed a new uniform commercial 

arbitration law, updating and modernising the Uniform Commercial Arbitration Acts to ensure that 

arbitration provides an efficient and cost-effective alternative to litigation which is consistent with 

international best practice. SCAG agreed to implement the model law and in July 2011 all aspects of 

the bill were passed, but it has taken a couple of years to get to this point in time. The bill replaces the 

Commercial Arbitration Act 1990 Queensland with a new model based on the United Nations 

Commission on International Trade Law model law on international commercial arbitration and 

supplemented by provisions relevant for the domestic commercial arbitration setting. 

The bill will make Queensland’s commercial arbitration law as consistent as possible with the 

new commercial arbitration legislation already enacted in other Australian jurisdictions and help align 

the domestic commercial arbitration regime with the Commonwealth’s International Arbitration Act 

1974. The bill will create—and this is the exciting part for honourable members—an environment 

which encourages better use of the domestic commercial arbitration regime to ensure that businesses 

have better access to processes for fair and final resolution of commercial disputes by impartial 

arbitral tribunals without unnecessary delay or expense and will ensure Queensland is recognised as 

a jurisdiction which meets world standards for facilitating the resolution of commercial disputes. 

Honourable members may also be interested to ask what impacts this new legislation will have on 

business and government. 

Mr Stevens: What impact will it have on business and government?


Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection from the Leader of the House and the question. No doubt 

the member for Hervey Bay is interested if this will impose any new costs on anyone. I have the 

answer— 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, resume your seat. Honourable members, the level of 

background conversation is beginning to get to a level where I cannot hear the Attorney-General. If 

you could keep your conversations down please. 

Mr BLEIJIE: It is very rude, isn’t it, Mr Deputy Speaker? The member for Hervey Bay asked me 

the question as to whether it will impose any additional costs. I am happy to answer the member for 

Hervey Bay because he had a particular interest in this. The bill will apply to commercial arbitration a 

formal dispute resolution process whereby parties refer their commercial disputes to an independent 

third person—the arbiter—for determination. The overriding objective of this bill as articulated in 

clause 1AC is to facilitate the fair and final resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal and ensuring 

procedures around the conduct of arbitrations result in disputes being resolved more informally, 

quickly and with less cost than if the dispute had been resolved by a court. 

An honourable member interjected. 

Mr BLEIJIE: I will take the interjection in a minute. Under the bill, parties to the arbitration are 

generally free to agree how their disputes are to be resolved. This, coupled with the procedural 

framework provided under the bill, gives parties greater control over proceedings, resulting in less 

regulatory burden for business when resolving their disputes. Accordingly, it is expected that the 

proposed policy option will have a positive—I repeat a positive—or at the very least a neutral impact 

on business. Also, the proposed reforms are expected to have a cost-neutral, if not positive, impact 

on the cost to government, which the Treasurer would be particularly pleased about. As discussed, 

the bill reduces the role of the court in commercial arbitration and therefore has the potential to 

positively impact on resourcing and the workload of the court. 

In a nutshell, this bill is all about achieving the objectives of the four pillars of the Queensland 

economy—resources, construction, tourism and agriculture—and this government is very 

unapologetic in terms of striving for that objective. I thought I may for the benefit of honourable 

members explain how the process will work, because some honourable members who did not speak 

on the bill may be interested to take back to their constituency the details of this in terms of this bill 

and how it will operate. I know the Deputy Premier is a very keen tweeter now. He may be keen to 

tweet. In fact, the Deputy Premier has spoken so much about tweeting I had to check that he was on 

Twitter, and he is. Absolutely. I now follow the Deputy Premier on Twitter. 

How does it work in practice? In practice, the parties will generally agree to their arbitrations 

being conducted according to institutional rules provided by bodies such as the Institute of Arbitrators 

and Mediators Australia or the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration. Both bodies 

have draft arbitration clauses to this effect that can be included in the contractual arrangements of 

parties. The institutional rules of those bodies provide an extensive framework dealing with the 

commencement of the arbitration, the composition of the arbitral tribunal, the proceedings 

themselves, the award and the fees applicable. 

Where is the arbitration to be conducted and what laws will apply? It will usually be dealt with 

by an arbitrator or arbitrators appointed pursuant to an arbitrator agreement. That agreement usually 

determines the jurisdictional seat for the arbitration. Disputes regarding the enforceability or seeking 

judicial review of the arbitrator’s award are dealt with in the court of relevant jurisdiction depending 

upon where the arbitration took place. 

How will the proceedings commence? In relation to the commencement, clause 21 of the bill 

provides that, unless otherwise agreed, the arbitral proceedings in relation to a particular dispute start 

on the date on which a request for the dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the 

respondent. This occurs outside of the court proceedings when one party serves a notice of 

arbitration on the other. Clause 8 deals with the cases where one of the parties commences action 

before the court where the subject matter of the dispute is the subject of an arbitration clause. This 

clause imposes a requirement on the court where the court is valid and the party requests a stay in 

favour of arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement to refer that matter to arbitration.


In conclusion I thank all honourable members for their contributions. The committee that had 

oversight of this bill made the recommendations to the bill, particularly those recommendations from 

the Bar Association, known to the government. The Bar Association had six recommendations, 

largely relating to the use of terminology and suggestions for clarification and placement of certain 

provisions. As I said, we ought to get the bill passed by this parliament and into action. Then at such 

time I am more than happy to make those recommendations to the other stakeholders in other 

participating jurisdictions if the model laws are, in fact, amended in the future and we may be in a 

position to be able to support those other amendments. Because this has all been agreed, it is difficult 

to unilaterally just change the legislation. So we will take them on board—and I give a commitment 

tonight that those recommendations have been taken on board—and the department will continue to 

monitor with our stakeholders what other participating jurisdictions do and we will ensure that, come 

the appropriate time, if those particular amendments are able to be made to these laws, we will 

support them. 

This is all about commercial arbitration in Queensland. This is about giving business a fair go. 

This is about efficiencies of business. This is about saving money. This is about reducing red tape 

and regulation. Certainly, that all aligns very much so with what the Liberal National Party government 

in Queensland is doing. We are a government that is unapologetic that we are helping small 

business. Over the past 11 months our policies have reflected that. We are a government that 

believes that government ought to get out of the way of business. 

Today, we heard the Minister for Environment talk about how we can save lots of businesses 

lots of money by getting rid of the waste levy and other initiatives that the Minister for Environment 

has introduced with the environmental laws. We have seen the Deputy Premier get on with the job 

and get things building and being constructed in this great state of Queensland. We have seen the 

Minister for Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services get on with the job of the Carmody 

commission of inquiry so that Queensland can be the safest place to raise a child. I acknowledge all 

honourable government members on the backbench and the frontbench for the work that they have 

done in getting our message out there that Queensland is open for business. We are pro business. 

We love small business in this state. Small business is the bedrock of society and this economy. By 

having international best practice in our commercial arbitration laws we can get out of the way and let 

small business get on with their job. It will help reduce unemployment and get young kids employed in 






Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Watts): Order! I note the bill has been drafted to adopt the 

provisions of the model bill. The clause numbering has been retained to maintain consistency with the 

numbering of the model law. 

Clauses 1AA to 43, as read, agreed to. 

Schedule 1, as read, agreed to. 

Third Reading 

Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (10.35 pm): I 

move— 

That the bill be now read a third time. 

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


Bill read a third time.

572 

Body Corporate and Community Management and Other 

Legislation Amendment Bill 

7 Mar 2013 

Long Title 


move— 




BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT AND OTHER 

LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 

Resumed from 14 September 2012 (see p. 2078). 



move— 


I thank the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee for its consideration of the Body 

Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. I note that the 

committee tabled its report on 22 November 2012 and I highlight to members that I tabled a copy of 

the government’s response to that report on 22 February 2013. 

I also take the opportunity to thank the many unit owners and body corporate professionals 

who made written and oral submissions to assist the committee in its consideration of the bill. I have 

no doubt that the submissions were of enormous assistance to the committee in coming to terms with 

the difficult and complex matters dealt with by the bill. 

One of the principal policy objectives of the bill is to deal with issues concerning contribution 

schedule lot entitlements in community titles schemes. In particular, the bill deals with the former 

government’s abhorrently unjust and heavy-handed attempt to deal with concerns about lot 

entitlement adjustments. I made mention in my introductory speech that body corporate issues have 

been used as a political football for far too long. Labor’s 2011 amendments are but another tale in this 

sorry saga. 

Governments do not set lot entitlements and body corporate contributions. What they should 

do, though, is ensure that there is an independent system in place to arbitrate and conciliate between 

parties when there is a legal dispute. The 2011 amendments were an attack on orders made by an 

independent judicial body. We opposed them at the time and, from memory, our debate was led by a 

spirited and well researched contribution from the Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Small Business 

and the Commonwealth Games, who was our spokesperson. So we opposed them at the time and 

this was our position right through to the election in March 2012. 

Honourable members will be aware that there are competing views within the community titles 

sector about how lot entitlements should be set and about whether they should be subject to change 

during the life of a community titles scheme. Contribution schedule lot entitlements are used to 

determine how much each lot owner in a community titles scheme must contribute to expenses 

incurred by the body corporate in administering the scheme, such as the costs of maintaining the 

common property in good condition. 

It is not surprising that stakeholders hold strong and diverse views about the fairest way for 

sharing expenses between owners living and investing in a community title setting. Prior to 2011 the 

Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 allowed lot owners who felt that their lot 

entitlements were unfair to apply for an order of a specialist adjudicator or the Queensland Civil and 

Administrative Tribunal that the lot entitlements be adjusted. Through its 2011 amendments to the act 

the former government shut the door on unit owners who wanted to resolve lot entitlement disputes 

through these processes. But that was not enough for the former government. It also decided to 

undermine lawful decisions already made by specialist adjudicators, tribunals and courts about lot 

entitlement disputes. Through its so-called reversion process the former government allowed a single 

lot owner in a community title scheme to compel their body corporate to disregard lot entitlement

7 Mar 2013 



573 

adjustment orders issued by independent adjudicators, tribunals and courts and to force the body 

corporate to change the scheme’s lot entitlements back to those that applied prior to any and all 

adjustment orders. 

Regardless of what members think is the fairest way for body corporate expenses to be shared 

between unit owners, the former government’s 2011 amendments to the act were an unacceptable 

and unfair interference into lawful judicial and quasi-judicial decisions. The bill delivers on our 

commitment to deal with the former government’s amendments by bringing an end to the 2011 

reversion process and by providing affected bodies corporate with an opportunity and process for 

reinstating the contribution schedule lot entitlements that were deemed to be appropriate for the 

scheme by a specialist adjudicator, tribunal or court. In short, the Newman government is determined 

to restore integrity and respect to judicial and quasi-judicial decisions about lot entitlement disputes. 

The committee has made eight recommendations about the bill. The government supports four 

of the recommendations, partially supports two recommendations and does not support two 

recommendations. First off, the committee recommended that I table the government’s plan for 

dealing with broader lot entitlement issues in the first sitting week of 2013 followed by further 

legislation by 30 June 2013. The government agrees with the committee that further policy analysis is 

needed when it comes to contribution schedule lot entitlements. That is why in my explanatory 

speech I foreshadowed a number of lot entitlement issues including consideration of options for 

reintroducing a process for adjusting lot entitlements. I continue to be committed to that process. 

However, it is critical to address the more objectionable parts of the former government’s 

2011 amendments to the act as a matter of priority. 

Following debate of this bill, the government will consider the broader review of lot entitlements, 

the timing of which will be decided in the context of the government’s other policy and legislative 

priorities. The committee has recommended that the bill be passed by the Legislative Assembly with 

significant amendments. As members would expect, the government endorses the committee’s view 

that the bill should be passed. The government also supports the committee’s recommendation that 

the bill retain provisions discontinuing the 2011 reversion process established by the former 

government. However, the government does not support the committee’s recommendation that the 

bill be amended to omit those clauses providing for the reinstatement of a community titles scheme’s 

last adjustment order entitlements. A key policy objective of the bill is to provide bodies corporate 

affected by the former government’s 2011 reversion process with an opportunity and process for 

reinstating the lot entitlements for the scheme that had previously been determined by a specialist 

adjudicator, tribunal or court. Omitting the reinstatement provisions from the bill would provide 

affected bodies corporate with no real remedy for the impacts of the former government’s unfair and 

inappropriate reversion process. 

In terms of the committee’s other suggested changes to the bill, the government supports the 

proposed amendments which will improve the process contained in the bill for giving effect to lot 

entitlement adjustment orders. These include clearer and stricter time frames for particular steps a 

body corporate must undertake in reinstating the last adjustment order entitlements for the scheme. 

They also include amendments to ensure that adjustment orders deemed to be pre-commencement 

adjustment actions and suspended under the 2011 amendments are able to be given effect in 

accordance with the provisions of the bill. Accordingly, I will be moving amendments during 

consideration in detail of this bill to give effect to those suggested changes. 

The government does not support the committee’s recommendation that the bill be amended to 

facilitate the reimbursement of fees and charges paid by community titles schemes in relation to an 

incomplete reversion process. I understand that there are very few schemes, approximately five, that 

may have incurred fees and charges in relation to an incomplete reversion process. The government 

does not consider it is necessary to amend the bill for the purpose of refunding fees and charges 

relating to an incomplete reversion process. Of course, any of those affected schemes are entitled to 

apply for an ex gratia refund from the relevant departments in relation to fees and charges if they wish 

to do so and those requests will be considered on their individual merits. 

The government notes and supports the committee’s recommendation that the provisions of 

the bill clarifying jurisdictional matters for certain lot entitlements disputes be retained. The 

government also supports the committee’s recommendation that the bill retain amendments removing 

cumbersome and unnecessary disclosure requirements that simply serve to complicate the sale of 

lots in community titles schemes. This is an important step in the government’s continuing 

commitment to reducing the unnecessary red tape and regulation that has been allowed to burden 

Queensland’s economy. I commend the bill to the House.

574 



7 Mar 2013 

Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (10.46 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Body 

Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Bill 2012. I would like to put on the 

record from the outset that the opposition will not be supporting this bill. This bill was introduced into 

this House by the Attorney-General on 14 September 2012. There was no real warning before the 

election that the government proposed to make changes to body corporate levies before the election. 

No Queenslander got to vote on the basis of what the government is now doing to body corporate 

laws. As the explanatory notes clearly state, no community consultation has been undertaken on the 

bill. Then out of the blue the Premier announced that his minister was going to sort out this mess left 

by Labor in the area of body corporate law and pledged that the incoming minister would work very 

closely with stakeholders and unit owners to achieve this. Then the bill was introduced. No 

consultation took place at all beforehand. 

Submissions were invited on the bill, which closed on 19 October. The amount of community 

concern over the bill was evidenced by the fact that there were 274 submissions received by the 

committee. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee and its staff for their hard work 

and diligence in tackling this inquiry into what is a complex question. 

There are a number of issues with the bill that I intend to canvass. The first is the question of 

the uncertainty created by the bill. This bill’s aim is to overturn the amendments made by then 

minister Lawlor in relation to body corporate lot entitlements. These amendments were made after 

extensive consultation with the public and all stakeholders. The then government released a 

discussion paper in December 2008, entitled Sharing expenses in community titles schemes: A 

discussion paper on lot entitlements under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 

1997, for public discussion and comment. Submissions to the discussion paper closed in late 

February 2009. Then on 12 August 2010 the former minister released public consultation drafts of the 

Body Corporate and Community Management Amendment Bill 2010 and the accompanying 

explanatory notes. Submissions were again invited on the draft bill, which closed on 23 September 

2010. Minister Lawlor’s approach was in stark contrast to the approach of this government. As the 

committee pointed out in its report— 

The Committee accepts the Department’s statement that the issue of contribution schedule lot entitlements has been 

considered on numerous occasions in the past. However, given the short timeframe since the commencement of the 

2011 amendments and the fact that those amendments had sunset provisions, the Committee understands that many 

stakeholders would not have expected another change to the legislation so soon. 

Given the Premier’s earlier comments that he expected the Attorney-General to work closely with stakeholders and unit owners 

to fix the perceived problems, the Committee accepts that many stakeholders have considered the current Bill and its specific 

policy objectives to be a surprise when it was introduced. 

As the committee later commented— 

The strata title property market cannot continue to be subjected to what is now seemingly regular change and upheaval. 

When he introduced the bill, the Attorney said in his explanatory speech— 

that the government will now look at the broader issues around contribution schedule lot entitlements. We will look to the future. 

This bill does not deal with that matter—it relates to the immediate problem that we have been left by the former Labor 

government to deal with—but the government is only too conscious that there are many schemes out there with manifestly 

unequal lot entitlements. 

Exactly what are these situations with manifestly unequal lot entitlements? The Attorney chose 

not to elaborate on those, the ones that now he is seeking to undo, but I am more than happy to 

elaborate. This is a situation where a unit owner might live in a small unit on a lower floor. A smaller 

unit means potential for fewer residents using body corporate facilities. A smaller unit also means less 

windows to clean, less walls to paint, less areas that might need repairs, less area potential to claim 

on insurance. In fact, it is a lesser burden as a whole. Contrast this with a penthouse owner who has 

the reverse situation: a much larger area and, therefore, a much larger drain on the resources of the 

body corporate for the converse reasons I have just outlined. Could it possibly be considered fair that 

their contributions to body corporate levies be equal? Yet the penthouse owner could have applied 

under the act to make this so and their levies could be reduced from around $40,000 per year to 

$10,000, and the smaller unit owner’s levy be increased from $5,000 to $10,00 per annum. This could 

well be the difference between being able to live in the unit and not being able to afford to do so.

7 Mar 2013 



575 

Housing affordability is an important issue for Queenslanders. This includes not only the purchase 

price of housing, but also the associated costs that accompany it. It is particularly important when a 

government is encouraging people to live in higher density housing in highly populated urban areas. 

On another example, a penthouse owner purchases the unit next to them or beneath them and 

then applies to have the lots amalgamated. Once they may have been paying two lots of a $40,000 

levy. They amalgamate their lots to be one lot and then apply for a readjustment of lot entitlements to 

ensure they are equal. Then they pay the same levies as a smaller unit owner. People have tried to 

denounce these examples as being too emotive and setting penthouse owners as the bad guys in the 

scenario. That is not what we have been trying to do. These are examples of how the inequality can 

affect people and make very real changes to their lives. Can members imagine being an elderly 

resident of a home unit who has to move because they are on a fixed income and cannot afford the 

changes to the levies? 

However, if people do not like those examples, there are many more. What about a plan that 

has mixed use, such as residential and commercial, in one complex? Should their levies be identical? 

What about the situation where a lot has been changed from commercial to residential use without 

the resulting cost impact on the body corporate having been recognised? What about the opposite of 

that, where a lot is changed from residential to commercial use and the levy remained the same, even 

though the call on body corporate expenses would have increased significantly? What about a 

scheme that has mixed town house and unit developments on the one plan? Should the unit owners 

in high-rise buildings pay the same levy as the owners of the town houses where the owners of the 

town houses are responsible for their maintenance and the unit owners are the ones making the lion’s 

share of the call on body corporate expenses? 

I question the logic of the approach of this government. If the government believes there is a 

problem that requires extensive community discussion and also acknowledges that there are many 

schemes that have manifestly unequal lot entitlements, why make these changes now? All this will do 

is create uncertainty in the market. The sale of units will be affected because people will be reluctant 

to buy a unit if they have no idea into the future how their levies will be calculated. The amendments 

by former minister Lawlor simply reinstated owners to the position they were in previously when they 

knew what their obligation would be when they purchased the unit or, if they had carried out due 

diligence, would have been aware of the original scheme for determining levies. The opposition 

cannot see the need to make these changes now. If the government is intent on conducting yet 

another inquiry into body corporate levies that is one thing, but to make changes that could possibly 

be undone as a result of the review is a recipe for chaos in the industry. 

The real question to be asked here is, does the bill fix whatever the government perceives to 

be a problem with the law relating to body corporate levies? The answer is a resounding and 

emphatic no! In the closing of his introductory speech, the Attorney-General stated— 

Body corporate legislation has long been used as a political football, particularly by the Australian Labor Party, but we will not 

be a government that does that. We want to be a government that gets the balance right and fixes this mess once and for all. 

Unfortunately, the committee considered the effect of the bill is exactly the opposite of the 

situation described by the Attorney-General. In the committee’s view, the bill does not fix the mess 

and, to take the analogy used by the Attorney further, the effect it does have is that of shifting the 

goalposts once again. What is the effect of this bill in relation to body corporate levies? The effect on 

the 2011 amendments is twofold: firstly, to stop further reversions from occurring and, secondly to 

allow for the reversal of reversions that have occurred. I will start with the second. 

The effect of this second limb is to provide that, as the Attorney-General said in his explanatory 

speech, a lot owner can submit a request to undo a reversion and the body corporate or committee 

for the body corporate must undertake a process to undo the reversion. The government has 

undertaken to conduct a wider review of body corporate lot entitlements. Many of the organisations 

that made submissions to the committee, including the Queensland Law Society, are opposed to this 

part of the bill. As the Queensland Law Society submission states— 

These provisions restrict the outcome of a reversion application and in effect make it an offence for a body corporate or 

committee to decide to reject the application. These provisions do not have sufficient regard to the rights and liabilities of 

individuals, are inconsistent with the principles of natural justice and are an inappropriate use of criminal sanction. 

As the Australian College of Community Lawyers Incorporated submitted. 

... the College is of the view that to ‘reverse the reversal’ process is not good law and urges the Government to put a 

moratorium on the reversal process until a just and equitable system for the setting and adjustment of contribution schedule lot 

entitlements can be determined.

576 



7 Mar 2013 

It seems to the opposition to be a preposterous situation when a reversal process under the 

2011 amendments can be undone before the government has decided how it will approach the 

broader issue of body corporate lot entitlements, and we are not alone in this view. We stand in the 

company of the Queensland Law Society and the Australian College of Community Lawyers 

Incorporated, as I have already pointed out. We also stand in the company of the Legal Affairs and 

Community Safety Committee. The committee stated— 

... the Committee has had difficulty in accepting the need to enable the unwinding of the current reversion processes and allow 

for further adjustments to lot entitlements to occur as an interim measure prior to the Government’s broader review. 

It therefore recommended the removal from the bill of the process that will reverse current 2011 

reversions. I urge the government to support this recommendation for, at least if nothing else, the 

stability of the industry. 

I now turn to the first limb. At first glance, this is simple. It will stop people from applying to have 

lot entitlement changes made under the 1997 act reversed. However, what about applications already 

on foot? If passed, the relevant part of the bill in its current form will be deemed to have commenced 

on the day it was introduced. The reversion processes under the 2011 amendments can still take 

place, but if the bill is passed in its current form these processes will be deemed to be incomplete. All 

current reversion processes are therefore effectively in limbo until the outcome of the bill is known. 

The Registrar of Titles told the committee it will continue to accept requests to lodge a new 

CMS, but not effect registration until the bill progresses through the parliament. The committee held 

concerns about the cost-effectiveness of throwing away the steps taken up until now in the process 

that will be deemed invalid, despite complying with all aspects of the law as it currently stands. 

Recommendation 4 of the committee states— 

The Committee recommends that the Bill be amended to include provisions to reimburse any Government fee or charge 

imposed in relation to a reversion process that is deemed to be an incomplete reversion process under this Bill. 

Better still, just do not amend the act until the review process has been completed. That way, 

money will not be wasted in making applications and paying for registration fees in the likes of a 

process that will retrospectively be negative. 

The bill also removes the requirement introduced by the 2011 amendments for sellers of units 

to provide purchasers with a copy of the scheme’s community management statement and the 

disclosure statement. The stated purpose of this is to reduce the regulatory burden. When 

these amendments were introduced, the stated purpose was to enable lot owners to make an 

informed decision when purchasing a lot in the scheme and to reduce the need for adjustments of 

contribution schedule lot entitlements. 

When speaking of the merit of the disclosure requirements in his submission to the committee, 

Mr John McDonald of Robinson & Robinson Lawyers stated— 

The principal merit is that the standard contract does not provide for the nature of the property to be described eg. Home unit-2 

car spaces, 2 storage spaces, etc. Because of this the buyer does not know what he is contracting to buy (as opposed to the 

property he has seen) until searches are carried out. 

If for example a unit is shown with two car spaces and the CMS only gives one to the buyer, then the buyer is out in the cold. 

I do not think anyone on the government side of the House would argue that this is a fair situation. 

The Queensland Law Society advocated for full disclosure to owners, but proposed requiring 

the CMS to be available online on a government register so prospective purchasers could inspect 

them prior to purchase. The committee recommends this proposal should be considered as part of 

the broader review. If that is so, why would we remove a measure designed to protect purchasers 

without having some alternatives in place? If the requirements are removed pending this broader 

review, there will be no such protection. Therefore, the opposition is of the view that the status quo 

should be maintained at least until the broader review is conducted and the Queensland Law Society 

proposal and other options that are raised could be looked at in that context. This is not an area that 

has received much attention from stakeholders and the committee itself commented on the fact that 

few submissions referred to this aspect of the amendments. 

The final aspect of the bill that I wish to comment on is the changes to give greater consistency 

in the resolution of disputes. The jurisdictional changes largely reflect the other changes in the bill, 

and are consequential on many of them. As I have indicated, we do not support many of the changes, 

and therefore will not be supporting the ones that relate to those. However, there are also some 

amendments to dispute provisions in relation to lot entitlement adjustments by resolution without 

dissent. Because these disputes can be of a complex nature, the QCAT may well be the most 

appropriate venue to hear those disputes.

7 Mar 2013 



577 

As the explanatory notes provide, the 2011 amendments made specific provision for a body 

corporate to adjust the contribution schedule lot entitlements for the scheme by resolution without 

dissent. However, the 2011 amendments did not specifically provide for resolution of disputes about 

these adjustments by a specialist adjudicator or QCAT. It is inappropriate for these disputes to be 

resolved by a department adjudicator because of the complex nature of these disputes. 

To ensure appropriate and consistent dispute resolution about contribution schedule lot 

entitlement adjustments under the act, the bill provides for disputes about adjustments of contribution 

schedule lot entitlements by resolution without dissent to be resolved by a specialist adjudicator or 

QCAT. In contrast, disputes about procedural aspects of a general meeting called to consider a 

motion to adjust the contribution schedule lot entitlements may continue to be resolved by any dispute 

resolution process under chapter 6 of the act, including department adjudication. The opposition 

would support this aspect of the amendments. 

As I said we will not be supporting this bill. We look forward to hearing the contribution of 

government members. We have made our position very clear. We thought the bill that was put 

forward to the House under the previous government by then minister Lawlor was the basis of where 

people should be going into the future. We think this is going to cause unnecessary upheaval at a 

time when people require stability in this market. We will not be supporting the bill. 

Mr BERRY (Ipswich—LNP) (11.01 pm): I rise to prompt the passage of this bill through this 

House. It is with a good deal of history that I speak on the Body Corporate and Community 

Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. 

I have been a lawyer since 1976. I saw this bill as a shining star on a very dark night because 

we as Queenslanders were seen by others as being from a backwater state. However, this bill really 

brought us into the new century. I remember going to a lecture in 1997 and dealing with new terms— 

things that we never considered before—such as a combination of residences in commercial areas 

and volumetric plans. These were concepts that we had never heard before. This is a bill that touches 

on these matters. Since 1997 this is a bill that lawyers have accepted and worked with. Even the 

general public has understood its effect and consequences. 

The 2011 amendments introduced what I would consider to be a black hole. I understand what 

the Manager of Opposition Business has said, but, as I understand it from my reading of the 2011 

amendments, the Law Society was not in favour of the amendments. There are reasons as to why 

that was the case. 

This bill deals with three requirements. It deals with the contribution schedule lot entitlement, 

disclosure statements and also judicial aspects. I will take the easier part first. I was a practising 

lawyer under the various schemes preceding the 1997 BCCM Act, as we call it, but also post the 

2011 amendments. What people really expect not only of lawyers but also of politicians, of legislators, 

is a degree of certainty. It is important for all of us to be able to work within a system and for 

legislators to fully understand and appreciate the fact that we just cannot change laws for the sake of 

changing them. 

Perhaps that is a segue into the speech of the then minister for tourism and fair trading, 

Mr Lawlor. After reading report No. 11 of the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee from 

November 2012, I was perplexed by some of his comments, particularly having regard to what the 

Manager of Opposition Business has said. 


Mr BERRY: I take that interjection only because I wish to correct the record. It is white not 

grey. You have a little way to go, Mr Rickuss. 

What the then minister said has a lot of import. After discussing why this amendment was 

necessary and good for most Queenslanders, he said— 

At the outset, I acknowledge some of the proposed amendments will not receive universal acclaim. 

I would respectfully suggest at this point that in fact there was no universal acclaim. In fact, there was 

not even a majority of views at that point in time. He goes onto say— 

There are many who will decry the rationale and policy intent behind this bill. 

Indeed that was the case. He goes onto say— 

I am not entirely unsympathetic to those views, but difficult problems sometimes require difficult solutions. If we do nothing, 

then the community titles sector will become increasingly unstable. This bill provides certainty for the marketplace which will 

ensure that medium- and high-density living remains an attractive and affordable option for many Queenslanders.

578 



7 Mar 2013 

The reason I am perplexed by that is that I would have thought in ordinary conveyancing terms 

when a person goes and sees their solicitor and carries out the necessary investigations and they are 

told of their contribution schedule lot entitlement and their interest schedule lot entitlement they have 

a pretty good idea what their expenses are going to be. How much fairer could it be to simply say that 

in the 1997 act it really did get it right? 

From 1997 to 2011 there was no appreciable difference in the market. In fact, this act catered 

for the ability of the market in units to flourish. Ipswich and many other places around this great state 

of ours have developed along these lines. As I said in my initial statement, the reality is that this act, 

to which this bill refers, got it right. We in fact now have a world-class act. We need this bill to really 

get it back to a first-class act. That is the reason I fully support these amendments. 

One thing that really stuck with me when reading the report was the then minister— 

Mr Knuth interjected. 

Mr BERRY: I might take that interjection. Thank you so much, member for Dalrymple. I do not 

often hear him, but the fact that he has made a contribution to this debate— 

Mr Hopper: What about the equalisation part of this bill? Speak about that. 

Mr BERRY: I do not take that interjection. This bill is about winners and losers. I appreciate 

that there is an audience to which the member for Dalrymple is catering. 

Mr Hopper interjected. 

Mr BERRY: The position is that when you buy— 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Ruthenberg): Order! Member for Condamine! 

Mr BERRY: The position clearly is that when a person buys a unit they know— 

Mr Hopper interjected. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Condamine, you will be warned under the 

standing orders next time. Your turn is coming. Please respect the speaker on his feet. I call the 

member for Ipswich. 

Mr BERRY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The position is that the opposition to the 2011 

amendments was indicated in very clear terms, and I refer to the comments of Mrs Stuckey, the then 

shadow minister, where she said— 

I turn now to the provisions of this legislation that have caused enormous controversy. This bill proposes that community titles 

schemes established prior to the commencement of this bill that have been subject to adjustment orders will have the ability to 

revert their lot entitlements to their original settings prior to any and all adjustment orders. To facilitate a reversion of 

contribution schedule lot entitlements the bill provides that, if a lot owner submits a motion to be considered at a general 

meeting of the body corporate requesting the contribution schedule lot entitlements for all the lots in the scheme to be reverted 

to the original contribution schedule lot entitlements in place before any and all adjustment orders were made, it is deemed that 

the body corporate passed the motion. The body corporate will then be required to give effect to the motion by reverting the 

contribution schedule lot entitlements to their original settings, subject to any subdivisions, amalgamations, boundary changes 

or material changes. 

That is as effective today in summarising what this is all about as it was then in the debate on 

the 2011 amendments. The position is that this bill reverts the position to when it was equitable—that 

is, and I repeat: when a person buys a lot, they know what they are buying. 

When that act was passed, the then minister for Tourism did not take due cognisance of those 

who were against the provisions and did not take cognisance of the Law Society and other 

submitters. The reality of life is that he was battling upstream with an amendment which really was 

unfair to all, and it continues to be. Only this bill will effectively right the situation, not only in respect of 

the contribution schedule lot entitlements but also in relation to disclosure statements and the judicial 

review. 

The reversion in relation to the disclosure statements—a matter that is certainly within my 

practical knowledge—is a very necessary and worthwhile amendment, because in all the 

conveyancing I have done in relation to lot entitlements I cannot remember a time when a disclosure 

statement was ever filled out. The reality of life is that the real estate salesman relied upon the owner 

to get the information. Sometimes the owner did not know. So, effectively, when a purchaser was 

buying a unit, an apartment, the net effect of it was that that statement was never filled out. Usually 

‘let the buyer search’ or something of that nature was put onto the document. It was a totally useless 

piece of paper, not dissimilar, I might respectfully suggest, to warning statements. Have I ever spoken 

with a client who had read a warning statement or been through it or, if they had read it, understood

7 Mar 2013 



579 

it? The reality of it is that it is a complex document, just as this is a complex document. The position is 

that doing away with the disclosure statement will make the job of the lawyer easier. It will certainly 

cut down the cost and the time it takes to have these generally complicated matters resolved. 

In the disclosure statement there are a lot of matters, including having to get a community 

management statement for the scheme, when in fact that is sometimes 60 or 70 pages. The result of 

it is that, even though that document is attached to the contract, the lawyer needs to obtain the search 

in any event. You cannot necessarily rely on a document where it is supplied by another party. It 

would be negligent to do so. So you need to do a search anyway. So what effectively is happening is 

we have a duplication of processes. It seems to me that when you effect a change which streamlines 

a system, makes it more efficient and allows— 

Mr Knuth interjected. 

Mr BERRY: Excuse me. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Ruthenberg): Order! Member for Dalrymple, you will be warned 

under standing orders next time. The speaker is not taking interjections. Member for Ipswich, you 

have the call. 

Mr BERRY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The position is that disclosure statements really 

complicate contracts. It does not provide any equity. It creates more red tape. This is about reducing 

red tape. This is about making sure that purchasers and lawyers are all doing what they are required 

to do. 

Lastly I wish to talk about the fact that matters are now determined before QCAT and not by 

resolutions which in fact are not voted upon. You could not possibly ask for anything fairer than that. I 

have had a person approach me in the last four weeks in relation to this bill and the reality of life is 

that this person is absolutely on the edge of their seat waiting for this bill to be passed. That is the 

reality of it. This is universally accepted in Ipswich. We do not have a lot of high-rise but we do have 

some. Quite frankly, this bill will bring back equity to those people who understand what the system is 

about. 

I take this opportunity to commend my predecessor and the committee members in relation to 

the report they prepared. I think it is a well-considered report, and I firmly believe that this is a step in 

the right direction. I also thank the Attorney-General for making sure this bill progressed to the point 

where it is able to be looked at within our first 12 months of coming to power. It is the right move. I 

know it is not the final move. There are matters that will need consideration in due course, but the 

reality of it is that the majority of Queenslanders will applaud this bill. It really is going to achieve the 

object of getting everything back on track. I commend the bill to the House. 

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

Employment) (11.17 pm): I begin my contribution to the Body Corporate and Community 

Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill by taking up the theme of the honourable 

member for Ipswich, who is the chair of the relevant committee, to note that this is a work in progress. 

It is not going to fix all the problems, and this is something that I have been speaking about with a 

number of constituents in my electorate who have expressed concerns about aspects of this 

legislation overall and the fact that this is something that we committed in opposition to rectifying. But, 

as the honourable member for Ipswich just mentioned, there is not much point in someone being able 

to take a motion to a meeting and move it without any dissent when that is overriding the actions of a 

properly constituted tribunal. That is the principle that we have had to correct before the Attorney- 

General moves on to the second aspect, which is the commitment that I will speak to later—and that 

is to make sure we get this legislation right. 

Even though this is a vexed issue, it is very hard to please everyone, as we have already heard 

from the contributions that have been made. But it is very obvious that the amendments in 2011 have 

not helped the situation. It is something I spoke about at that time, when the honourable member for 

Currumbin was the shadow minister. We opposed it in opposition and we are here today to right the 

wrong that was created that has exacerbated the situation and has led to a lot of unease and a lot of 

heartache amongst constituents of mine, as I have a high proportion of bodies corporate in my 

electorate. 

In April 2011 the Bligh Labor government amended the Body Corporate and Community 

Management and Other Legislation Amendment Act so that lot owners affected by a contribution 

schedule lot entitlements adjustment order could have their scheme’s lot entitlements reverted to their 

original setting. Labor’s 2011 amendments created a flawed system that needed to be fixed.

580 



7 Mar 2013 

I recall speaking in this place on Labor’s BCCM Bill in 2011. In that debate I said— 

The real problem is that this bill was supposed to deliver much but in reality it delivers little. It is a bill that was intended to 

satisfy many but will, if passed, satisfy few. It is a bill which was supposed to deliver certainty to unit residents and investors 

alike but which delivers only more uncertainty. 

... 

... I am constantly reminded that for many people the dream of unit living has turned into a nightmare. From constant 

representations made to my electorate office and the fact that my filing cabinets are overflowing with such complaints ... 

As honourable members would be aware, this bill is particularly significant to my electorate of 

Surfers Paradise and I have received significant correspondence on this bill. But one of the things I 

will not tolerate is people trying to threaten me about my future or the future of this government, which 

was elected with a significant mandate to fix these issues and others. That is what I object to. I have a 

significant number of constituents who via a concerted media campaign have tried to suggest that 

either my future or the future of the government is in danger if we do not do what they want us to do. 

That is typical of the members opposite— 

Mr Byrne: It is democracy. 

Mr LANGBROEK: It is not democracy, member for Rockhampton, when people threaten— 

when people suggest that if we as a government do not do what they want us to do we will suffer as a 

consequence. I am here to say—there are some here in the gallery tonight; they know who they are— 

that those people can do whatever they like, whether they be failed council candidates or people who 

have come and said, ‘This is something you must do because you are in the LNP and I voted for you 

or I handed out for you.’ They can do whatever they like if they want to suggest things like that. 

All I can say is that I will not be listening to those sorts of emotive statements or taking note of 

the fact that they get the member for Rockhampton to come down to speak to their meetings—or the 

members from the back corner who love to carry on in the way that they do. They can do whatever 

they like with those people, but I will act on behalf of the people of Surfers Paradise and the majority 

of people who are members of bodies corporate. We will do the right thing on behalf of those people 

and we will do it properly. We will make sure that we come up with the best result. That is why I want 

to make that point tonight very stridently. 

It is all very well for expedient people from the Katter party, which has refugees from other 

political parties, to go down there in a short-term way saying, ‘Maybe I’ll get them to vote for me here,’ 

or for a new member who has been in this place for five minutes to go down to the Gold Coast, trying 

to ride on the coat-tails, thinking ‘Maybe this will get us from seven to 70.’ I do not think it is going to 

get them from seven to 70. They can do whatever they like, but we will make sure we do this properly. 

I will make sure that I work for the Attorney-General to make sure that we do get a good result. That is 

the message I have for those opposite and those who think they can ride the coat-tails of the people 

who are out there—the populists, the people who think they can just jump on some sort of 

bandwagon at the last moment because it might help them. 

This legislation is very significant to my electorate. I know that the Legal Affairs and Community 

Safety Committee undertook a detailed examination of the bill because prior to April 2011 lot owners 

could seek an adjustment to their scheme’s contribution schedule lot entitlements by seeking an order 

from a specialist adjudicator, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal—QCAT—or the 

District Court. A reversion overruled orders of a court, tribunal or specialist adjudicator. There was no 

right of appeal for anyone in the community titles scheme who did not want the reversion to take 

place. This meant that the system allowed one person to influence the arrangement for an entire 

building without challenge. 

This system was inherently flawed. Under the Labor Party’s law, a member of a body corporate 

could submit a motion to the body corporate committee or a general meeting to overrule the lot 

entitlements that had been decided by a specialist adjudicator, tribunal or court and require the 

contribution schedule lot entitlements to be changed back to those originally set by the developer. 

Under the Labor laws, other lot owners had no right to challenge or vote against such a motion and 

the body corporate committee was required to implement the reversion process. The system was 

compromised from the start and it is a system that needs fixing.

7 Mar 2013 



581 

This bill aims to right Labor’s wrongs and restore fairness and independence. We need to 

restore a process to allow reversions made under the 2011 amendments to be undone and to enable 

bodies corporate affected by the 2011 amendments to reinstate the lot entitlements that were 

previously decided upon for the scheme not by an individual with vested interest but by a specialist 

adjudicator, tribunal or court. 

This bill removes unnecessary disclosure requirements imposed on sellers of lots in community 

titles schemes. The Newman government has introduced legislative amendments to the BCCM Act 

which will only affect those community schedule lot entitlements adjusted by an order of a specialist 

adjudicator, tribunal or court prior to April 2011 and then using Labor Party amendments of 2011 

reverting to the developer’s original schedule between April 2011 and when our recent bill was 

introduced. This bill also ensures that no more reversions can take place. 

It is expected that of the approximately 41,000 registered community titles schemes in 

Queensland this bill will affect fewer than 130. A CSLE determines a lot owner’s contribution to the 

maintenance and upkeep of the common property of a body corporate. The government does not set 

body corporate fees. The legislation simply sets out the framework for determining how unit owners 

share body corporate expenses. 

The LNP’s position on this issue was no secret: we opposed Labor’s 2011 amendments at the 

time. That remained our position right through to the state election. Now it is part of the challenge of 

undoing Labor’s mess—the Gordian knot that is Labor’s fiscal and legislative mismanagement that 

resulted in crushing debt, increased cost of living and reams of red tape that stifled economic growth. 

Our government has a mandate to reduce red tape and regulation. This seeks to remove 

unnecessary disclosure requirements imposed on sellers of lots in community titles schemes. It will 

streamline the contract process and reduce conveyancing costs including removing the need to 

provide a copy of the community management statement with the disclosure statements for the sale 

of units in existing community titles schemes. 

I seek to highlight the fact, especially for my constituents, that the current bill deals only with 

undoing the reversions that took place under the April 2011 amendments and providing a process for 

bodies corporate affected by the 2011 amendments to reinstate the lot entitlements that were 

previously decided by a specialist adjudicator, tribunal or court. 

The Attorney-General has announced that we will be the government to fix the body corporate 

mess once and for all. It has been used as a political football. We will not be a government that does 

that. We want to be a government that gets the balance right and fixes this mess once and for all. I 

welcome and look forward to a greater review of the act. Until then, I acknowledge the importance of 

passing this current piece of legislation. I commend the bill to the House. 

Miss BARTON (Broadwater—LNP) (11.27 pm): It gives me great pleasure to rise this evening 

to contribute to the debate on the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other 

Legislation Amendment Bill. Like my colleague the Minister for Education and member for Surfers 

Paradise, I, too, have many bodies corporate in my electorate. In fact, I live in one myself. I was 

thinking about it the other day, and I think I have more than 250, which means that I have obviously 

received a lot of perspectives on this particular bill. I am aware that it is a very emotive issue. 

I was a member of the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee. Indeed, I still am. It is 

interesting that I was able to participate in the committee’s inquiry. As members of the committee 

saw, this is obviously a piece of legislation that engendered much discussion and debate in our 

community. Indeed, the committee received something in the range of 300 submissions. We held a 

public inquiry at which we heard from many interested parties, some who were for the legislation and 

some who objected to the legislation. 

I think at the end of the day what is really important and what we need to realise is that Labor 

failed in 2011 when they introduced their amendments to the body corporate legislation. The Newman 

government has an obligation to fix the problem. All Labor tried to do was put a bandaid over it. What 

the Newman government is focused on is finding the solution and working with the community to 

revise the legislation. That is why I think it is so very important that the Attorney-General and Minister 

for Justice has committed to a review of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act this 

year. I think it is a fantastic opportunity for us as members of parliament to really delve into this piece 

of legislation.

582 



7 Mar 2013 

The reality is that when we make changes to the body corporate legislation we are not going to 

be able to please everyone. When we were discussing this legislation late last year I spoke to the 

member for Warrego, who in 1997 was the minister responsible for the Borbidge 

government’s amendments. He said that he had particular troubles trying to get his head around 

some of the issues because, unless you live in a building operated by a body corporate or you are 

part of a community that has many bodies corporate, it can be very difficult to get your head around 

all of these complex issues. If the House will indulge me I thought I would provide a little bit of 

perspective, as someone who lives in a building operated by a body corporate. 

I had the great pleasure of being able to purchase my own home late last year. It was a very 

exciting time for me. In addition to all of those really exciting things like deciding whether or not I 

would get a front loader or top loader washing machine, whether or not I really needed a dryer, 

whether or not I could convince my mother to still do my ironing if I paid her 50c a shirt or whether or 

not I should get a double-door fridge, I realised that I was going to be moving into a community that 

was made up of vastly different people and vastly different personalities. That is the reality of bodies 

corporate. Everyone who is invested in the body corporate has a different perspective and comes to 

the meetings and the body corporate with different points of view and different wants and needs. We 

are really seeing that in the debate that we are having at the moment about the body corporate 

legislation. 

My perspective has shown that there are always going to be people who will invest in certain 

issues and debates when it comes to a body corporate. When I was buying my apartment I made a 

conscious decision to not buy into an overly developed building or one that had many different 

facilities. I tell myself that the reason I bought an apartment without a lift was so that I could get daily 

exercise, but I think the reality is I was aware that the more amenities one has in a body corporate the 

more difficulties and the more debates you will find you have with your fellow residents. That is why I 

think it is so important that we do make sure that we have a very full and frank review of the 

legislation this year. That is something that the Attorney-General has committed to and I think that is 

fantastic. It is something that is needed. As I said earlier, Labor failed when they amended the body 

corporate legislation in 2011. It is not the role of governments to put a bandaid over a problem without 

looking for the source of the problem and without trying to find a real solution. The Newman 

government is committed to finding a real solution. 

I would have at least 250 bodies corporate in my electorate and so my electorate would have 

more bodies corporate than this legislation will affect. I appreciate that there are some people who 

feel that they might be disadvantaged by this legislation. The reality is that what we as a government 

need to do is conduct a wide, wholesale review of this legislation, which is something to which we 

have committed, so that we can make sure that people who do live in bodies corporate are able to 

talk about the issues that they are having with their fellow residents and are able to fully thrash 

everything out and achieve positive outcomes for their particular community. 

I must admit that I am particularly lucky. I live in an apartment building that has 12 units and, 

thankfully, six of them are 111 square metres and six of them are 109 square metres. I was talking to 

the member for Pine Rivers about it. I said that my apartment was 111 square metres and I think he 

was a little bit shocked because his property is such that I think his living room is bigger than my 

entire apartment. As someone who is living alone and who has bought their first home, I am more 

than happy to have something as tiny as 111 square metres. 

The member for Surfers Paradise and Minister for Education touched on the fact that so many 

people have contacted our offices to talk about their views on this particular bill. Like the member for 

Surfers Paradise, I, too, have received suggestions that if the government were not to act in a certain 

way people would ensure that I or the member for Surfers Paradise would not be re-elected. That was 

a purely nonsensical notion. The suggestion that the member for Surfers Paradise might lose his seat 

over what is effectively a minor change to the Body Corporate and Community Management Act is 

ridiculous. The reality is that the Newman government is committed to making sure that we deal with 

this issue. We have said time and time again that you cannot just put a bandaid over a problem, walk 

away and think it is solved. We are committed to making sure that we talk to people. We are 

committed to making sure that we find a solution to the problem, and that is one of the things that will 

be so critical as we hold this review of the legislation throughout this year.

7 Mar 2013 



583 

I, too, was personally affronted by the suggestion that I needed to act a certain way on this 

particular legislation to retain my seat. One of the things that I am very conscious of when I stand in 

this House to speak to legislation is that I do not speak here for a small, vocal minority; I speak here 

for the silent majority, the people of my electorate who put me here to stand up for them on a broad 

range of issues. People sent me to this House to decide on education policy and a future for health in 

Queensland, so that we can have a tougher stance on law and order, so that we can put more police 

on the beat, more doctors and nurses in hospitals and more teachers in schools. I was not sent to this 

House so that I could be held to ransom by idle threats from people who think that it is okay to sit in 

front of me and tell me that if I do not act a certain way they will ensure that they will see me defeated 

and that the LNP members across the Gold Coast are sent packing. The reality is that the voting 

public is a hell of a lot more intelligent than that. The voting public make decisions on the basis of 

what we as a government do at large, what we as a government do in terms of the economy. The fact 

that we are growing a four-pillar economy and the fact that we are getting the state back on track is 

what the people of my electorate respond to. That is what the people of the Minister for Education’s 

electorate will respond to. 

The people of my electorate do not expect me to be weak or to stand down when someone 

threatens me. They expect me to stand up on the basis of principle, and the principle is that we need 

not put a bandaid over a problem but we need to seek a solution because that is why we are sent to 

this place. There are 89 of us here who have an amazing opportunity to see really positive outcomes 

for our communities and for our state. We have a fantastic opportunity to work together with the 

Queensland Plan when we all go to Mackay on 10 May. We have an amazing opportunity to send a 

message to the people of Queensland that we are not going to look solely at the outside of an issue 

or how we might have a quick fix, like Labor might have done in 2011 with then minister Lawlor. We 

have an opportunity to say to the people of Queensland that we give a damn about issues at large, 

that we are committed to solving the problem and we are committed to delving into it. 

The reality is that we are never going to see a quick fix on body corporate legislation. It is 

complex. It is incredibly complicated. I sometimes struggle to get my head around some of the big 

issues when we are talking about body corporate legislation. That is why it is so important that the 

government is going to be conducting a review into this particular act in 2013. The Attorney-General 

has made very clear to the people of Queensland that he does not want a quick fix. The Attorney- 

General has made clear to the people of Queensland that, like every other piece of legislation that we 

bring into this House, it is designed to further us along the path of finding a real solution so that we 

can get Queensland back on track. We are a great state with a great opportunity. It would sicken me 

to think that we would shirk the responsibility that we bear on our shoulders to do great things in this 

place and to stand up for our great communities. 

We all talk about the fact that we have the best electorate in the world, but the reality is we all 

live in the best state of Australia and we all have a fantastic opportunity to do great things in this 

place. My grandfather, a former member of this House, and I would be terribly dismayed if I stood up 

in this House and I backed down on an issue because I was prepared to respond to idle threats. The 

reality is that the Newman government will not be threatened on issues like this. My Gold Coast 

colleagues and I will not be threatened by people who think it is okay to come and tell us that if we do 

not act in a certain way that is approved by them, the vocal minority, then they will be able to control 

our futures. 

Those people who are making idle threats on this legislation are not the people who control our 

future. The people who control our future are the people of Queensland, and in my case they are the 

people of Broadwater. I am committed to making sure that we see the economy in Broadwater grow, 

that we see the schools in Broadwater continue to thrive, that we see the Gold Coast University 

Hospital service the community because that is the right thing to do, that we see the Runaway Bay 

and the Southport police stations continue to serve and protect our communities. That is why we are 

here. That is our obligation as members of parliament. It is not our obligation to shirk responsibility 

and to think that it is okay to just put a bandaid on a problem and think that that solves everything. 

We are here to delve into the problem. It is a bit like an onion. You need to peel layers away 

every single time you delve into a problem. When Labor looked at this problem in 2011, it did not peel 

away any layers. All it did was put a bandaid over the top. The reality is that it failed Queensland and 

it failed people who live in bodies corporate and we as a government are committed to turning this 

around. We are committed to making sure that we deliver for the people of Queensland body 

corporate legislation that serves them at large. We have an obligation to make sure that we pass 

legislation that is positive for the majority of people, and that is what we are committed to doing. The

584 



7 Mar 2013 

Minister for Education highlighted that this particular legislation will affect only 130 people in particular 

schemes. When we consider that there are more than 40,000 affected in Queensland, this legislation 

does not have the impact that the scaremongers think it does. It does not have the impact that the 

opposition will argue it does. It does not have the impact that those in the Katter party—otherwise 

known as the north-west branch of the Labor Party—think it has. It certainly does not have the impact 

that the people who make idle threats against me and my colleagues think it has. 

We are looking to help a small percentage of people in a broader scheme and we are 

committed to, throughout the year, focusing on the scheme at large and helping the 40,000 people 

who live in bodies corporate across Queensland. That is why I think it is a great shame that the 

opposition and the Katter party cannot come to the table to work with us as we work to find a solution 

to the problem. The reality is that the opposition and the Katter party do not care about solutions and 

they do not care about problems. All they care about is how it looks in the media. All they care about 

is how they can get a simple grab on the six o’clock news when members of the government only 

care about the future of Queensland. 


Miss BARTON: We are focused on delivering real solutions once we identify the problems, 

because that is our role. 


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! There are too many interjections and there is 

too much noise in the House. The member has the call. 

Miss BARTON: Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. 


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! 

Miss BARTON: Again, Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you so very much for your protection. It is a 

great shame that members of the north-west branch of the Labor Party are not prepared to listen to 

what people in bodies corporate have to say. As I said, I have the added advantage of living in one 

myself and am truly aware of the challenges that will be faced as we go forward with this full review. 

This is the solution to a problem that has been identified in the meantime. We have identified that 

there is a problem moving forward and that is why we are going to conduct a full-scale review. That is 

why we will not be held to ransom by idle threats. That is why we will not shirk our responsibilities as 

the government of Queensland to make sure that we govern for all Queensland, to make sure that we 

govern for the silent majority so that we might see a better outcome for those 40,000 people who live 

in bodies corporate right across this great state. We are a great state with great opportunity and we 

have a fantastic opportunity to really achieve a very positive outcome throughout this year when it 

comes to the Body Corporate and Community Management Act, and that is what the Newman 

government is committed to doing. That is what we will do. I commend this bill to the House. 

Mr HOPPER (Condamine—KAP) (11.44 pm): Tonight we have seen everything. We saw the 

address from the member for Surfers Paradise, and I want to touch on that address before I get on to 

the address by the member for Broadwater. I am very disappointed in my own judgement, and I will 

say that. 


Mr HOPPER: Let me tell members why I am very disappointed: because I supported the 

member— 


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There are too many interjections and, unless the member 

takes those interjections, the member will be heard. 

Mr HOPPER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. For many years I supported the member for 

Surfers Paradise because I thought he was a member who had stature, who was honest and who 

was decent. After what I heard tonight with regard to what he said to the people of his electorate and 

unit owners, I am very disappointed and I am very sorry for the support that I had given this once 

friend. The member for Broadwater talks about the mortgage on her house. She will be looking for a 

new job in the next two years, because I can tell you now that the people of the Gold Coast will rise 

up against these members if they support this legislation tonight.

7 Mar 2013 



585 

I have been to the Gold Coast and I have met with unit owners. I met with the people who are 

facing having this legislation being debated tonight forced upon them. They are very, very angry. 

They will rise up in force, because there is nothing like people power. When this legislation passes 

through this House tonight, these people will rise up. I tell you now that Gold Coast members will get 

kicked out, and they have a lot to worry about. They have a serious lot to worry about. At that meeting 

I also said to those people, ‘Be ready to come late on Thursday night of the next sitting, because the 

Attorney-General hasn’t got the decency to face the media. He’s going to put this legislation through 

late at night’— 

Mr BLEIJIE: I rise to a point of order. I take personal offence to the comment that I will not 

address the media. I did a live interview on 4BC yesterday, if the member had tuned in. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, there is no point of order. The member has the call. 

Mr HOPPER: For a minister to take a point of order like that, for goodness sake! He stands up 

here and squawks and talks with his little thing in his pocket and makes sure that everyone hears him 

and he looks like a vibrant minister, but he does not even know the rules of parliament! He cannot 

even make a decent point of order, and here he is going to kick out unit owners on level 1 who have 

to suffer and pay the same fees as the Liberal Party’s puffed-up rich mates in the penthouse—that is, 

the body corporate fees of those in penthouses are going to be equalised to unit owners on level 1 

with this legislation. That is exactly what this legislation will do. Those pensioners and unit owners 

who bought the cheap units on level 1 will be faced with the same body corporate fees as their rich 

Liberal mates, and that is exactly what is going to happen with this legislation. North coast members 

will also see this same scrutiny, because people power will rule over this legislation. I will 

move amendments to try to protect the people who faithfully paid for those units and bought those 

units. This is disgusting—disgusting—legislation protecting your rich Liberal mates, and that is exactly 

what this is about. 

The Attorney-General is proceeding with his amendment to the Body Corporate and 

Community Management Act irrespective of the recommendations he received from the Legal Affairs 

and Community Safety Committee. This committee, which I chaired, received 274 submissions on 

this amendment bill. That speaks for itself. It speaks for itself that so many bodies would put in 

submissions to a committee inquiry. We held a committee hearing and we had Gold Coast members 

sitting in that committee hearing and yet they stand here tonight and say, ‘We’re not going to be 

threatened.’ Wait until the next election! Wait until the next election! 

Tonight we heard one of the worst contributions from the member for Ipswich, who is not used 

to taking interjections. He got a couple and could not keep speaking. I want to say to the member for 

Ipswich that if you keep making contributions like that to this House, we will keep interjecting. Let me 

tell you right now— 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! Member for Condamine, could you please 

resume your seat. It would help, member for Condamine, if you addressed your comments through 

the chair. 

Mr HOPPER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sorry about that. I respect the chair and I respect the 

way you run the House. This is not an inconsiderable number of submissions—274—owing to the 

short length of time that was allowed by the Attorney-General in which to lodge the submissions. The 

principal aim of this bill is to overturn legislation passed by the Labor government in 2011. The net 

effect of that amendment will be that those unit owners who had levies reverted to the developer’s 

levies after the 2011 amendment will need to have these levies changed once again for the 

equalisation principle. That is the principle that I am talking about in this legislation. The LNP 

members should hang their heads in shame, because this means that the poor are going to have to 

pay and the rich are not going to have to pay. 

An honourable member interjected. 

Mr HOPPER: Exactly. That is exactly what this is about. This is absolutely disgusting 

legislation for unit owners who are part of a body corporate in Queensland. The net effect is that 

these unit owners will need to have their levies changed once again for the equalisation principle. For 

some unit owners, this will be the third change to their levies in as many years. How would you be if 

you purchase a unit, you put your budget in place, you are living on a pension, you allow so much to 

pay for your body corporate fees and the next minute legislation comes through this chamber and, 

bang, your body corporate fees rise again? ‘What are we going to do? Will we sell our unit and move

586 



7 Mar 2013 

out?’ A lot of these people will have to. That is why we are taking this stand tonight. That is why I 

have put amendments before this House, to which I will speak later. Let us see what the LNP 

members representing the Gold Coast and the north coast do with this legislation. 

For large complexes, this cost could be as high as $17,000. Could members imagine a 

pensioner having to pay a $17,000 body corporate fee for a swimming pool they do not swim in? For 

a lawn that is mowed that they do not walk on? For a lift that they do not use because the only unit 

they could afford was on the bottom floor? Yet their rich Liberal mates, who were paying $50,000, 

$60,000, $70,000— 

Mr Choat interjected. 

Mr HOPPER: You are gone at the next election. You want to interject; you are gone— 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Condamine, will you address your comments through the 

chair. 

Mr Choat interjected. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Ipswich West! 

Mr HOPPER: The member for Ipswich West wants to interject. He should enjoy doing that for 

the next two years, because this legislation also affects people involved in bodies corporate in his 

electorate. If you want to pick on the Katter party, it will come against you twice as hard. So keep 

interjecting. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Condamine, I warn you again about addressing 

your comments through the chair. It would help the House. 

Mr HOPPER: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you. I do apologise once again and, as I said before, I 

do respect you. Let me borrow a phrase from the Attorney-General, but I will use it in a different 

context. Using the levy issue as a political football is costly for a body corporate. This amendment will 

once again throw the unit market into turmoil. Unit buyers will be justifiably confused by the seemingly 

regular changes to the way levies are calculated. The real estate market will be in turmoil because of 

what is happening now. There have been three changes in three years. If I am a real estate agent 

and I want to sell a unit on the Gold Coast, if I bring someone in to look at the unit and they ask, 

‘What are the body corporate fees?’, I would say, ‘At the moment it is $6,000, but with an LNP 

government it could be $17,000 after the next sitting of parliament,’ because that is how many 

changes we are seeing. There is no consistency with what is happening here in Queensland. We 

need consistency. There have been three changes in three years. It is absolutely disappointing to see 

this happening. 

Mr Cox: How many parties have you been in, mate? 

Mr HOPPER: I have another one here on the left. He should enjoy the next two years because 

he is gone as well. 

Mr Cox: How many changes have you been in, mate? 

Mr HOPPER: Probably six, I would say. I am particularly concerned about the effect that the 

changes to the levies are having on the more vulnerable folk in our community. We talk about whom 

we look after in our community. We have 19 families in Bundaberg whom the council have locked the 

toilets on at the showgrounds. Their houses have been washed away in the flood. We have a 

member for Bundaberg who has done absolutely nothing to protect them. We are talking about 

vulnerable people here. 

Mr WATTS: I rise to a point of order. I would like to get a ruling on relevance— 

Mr HOPPER: I am back to the bill. Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am listening to the member for Condamine’s speech. Largely, 

it has been about the body corporate legislation. 

Mr HOPPER: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for your ruling. But with all of these 

interjections they seem to get me off the subject. It is very hard to follow with all of this waffle that is 

going on. Age pensioners and retirees on fixed incomes— 


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There too many interjections in the House. 

Mr Krause interjected.

7 Mar 2013 



587 

Mr HOPPER: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you. Let me just say that we have had an interjection 

from the member for Beaudesert. There are some bodies corporate in his electorate as well. If he 

wants to interject I want to tell him now that we will come to Beaudesert and we will tell the people of 

Beaudesert what he voted for tonight. Age pensioners and retirees on fixed incomes buy smaller units 

because they are more affordable. The smaller unit attracts a lower levy than the larger unit. That is 

what this bill is all about. 

Older folk find unit living attractive. It is suitable for them. They no longer have a big house or a 

lawn to mow. That is good for them as it frees them from the responsibility of maintaining a garden 

and maintaining a lawn. That is what body corporate fees are all about. Maintenance is attended to by 

the body corporate. We can only imagine the stress that these elderly folk are going to experience 

when they discover that the body corporate fee could increase by 30 per cent to 40 per cent and even 

up to 50 per cent under this legislation. 

Age pensioners in particular have to budget wisely. They have to save every dollar and every 

cent. The increase in these levies presents a devastating blow to them. Has any consideration been 

given to this group of people? No, absolutely not. The government seems fixated on making the lives 

of the penthouse unit owners easier. As I said, it is looking after its rich Liberal mates. Who cares if 

pensioners have to pay more in levies to subsidise the penthouse unit owner? No-one in this House 

would except the Labor Party, the backbenchers and the Katter party. I have just made that statement 

right now. We care. The variety of opinions expressed— 

Mr Cox: What are you going to do about it? 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Thuringowa will cease interjecting. 

Mr HOPPER: There is another electorate the Katter party is going to spend a lot of time in, too. 

I will tell the member that right now. The variety of opinions expressed in the submissions to the 

committee—some quite comprehensive—gave the committee a valuable insight into the vexed issue 

of body corporate levies. Those submissions gave rise to the committee’s concerns that the 

government was not acting in the best interests of the majority of unit owners. As chair of the 

committee I said that. Yet the Attorney-General still puts the legislation forward when the committee 

system, which is designed to scrutinise legislation, said that this legislation cannot work. So what are 

committees in this parliament for? Why do we have committees when a committee scrutinises 

legislation and the legislation goes to the minister and the minister totally rejects what the committee 

says? This is just a shambles and a gamble. That is exactly what it is, for goodness sake. 


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! There are too many interjections. 

Mr HOPPER: We are certainly touching some nerves tonight. We have got some interjections. 

Do members know why we are? Because these people, when we call divide, are actually going to 

vote for something they do not believe in because they are lined up in front of the firing squad and 

they will get shot and put on the backbench or kicked out of parliament and threatened with not being 

preselected by the Seeney-led government. That is exactly what will happen to them if they do not 

vote for this legislation. I am asking them for once in their life to really have a look at their conscience. 

Mrs FRECKLINGTON: I rise to a point of order. I ask the Deputy Speaker to rule on relevance. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am listening carefully to the member’s speech. He has linked it back 

to the bill. I am carefully listening and do encourage the member to stay very close to the bill. 

Mr HOPPER: Thank you very much. There is another one! There are bodies corporate in 

Nanango. I have actually bought a property at Kilcoy. The electorate of Nanango does attract me. I 

would like to go to Nanango and meet with some bodies corporate and maybe see what is going to 

happen in the next election. 

Mr LANGBROEK: I rise to a point of order. Is the member seriously suggesting that Carl 

Rackemann could not beat her but he will? 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, that is no point of order. 

Mr HOPPER: Here we go once again. Another minister in parliament who does not know what 

a point of order is and here he sits. He has turned his back on his body corporate people, on his unit 

owners, and said, ‘They can squawk, they can come at me, it doesn’t worry me.’ People power will 

rule and he will be targeted. The member for Surfers Paradise will be targeted because of this 

legislation that is going through tonight. These people are showing their true colours. 

Government members interjected.

588 



7 Mar 2013 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There are too many interjections. 

Mr HOPPER: The government has continually failed to produce any real evidence to support 

the concept of equalisation. There is actually no real evidence in this legislation to support the 

concept that is before this House tonight. There is no evidence to support the concept of equalisation. 

How is it that a small one-bedroom unit owner is supposed to have the same impact on body 

corporate facilities and costs as does a four-bedroom penthouse that occupies 10 times that area? 

Yet the equalisation fees will come in and they will have to pay the same body corporate costs. How 

can people possibly vote for this tonight? This is a joke. 


Mr HOPPER: I don’t want to go to Lockyer, for goodness sake. How is it possible for two 

people who occupy a small apartment on the first floor to have exactly the same use of facilities and 

impose the same costs on the body corporate as do eight people in a penthouse on the 13th floor? 

Logic is clearly not a determining factor in this legislation. 

Mr Cox interjected. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Thuringowa will cease interjecting. 

Mr HOPPER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have had so many interjections from him. It 

is obvious that this amendment is being driven by other factors. Why is there such a need for this 

deception? The government often refers to decisions made by the Queensland Civil and 

Administrative Tribunal as a validation of its decision to support the equalisation of levies. However, 

these decisions made by QCAT are driven by legislation and not by any reasoned analysis of how 

costs are actually incurred. Submissions made by a unit owner to equalise levies is supported by a 

so-called expert’s reports on the way costs are shared. Invariably, these reports indicate that all costs 

should be equally shared. Firstly, these reports are influenced by the legislation that all levies should 

be equal. Secondly, these reports are paid for by the unit owners who want the levies equalised. 

Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that these reports support the notion that all costs should 

be shared equally. I ask the members of this House, in the last two minutes of my speech, is it 

reasonable— 

Mr Gibson: No! 

Mr HOPPER: I take that interjection. Those opposite are saying that it is not reasonable for a 

unit owner who, on purchasing a unit and agreeing to the cost of levies for that unit, to then have the 

right to impose a change on the levies for all other unit owners. They have just agreed to that. We 

take that interjection and thank you for that. At what point does a contract not become binding? What 

possible justification does a government have to interfere in a legal commercial transaction? If an 

individual purchases a unit and is fully informed of the levy costs, why then should a government 

provide an avenue for this unit owner to overturn the levies for all other unit owners? That is what this 

legislation is going to do tonight. 


Mr HOPPER: I think I should get an extra five minutes because of all the interruptions. Why the 

need for this total deception if this equalisation of levies is fair and equitable? It is not fair and 

equitable. I stand before this House tonight and say that people power will rise up. We will target the 

seats of those members who have these bodies corporate and we will kick those members out at the 

next election because they will not stand up for the people who honestly paid for a unit with a base 

body corporate price and it is being adjusted and put up to look after their rich Liberal mates. 

Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (12.06 am): I would like to congratulate the member for 

Condamine on being chairman of the parliamentary committee that recommended approval of this bill 

to the House. If he can spell hypocrisy, he is the very epitome of the word. He has spent 20 minutes 

ranting and raving—the XXXX answer to the body corporate bill—when he has recommended its 

approval to this House as the chairman of that committee. 

This body corporate bill before the House is a very sensitive issue. Gold Coast members have 

a lot of bodies corporate in our area and it is a very sensitive issue. If you take from one party in these 

bodies corporate community titles then the burden goes to another party. Nothing but farce has taken 

place in this body corporate and community title area since the Labor Party tried to address this 

matter through legislation. The then minister, who introduced the first bill enabling the changes 

through QCAT to lot entitlements, was supported by the then member for Southport, Mr Peter Lawlor, 

saying what wonderful legislation they brought into this House. Following that, the then member for 

Southport, as the minister responsible, brought in legislation reversing his wonderful legislation in

7 Mar 2013 



589 

2011, as I recall. It is a mish-mash of problems when these people deserve certainty. They have 

bought into these very expensive properties with a commitment that they understood, that they signed 

off on and it is the Labor Party that has given them this nightmare of changes in body corporate 

entitlements, burdens on pensioners, all of these issues that are real problems for them to face. They 

are serious problems. 

Age pensioner ladies are very concerned about how they will pay these body corporate fees. 

That in itself is a tragedy and it is all because of the Labor Party’s mishmash of trying to address the 

matter. Tonight with this legislation, the Attorney-General has taken a step towards addressing the 

last round of ineptitude by the Labor Party on bodies corporate issues. The Attorney-General assures 

me that this is a short-term step in an overall longer term strategy of a review to address the fairness 

and equity in bodies corporate right across-the-board. Throughout Queensland there are some 

400,000 body corporate titles, which may involve 600,000 people. That is a serious part of our 

Queensland population. It is a growing part. People like community title living as they can share the 

burdens, the loads, the swimming pools and all those sorts of things. They like living in the closer 

areas of our brownfield developments, which have been significant in terms of our planning 

documents over the past years. There is a major move towards community title living. 

We have a situation that will have to be addressed right across-the-board. There are matters in 

terms of lease issues for body corporate managers. Right across-the-board there are matters that 

they have difficulty with involving the lot entitlements that are allocated by the developers. Why does 

the developer set the remunerations that must be paid by these people when he clears out as soon 

as he has sold all the units out of the body corporate title? It is absolutely ridiculous. The whole 

essence of community title living is that the community title owners must be in charge of their 

community. That means 50 per cent plus one through the body corporate of the building makes the 

decisions in relation to these matters. It is absolutely ridiculous for us to be juggling developer-set and 

real estate agent-set prices entitlements that, in many cases, initially were set to give favourable 

saleability to certain parts of a complex. 

We need to start from the ground up with a brand-new body corporate title scheme and the 

Attorney-General has assured me that that is where he is going. This is an interim step. That is why I 

will be supporting the Attorney-General’s bill tonight. I do so knowing that the burden will shift again 

from one portion of that community title to another portion of that community title, and that will be 

judged unfair. Wherever you change the burden, it will be judged unfair by the person who is 

receiving the extra burden. Unfortunately, we are in a particular situation as a result of the previous 

Labor Party government’s failings and its planning in this matter and we will have to sweep up and 

clean up after them. 

My own view is that it will not be addressed and it will not be fixed properly in terms of the 

future growth of community titles until we have a whole and complete review of all matters. I 

mentioned already the long-term leases being negotiated for the management of these community 

titles. It is absolutely ridiculous that we have 25-year leases going out just to sustain the purchase 

prices of these very expensive management rights, which are a big part of the real estate dollar 

involved with the development of these properties. That means they probably paid too much for the 

land in the first instance, which is why they sell these long-term leases. If people move in with a 10- 

year lease and pay X dollars and then they get it out to 20 years, obviously they have doubled the 

capital return on their money because they have a 20-year lease to sell. 

It is very simple economics, it is very easy to understand and it is absolutely classic that over all 

of these years the Labor Party has made an absolute dog’s breakfast of community title living. The 

community title sector is growing. I will go one step further in terms of the decision about public 

companies being body corporate managers. That has led to major legal cases and major hold-ups in 

QCAT as public companies look to maximise the dollar; not maximise the service, but maximise the 

dollar. The shareholders’ return is paramount, as it should be, but is that the appropriate place to be 

controlling the community title living of these bodies corporate and inflicting their money-maximising 

schemes on a body corporate that is really more interested in having a well-run community title? At 

every stage, you must look to the body corporate itself to be in charge of the future directions of that 

community. 

I believe that in the not-too-distant future the Attorney-General will have a full and 

comprehensive review, which will enable the body corporate act to be rewritten again and fairness 

and equity shall be returned. In fact, all the arguments are there and the body corporate people know 

them, that is, the number of people using the swimming pools and the lifts, et cetera. When burden 

changes unfairly to one section, and in this particular case it is being reversed again, we understand

590 



7 Mar 2013 

and we sympathise with those who suffer the consequences. It is unfortunate. It is the fault of the 

Labor government from the very first instance of its failed legislation to allow matters to go to QCAT to 

be decided upon. People bought in knowing what they bought and knowing what their commitment 

was, and then the rules were changed. That was not fair and I feel sorry for the people who will be 

adversely affected by this decision, but I support the bill. 

Mr CHOAT (Ipswich West—LNP) (12.16 am): I rise to speak on the Body Corporate and 

Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. It gives me much pleasure to 

rise and make a brief contribution to this debate as a member of the Legal Affairs and Community 

Safety Committee and because I believe it will benefit the property market and the wider economy in 

this state, whilst providing certainty and, indeed, better equality to many Queensland property owners. 

I certainly have no doubt at all that there will be significant benefits for the Queensland tourism sector, 

as I believe it will encourage investment by mums and dads. I know that tourism could do with an 

injection of new investors at this time. 

In one way, I am happy to say that the lack of cranes on the skyline of the Gold Coast at 

present makes my beloved part of Queensland look like it is where all the action is. At present we 

have three large cranes on our Ipswich CBD skyline and I think that is pretty impressive. I believe this 

bill will give rise to more development and we will see that reflected in the near future through the 

construction of more properties in places such as the Gold Coast. The examination of this bill and the 

important issues it represents has indeed been an opportunity for me to learn more about an aspect I 

previously knew little about. As honourable members might appreciate, there is not a lot in the way of 

body corporate activity and presence in my electorate, as I appreciate it is in other centres such as 

the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast and even, these days, in central Brisbane. 

The bill concerns, of course, matters relating to bodies corporate comprising all lot owners in a 

community title scheme. The body corporate is responsible for most aspects of the maintenance and 

management of common property and relevant assets. Most associated shared costs are divided 

between lot owners in proportion to the contribution schedule lot entitlements for the particular 

property. Any adjustment to the portion of responsibility of these lot entitlements inevitably leads to 

some lot owners contributing more and others contributing less to the shared body corporate’s 

expenses. This legislation removes the requirement for bodies corporate to apply the reversion 

process so as to reduce the number of lot owners adversely affected by a reversion. 

This provision takes effect from the introduction of the bill. However, importantly, it will not 

apply to reversions given effect to previously. A reversion takes effect when a request to record a new 

community management statement is lodged along with the contribution schedule lot entitlement with 

the Registrar of Titles. 

The bill will remove additional red tape introduced by the 2011 amendments impacting on the 

sale of lots and it will provide jurisdiction to QCAT or a specialist adjudicator for disputes about 

adjustments of contribution schedule lot entitlements sought by the unanimous agreement of all lot 

owners concerned. This will address current inconsistencies which exist. 

I want to now reflect on the public hearings during 2012 which were held as part of the Legal 

Affairs and Community Safety Committee’s process of scrutinising and examining the impacts of the 

bill. During these public hearings evidence was given by a particular gentleman who was a father of a 

growing family. He and his wife are both working hard to bring up and educate their children. They are 

working long hours to do so. They both work in the Brisbane CBD. We see many families send their 

wage earners into Brisbane or major centres. They may have to travel long distances. As spending 

time with their kids is so important to them, they elected to move closer to the city to save many hours 

each week away from their kids through having to travel into work from the suburbs. 

I know members present will be able to identify with that issue. Tonight I was fortunate to be 

given leave so that I could dash home to attend a father-son night for my son who is in year 5 at 

Mount Crosby State School. 

We have to consider that there is a human side to everything and it is not always about money. 

Some things are more important to people and they will make sacrifices to make sure they can 

provide those things. The family I am talking about needed space for their growing family and so they 

purchased a larger unit in an apartment complex in an inner Brisbane suburb. This is an average 

Queensland family with a mortgage just like their counterparts in the suburbs. They have made 

sacrifices so that they can give their children the very best lifestyle available. I believe this gentleman 

expressed himself very well. He made such an impression on me and I know on my fellow committee 

members present.

7 Mar 2013 



591 

This bill serves to assist this family. They should not have to pay an overly high body corporate 

charge just because their home is bigger than their neighbour’s or on the top floor. They do not use 

the services in the complex that much more than other residents. Indeed, they paid a lot more for their 

home than some of their neighbours. But the lights in the lobby shine no brighter for them than 

anyone else. The 2011 provisions have really hurt this family. 

I know another working couple who run a small business in Forest Hill. They some years ago 

purchased a top floor apartment on the Gold Coast as both an investment for their retirement— 

security for their future and their old age—and an opportunity to take a decent holiday once a year 

with family and sometimes friends. They did this so they can spend some quality time with loved ones 

and their extended family. 

These people are not rich. They have worked their guts out for what they have. Their 

investment also brings business and opportunities to local small businesses in that particular area of 

the Gold Coast. But body corporate charges hurt them too and they have had to cut down on their 

holiday time to afford to keep their retirement investment. 

What I am saying is that there are many property owners who have been adversely affected by 

the previous legislation and this is an opportunity to fix and address that problem. I do note that there 

will be future amendments made. But this is the start that will set things right. Unfortunately, there are 

some people who will pay more. As the member for Mermaid Beach pointed out so aptly before, we 

are concerned for them. However, we have to start somewhere to fix this problem. 

I am sure at the end of the day that there will be many more who will now get a fair go and 

others who will now reconsider decisions not to invest as a result of unfair charging regimes. Before I 

was elected to this place I went in to bat for a group of people who were residents in the suburb of 

One Mile and part of a body corporate. These people were beside themselves with what was going 

on. Not having a legal background, I contacted a friend of mine who was kind enough to offer these 

people some free advice. As a result, they went on to resolve the issues at hand. They were very 

grateful to me for the opportunity I gave them to get some good advice and assistance. 

Two members of that group contacted me after the public hearings and said to me that they 

had full faith in this government, of which I am a part, to do the right thing for the majority of people. 

I am very determined to see this bill pass because it is people like that community in One Mile who I 

believe will have a better opportunity for a fair go. 

I congratulate the Attorney-General and his department for having the fortitude to bring this bill 

to this House and make some positive moves to make life better for many property owners who are 

part of a body corporate. I say to the House that this is yet another opportunity in this great state for a 

level playing field for investors and owner occupiers alike. I commend the bill to the House. 

Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—Ind) (12.26 am): This amended legislation is proof, if we needed any, 

that tinkering around the edges with critical laws relating to the most important asset in average 

Queenslanders’ lives is certain to polarise the community. Worse still, if the motive for the change in 

legislation is at best suspect—read notional—and at worst rewarding a very narrow group of 

supporters, then the resulting legislation is guaranteed to be critically flawed. So it is with the body 

corporate legislation amendments. I put it to anyone that this legislation is difficult to understand when 

it is done well and properly. 

Some states have achieved that. We in Queensland clearly have not, irrespective of what 

people might believe. This is truly a case of everyone being to blame and no one group really being 

willing to be prepared to fix the problem. The original act of 1997 formulated in the last coalition 

government was the genesis of the problem that beset this legislation on which we are tonight trying 

to apply a bandaid. 

At its core, the failings of this legislation are as follows. Firstly, contracts of property with 

defined fees and charges relating to that property on sale are effectively contestable long-term via 

access to an appeals mechanism. Secondly, the Attorney-General fails to understand that of the 130 

properties he begrudgingly accepts are affected by this legislation it involves at least 4,200 plus 

separate titles and possibly over 10,000 individuals, but there are 40,000 schemes Queensland-wide. 

Thirdly, the government claims not to set body corporate levies. This is untrue. It is enshrined in the 

original 1997 legislation. The act specifies that the levies should be equal. Fourthly, the effect of this 

legislation is to only overturn the Labor amendment. That is the levies will be relevant to the 

equalisation principle for the affected bodies corporate. That is penthouse owners will pay the same 

as one-bedroom unit owners. The problem here is that not all bodies corporate will be affected as not

592 



7 Mar 2013 

all were reverted to the equalisation principle. Fifthly, the end result will be a progressive return to the 

equalisation principle irrespective of the property description and the original contractual agreement. 

Sixthly, the uncertainty surrounding the levy issue has had an adverse impact on the real estate 

market. Therefore, the LNP is destroying the investments made by people who believed that 

Queensland law could be trusted. This is a mistake for all of us. 

Much of this was expanded upon during the public hearings on this legislation. I was fortunate 

to attend some of these. I really think members need to look at what was submitted. I put it to 

members: do we have the right to play a political equivalent of a tug of war with a group, many of 

whom are living on fixed incomes either government funded or self-funded retirees, wage or salary 

earners or a mixture of both or some of all. 

Clearly no-one with property without a body corporate or someone who is a housing 

commission resident is totally unaffected. People budget years ahead and are powerless when faced 

with charges for which they have no financial capacity to withstand. Speaker after speaker in 

submissions addressed this. 

Honourable members, we have a range of choices here as the government preferred option 

still has all the pain that the 4,200-plus unit owners fear. It also probably puts a lot more at potential 

risk of being included where they thought they originally were not. This is the 40 whose situation was 

being assessed at the time of the previous legislative changes—that is, the so-called 

Lawlor amendments. 

Realistically there is a better path that is fair. It would be better to do nothing at present. Look 

carefully at your own contract law and place the certainty of those contractual legal instruments within 

the BCMA. The right of appeal after signing the contract agreeing to the levies and charges that are 

defined by the contract must be extinguished. 

As a word of warning, we need to understand that we need to plot a realistic path to a 

resolution. The amendment does not prevent any lot owner from lodging a new application to equalise 

levies. The Attorney-General and the LNP are potentially opening the floodgates to this happening. 

Mr DILLAWAY (Bulimba—LNP) (12.30 am): I rise tonight to contribute to the debate on the 

Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. I 

congratulate the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice on the introduction of this bill to the House 

as a significant step forward towards fixing the debacle in which the former Labor government left us 

in the area of body corporate. Of course, as many members on this side of the House know, it is just 

one of many debacles the former Labor government has left Queenslanders as their legacy of almost 

20 years on the government benches. 

They include the $1.25 billion Health debacle, the ambulance ramping at our hospitals, the 

spiralling costs in public transport that have required 15 per cent increases year after year after year, 

or the trains that were built without seats, the debt, the deficit, the lack of social housing stock being 

built across the state and the thousands of Queenslanders who are homeless tonight. Then there 

were the spiralling costs of living including Queensland being the most expensive state in which to 

own a motor vehicle. Then we have the amalgamations of councils— 

Mr BYRNE: I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. What has this got to do with the bill? 

It has nothing to do with the bill. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): I missed the specifics. The member knows that he 

needs to be focused on the bill. But I also note that the member has only just started his speech, and 

I am sure that he will focus on the bill. The member for Bulimba has the call. 

Mr DILLAWAY: Thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, the 

consolidation of the water entities, the waste on water infrastructure like the failed Traveston Dam 

project, the Tugun desalination plant and what about Wyaralong Dam—a dam with no pipes! Let’s not 

forget their softness on crime and on the criminals which we are still witnessing here in this House. 

In contrast, the Newman LNP government are growing our four pillars in agriculture, tourism, 

construction and mining. We have lowered the cost of living for families by cutting waste. We have 

frozen car rego for our first term. We have frozen electricity tariff 11 this year. We have provided relief 

for water charges to South-East Queensland. We are delivering better infrastructure and better 

planning through the work done by the Deputy Premier and his team—

7 Mar 2013 



593 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bulimba, I do encourage you to return to the bill. You 

have had an introduction and you now need to start addressing the bill. 

Mr DILLAWAY: Thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I acknowledge the Legal 

Affairs and Community Safety Committee for their consideration of this bill and thank all who were a 

part of the process. As a new member of this committee, I was not involved in the committee’s 

deliberations but know that my very able colleagues and the research team would have thoroughly 

examined all the evidence put before them. 

Over the past 15 years we have observed a mess unfold with body corporate legislation in the 

hands of Labor. In an effort to fix the numerous issues associated, the previous Labor governments 

have tangled unit owners and other stakeholders up in a knot of red tape, resulting in a system 

lacking in fairness and natural justice. As the Attorney-General said in his explanatory speech, body 

corporate has been used as a political football by the Labor Party and here tonight by the Katter’s 

Australian Party, but the games stop here. The full-time whistle has blown. 

The Newman government is committed to untangling this mess, and we are already delivering 

so we can get the balance right once and for all. As pressure mounts on population increases and the 

need to house a greater population in a smaller area, it is timely that we fix this mess to enable a 

greater level of certainty in the multi-unit development market. It supports our construction pillar and 

in many cases supports our tourism industry. 

This bill amends the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 with the main 

intention to remove the requirement for bodies corporate to overturn an order made by QCAT, a 

tribunal or specialist adjudicator to change their contribution schedule lot entitlements following a 

motion from a single lot owner at a body corporate meeting. I ask: how can this be fair? How can one 

single lot owner make a motion and overturn a legally binding order without it even going to a vote? 

Mr Hart: Exactly. You know the issue. 

Mr DILLAWAY: I take that interjection from the member for Burleigh. This astounds me. This is 

the crux of these amendments. It is to bring back fairness and natural justice. 

A contribution schedule lot entitlement determines the proportion a unit owner contributes 

towards shared body corporate expenses. Previously the owner-developer of an apartment building 

would set lot entitlements on which body corporate levies were calculated. In 1997, the state 

government introduced regulations governing the allocation of lot entitlements as a result of cases 

where initial allocations were heavily biased and unfair. Owners who thought they were paying more 

than their fair share could seek a contribution schedule lot entitlement adjustment order from a court, 

tribunal or specialist adjudicator which resulted in some owners paying a higher portion of the shared 

body corporate expenses and others paying a small amount. 

The 1997 act introduced what is referred to as the equality principle to assist in determining 

contribution schedule lot entitlement adjustment applications. It deems that contribution schedule lot 

entitlements should be equal with the exception to the extent that it is just and equitable that they are 

not equal. This principle is based on the idea that the contribution schedule lot entitlements are 

primarily about sharing the expenses associated with common property. The case where it is 

considered permissible for contribution schedule lot entitlements to be unequal provides for any 

differences that accurately reflect different impacts that particular lots have on the expenses incurred 

by the body corporate compared to other lots. 

The 2011 amendments to the act introduced the relativity principle which governs the setting of 

lot entitlements based on the individual circumstances of each lot and the relative use of and/or 

impact on common property. There were competing views raised by the submissions on the bill with 

regard to the setting of contribution schedule lot entitlements and therefore the basis for sharing body 

corporate expenses between the owners of lots included in the community titles scheme. It is 

important to note that the purpose of this bill is not to deal with the basis for setting lot entitlements 

but rather intend to address the issue of adjustments of lot entitlements. We believe that it is unfair 

and unjust to allow the 2011 amendments to the act to continue as they undermine the authority of 

specialist adjudication and tribunals.

594 



7 Mar 2013 

The infamous April 2011 amendments under the former government provided a reversion 

process for owners adversely affected by an adjustment order to have the scheme’s contribution 

schedule lot entitlement reverted to its original setting. This has been subject to significant criticism by 

lot owners who are financially disadvantaged by the ‘undoing’ of a contribution schedule lot 

entitlement. Some lot owners saw their body corporate fees increase by thousands of dollars per 

year. 

The main issue with the 2011 reversion process was that it undermined the judicial system by 

allowing bodies corporate to overturn an order made by the Queensland Civil and Administrative 

Tribunal, a tribunal or specialist adjudicator to change their contribution schedule lot entitlements 

following a motion from a single lot owner at a body corporate meeting. The immediate achievement 

of this bill will see the removal of the requirement for bodies corporate to undertake the reversion 

process to minimise the number of lot owners financially disadvantaged by a reversion. 

Our goal is to have a workable and fair system for managing shared costs including the 

maintenance of common property and that system requires stability. It provides jurisdiction to QCAT 

or a specialist adjudicator for disputes about adjustments of contribution schedule lot entitlements 

sought by unanimous agreement of all lot owners. This amendment is being made to address a 

current inconsistency in the jurisdiction for disputes about contribution schedule lot entitlement 

adjustments under the act. 

I would like to highlight, as it has been claimed tonight, that not all of the 274 submissions were 

against what we are proposing. I would like to read a quote from submission 6 to the committee. It 

states— 

... it is ... not fair that simply because one owns a larger unit one should pay more for the manager or garden maintenance and 

the like. 

I myself have been a unit owner. There was a pool, there was a barbecue, we had gardens and 

we had an on-site manager. I had the same opportunity as anyone else to use the pool, I had the 

same opportunity to use the barbecue, I saw the same gardens that everybody else saw and we all 

used the on-site manager. Why should it be that somebody pays more for that than somebody else 

does? When it comes to lifts—I know that was discussed earlier—whether you go one floor up, three 

floors up or 10 floors up, you still need a lift. The point here is that in the past QCAT or the adjudicator 

was able to make those adjustments to make it fair and equitable. 

As the member for Surfers Paradise highlighted, only approximately 130 of the 41,000 

schemes will be affected by winding back the 2011 amendments. The Body Corporate and 

Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill does not address the many complex 

issues surrounding body corporate legislation but takes a vital first step towards fixing the current 

state of affairs. I look forward to the Attorney-General’s further review to ensure that in broader issues 

we get the balance right. This is the first step in getting this back on track. I congratulate the Attorney- 

General on the introduction of this bill. I commend the bill to the House. 

Mr BYRNE (Rockhampton—ALP) (12.40 am): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the 

Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. As the 

member for Mulgrave has already indicated, the opposition will not be supporting this bill—and, 

seriously, how could we? The LNP’s stacked committee does not even agree with it. In fact, it is a 

shocker. The minister has had a year to produce a permanent solution, and this ham-fisted legislation 

is the result. 

This bill does not enhance security for unit owners in Queensland. Nor does it settle the 

disquiet in the community about the uncertainty surrounding the setting of levies by bodies corporate. 

In fact, this bill creates a level of uncertainty in the market that can ill afford this type of destabilisation. 

If passed, the effect of this legislation on unit sales will be significant. No-one can go into a purchase 

for a unit with any certainty about the level of body corporate fees they will be paying over the next 12 

months or more. 

As a member of the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee I admire the diligence of 

the committee research staff, who waded through the 274 submissions from people who feel strongly 

enough about this issue to put pen to paper and make a written submission. I have fielded many 

inquiries in my electorate office, and I know that the opposition office has received a multitude of 

telephone calls, letters and emails from people who are very concerned about what the government is 

doing here. I have also travelled to the Gold Coast to speak directly to unit owners who will be 

affected by this bill. I was invited because residents on the Gold Coast felt that a number of LNP MPs 

were dodging their responsibilities and failing to meet or represent those who had voted for them.

7 Mar 2013 



595 

To give credit to some members from the Gold Coast, they eventually saw the light and met 

with the concerned unit owners. I make particular mention of the member for Broadwater, Minister 

Stuckey and the member for Burleigh, who I know had met with their concerned constituents. The test 

for them will be to do what is right by those people who voted for them rather than look after the 

chosen few who are living the high life in penthouse apartments. I make particular mention of the 

member for Burleigh, who was so concerned about my meeting with unit owners that it must have 

caused him to become slightly disoriented. He had just left a meeting on the second floor with the 

same people I was going to meet when he saw me in the foyer. This shock caused him to mistakenly 

get back in the elevator and return to the second floor, just to confirm the suspicion that I was meeting 

with those constituents. Once he had seen that I was meeting with them, he managed to find his way 

out of the building. 

The member for Burleigh knows how divisive this issue is amongst once-friendly neighbours. It 

is tearing apart the fabric of those communities. He must be concerned about what his constituents 

know—that is, if the Gold Coast LNP members will not represent the views of the community the 

community will find someone who will. No surprises there. 

I do feel momentarily sorry for some of the LNP members on the Gold Coast, because I am 

sure that none of them were privy to the discussions that took place during the preparation of this bill. 

That they have now been forced to vote against their community and their own interests must be a 

little upsetting. The committee gave them a way out via dissent but it was quickly smashed. 

This is not just an issue for the Gold Coast as it will affect everyone who lives in units and apartments 

all over Queensland. But those few in the LNP who are calling the shots do not care how this affects 

their own MPs in the community. Some of the members within the government know that the LNP 

blueprint was to build the biggest margin they could so they could afford to burn a few new MPs. This 

will certainly be the case as a result of this bill. I say to them: it is time to fight back and develop a bit 

of a spine. Vote against this bill, get organised and try to save your own skin. 

It is clear that this LNP government is not only happy to but also working very hard to help the 

rich get richer. As the rich sit in their penthouses sipping champagne they can all toast this tory LNP 

government. I, for one, take great pride in voting against this bill. It is a matter of principle and it 

clearly sets out who is who in the zoo. Who out of those opposite will show any remorse when they 

vote against the retired police officers, the retired Defence Force staff and other Queenslanders who 

have worked hard all their lives so that they can buy their own apartment in this paradise we live in, 

only to find that they can no longer afford— 


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, the hour is nigh, but the member for 

Rockhampton does deserve an audience that is attentive and is not talking. 

Mr BYRNE:—the body corporate levies because the penthouses want to pay less? They may 

be forced to sell their units or sit in the dark because the combined effects of increased electricity 

prices will mean they will be forced to look for ways to save money on a very limited, fixed income. 

Those opposite will be responsible for what they have done to these proud Queenslanders. It is 

concerning that this has all been done without prior consultation—and not a peep from those opposite 

during the election campaign as to what their plans were. There is no mandate; this is a product of a 

whim. 

So exactly what do these amendments set out to achieve? The first thing they seek to do is 

stop people making applications to have their original lot entitlements restored. That is, their sole 

purpose is to undo the amendments made by the previous government in 2011, without any 

consultation and with no basis in policy. 

The minister has already made an announcement that the government will be conducting a 

review of the legislation at some point in the future. So any change at this stage just for the sake of 

change will result in destabilisation and confusion among unit owners across Queensland. Even the 

Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee cannot support this bill in its current form. Not only 

has it recommended sweeping amendments to the bill; it also sets a time frame for the Attorney- 

General to report back to the parliament on what the government proposal is. It is very interesting to 

hear what former members of the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee have had to say 

about this now that they are free to speak their minds.

596 



7 Mar 2013 

This drawn-out process is not what is needed. What is needed is certainty. To change the 

system yet again for the next so many months until you work out what your plan is is simply 

nonsensical. As I pointed out at the public hearing on the bill— 

There are not going to be any revelations coming in this review process that are going to be a shining light of new information. 

Surely the issues are known. The department must have a view about the way to proceed with this issue. 

I concur with the committee report when it concurred with me, finding that— 

... the issues are known and it is unlikely there will be any new revelations in developing a final policy. 

It went on— 

... the options in determining the policy settings moving forward are finite and must be settled quickly to ensure unit owners, 

bodies corporate and other stakeholders have certainty in what fees are payable and how they are calculated. 

My response to that part of the committee report is: hear, hear! Another part of the committee report 

with which I heartily agree is this— 

... the Committee considers that unlike what has occurred with this Bill, the Government must actively consult with unit owners 

and develop a fair and equitable solution to address this ongoing issue. 

My experience is that a great many people affected by this bill are reasonable and are willing to 

reach some sort of compromise because they want certainty so that they can move on with their lives 

with some sort of consistency. The bill in this form does not achieve any of that. The information 

provided to the committee by the Department of Justice and Attorney-General is that there are 

approximately 41,000 community title schemes, which includes around 385,000 lots. This is a lot of 

Queenslanders who are being left in limbo while the government tries to work out what it wants to do. 

As the Attorney has pointed out, this is a complex issue. There is no need to make it even more 

complex with these ill-conceived legislative amendments made on an ad hoc basis. I guess when you 

spend a great chunk of your parliamentary career wasting time with royalist nonsense the real work 

gets lost amongst your fawning for the Crown. 

The member for Mulgrave gave some examples of how the equal apportionment of lot 

entitlements can have an adverse effect, and very unfair effect, on the levies paid by unit owners. The 

adjustment of lot entitlements to make the levies payable by unit owners to be equal has resulted in 

unit owners who entered into contracts to purchase units being forced to sell their units because they 

cannot afford the massive hike in levies that occurred as a result of the adjustments. Even the Legal 

Affairs and Community Safety Committee cannot support the bill in its current form. 

Mr Cripps: If I knew you were going to talk for so long I would have sold tickets. 

Mr BYRNE: After what we have seen tonight, this is at least a little bit stimulating. This drawnout 

process is not what was needed. As I said earlier, nothing new is going to come to the 

department’s mind about how this bill is going to succeed. There is nothing new at all, but we are still 

sitting back waiting ad infinitum for the minister to decide to deal with this problem. After 12 months in 

government we get this ham-fisted piece of legislation. 


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berry): Order! Honourable members, I would like to give the 

member for Rockhampton an opportunity to deliver his speech. Can we curtail our enthusiasm at this 

hour? I know there is a lot of enthusiasm out there about a very important subject but if the member 

for Rockhampton can continue in some degree of silence I would very much appreciate it. 

Mr BYRNE: People can expect that there will be unexpected expenses for bodies corporate on 

an individual basis and that all levies may have to increase in a particular financial year. However, 

hiking one unit owner’s levies so that another can pay less cannot be equitable if it has no correlation 

to the degree to which a unit owner draws on the resources of the body corporate. Another concern I 

have is in relation to the retrospective nature of this bill. Introducing a bill into parliament does not 

make something law. The committee process, if undertaken with sincerity, can sometimes result in 

massive changes to a bill as the recommendations of the committee will attest to in this case, and I 

hope that they are fully embraced. 

The announcement that the bill will commence not on the date of passage—if it actually passes 

in its current form—but on the date of introduction has created further uncertainty. This 

announcement created a hiatus in the building unit industry. The law has not changed. So people are 

still able to make an application for their original lot entitlements to be reinstated. However, because 

of the Attorney’s announcement, something that was perfectly lawfully undertaken will be negated 

and the costs associated with that will be borne by the unit owners who were exercising their legal

7 Mar 2013 



597 

rights under the Queensland legislation. As the report points out, the committee notes that the 

registrar of titles will continue to accept requests to lodge a new CMS but will not affect registration 

until the bill progresses through the parliament. Again, this is a preposterous situation that has been 

forced on public officials. Not only does the bill prevent any new applications being made to revert the 

original lot entitlement, it also provides for a mechanism for reversing processes that have already 

been undertaken. This is the aspect of the bill that bears the brunt of not only the committee’s 

criticism in its report but also many of the organisations making submissions. As the Queensland Law 

Society pointed out— 

The Society is therefore opposed to this aspect of the Bill. In the Society’s view, this will simply lead to unnecessary costs being 

incurred and angst within community titles schemes. A better approach, we submit, would be for the government to determine 

its final approach to the vexed issue of lot entitlement adjustment before allowing any further changes to be made. 

That sounds pretty sensible to me and anyone else who is involved. I agree with the committee. Even 

if the government decides that policy objectives set out in this bill— 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Rockhampton made a very important point but I do 

not think you were all listening. Please join with me. 

Mr BYRNE: I am horrified to think that they are not listening to me. That is incredible. I agree 

with the committee in that statement. Even if the government decides that the policy objectives set out 

in this bill is how they were to proceed at the end of their review process, there is little merit in 

enabling and unwinding the current reversion processes to allow for further adjustments to lot 

entitlements to occur as an interim measure. It makes no sense whatsoever. This is a recipe for 

confusion for short-term point-scoring with millionaires. The policy merit of this approach is actually 

non-existent. Why not just wait, complete the review process instead of foisting these additional 

changes on Queensland’s unit owners? The member for Mulgrave has canvassed additional matters 

contained in this bill and I agree with those. I see no need to further extrapolate on those arguments. 

The opposition cannot and will not support a bill that has the potential to wreak untold havoc on unit 

sales in this state for short-term political point-scoring by a government that is under siege. This is a 

Robin Hood type of bill in reverse: it takes from the people and gives to the rich. It is simply not 

acceptable to any thinking Queenslander. 

Mr KNUTH (Dalrymple—KAP) (12.58 am): The explanatory notes to the Body Corporate and 

Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 state that it amends the Body 

Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 to adjust contribution schedule lot entitlements to 

minimise the number of bodies corporate that could be required to undertake the former government’s 

reversion process under the 2011 legislation and to provide a means for the contribution title affected 

by that to be returned to the lot entitlements that applied under the scheme prior to the reversion 

process. During the debate on the reversion process in 2011 the Attorney-General attacked the 

former government over its lack of consultation leading up to those changes. 

The committee received numerous submissions that slammed the lack of consultation. In the 

report on the submissions by the Department of Justice and Attorney-General, the department 

acknowledged that, while community consultation was not specifically undertaken in relation to the 

bill, issues and stakeholder views on the contribution schedule lot entitlement have been widely 

canvassed in a number of previous consultation processes including a 2008 discussion paper and the 

draft legislation leading up to the 2011 amendments. This legislation is based on what the Attorney- 

General himself believes was inadequate consultation conducted five years ago for a piece of 

legislation the Attorney-General opposed. It is no wonder that there is a lot of community opposition to 

the bill which is unclear on how fees will now be distributed and fails to account for the inequalities of 

contribution schedule lot entitlements that may arise once entitlements affected in the reversion 

process of 2011 have been adjusted. Considering the Attorney-General has already flagged a review 

of broader lot entitlement issues, including reintroducing a mechanism for adjusting contribution 

schedule lot entitlements for a community titles scheme, what is the urgency of pushing this 

legislation through? 

Smaller unit owners who make up 60 per cent of unit owners in Queensland are fearful that this 

legislation will push their body corporate fees up by 20 per cent to 30 per cent while those in larger 

units and penthouses could decrease. With regard to the Body Corporate and Community 

Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, many submissions to the bill tell about the 

huge increase in body corporate rates both prior to and following the 2011 reversion process, 

depending on how the changes in the legislation affected various classes of unit owners. It seems

598 



7 Mar 2013 

that whichever way the bill goes there will be a unit owner who will find their body corporate rates 

rising. The reversion process introduced by the Labor government in 2011 meant that unit holders 

were paying body corporate fees according to the size of their lot. This bill will see all unit owners pay 

the same body corporate fee regardless of the size or situation of the unit. 

Those on fixed and lower incomes who own smaller units—some 60 per cent of unit owners in 

Queensland—fear that this new legislation will increase their body corporate fees by 20 per cent to 

30 per cent. It is the plight of these owners—mainly retired people either on a fixed superannuation 

income or a pension—that is concerning. They bought their units believing their body corporate levies 

set by the developers would remain stable, apart from yearly CPI increments. If this legislation is 

passed, they face large increases in body corporate fees as they subsidise the equalisation of larger 

unit fees. Bodies corporate still have to be funded and it is the smaller unit holders who will pick up 

the slack. There are submissions from the very elderly—those over 85 years old—who say that they 

will have to sell their units and use the capital to rent for the rest of their lives. 


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berry): Order! Member for Dalrymple, just take your seat for a 

moment. I know the member for Dalrymple has been sitting, as other members spoke, quietly, 

patiently, stoically, peacefully and contemplatively and I think he now deserves that same respect. So, 

honourable members, please, respect the speaker while he is standing and listen to what he has to 

say. 

Mr KNUTH: There are submissions from the very elderly—those over 85 years old—who say 

that they will have to sell their units and use the capital to rent for the rest of their lives, but who will 

buy their units with such large body corporate levies? No community consultation was undertaken on 

this bill, which has been rushed through with only a window of just over a month for members of the 

public to make written submissions. The government needs to prove that it has not been taken 

captive over this issue by wealthy developers, penthouse owners and large corporate unit owners 

who are the ones who will benefit from the equalisation of body corporate levies. If the government 

wants to demonstrate equality and fairness, it would do well to delay the passing of this bill, revert 

back to public consultation, give a longer term for public submissions and consult more widely on the 

legal basis for this legislation. 

Mr JUDGE (Yeerongpilly—Ind) (1.03 am): I rise to speak on the Body Corporate and 

Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. In my view, the member for 

Condamine really summed up the situation quite accurately. Like the member for Condamine, I 

participated in the public hearing of this bill. The fact that there were 274 submissions substantially 

indicates the complexity and ramifications of the proposed legislation. The Attorney-General and 

members of the Newman government have criticised the former government for the legislation, but 

the bill before the House creates a scenario of winners and losers and the Attorney-General has an 

obligation to stop flip-flopping and arrive at a workable solution. In the interim, there is an obligation to 

protect the most vulnerable. I note that government members have convinced themselves 

unanimously to support the bill despite coming from very different and diverse electorates across 

Queensland. I would encourage them to get out of their electorate offices and speak with the people 

whom they are elected to represent. 

I remind them that they were each elected to broadly serve and act in the best interests of their 

constituents. Quite simply, Queenslanders are tired of the Newman government’s cliches of reducing 

red tape and getting Queensland back on track. They want real action and not just words from their 

elected representatives. They want members who are willing to stand up and represent their interests 

and not simply toe the party line. Members of the House have an obligation to inform the government 

of the diversity of people impacted by this bill. It is not the case of one size fits all, and this fact needs 

to be taken into consideration in developing legislation that applies from a penthouse at Q1 to a 

duplex at Rocklea. 

Mr HART (Burleigh—LNP) (1.05 am): I rise in support of the Body Corporate and Community 

Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. From the outset, I say this: like many of the 

reforms and tough decisions this government has had the determination to enact since the people of 

Queensland overwhelmingly elected the LNP in March 2012, this legislation is not about winning a 

popularity contest; it is about righting the Labor wrongs and showing the leadership and determination 

to deliver fair outcomes for all Queenslanders. It could be said creating legislation for a community

7 Mar 2013 



599 

title or body corporate is a microcosm of a wider community, with ministers and members of 

parliament through the passage of time recognising the complex nature of community living and that it 

is difficult for every stakeholder to be satisfied by one piece of legislation. 

As part of the committee process, 272 submissions were made by stakeholders about the bill. 

The committee noted that all submissions commented on the provisions relating to contribution 

schedule lot entitlements and that the submissions highlighted the strongly competing views of 

stakeholders about how the bill should deal with contribution schedule lot entitlements. This bill 

delivers on promises we campaigned about during the March election. Importantly, the bill seeks to 

remove the reversion process— 


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berry): Member for Burleigh, perhaps I might help you in your 

auditory process by asking honourable members to be more attentive to what you are saying, 

because what you are saying is important. We want to hear what you say. Honourable members, 

would you please join with me in listening to the member for Burleigh. 

Mr HART: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your protection. It is quite obvious that the 

members of the north-west branch of the Labor Party are not interested in hearing how this whole 

scheme works. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Burleigh, I did not name any section; I am just simply 

saying the noise level is a little high. 

Mr HART: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Importantly, the bill seeks to remove the reversion 

process and where a reversion has already taken place provide a process enabling lot entitlements to 

be changed back to what was set by the last adjustment order—importantly—ordered by a court, a 

tribunal or a specialist adjudicator, and these proposed changes have been welcomed by a number of 

leading groups in this sector. To put these proposed changes into context, prior to April 2011 lot 

owners could seek an adjustment order to their schemes—the contribution schedule lot 

entitlements—by seeking an order from a specialist adjudicator such as the Queensland Civil and 

Administrative Tribunal or a District Court. 

In April 2011 the former Labor government amended the Body Corporate and Community 

Management Act 1997 so that lot owners affected by the CSLE adjustment order could have their 

scheme’s lot entitlements reverted to their original settings. Labor’s 2011 amendments created a 

flawed and undemocratic system that needed to be fixed, and that is the purpose of this legislation. A 

reversion effectively overruled highly relevant and qualified orders of a court, tribunal or specialist 

adjudicator. There was no right of appeal for anyone in the community titles scheme who did not want 

the reversion to take place. The 2011 reversion process came under significant criticism from some 

lot owners and peak legal and stakeholder bodies for allowing a single lot owner to effectively 

overturn a lawful order. That is the crux of this matter. 

This is a highly emotive issue in my electorate of Burleigh. As members would understand, a lot 

of unit holders live in the Burleigh electorate. There must be hundreds of them. I would say that I have 

had the majority of those people through my office. I have been out and I have consulted unit owners. 

I have talked to just about everybody there is to talk to on this issue. I have some of the main 

protagonists in this issue living in my electorate—in fact, within a couple of hundred metres of my 

electoral office—with Mr Phil Williams, who is at Magic Mountain. Many members would recognise his 

name from emails that they may have received—and I apologise for those emails. On the other side 

of that particular issue is Mr Ian Leslie from 60 Minutes fame, and I am sure all members would 

remember Ian. 

As I said, I have had a lot of people come into my office about this issue. There has not been a 

couple of days go by that I have not had someone come in and talk to me about this particular issue. 

What I have had in my office are people on one side of this argument. I have had nobody on the other 

side of the argument come in and attempt to lobby me. So let us get that clear: there has been one 

side of this argument put out there. It is complete scare tactics that the member for Condamine, the 

member for Dalrymple and their mates over there have all been sucked into. 

Mr Hopper: Pick on me, you’ve only got two years. 

Mr HART: They have been sucked into this and they quite clearly—

600 



7 Mar 2013 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berry): Order! Member for Burleigh, I just remind all honourable 

members that we have sat here and listened to each other speak and we honour the member by 

allowing him to speak uninterrupted. Member for Burleigh, please continue. 

Mr HART: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you. They have quite clearly been sucked into the scare 

tactics that have been going around on this particular issue. This legislation is about undoing a wrong. 

In 2011 the Labor Party allowed one person to go to a body corporate meeting and undo a right 

decision of a judge or QCAT. They are making that decision based on the legislation. If at the end of 

the day in somebody’s view that decision is flawed, it does not make somebody happy, then we have 

a job to change that legislation. That is what the Attorney-General is proposing to do in the months 

ahead. As somebody who really is interested in this particular issue, I can tell members that I will be 

fully supporting the Attorney-General in looking at this issue. We have to get this issue right. 

I am a firm believer in the KISS principle—‘keep it simple, stupid’. 


Mr HART: I will not go there, member for Lockyer. You put forward a straightforward, simple, 

concise plan. I would have to say to members that I do not agree with the basis of equalisation. I have 

said that to everybody who comes into my office. When you talk to these people who are in those 

bodies corporate they will tell you that a person in a penthouse is paying the same as a person in a 

one-bedroom unit on the ground floor of a building, but they cannot show you those facts because 

those facts simply do not exist. I have asked over and over again for somebody to show me where 

the problem is—‘Show me the problem’—and I do not see the problem. 

Over the past four or five years body corporate fees have gone up. There is no doubt about 

that. The price of everything has gone up and we can blame most of that on the Labor Party from 

years ago. We have to get this right once and for all. A lot of this goes back to how the developer set 

up his lot entitlements right at the start. That is the crux of the matter. You then have somebody trying 

to get that right. They have gone off to a judiciary—they have gone off to QCAT, they have gone off to 

a judge—and they have sought a judicial response. The judicial response has come through and the 

Labor government did not like it. It went out and basically threw out a legal decision made by a judge, 

made by QCAT—something that was based on the legislation that we in this House put in place. 

As I said, we really have to get this right. I firmly encourage the Attorney-General to start 

looking at this issue. If he is looking for a volunteer to get involved in that, I will put up my hand. I am 

very happy to get involved in that. I am very happy to communicate with all of the bodies corporate on 

the Gold Coast, as I have been doing for the past six months. As I said, I have had a lot of these 

people who are concerned in my office. They have all come in saying, ‘I don’t understand the issue,’ 

but I can tell members that, at the end of the day when they leave, they know that I understand the 

issue, they know that every other member representing an area on the Gold Coast understands the 

issue, they know that every other member representing an area on the Gold Coast is really quite 

concerned about this issue. We want to get it right and we will. I commend the bill to the House. 

Mr HOBBS (Warrego—LNP) (1.16 am): I am pleased to speak to the Body Corporate and 

Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill is obviously a very 

important one. It affects the lives of many people throughout this state. I was very involved in this 

issue when I was the minister for natural resources. In early 1997 I brought in body corporate 

legislation. It was quite controversial. It was new. It was a change. We had to look at many things in a 

whole new way in relation to body corporate management. I can recall that, as we worked our way 

through this process and we had reached almost the final conclusion of what we were ready to 

present to the people of Queensland I said, ‘How much process is involved in all of this?’ So we 

picked as an example a building in the CBD on the riverfront and said, ‘Let’s assume that this building 

is one of the ones that we want to trial. What paperwork is involved with these people who want to 

become a body corporate?’ So we went through that process and it came to about 70 or 80 pages. It 

was quite substantial, which was unacceptable. It was too cumbersome. So we went back and 

worked on the legislation again and got it to, we thought, a reasonable system whereby people did 

not have to go through all that amount of paperwork. 

So that is the way it started. But as we know, things have changed—communities change and 

attitudes change. So time goes by and legislation changes as well. I can still recall being in this 

chamber that night when we debated that legislation and there were amendments on the floor that 

were being made that probably were not appropriate, but it was assumed then that they would be 

changed as time goes by.

7 Mar 2013 



601 

Here we are today and the objections to this bill before us are four-fold. The proposed bill to 

amend this legislation will remove the requirement for bodies corporate to undertake a process to 

adjust contribution schedule lot entitlements to reflect the original entitlements prior to any, and all, 

relevant orders of a court, tribunal or specialist adjudicator if a lot owner submits a motion requesting 

such a change—a significant change to where we have been before; establish a process for 

contribution schedule lot entitlements that were adjusted pursuant to the 2011 reversion process to be 

changed to reflect the lot entitlements that applied to the scheme prior to the application of the 

reversion process; remove unnecessary disclosure requirements imposed on sellers of lots in 

community titles schemes; and provide jurisdictional consistency for the resolution of disputes about 

contribution schedule lot entitlement adjustments. 

As members can see, there are some significant changes to this bill. The LNP opposed the 

2010 bill when it was introduced. The government understands the inequity in the current bodies 

corporate lot entitlement scheme and sorting out the mess left by those amendments is going to take 

some time. We are certainly very keen to work our way through that and make the best adjustments 

we can to ensure that we get to a reasonable solution. 

We must understand some of the history of community titles legislation in Queensland. 

Community titles legislation was introduced across Australia in the 1960s. In a lot of ways it was 

different, but in Queensland through the Building Units Titles Act 1965 the act included the concept of 

unit entitlements which enabled a body corporate to levy contributions on lot owners in proportion to 

the unit entitlements of their respective units. The concept of lot entitlements was first introduced in 

Queensland under the Group Titles Act 1973 although this concept was similar to the unit 

entitlements under the 1965 act. Whereas the 1965 act dealt with subdivision of land and strata and 

other areas, the 1973 act dealt with group titles or horizontal titles—this is a bit complicated—which is 

town houses and cluster housing. Unlike the 1965 act, the 1973 act provided a method of determining 

lot entitlements which was based on unimproved value. That is the way that it was at that time. 

The 1965 and 1973 acts were later repealed and replaced with the Building Units and Group 

Titles Act 1980. Lot entitlements were determined in proportion to the unimproved value of all lots 

contained in the plan. Similar to its predecessors, the 1980 act did not provide for express methods of 

adjusting lot entitlements. The 1980 act did, however, provide for new types of resolutions— 

unanimous, without dissent and special—introduced new disclosure requirements and provided a 

dispute resolution process. In a lot of ways that is where that process of resolution really started. The 

1980 act was in force until it was replaced by the Body Corporate and Community Management Act, 

the current law that we have today. 

The Body Corporate and Community Management Act received royal assent on 22 May 1997. I 

was a minister at that time. The act was considered to have introduced significant reforms to 

community title legislation to accommodate emerging trends in community titling. The act comprised 

an umbrella act and a separate regulation module which provided detailed rules for the administration 

and the operation of the different types of schemes. There are currently five regulation modules. 

Similar to its predecessors, the Body Corporate Act used the concept of lot entitlements. Unlike the 

1980 act which uses a single schedule of lot entitlements, the Body Corporate and Community 

Management Act provided two schedules of lot entitlements. The contribution schedule is used to 

determine a lot owner’s levy contribution and the value of the lot owner’s vote in the conduct of a poll. 

The interest schedule lot entitlement determines a lot owner’s share of common property, their 

interest in the determination of the scheme and the unimproved value of the lot for the purpose of the 

charge, the levy, the rate or tax paid to a local government or the Commissioner of Land Tax. That 

sounds a bit complicated, but that is the way the system was. 

The Body Corporate and Community Management Act also introduced the ability to adjust lot 

entitlements. This could be achieved by agreement between two or more lot owners, provided that the 

total lot entitlements of the lots subject to the change were not affected, by the consent of the body 

corporate by passing a resolution without dissent or on the application of a lot owner to the District 

Court for an order to adjust the lot entitlement schedule. For applications to the District Court to adjust 

a contribution schedule the court was required to be consistent with the principle that the respective 

lot entitlement should be equal except to the extent to which it is inequitable in the circumstances for 

them not to be equal. At the end of the day, if the application to the District Court was about the 

interest schedule, the court order was required to be consistent with the principle that the respective 

lot entitlement should reflect market values of the lots included in the scheme when the court makes

602 



7 Mar 2013 

an order, except to the extent where it is just and equitable in the circumstance for the individual lot 

entitlement to reflect other than the respective market values of the lots—that is, the market value of 

the principle. It is important to understand at this point that contribution schedule lot entitlements were 

not required to be equal for each lot included the scheme and interest schedule lot entitlements were 

not required to be directly proportional to the market value of the respective lots. This remained the 

case until 2003. 


Dr DAVIS (Stafford—LNP) (1.27 am): I rise to speak on the Body Corporate and Community 

Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. These community title schemes affecting 

duplexes, town houses, residential complexes and medium- and high-density multifunction complexes 

are characterised by having shared costs and these are rarely reflective of the responsibilities that are 

divided between lot owners in proportion to the contribution schedule lot entitlements for the particular 

scheme. 

As many speakers have already referred to this evening, it is very much in the public interest 

that we get this right, particularly given our changing demographic. We are familiar with the ageing 

population, many of whom are represented this evening, and the need for an ageing population to live 

in an environment where they can be supported, have appropriate socialisation, the provision of 

services, as well as recreation and the ability for indeed people of all ages to benefit from mediumdensity 

settings where one can access retailing, hospitality and public transport services. Overseas 

we have seen a much greater density of communal living and so it is very likely that we are going to 

be going in that direction too. We need to have legislation—and it has been alluded to tonight that this 

is a work in progress—that really provides certainty to those interested in making the investment in 

this sort of environment and also clearly living in it. 

This matter definitely affects younger people, too. Many of them are expressing a desire for this 

sort of lifestyle. Indeed, my Stafford electoral officers are part of such a multifunctional environment, 

so I have seen it at work first-hand. One needs only to stay in touch with the electorates, as we have 

heard tonight, and read the blogs to know that the public are not happy with the status quo. People 

are certainly feeling scared of change. They do not wish to invest in these areas. Of course, that is 

bad for the economy generally, because we are not actually seeing one of the key pillars of the LNP 

policy, which is construction and, indeed, confidence in the general community and the ability to 

spend with confidence. That is contributing to the ongoing debt and revenue loss that is holding back 

this state. 

We have heard that historically developers have had a say in the relative contributions to the 

body corporate schemes and some of these, of course, were clearly distorted by the agendas of the 

developers. We are really looking for a much more consistent scheme. As has been the case in so 

many areas in this state, there has literally been a decade of lost opportunity. This government has 

inherited from Labor an area that is a mess. In relation to the matter before the House tonight, the 

most significant was the 2011 amendment to the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 

1997, which allowed the overturning of relevant orders of a court, tribunal or specialist adjudicator if a 

single lot owner submitted a motion requiring such a change. That was wonderful if you were a winner 

in that process, but clearly it was not so wonderful for your fellow unit holders who had to pick up the 

costs that were no longer shouldered by the winner. 

The 2011 reversion process has come under significant criticism by some lot owners, as well 

as peak legal and stakeholder bodies, for this process of allowing the single lot owner the ability to 

effectively overturn a lawful order of an independent court, tribunal or specialist adjudicator. Indeed, it 

is a breach of fundamental legislative principles where independent and lawful decisions of specialist 

adjudicators, tribunals and courts are effectively overridden not by superior judicial bodies but by 

simple motions presented to a body corporate or an individual aggrieved lot owner. This is one of the 

reasons this bill establishes a process for contribution schedule lot entitlements that can be adjusted 

pursuant to the 2011 reversion process to be changed back to reflect the situation prior to the 

application of the reversion process. 

A separate aspect of this bill, of course, is the LNP policy on reducing red tape. It removes 

unnecessary disclosure requirements imposed on sellers of lots in community title schemes. It really 

reinforces the notion of caveat emptor—beware, the buyer—and the need to do due diligence and get 

expert advice rather than rely on a compulsory amount of red tape to attempt to protect the buyer.

7 Mar 2013 



603 

The bill also begins the process of providing jurisdictional consistency for the resolution of disputes 

about contribution schedule lot adjustment entitlements. To ensure this, the bill provides for disputes 

about adjustments of contribution schedule lot entitlements by resolution without dissent to be 

resolved by special adjudicators or QCAT. 

One of the very important issues before the House tonight is good legislation. I refer to the very 

important notion of the rule of law, which was probably best articulated in 1610 in the petition to 

James 1 of England from the House of Commons. The petition states— 

Amongst many other points of happiness and freedom which your majesty’s subjects of this kingdom have enjoyed under your 

royal progenitors, kings and queens of this realm, there is none which they have accounted more dear and precious than this, 

to be guided and governed by the certain rule of the law which giveth both to the head and members that which of right 

belongeth to them, and not by any uncertain or arbitrary form of government ... 

Indeed, what we are addressing tonight is attempting to do away with that uncertainty and 

arbitrary form of government, which is actually denying happiness to the citizens of Queensland. 

Through the process that we have begun here tonight, we are enforcing the rule of law, which is one 

of the key dimensions that determines the quality and good governance of a country and, indeed, this 

state. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House. 

Mr KING (Cairns—LNP) (1.34 am): It is an absolute pleasure and honour to rise to speak to the 

Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. I was 

drawn into the chamber rather like a moth to the headlights of a truck running out of control on the 

highway, because of the speech by the senator for—sorry—the member for Condamine. He was very 

excitable. I was in my room, watching the soccer. I flicked over to the stream here in parliament. I was 

entranced by the good senator—the good member for Condamine’s contribution on this important bill. 

I wandered down to the House and sat in this seat, because I was very interested in what the member 

for Condamine had to say. I sat here and I focused, so that I could understand where he was coming 

from on this important bill. To be honest, I could not understand a word he said. As hard as I tried, I 

could not understand where the member for Condamine was coming from. However, I was lucky 

enough to sit through some other more reasoned contributions to this important legislation. I thank my 

colleagues on this side of the House for their reasoned and responsible contributions to this important 

bill. In particular, I pay great respect to the member for Warrego for his historical knowledge on this 

important bill. 

This bill tackles, yet again, something that Labor never got to and something that Labor left in a 

mess. 

Mr Johnson: They created the mess. 

Mr KING: I take that interjection from the member for Gregory. This bill corrects the former 

government’s amendments to the act that gave the right of one lot owner to move a motion at a body 

corporate meeting that effectively overturned any adjustment order. One lot owner can move a motion 

and it can be passed upon the moving of that motion without one single vote being taken. That is 

unacceptable and it has caused huge concerns and trouble for so many unit owners, many of them in 

retirement. They just want to relax; they want to kick back. They do not want to have these types of 

blues with bodies corporate. Yet, the former government allowed that to fester and carry on. 

Mr Hobbs: Do you have many of these up in your area? 

Mr KING: I take that interjection. As Cairns is a perfect place and probably the best place in 

Queensland to retire, we have a very large retirement community. Units are incredibly popular and a 

new form of living, in fact, for many retirees. They like to downsize. There is no better place in 

Queensland to do that than Cairns. This is a huge issue in Cairns. It has been left unresolved and it 

has only got worse. I commend the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice for bringing this 

important legislation to the House. The other important element of the legislation is that Cairns has a 

remarkably low unit vacancy rate. It is one of the lowest in this state. In Cairns, the vacancy rate for 

units is around 1.5 per cent, which is incredibly low. As one of my esteemed colleagues mentioned, 

the legislation will certainly help stimulate new investment in unit developments. 

Cairns, like many parts of Queensland, needs new investment. There is absolutely no doubt 

about that. It is clear that the legislation will effectively make it easier for people to invest. It will give 

them some certainty. It will give them some comfort and security. It will help encourage new 

investment in units in Cairns, there is no doubt about that. It will try to ease that remarkably low 

vacancy rate for units.

604 

Crime and Misconduct Commission (Administrative Negligence 

Rectification) Amendment Bill 

7 Mar 2013 

There are a number of other important aspects of this amendment bill. It removes the 

requirement for bodies corporate to change their contribution schedule lot entitlements back to the 

original setting for any, and all, adjustment orders of a court, tribunal or specialist adjudicator following 

receipt of a motion. That is an important change that once again clears up another legislative mess 

that we inherited from the former Labor government. It also removes unnecessary disclosure 

requirements imposed on sellers of lots in community title schemes. 

As others in this House have pointed out, we know that young people in particular find 

community titles a unique way to enter the often difficult property market. It is important that we clear 

up and provide some certainty in terms of those community title schemes. It also provides 

jurisdictional clarity and consistency for disputes about contribution schedule lot entitlement 

adjustments. No-one feels that that is more important than I do. 

Another important aspect of this bill is that it continues the Newman government’s very strong 

record in less than 12 months of not only clearing up the mess of the previous government but also 

reducing red tape and providing certainty for people who just want to get on with their lives, business 

and new investment. We know how difficult it has been for so many years as legislation has piled up 

due to the paternalistic way of running government that is the Labor way. We have had a very strong 

record in just under 12 months of reducing red tape and providing certainty in a whole range of fields. 

This bill certainly continues that trend. I have no doubt that that trend of the Newman government will 

continue. 

In closing, I commend the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice’s team. They have done a 

fantastic job. I fully commend the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation 

Amendment Bill 2012 to the House. 

Debate, on motion of Mr Stevens, adjourned. 

CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMISSION (ADMINISTRATIVE NEGLIGENCE 

RECTIFICATION) AMENDMENT BILL 

Introduction 

Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (1.42 am): 

Before moving on, can I thank the justice department staff for staying around until all hours of the 

morning for that particular bill. I present a bill for an act to amend the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 

for a particular purpose. I table the bill and the explanatory notes. 

Tabled paper: Crime and Misconduct Commission (Administrative Negligence Rectification) Amendment Bill 2013 [2213]. 

Tabled paper: Crime and Misconduct Commission (Administrative Negligence Rectification) Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory 

notes [2214]. 

I introduce the Crime and Misconduct Commission (Administrative Negligence Rectification) 

Amendment Bill 2013. This government has acted quickly to ensure that the use and disclosure of 

sensitive information and material from the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry is stemmed. Members 

will now be aware that between 1 February 2012 and 5 March 2013 documents from the Fitzgerald 

inquiry have been accessible and accessed due to the restricted access period for the records having 

been incorrectly changed from 65 years to 25 years. This is an administrative oversight that is 

alarming and serious and completely unacceptable. 

Examinations are now occurring into how this release of information has occurred. We need to 

ascertain what documents may have been accessed to ensure that any damage caused by their 

release is limited or avoided. For example, this government is concerned to ensure that documents 

which include information about murder suspects, secret informants, undercover agents, drug 

operations and unsubstantiated allegations of corruption are not available for public use or disclosure. 

The bill does that as far as is possible in the short time frame we have had to develop it. 

A new section 346A is inserted into the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001. This section makes it 

an offence to copy, use for any purpose or disclose certain documents for a period from 8 March 

2013 to 8 May 2013 inclusive. In addition, giving access to certain documents during this period will 

also be an offence. 

The documents to which the act applies is Fitzgerald inquiry documents disclosed or accessed 

from the State Archives during the relevant period—that is, from 1 February 2012 to 5 March 2013. A 

penalty applies to any person who contravenes this new provision. The maximum penalty is one year 

imprisonment or 500 penalty units, that being $55,000.

7 Mar 2013 



605 

Exceptions apply to this, including, for example, where a person might be required to produce 

the document to a court, tribunal or commission of inquiry or where such copying, use or disclosure or 

giving of access is permitted by the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001. The last exception is important 

as the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee will be undertaking an investigation into the 

circumstances surrounding the release of this information. The reasoning for the 60-day prohibition is 

to allow the investigation to be conducted and completed but also to ensure that where access, use, 

copying and disclosure of released documents is appropriate that this will be available after 60 days. 

The government makes no apologies for seeking leave for these amendments to be passed as 

a matter of urgency. Can I assure the House and the public that these legislative amendments are not 

intended for the CMC or any other body to seize documents that have been lawfully accessed by 

individuals. For those documents that have been lawfully accessed by individuals and in the 

possession of those individuals, this legislation does not give any power for those documents to be 

required to be handed in to anyone. It is absolutely vital that the identity of confidential informants and 

protected witnesses named in the documents are protected. 

Can I also make it abundantly clear that the penalty provisions in this new bill will apply from 

the date of commencement being 8 March 2013. This bill in its entirety is not intended to apply to 

those persons who may have lawfully accessed the documents and published them prior to 8 March 

or the commencement date of this bill. 

In summing up the debate on the bill, I will table further documentation from the Crime and 

Misconduct Commission chair that I indicated earlier in the House. As this is an introductory speech, I 

do not think it is appropriate to do that at this juncture. I will have the debate in this House and then 

table the necessary documents at the appropriate time during the debate. I commend the bill to the 

House. 

First Reading 

Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (1.48 am): I 

move— 

That the bill be now read a first time. 

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


Bill read a first time. 

Declared Urgent; Allocation of Time Limit Order 

Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (1.48 am), by 


That, under the provisions of standing order 137, the Crime and Misconduct Commission (Administrative Negligence 

Rectification) Amendment Bill be declared an urgent bill to enable the bill to be passed through its remaining stages at this 

day’s sitting. 





move— 


Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Leader of the Opposition) (1.49 am): I do want to echo the 

words of the Attorney-General in relation to the Crime and Misconduct Commission amendment bill. 

What we have seen over the last few days has been alarming and it has been extremely 

unacceptable, and I do think that everyone in this House tonight would share with the sentiment that 

this matter needs urgent investigation. This bill is very clear in that we need to make sure that what 

has been released is protected. Confidentiality is extremely important and I do want to put it into 

context and give a bit of history around the Fitzgerald inquiry which then will address the matters of 

the bill.

606 



7 Mar 2013 

The Fitzgerald inquiry managed to get evidence from a wide range of sources, and one of the 

reasons it was able to do this was the reputation of Tony Fitzgerald, who headed the inquiry. He was 

able to give commitments to witnesses that their identity or aspects of their evidence would remain 

confidential. I cannot emphasise enough the very real risk of harm, even of death, that some of these 

witnesses faced if their identity were ever known. Their courage in coming forward has changed the 

face of Queensland forever. That is why confidentiality was important at the time and why it remains 

important until today. That is why for some of the documents confidentiality was guaranteed for up to 

100 years. 

I will quote from the Fitzgerald report about why confidentiality needed to be maintained. It 

states— 

It was a fundamental tenet of the conduct of the Commission that its proceedings should be conducted in public and that 

material produced at public hearings should be available for public scrutiny. There had to be some constraints placed upon this 

policy because much of the material was open to abuse if it had come into the wrong hands. 

The question of confidentiality had the potential to create real difficulty. Persons who approached the Commission were often 

frightened, and sought some iron clad assurance of confidentiality, usually as to their identity, but not infrequently as to the 

information or material which they provided. It was not possible to give these informants a blanket undertaking, not only 

because of the obligations and duties imposed by the terms of reference but also because of the operation of legal process 

which could in some circumstances compel an officer of the Commission in possession of documentation to produce it before a 

Court. 

In these circumstances, the Commission adopted a policy that confidentiality would be provided by telling those who came to 

deal with it requesting confidentiality that such confidentiality would be provided as follows: 

“Confidentiality is assured with regard to the identity of persons who assist the Commission and the information and documents 

which they provide, in so far as that is appropriate and consistent with the discharge of the Commission’s functions.” 

The breach of this confidentiality is therefore a very serious matter. Revelations by the CMC 

this week that an administrative error had resulted in a number of documents being wrongly classified 

so as to allow for their access by the public from the State Archives must have sent a shudder of fear 

down a number of the spines of former witnesses to the Fitzgerald inquiry. Even though over 20 years 

have passed, the threat to witnesses still remains real. 

I would like to thank the Attorney, the Treasurer and the Deputy Premier for giving me and the 

Independents an opportunity to be briefed on this bill tonight. It was necessary. This is 

unprecedented. We have not seen anything like this, I do not believe, in Queensland before. It is 

crucial that as a parliament we consider these matters in light of what has come before us in the last 

few days. I understand that the PCMC has been meeting in relation to this matter. The opposition will 

be supporting this bill, Attorney. We believe that it is in the best interests of Queenslanders to make 

sure that the confidentiality is protected. So I commend the bill to the House. 

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (1.53 am): As chair of the Parliamentary Crime and 

Misconduct Committee, I would like to place on the record my thanks to the Attorney-General for the 

tabling of this bill, which will protect persons who may be adversely affected by the release of the 

information, and for the attention he has paid to this emergent issue. Again, for the purposes of 

transparency, I present to the House a timetable of events in relation to this issue. 

The Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee became aware on late Tuesday 

afternoon 5 March 2013, in a general way, that the CMC had, in error, released confidential material. 

The seriousness of this issue became more evident when the committee’s attention was drawn to the 

article in the Australian on Wednesday, 6 March 2013. On Wednesday, in spite of committee 

members’ obligations to other committees, an emergency meeting of the committee was called for 

midday. The committee called the chairperson of the CMC to attend that meeting. He attended and 

was accompanied by Mr Warren Strange, CMC Assistant Commissioner, Misconduct. 

At that meeting, the chairperson of the CMC was unable to adequately explain to the 

committee exactly how or why the release had occurred. It became increasingly evident to the 

committee that the security of information provided by people who had given evidence on a 

confidential basis to the Fitzgerald inquiry was significantly compromised. The committee canvassed 

with the CMC options that were available in order to address this security and confidentiality risk

7 Mar 2013 



607 

which had become more apparent to the committee, including the possibility of injunctive relief. The 

CMC advised on the basis of preliminary legal advice it had received that the probability of injunctive 

relief was considered to hold poor prospects of success. 

The committee felt that urgent action was required to protect, as much as possible, the integrity 

of the information provided by, and potentially the safety of, those people. A critical factor in 

determining a way forward was to understand the process followed by the State Archives in 

facilitating lawful public access to documents that should have retained a protected status but which 

had, as a result of decisions made within the CMC, compromised that protection. 

The committee determined that, in order to be apprised and informed in the manner it required, 

a summons would need to be issued to the Queensland State Archivist to assist the committee’s 

understanding of this matter and to address any perceived legal impediments to the committee being 

able to obtain such information. The summons was served on Wednesday evening at approximately 

7.30 pm, requiring the State Archivist to attend a committee hearing at midday today, Thursday, 7 

March 2013, and to produce all documents in her possession which would reveal the nature of the 

documents accessed and the extent of access to those documents as a result of changes to the 

restricted access period as directed by CMC officers. 

In tandem with the serving of the summons, the committee also wrote to the Attorney-General 

to request that he commence drafting urgent corrective legislative to prohibit the republication of the 

information from the Fitzgerald inquiry files in the possession of the State Archivist which were 

transferred from the CMC to the State Archives between July 2007 and February 2010, and I table a 

copy of the committee’s correspondence to the Attorney-General. 

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 6 March 2013, to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Hon. Jarrod Bleijie, from the chair 

of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee, Mrs Liz Cunningham MP, regarding a request for urgent legislation in 

relation to released Fitzgerald inquiry documents [2215]. 

Today, in accordance with the summons, the committee met with the State Archivist and her 

staff. The discussion which ensued with them went some way to clarify for the committee the 

processes of the State Archives and the level of access which has already occurred in relation to the 

Fitzgerald documents and gave an indication of the extent of the risk created. However, the 

committee is awaiting further information from the State Archivist requested as a result of the hearing. 

The committee then recalled the chairperson of the CMC and Mr Warren Strange to discuss a 

request by the Attorney-General for a letter from the CMC which would publicly call on the 

government to legislate amendments and provide an explanation to the people of Queensland why 

such legislative amendments were necessary as a result of the prior actions of the CMC. The 

Attorney-General’s letter in reply demonstrates that the Attorney understood the seriousness of the 

PCMC’s request and indicates the gravity of the request being made. I table a copy of the Attorney’s 

letter to the committee. 

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 7 March 2013, to the chair of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee, Mrs Liz 

Cunningham MP, from the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Hon. Jarrod Bleijie, regarding a request for urgent 

legislation in relation to released Fitzgerald inquiry documents. [2216] 

Throughout all proceedings the committee has held in relation to this matter, the Parliamentary 

Crime and Misconduct Committee’s major concern was to expedite an effective remedy to protect 

those people who approximately 30 years ago bravely gave evidence with the expectation of 

protection and anonymity. We thank the Attorney-General for attending a meeting with the committee 

this afternoon, at which the committee endeavoured to clarify for the Attorney-General information the 

committee had available to it given the limited time available to the committee since the initial advice 

from the CMC which alerted the committee to this issue. We also acknowledge the Attorney- 

General’s forthright communication with the committee. 

The committee acknowledges the Attorney-General’s statement to the House tonight at 

approximately eight o’clock, at which time he also tabled a letter he had received from the chair of the 

CMC. The committee understands that that letter was intended to address the Attorney-General’s 

request for an acknowledgement by the CMC of its role and responsibility in relation to the mistaken 

release of the documents in addition to the CMC’s request for a legislative response. The Attorney- 

General also tabled his reply to the CMC’s letter which indicated that the CMC’s correspondence fell 

short of the Attorney-General’s expectations. 

The committee has endeavoured to act expeditiously in exercising its responsibilities under the 

Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 and to balance our responsibilities under that act to oversight the 

CMC with the clear need to move to create protective mechanisms for those people who may have 

been identified in those documents. We appreciate the protection that is afforded by this legislation 

and that the inclusion of a sunset clause allows time for the committee, the parliamentary

608 



7 Mar 2013 

commissioner, the CMC and the Queensland public, through this House, to gain a clearer 

understanding and to make recommendations to achieve a balance between long-term protection of 

highly sensitive evidence and appropriate community access to documents of public interest into the 

future. 

The committee appreciates that these matters, because of their seriousness, require a swift 

response and values the assistance and frank advice from all those individuals and organisations the 

committee has approached. We again thank the Attorney-General for his urgent attention to these 

matters and his measured response and support the bill. 

Mr DOWLING (Redlands—LNP) (2.01 am): It is a pleasure to rise to speak in support of the 

Crime and Misconduct Commission (Administrative Negligence Rectification) Amendment Bill 2013. 

As a relatively new member of the PCMC, I have been on quite a steep learning curve. It has been 

incredibly interesting to see firsthand how the CMC operates. While I am mindful of the sensitivity of 

many of the issues that come before our committee, I am also mindful of the fact that our role is one 

of oversight; it is not necessarily one of engagement. It is about monitoring the activities and the 

processes of the CMC. 

I take on board the comments made by the Attorney-General earlier today about being more 

open and more transparent. Queenslanders need to know and have confidence in the operations of 

both the CMC and the PCMC. If justice is to be done it needs to be seen to be done. In many ways it 

is about shining a light into some dark places, ensuring full, frank and fearless scrutiny of the CMC in 

an open and transparent way. I look forward to working with the PCMC into the future to serve 

Queenslanders. I commend the bill to the House. 

Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—Ind) (2.02 am): The only reason we should be here at this early hour of 

the morning is to pass that legislation specifically requested by the PCMC chair and the CMC chair— 

no less, no more. Members might have personal opinions on all sorts of issues that may have no 

basis in fact. For very good reasons, information held by the CMC remains confidential, possibly 

forever. Sadly, as with all organisations, there are times when any system controlling security does 

not work. Part of the system has failed on this occasion. I do not want to add to the content of the 

matter. I support the legislation. I congratulate all members on their actions tonight, restoring stability 

to the system. 

I have spent 20 years of my life dealing with major criminals and custodial matters and all sorts 

of matters relating to them. I am the former chair of the PCMC and the Ethics Committee and am a 

longstanding member of both committees. It has largely been done in secret and it has all been 

confidential. 

In Australia the Attorney-General is first a politician, heads a government department and is 

vested with numerous statutory powers. But the Attorney-General must be independent and, by 

custom, not subject to the direction of cabinet. He must exercise his various powers and interests in 

the public interest. But he is not the guardian of public interest; the chair of the PCMC has that role. 

The Attorney-General is the guardian of the administration of justice. When challenged, it is the 

tribunal to which he must refer. 

The PCMC is a standing royal commission. If the standing royal commission has made 

statements that instruct us what must be done to maintain public confidence in the process, then that 

is what the Attorney-General must do. He must chart a course dependent on the PCMC chair and, by 

default in this case, the relevant tribunal independent to which he may refer, as former High Court 

Chief Justice Gerard Brennan has said he must. 

The Attorney-General has no choice but to do exactly that which the CMC chair, as effectively 

the proxy of the PCMC chair in this situation, has specifically requested the Attorney-General to do— 

no more, no less. The reason is that the CMC chair, on behalf of the CMC, is charged under section 

174 of using all and any of its powers to do everything that ensures the proper function of the CMC 

itself. 

The CMC has a defined role in maintaining the security of its own confidential information in 

any and all forms. This is incontestable. Irrespective of whatever has occurred, whatever the length of 

time, the act, in my reading and the reading of others, indicates clearly that this is what must happen. 

The CMC must take immediate action which could include many extraordinary actions, not unlike 

having a massive immunisation shot, to ensure that our capacity to secure ourselves is protected. I 

put it to all members and the executive: whilst under normal circumstances we could do more than 

was requested by the CMC, these it could be said are not normal circumstances. That gives the CMC 

greater powers which do include the capacity to make specific directions to the Attorney-General to 

restore the integrity of the CMC itself.

7 Mar 2013 



609 

The act means that, if the government or anyone else in any way attempts to interfere with the 

CMC, immediate action to secure in this case confidential information is in immediate breach of the 

CMC Act itself. The protection mechanism is the PCMC chair, whose role at all times, over and above 

everything, is to maintain public confidence in the process. That is exactly what has occurred in this 

process. Therefore at all times of great stress or problems within the CMC, the CMC and the PCMC 

have greater powers to ensure that they will survive whatever challenges face them. 

The committee has the right to immediately form a royal commission, empower the part-time 

commissioner, secure any budget it requires and immediately inquire into what is needed to address 

whatever problems confront it, as it is doing now. The government—more the executive 

government—can do nothing, and any legislation that it passes that interferes in any way with the 

capacity and function of the CMC has the capacity to be challenged and is likely to be denied royal 

assent in these circumstances. And anyone impeding its actions is likely to face a charge of 

contempt. 

Therefore tonight all we can do is do exactly that requested by the chair, Mr Ross Martin, under 

the direction of the PCMC chair, the member for Gladstone. The Attorney-General must not reflect in 

any adverse manner on Mr Ross Martin and the chair of the PCMC, the member for Gladstone. There 

is no opportunity for the government to implement any changes that the government wishes to 

impose on the CMC for whatever reason it wishes if it is over and above that which the CMC chair 

has requested and by default the PCMC chair. There is a logic to why the CMC might function in this 

manner at this time. For those who cannot see it, the biological equivalent is that the body is designed 

to save itself in times of crisis because if it dies then it is of no use to anyone. 

Hon. TJ NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (Treasurer and Minister for Trade) (2.07 am): The 

government has acted speedily to protect the interests of those people who may be placed in danger, 

those whose reputations may be in peril and others whom the unauthorised and negligent release of 

this information has put in harm’s way. I must say that it is concerning—and it should be concerning 

to all of us—that this parliament has been forced to act in this very short period of time to rectify what 

is in my view a quite unacceptable administrative failure by the CMC. 

I have had a look at the correspondence that has flowed between the Attorney-General and the 

CMC over the last 12 hours or so. There is still no adequate explanation provided to this House for 

the steps the CMC and its chairman have taken to rectify the error—an error that was brought to the 

attention of the PCMC only in the last 24 hours, as explained by the member for Gladstone. 

In circumstances where we are forced to act so unusually, I think it behoves us to look at the 

position of the chair of the CMC and ask indeed what responsibility he takes for this failure of action. 

We learn that the CMC themselves knew of this error in May last year and instruction was apparently 

issued to ‘fix’ the situation, yet nothing had been done for three or four months. 

In fact, it was only when a journalist from the Australian newspaper asked questions that the 

matter actually came to light and action was necessary to be taken. In those circumstances, whilst the 

release of the material between 2007 and 2009 was not the responsibility of the chairman, it was the 

responsibility of the chairman to fix the error, to fix it promptly and to brook no delay. That does not 

seem to have occurred. 

So here we are at 10 past two in the morning forced on very short notice, through quite 

extraordinary circumstances—as the Leader of the Opposition has said—to draft, prepare, introduce 

and pass legislation in order to rectify what seems to be a quite extraordinary lapse in administrative 

procedure, in administrative oversight, by those in charge of the CMC. I do reflect very much on the 

notion of responsibility in the same way that we have ministerial responsibility and ministers take 

responsibility for their actions or their failure to take actions sometimes in quite severe circumstances 

on the position of the chairman and his senior officers in respect of their capacity and ability to 

adequately oversight the operations of the CMC and to fix these administrative errors. 

This bill is important. It is necessary to protect, for a short period, the information that has been 

made available; it is limited to 60 days. I do not want to pre-empt further debate, but honourable 

members will see that other steps are necessary in order to ensure us and the people of Queensland 

that the operations of the CMC are being effectively and adequately maintained and the appropriate 

responsibility is being taken by the chairman. 

Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (2.10 am), in 

reply: I thank all members for their contribution. I place on record that the government is reluctant to 

deal with this legislation tonight. We have been put into this corner by the inadequacy of response

610 



7 Mar 2013 

from the administration of the CMC, particularly the leadership of the CMC. As the honourable 

chairman of the PCMC would know, I have taken this reluctant step—a necessary step—to protect 

either the identity of informants or, as I said in the explanatory speech, other issues of importance, 

particularly the safety and wellbeing of some of those people. I do want to address for the record a 

few of the things that have happened since I updated the House earlier this evening. 

I tabled correspondence that I had received from the CMC chair at 5.30 this afternoon. I then 

tabled correspondence that I had sent back—and I read it into Hansard—in response to the 

chairman’s letter. I received a response prior to the 10 pm deadline last night by which time I had 

requested the CMC get back to me. I think it is only fair that I now read that response. This response 

also shows a couple of things of importance that I ought to bring to the attention of the House. This 

letter is dated 7 March 2013 and it was received earlier this evening, just prior to 10 pm. It states— 

Dear Attorney-General 

I refer to your letter of earlier this evening. The deadline you have set prevents me from answering every issue you raise in 

your letter. I am sure you will accept that the safety and privacy of the individuals whose affairs are referred to in the material 

under discussion and which may have become public is the priority in the present circumstances. 

You are aware that the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee has sought from you legislation of the sort I drew to 

your attention in my letter of earlier this evening. The Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee is my oversight body, 

and I defer to its judgement that legislation was necessary. I also agree with it. In any event, we have preliminary advice as I 

referred to in my previous letter about the prospects of an injunction. Absent that, there would appear to be no avenues open to 

resolve the issue otherwise. 

I am aware that you declined to introduce the legislation proposed without a letter from me that set out in relatively short order a 

number of things. I provided that letter in the terms that I understood was requested of me. I was not informed that you required 

a draft or any preliminary description of such legislation. Indeed I have had no contact from you about the matter at all. 

In an endeavour to address the priority issue which I have outlined above, I agreed to your request for my letter. My letter was 

expressed in contingent terms because you were the one who requested it, as I understood matters, and so I was unaware of 

what you then proposed. 

Earlier this evening, and after my letter was sent, your staff and the staff of the Department of Justice, as well as the 

Parliamentary draftsperson, engaged with me in preparing legislation of the sort I have referred to. When I arrived at the 

Parliamentary draftsperson’s office, it was well under way and close to complete. While in the middle of that process, staff of 

the Department of Justice acting apparently on instructions indicated that the preparation was to occur without any assistance 

from the CMC. I am at a loss to understand why, in light of your letter. I have not seen a final draft of the work being prepared in 

the Parliamentary draftsperson’s office, but at the point I was required to leave, the matter was well advanced and it seems 

satisfactorily so, subject to perusal of the final draft. I am in no position independently to prepare legislation within the time 

frame required by you. It would be irresponsible of me, however, not to examine the final draft of the Bill presently under 

preparation. 

You make assertions about when the CMC became aware of the problem; given the deadline, now is not the place to engage 

in debate on that point. 

I request that you table this letter this evening and have it read into Hansard. A copy will be provided to the members of the 

PCMC. 

I table a copy of this letter. 

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 7 March 2013, to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Hon. Jarrod Bleijie, from the chair 

of the Crime and Misconduct Committee, Mr Ross Martin, regarding a request for urgent legislation in relation to released 

Fitzgerald inquiry documents [2217]. 

Let me set the record straight. The chairman says in his first paragraph ‘the deadline you have 

set me’. I would not have had to set a deadline had the government not been forced into a position by 

the CMC chair with respect to an ability or a legislative amendment to fix the problem created by the 

CMC in the first place. It was not government, it was not the State Archivist, it was not the opposition, 

it was not the Katter party, it was not anyone in this House; it was the CMC and the administration of 

the CMC that was at fault here. So I really get offended when we are then blamed because we have 

set a deadline for a response. It would have been wrong for the government to just sign up and come 

into this place without any real discussion and without challenging the CMC as to the purpose, who 

we were trying to protect and what documents we were trying to protect. That is what we sought from 

the CMC. If we are to be asked to conduct this extraordinary debate tonight and have members sit 

here till after two o’clock in the morning on a Friday, then the least we could have had from the CMC 

was a proper explanation of why they wanted to do it and why they wanted parliament to fix the 

administrative mess that the CMC created. 

It also says in his letter that ‘I am aware that you declined to introduce the legislation proposed 

without a letter from me’. The honourable member for Gladstone has tabled correspondence between 

the PCMC and me that I received yesterday and that I responded to earlier this morning. In that 

correspondence I made it abundantly clear that, if the CMC wants parliament or the government’s 

assistance or, for that matter, my assistance in drafting legislation to fix this mess, then the CMC 

chairman owes it to the people of Queensland to stand in front of a television camera, explain the

7 Mar 2013 



611 

stuff-up, explain what went wrong, take full responsibility for the actions of the CMC as its chairman 

and to tell us what he wants government to do about it. A whole day passed and I know that the 

PCMC held meetings today with various witnesses, and I volunteered my own time during the 

commercial arbitration bill debate to avail myself to the committee for probing. The issue is that none 

of us in this House created this issue. 

When the chairman of the PCMC tabled the correspondence, the correspondence that I wrote 

back to the CMC clearly said that ‘we are reluctant to do it but we will engage in discussion on the 

condition that the CMC chairman go out there and publicly explain’. Then this afternoon the CMC 

chairman said to me, ‘You have declined to introduce the legislation proposed without a letter from 

me.’ No, I wanted a public statement. I wanted the CMC chair not to send me a letter but to stand in 

front of a camera and explain to the people of Queensland what went so horribly wrong with this 

situation. But at the end because of time I said to the PCMC chair whose committee was interrogating 

people at the time, that a letter will suffice as long as a full explanation is given as to why the CMC 

chairman wants us to engage in this debate and go down this path. Then the chairman said, ‘I was 

not informed that you required a draft of any preliminary description of such legislation.’ 

I never requested the CMC chair to draft the legislation. I never requested the CMC to partake 

in the role of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and assist in drafting legislation. That is not the 

CMC’s role. I wanted the CMC chair to tell us what he wanted and then we would attend to the 

drafting during the normal process—that is, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel would attend to the 

drafting of the bill. All I wanted was either a public statement to tell us what he wanted or a letter. 

Members would know that the letter I tabled earlier was completely unsatisfactory and insufficient of 

information to even make me form the view and to advise my colleagues the ministers that we ought 

do this tonight. 

As I said, we are reluctantly doing this because people who accessed these documents did so 

lawfully. They did so lawfully and that is why we do it reluctantly, because they do have information 

that they were able to access, albeit in administrative error or oversight, unsatisfactory as it may be 

from the CMC. They obtained the information lawfully and so as a government we believe that they 

are entitled to the documentation. That is why we make it abundantly clear that this legislation will in 

no way give anyone any power to seize any documents back or request any documents back from 

these individuals who have these documents in their possession. The CMC chair then goes on in his 

letter— 

I am in no position independently to prepare legislation within the time frame required by you. 

I was not asking for a time frame to prepare legislation; we were the ones being asked to 

prepare legislation. The parliamentarians—the legislators—were the ones asked to be here at all 

hours of the morning to pass this legislation. I really think the CMC chair has just misinterpreted the 

whole issue. I did not want him to draft legislation. I did not want him to assist in the drafting of 

legislation. I wanted him to tell us what he wanted. If he had of told us earlier in the day what he 

wanted and why he wanted it and why he wanted us to take this course of action, then no doubt we 

would have been in a position to respond earlier than we have. So I am not going to cop any criticism 

from the CMC chair now or in the future or tomorrow that says that the government delayed its 

reaction to this, because I think the documentation that the PCMC chair tabled tonight clearly shows 

that we have gone out of our way to assist the CMC to fix the mess created by the CMC in the first 

place. 

I want to deal with some of the issues raised in the debate. The CMC’s job, as has been 

indicated tonight, is to protect the sensitive documents from particular disclosure. I think that all 

honourable members understand that the issue now that the documentation has been able to be 

accessed for a number of months means that we have to, through this legislation, offer a level of 

protection to the people. We still do not know what level of protection this is trying to afford to people 

because we still do not know who has got what and who saw what. It has not been made public in 

terms of who reviewed this documentation, and this will be a process and we are not going to get into 

that debate. We will have that a little later. This will all come out in the wash eventually. What we are 

doing now is fixing the immediate problem, which of course is the corrective legislation. 

The public, as I said earlier today, should have absolute faith in the Crime and Misconduct 

Commission and I submit that I think that faith has been tested in the last 48 hours with this issue. I 

think the public genuinely can be concerned about the administration and operation of the CMC, and I

612 



7 Mar 2013 

take particular issue with the member for Gaven’s contribution tonight when he said that it is the 

Attorney-General’s responsibility to restore integrity in the CMC. It is not my responsibility to restore 

integrity in the CMC; it is the CMC’s responsibility to restore integrity. 

Dr DOUGLAS: I rise to a point of order. Check the Hansard. I did not say that. 

Madam SPEAKER: Please take your seat. That is not a point of order. 

Mr BLEIJIE: I think that it is timely that we consider these issues—the unfortunate issues—that 

have arisen in the last 48 hours. As we proceed into the closure of the Callinan inquiry into the CMC, 

nothing could be more timely than this issue. As I was asked in the briefing afforded to the opposition 

leader, nothing will change with that inquiry and it will proceed as planned. As I indicated to the 

member, as far as I know everything will be on track for 14 March. But if the Hon. Ian Callinan comes 

to me in light of the issues of late and wants a little more time to add an addendum to his report, then 

I will positively look upon that. It is completely separate to what we are doing and I think that he ought 

to be given the opportunity to fulfil his report in the time frame that he has. I also thank the member 

for Gladstone for tabling those documents. Members will recall that some 12 hours ago I was in this 

place talking about the PCMC and the CMC and the frustration I have had over the last 12 months 

getting documents tabled, and I do thank the member for Gladstone for taking that on board and 

tabling documents so the public can be fully abreast of all of the issues that we are dealing with in this 

debate. 

As I said categorically, these measures do not confer any seizure powers for documentation 

that has been out there in the public domain or in the private domain of individuals who have seen 

these documents. As I indicated in my explanatory speech, if there have been situations where 

people have accessed these documents and they have printed them already, then the penalties 

applicable in this legislation are not intended to apply if they lawfully obtained the documentation and 

may have printed them without knowing the issue at hand. So it is the government’s clear intention 

through this bill that the penalty provisions will apply from commencement—that is, 8 March 2013, 

today. So the penalty provisions will apply to documentation that is reproduced from commencement 

date and not if people have lawfully obtained the documents that have somehow been printed, and 

we are not sure if there are. We are not sure. There is a lot of information in the public domain at the 

moment. We are not sure or able to ascertain directly whether there has been that issue, but I just put 

on record that if it does become an issue in the future I am making the intention plain that it is not the 

intention to go after people who may have lawfully obtained the documents but reproduced them prior 

to today. 

The Treasurer talked about responsibility. I believe this government is one of the most open 

and accountable governments in this country. This week we had the release of diaries. We have had 

an abundance of RTI request applications. This government is the first government in Australia to 

release diaries, and the member for Bundamba can shake her head. If she can make an interjection 

and tell me right now what other Australian jurisdiction—Premier, Chief Minister or Prime Minister— 

tables their diaries and opens their office to the world at large, make the interjection and tell me that 

I am wrong. I thought so. Silence is bliss! I thought so. Member for Bundamba— 

Mr Nicholls: When’s she going to release her diary? 

Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection from the Treasurer. She shakes her head about us releasing 

our diaries but at the same time never released her diary. She is a shadow minister now. 

Mrs Miller interjected. 

Mr BLEIJIE: Yes, laugh about it. We know the registers they kept and the archives. We do not 

know if they have even been kept. So the member for Bundamba can say a lot about this, but the 

point is this: this government is the most open and accountable government in this country. I called on 

the Prime Minister today to follow this government’s lead and release her diaries, and I raised this 

issue as a matter of relevance because in this democracy that we live in where we talk about 

ministerial responsibility we also need to talk about senior public officials and independent statutory 

officers having and taking responsibility for actions in their departments or offices. The Treasurer 

talked about that tonight and we have had ministers in this government in this term take responsibility 

for their actions and we have seen the consequences of those actions with those decisions that were 

made. I implore the CMC chairman, who has responsibility for the CMC and the administration of the 

CMC, to seriously consider and accept the consequences of the administration of the CMC and the 

events of the last 48 hours.

7 Mar 2013 



613 

That is his duty. That is his role. Just like it is with ministerial accountability, so too comes 

accountability in public office, particularly the one that Queenslanders should look up to of having the 

most integrity and accountability. I question that, on the day we debate the report about a CMC officer 

going to be terminated but resigning, we have now had this event over the past 48 hours where 

sensitive information has been released for months with a ‘Fix it’—that was what the order was—and 

no follow-up. Certainly, there is a responsibility there in the CMC chair and he should accept full 

responsibility for this unacceptable oversight, no-one else. The CMC chair ought to accept full 

responsibility for this unacceptable oversight. We know that there are these certain consequences 

that flow from having that responsibility. If the chairman accepts that responsibility then he should 

also accept the consequences that would ordinarily follow. 

As I said, we have had to act. We have been asked to act. We are acting reluctantly on this 

issue. But the government puts first the safety of the people who may be at risk. We are going in 

blind, really, because we still really do not have any idea of the types of documentation. I understand 

that the PCMC will attempt to get to the bottom of this, and I thank the PCMC chair for the work today. 

I know that it has been a challenging day with hours and hours that we have spent on this issue with 

letters going backwards and forward. But I say again to the members of the House that this could 

have been resolved a lot easier had the chairman of the CMC cooperated more fully with us and with 

me. It is clearly seen by the correspondence that the CMC chair sent that there were blockages there 

and an attempting to blame me for the issue that he is trying to get us to fix. It does not show a spirit 

of cooperation. The CMC chair did not ring me to brief me—to say, ‘We would like you to do this, 

Attorney,’ or ‘These are the consequences. These are the issues.’ In fact, the first I heard about this 

issue was probably a little later than the PCMC became involved and that was when I read the front 

page of the Australian newspaper a couple of days ago. Yet the CMC has known about this for 

months. It was only ascertained when the CMC figured out the unacceptable oversight. They figured it 

out and then a journalist went to access documents that they had been accessing for a while and 

were refused, because they reclassified it so that the documents could not be provided. They asked, 

‘Why are the documents not available?’ ‘The CMC has not authorised release of the documents.’ ‘I 

have been accessing these documents for some time.’ That is when the issue came to light. It was a 

journalist who brought these issues to light. It was not in the spirit of the CMC being open and 

accountable to the people of Queensland; it was because, quite frankly, they were caught out by 

journalists. That is why we are reluctant to go into this position tonight—because those people, 

including the journalists who have had access to these documents, did so with the full force of the law 

because of an administrative oversight of the CMC. No-one else is to blame in this matter. 

Can I also say that I am really concerned—highly concerned—about this issue of the shredding 

of documents in the report that the chair of the PCMC gave today. We can only report as to what the 

PCMC chair has updated the House on, but I do not think enough attention has been paid to that 

issue. Today, we have been so focused on trying to assist the CMC as best we can and getting this 

bill in tonight that I think we have really forgotten the other issue. I know and I hope there will come a 

time when we will have a separate debate, because I think there potentially is systemic issues with 

the CMC with respect to these issues. I know that the Callinan inquiry, and the fulsome report that it is 

going to release next week, will address some of these other issues that it has uncovered during this 

inquiry. But I think we should pay more attention at a later date to the shredding of these documents 

and how, in fact, that happened, because I think that is totally unacceptable. It does not give the 

people of Queensland confidence in the system that we should uphold the most: the CMC, the top 

crime-fighting corruption watchdog in this state. 

People, Queenslanders, government, opposition, crossbenchers should have total confidence 

in the CMC. I believe that that confidence has been compromised with the actions of the CMC in the 

last couple of days. I will be frank. I am not happy with the responses that the CMC gave me today in 

the letters. I am not happy that the CMC chair treated this House, treated this government, with 

contempt in terms of ‘I’ll tell you what I want you to know and nothing more’ when we were the ones 

being asked to address the issues created by the CMC. So I take offence to those particular issues. If 

we had an open dialogue from the outset and had all of this confirmed in writing we would have had 

this matter settled a long time ago. All that was required was the CMC chair to get up, tell the 

Queensland public what the issue was, take full responsibility for this as the administration manager, 

being the CMC chair, and take full responsibility and, of course, then accept the consequences that

614 



7 Mar 2013 

come with that great responsibility. I have no doubt that being the chair of such a body has a high 

level of responsibility and a high level of risk in terms of what the CMC is engaged in, but I think the 

performance of late with the CMC chair in terms of communicating with me particularly and the letters 

that I have read into Hansard tonight show the arrogant attitude and the contempt that the CMC chair 

held this government in with respect to trying to sort out this issue. We were a willing and able 

participant on this journey to fix this issue, but in the correspondence that was sent you can clearly 

see that there was a smack of arrogance in that correspondence and then a clear misunderstanding 

of what the issue was all about in the latest piece of correspondence, where somehow it was my fault 

because I did not allow him and he did not have the time to draft the legislation. It was never the 

understanding that he, as CMC chair, would be drafting the legislation. We have processes in place. 

We have the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, we have departments. On that note, can I thank the 

Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for going over time tonight. Can I also thank the officers of the 

government and the opposition who have been reviewing the bill, my staff and departmental staff who 

are still at the State Law Building to the end of this debate. I think an enormous amount of resources 

have been spent today and tonight in trying to assist the CMC. 

In conclusion, can I say this: the CMC has an important function. Queenslanders need to be 

able to have confidence in the administration of the duties and functions of the CMC. Ross Martin, the 

chair of the CMC, must take and accept responsibility for the actions of the CMC particularly—not just 

in the past 48 hours, but the months that have preceded, the months that sensitive documents have 

been available—and responsibility for not checking up after he said ‘Fix it’ to a staff member. That 

should ring alarm bells for members of this House in terms of the administration of that body. 

So as we go forward tonight, I say to the people who have this documentation that the 

government will not go after them for having those documents that they lawfully obtained. We 

understand their frustration in that they are now being silenced essentially for 60 days, but to please 

understand that the reason we are doing it is that the government cannot be convinced that the 

documents that are out there are not in the public interest to protect and that is why we have to do it. 

There is a question mark over the documentation and that is why we have to do what we are doing 

tonight, because we cannot be satisfied and we cannot have on our conscience, if something did 

happen, that this government, this parliament, did not do all we could to protect. 

Events will unfold in the next 48 hours as investigations proceed with respect to this issue and, 

ultimately, to find out what went wrong, how it went wrong and, ultimately, who will take responsibility 

and accept responsibility for this complete administrative nightmare that this parliament should have 

not be dealing with tonight, but we are. 

This provision of allowing essentially the 60-day sunset clause is a temporary solution to stop 

the information being reproduced now, but at the end of the day we will have to ascertain during that 

60-day period what went wrong, how it went wrong and who is going to take responsibility for it. That 

ultimate question rests with the chairman of the CMC. 






Clause 4— 

Ms PALASZCZUK (2.40 am): I would like some clarification in relation to clause 4. I know 

there has not been time for consultation. The minister has tabled a couple of letters between himself 

and the chair of the CMC. I was wondering, as the Attorney-General, when these issues were first 

brought to light to him did he at any time consider picking up the phone and talking to the chair of the 

CMC about this very important matter? 

The only other issue I would like the Attorney to address is that as these matters are being 

examined—and we actually have the letter here from the chair of the CMC, Ross Martin, saying the 

reasons for this are still being examined—I would hate this parliament to be judge and jury here 

tonight when those full processes need to have been gone through. I am concerned about the

7 Mar 2013 



615 

comments that the Attorney made about someone needing to take full responsibility. We all know that 

the someone he is talking about is the chair of the CMC. There is an examination that needs to go 

ahead. I would hate there to be a perception of bias on behalf of the government. 

The minister has also said that he has been reluctant in relation to this legislation. That is 

contrary to what he has said previously about the importance of protecting the confidentiality of not 

only the documents but the people concerned. I do not think ‘reluctant’ quite sums up why this 

legislation is here tonight. 

I ask the Attorney to please clarify for the parliament whether he made any attempt to contact 

the chair of the CMC. There have been letters going to and fro. I think it is only reasonable that every 

member would like to know the answer to that question. I think all members need to be very 

conscious that there is an examination going on about what happened. These are extremely serious 

issues. The public of Queensland need to know answers. This parliament is not to be judge and jury if 

there is a PCMC examination. I think all members would share with me their concerns that this must 

be treated objectively not subjectively. There are people’s careers on the line here. I ask the Attorney 

to address those issues. 

Mr BLEIJIE: I thank the opposition leader for the question. I became aware of these issues, as 

I said, when I got a phone call from my media adviser in the last 48 hours when it was on the front 

page—it might be in the last three days; I have lost track of time it now being three o’clock in the 

morning on Friday. As far as I am aware, we did not receive correspondence from the CMC or 

anyone else that was brought to my attention. I found out about these issues when it was in the 

Australian. I chose not to phone the CMC chair for this reason: that there was obviously an issue and 

the PCMC has oversight responsibility. I did not want to be seen to be interfering. If I had phoned and 

asked questions I could be accused of interfering in the independent operation of the CMC. Yes, I am 

the minister with responsibility for the act. I did think about the contact and chose not to at that 

juncture until such time as I had spoken to the PCMC chair. We have been in communication, as is 

obvious from the letter that I sent to Mr Martin and his response. I think that was satisfactory. 

The other thing I might point out to the opposition leader is that in the tabled letter to me from 

Mr Martin of earlier yesterday he says in his first paragraph— 

It is apparent that the Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) has been instrumental in the release of information dating 

from the time of the Fitzgerald Inquiry that should not have been made public. 

My reasoning for saying that ultimately responsibility rests with the CMC chair is because he 

has admitted that the CMC has released information in relation to Fitzgerald that should not have 

been made public. The CMC chair has ultimate responsibility. That is the admission from the CMC 

chair. I am not making it up. That is in a letter that was tabled earlier. I think that matter addresses 

itself. 

Investigations will happen. Without predicting the debate later on, I have confidence in the 

PCMC that they will go through the processes to find out what went wrong. 


Third Reading 


move— 

That the bill be now read a third time. 

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


Bill read a third time. 

Long Title 


move— 



Motion agreed to.

616 Motion 7 Mar 2013 

MOTION 

Referral to the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee 

Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (2.47 am), by 


(1) That this House notes the statement by the Chair of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee (PCMC) to 

the House today in relation to the failure by the Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) to properly safeguard the 

records of the Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct. 

(2) That in addition to any action already undertaken by the committee, this House requests the PCMC in accordance with 

s.292(d) of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 to inquire into and report: 

(a) upon the CMC’s incorrect classification of documents lodged with State Archives that were sourced from the 

Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct which were transferred 

to the State Archives from the CMC between 2007 and 2009 that has necessitated the bill titled Crime and 

Misconduct Commission (Administrative Negligence Rectification) Amendment Bill 2013 passed by the House 

this evening; 

(b) upon the CMC’s failure to remedy the incorrect classification of the above documents in a timely and effective 

manner; 

(c) upon the destruction of records of the Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated 

Police Misconduct by the CMC; 

(d) upon the CMC’s failure to account to the PCMC in a timely and effective manner with respect to (a) to (c) 

above; 

(e) as to how the issues arising from the incorrect classification of documents can be remedied in the longer term, 

including whether some or all of those documents have to remain confidential; and 

(f) on any other matters and make any other recommendations the PCMC believes necessary to address issues 

raised in its inquiry. 

(3) That in addition to any action already undertaken by the PCMC, in accordance with s.314(2) of the Crime and 

Misconduct Act 2001, requests the PCMC to require the Parliamentary Commissioner to assist the PCMC in its inquiry, 

including enabling the commissioner to examine witnesses at all hearings of the committee on the matter. 

(4) That the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee authorise the publication of any evidence already taken by 

the committee in relation to this matter, redacted only to the extent necessary to protect third parties. 

(5) That the PCMC conduct its proceedings, including the examination by the PCMC and Parliamentary Commissioner of 

all witnesses under (3) above in public (but excepting its deliberations), unless there is any matter arising which 

involves current operational files. 

(6) That the PCMC authorise the publication of all transcripts of examinations and tabled evidence as soon as practicable 

after the hearing. 

(7) That all witnesses in the committee’s proceedings be required to give evidence under oath or affirmation. 

(8) That the committee report back to the House by 5 April 2013. 

I will elaborate on the motion being moved. I thank the opposition and the chair of the PCMC 

for having discussions earlier this evening. We are attempting to have an open and transparent 

inquiry into what went wrong. This is the next step. We have passed the bill in terms of protecting 

potentially sensitive documentation. This is about the processes that were in play that allowed the 

administration error or oversight to occur. It follows on from my earlier contribution in the debate on 

Thursday in this House, where I called on the PCMC and the CMC to act in an open and transparent 

environment. The public ought to be able to see what happens in these inquiries, which is why tonight 

we are moving this motion without notice. Essentially, we are saying we will have an open inquiry and 

we are giving the full powers of this inquiry to the members of the PCMC and the Parliamentary Crime 

and Misconduct Commissioner will be counsel assisting. We will make sure that there are sufficient 

resources from the Clerk of this parliament to the PCMC to conduct this inquiry. 

The ultimate outcome of this inquiry is to find out what went wrong. Members will note that the 

time frame for reporting is earlier than the 60-day sunset period set on the previous bill debated in the 

House, therefore allowing time for the committee to do its investigations, its open inquiries, debate 

and deliberations and then still have sufficient time if we need to act on certain matters or on potential 

recommendations from the committee. There is sufficient time to be able to do that while still 

protecting the potentially sensitive information. 

I thank the Independent members for Nicklin and Gladstone for attending the briefing that we 

gave earlier to the Deputy Premier and the Treasurer. The member for Nicklin raised the issue with 

respect to documentation and asked if there is going to be an inquiry with respect to the 

documentation. The answer is, no, there is not. This is about the processes that were put in place and 

the processes that made what happened happen. It is not about people strolling into this inquiry, 

lodging and tabling documents and having documents debated on. It is all about the processes. As 

we go forward from tonight, when the PCMC meets next it will be able to have some freedom within 

the terms of the reference from the parliament tonight; it will have some freedom and flexibility to be

7 Mar 2013 Motion 617 

able to do that. Of course, if certain documentation is sensitive, there are provisions under statutes at 

the moment, particularly provisions under the Crime and Misconduct Act. The motion that I am 

moving tonight clearly talks about the deliberations of the committee, and also any current operational 

files that will not be subject to public debate. 

I think this is important because, as I raised this morning, the secretive way in which the CMC 

and the PCMC operate has to be changed. We have to have reform in regard to this issue so that the 

public knows and is aware of the issues and the public then will have confidence in the process. The 

public cannot have confidence in these processes if they do not know what is going on. We accept 

that there are times when there is information that ought not be put out in the public domain. We have 

to have reform in this regard and this is the start of the reform tonight by having these meetings as 

much as possible in an open and public environment. I would suggest that, subject to the PCMC, they 

be held in this place, in parliamentary committee chambers or chambers. I encourage the PCMC to 

go full steam ahead with this inquiry, if this motion passes the House tonight, to get to the bottom of 

what went wrong and, ultimately, to find out who should take ultimate responsibility for these actions. 

This motion is about openness, it is about transparency, it is about the integrity of the system 

and it is about trying to restore the confidence that people ought to have in the CMC and its 

processes. I think there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. The PCMC is the body to do 

that, through this motion. Parliament will empower it. We are doing something that has not been done 

in many other jurisdictions. In fact, the Clerk advises that it has happened in the House of Commons, 

but not in too many jurisdictions. We are entering into a new phase of openness and transparency in 

our committee process. I commend the motion to the House. 

Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Leader of the Opposition) (2.55 am): The opposition will be 

supporting the motion. The parliament is charged with the responsibility for overseeing the CMC and 

it performs this important task through the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee, the 

PCMC. The PCMC has been meeting exhaustively since the first revelations came to light. The chair 

of the PCMC came before the House this afternoon to advise of the action that the committee was to 

take. I thank the chair of the committee for providing that comprehensive update, not only this 

afternoon but also in the early hours of the morning. 

The Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Commissioner is to undertake a thorough and 

independent investigation focusing on the release of the documents. He will investigate the extent of 

the knowledge and roles of the CMC officers in relation to the reclassification and subsequent release 

of the documents and the shredding of documents. This should include the governance and 

accountability mechanisms within the CMC to prevent this from ever occurring again. The 

Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Commissioner is the appropriate person to investigate these 

matters. That is the role of the commissioner. That is why we have an independent person of the 

highest calibre to carry out this function. 

I now address the current situation involving the unauthorised release of sensitive documents. 

It is clear that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. It is clear we need to consider swift 

action if people’s wellbeing or personal safety is at risk. It is clear we need a detailed explanation from 

the CMC chair, Ross Martin, about the circumstances that led us to be engaged in this debate tonight. 

We deserve to know what went wrong and how it can be stopped from ever happening again in our 

state. 

The people of Queensland deserve a clear explanation if we are to maintain confidence in the 

process of our corruption watchdog. As I said previously, this inquiry will now be a public inquiry. 

There may be issues that are raised that are extremely sensitive in nature and I thank the Attorney- 

General for giving the assurance that they will be treated in that manner. However, I do want to 

reiterate my earlier comments: tonight we are not the judge and jury of the chair of the CMC. The 

Attorney does need to be very careful in his language in this House when the public inquiry has not 

yet begun. The comments he made pre-empted this motion in the House. This needs to be an open 

and transparent process. People’s reputations are at stake. They need to be questioned and, if 

wrongdoing is found, at the end the day then actions will be considered. The committee now has the 

opportunity to examine this in detail and report back to the House. I asked the Attorney earlier that if 

there were matters that came to light that involved an extension, that that issue would come back to 

the parliament. I do not recall anything like this happening in my lifetime, where such confidential 

documents have been released in the public domain. The government has acted swiftly, but we need 

to ensure an open, transparent process so that those recommendations can come back to the 

parliament and the parliament can determine the course of action to ensure that this never happens 

again.

618 Adjournment 7 Mar 2013 

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (2.59 am): I would like to speak to the motion. I thank 

the Attorney-General for the opportunity for the committee to be involved in the manner that this 

motion requires. The committee is mindful of the serious responsibility this motion places on it, the 

Parliamentary Commissioner and others who will give assistance, advice and testimony to this 

inquiry. We will endeavour to carry out those responsibilities objectively, impartially and transparently. 



SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT 


move— 

That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until 9.30 am on Tuesday, 19 March 2013. 



ADJOURNMENT 


move— 

That the House do now adjourn. 

Coronial Inquest, Arnold, Ms V and Leahy, Mrs J 

Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (3.01 am): Last Friday the State Coroner, Michael Barnes, handed 

down his findings from the third inquest into the deaths of Vicki Arnold and Julie-Anne Leahy. Many 

people would be aware of the circumstances of this case. In August 1991 the women’s bodies were 

found in bushland at Cherry Tree Creek near Atherton after being missing for two weeks. It was 

quickly ruled that Vicki killed Julie-Anne and then took her own life. 

When I called for a third inquest in 2010, I had hoped for an open finding by the coroner so that 

it may remove the stigma of a murder-suicide that had been very unfairly applied to Vicki Arnold for 

almost two decades. What happened was something that surpassed all expectations. It was 

something that does not happen very often. I think people have a view that what happens in 

courtrooms is what we see in Hollywood movies. Almost always this is not what happens, but on this 

occasion it was. 

Coroner Michael Barnes made it clear that Vicki Arnold would be exonerated and that finally 

she, too, would be considered a victim in this awful saga. But he went further. He said there was a 

prima facie case to lay charges against Alan Leahy and then he ordered that a warrant be issued for 

his arrest. Today Alan Leahy handed himself in to authorities. It is difficult to describe the emotion that 

we all felt in the courtroom. We were overjoyed and we were relieved. We are all still shocked at the 

outcome. 

I grew up hearing stories about this case, and I do not think I have ever come across anyone I 

know in Far North Queensland who thought events transpired the way the original police investigation 

suggested—backed up by the first two coronial inquests. I have always felt a very personal 

connection to this case. I made a vow that, if I was ever fortunate enough to have a platform to bring 

this case to the fore—as allowed by my role as a member of this parliament—I would take that 

chance. 

The result last week was perhaps the most satisfying outcome of anything that I have worked 

on since becoming an MP. I want to thank former Attorney-General, Cameron Dick, for listening to my 

calls and Coroner Michael Barnes. He was the right man at the right time for the job. There are so 

many people who have kept the faith over the years, but I want to pay tribute to author Robert Reid 

and lawyer Phillip Bovey in particular. 

There was a stage where the person in my view who most needed to be present to hear the 

findings may not have been there. Vicki’s mother, Vida Arnold, now in her late 80s, resides in a 

nursing home on the Atherton Tablelands and requires special transport assistance to come to 

Cairns. I want to thank Theo Backalakis and St John’s Community Care who answered my call and 

made it possible for Vida to be present when the findings were handed down.

7 Mar 2013 Adjournment 619 

I have said before that the passage of time does not lessen the power of the truth, and the truth 

in this case, acknowledged in court last week, is that Vicki Arnold did not kill her best friend and then 

take her own life. I have nothing but the deepest admiration for the families of Vicki and Julie-Anne for 

their unswerving conviction to the innocence of Vicki and a commitment to seeing a deplorable wrong 

being put right. Nobody will know whether the outcome would have been different if the police 

investigation had been handled better, but I think it may have saved almost 22 years of heartache for 

many people. After two decades the obvious has been recognised. It now rests with the courts to do 

their job and bring some genuine closure. It just goes to show you that you should never give up. 


Mrs FRECKLINGTON (Nanango—LNP) (3.04 am): Today, 8 March 2013, we celebrate 

International Women’s Day. To you, Madam Speaker, an inspirational woman and first female 

Speaker of this House, congratulations. What an inspirational woman you are for all of us in this 

House. 


Mrs FRECKLINGTON: Madam Speaker will be able to go straight to her breakfast. We look 

forward to the inspirational speech that Madam Speaker will deliver at the International Women’s Day 

breakfast this morning in parliament in a few hours time. 

I would like to take the opportunity to recognise a few of these inspirational women from my 

electorate in Nanango. First of all, there is a lady called Vivienne McCollum from Hampton. Viv is a 

wonderful mum of two and Hampton is a great part of the Nanango electorate. Viv is special because 

she is very actively involved in several industry and community activities which have brought about a 

positive change in her area of Hampton. She has an agricultural consulting business and is Project 

Manager of the Young Dairy Network. She owns and operates an agricultural consulting business that 

deals in natural resource management and project management. Importantly, she is very actively 

involved in the Geham State School P&C Association and is working hard to achieve improvements 

at the school. She even had the pleasure of a visit from the honourable Minister Langbroek. 

It is important that I mention her involvement in the Hampton Food and Arts Festival, which 

I am looking forward to attending. This festival is important given that the South Burnett Wine and 

Food in the Park Festival—the great Kingaroy food and wine festival—which was meant to be held 

tomorrow has had to be cancelled due to the wet weather. I encourage everyone to go to the 

picturesque village of Hampton, which is located in the Nanango electorate, to celebrate the very best 

in seasonal produce, regional art and the good life in the high country. I thank Vivienne for everything 

she does in relation to the Hampton Food and Arts festival. 

I should also note that Viv is very active on the Crows Nest Arts Council and is involved in 

many of the local productions. She is also a member of the Crows Nest Child Care Centre 

Management Committee, which has planned major projects in relation to rural studies for young 

children. Madam Speaker, I wish you a very happy International Women’s Day. 

Burnett Electorate, Casual Labour 

Mr BENNETT (Burnett—LNP) (3.07 am): For the benefit of the House, I would like to table a 

report of a meeting conducted last year to highlight a serious issue in my electorate of transient and 

casual labour hire. 

Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Horticultural Industry Concerns and Abuses’, dated 28 November 2012 [2218]. 

The Burnett and Childers region is one of the productive horticultural areas in Australia. So it is 

no surprise that a large number of backpackers form an important part of the industry’s capacity to 

carry out field work while visiting our part of the Coral Coast. It has been raised previously in my 

electorate that legitimate businesses and workers are experiencing financial and competition 

pressures because of some illegal and disreputable labour hire and harvesting contractors. It must be 

emphasised that there are many credible and compliant contractors operating services with 

international visitors. However, it appears that the federal government and their departments have 

failed in their duties in not removing permanently these dodgy operators from the industry. We are 

witnessing failures in relation to profitability and fair work practice by these small business operators. 

The federal member for Hinkler and I have been meeting with industry and we were led to 

believe that the Australian Taxation Office is aware of the cash and paperless operations within the 

horticultural industry. Yet it appears that no significant action has been taken to deal with or change 

the behaviour of these dubious operators who abuse their employees in terms of fair wages and


superannuation entitlements. The amount of money would be significant and the practice is affecting 

those growers and contractors who do the right thing. Of greater concern is the exploitation and 

exposure of employees to breaches in workplace health and safety and working conditions. Workers 

in some circumstances are not being correctly supervised. We regularly hear of abuse such as lack of 

water, toilets and rest areas. 

Of three significant employers in my electorate who have entered into administration over the 

last two years, all have suffered media attention because of unpaid wages and entitlements but the 

reality is that in most cases unpaid wages were in fact the responsibility of labour hire contractors. 

Every bad experience—every international worker and backpacker who is treated badly—has a 

terrible flow-on effect on our region’s reputation and serious effects on areas like tourism. 

Investigations in the past have failed to prevent unscrupulous operators from continually 

abusing the system, which has resulted in ineffective prosecutions. I go on record to say that this 

inaction is creating an environment for illegal immigration and exploitation of foreign workers who hide 

their identities behind the practice of paperless operations. I support the federal member for Hinkler’s 

call for a doubling of commitment by government agencies. There is enough evidence to warrant a 

well-coordinated, cross-departmental task force and flying squads that should include the ATO, 

ATSIC, Immigration and Fair Work with police backup to crack down on these crooks. Enough is 

enough and our society should demand that these practices stop. Happy International Women’s Day 

to everyone. 

Natural Disaster Events of 2013; International Women’s Day 

Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—Ind) (3.10 am): Recent floods and storms caused major damage in my 

electorate of Gaven, and one has to ask the question: how much suffering does one have to endure 

before being eligible for personal hardship grants provided by the state government? Whilst the 

suffering is nowhere near the enormity of what has happened in Bundaberg, Laidley and Gayndah, 

people have nevertheless suffered hardship throughout the state. 

Residents in my electorate living in Guanaba recently lost two freezers full of food—that is all 

they had—as they were without power for nearly four days. They were isolated as their roads were 

blocked. They were without their landline and they had no other connection to anybody else. Power 

went out at 6 pm on 27 January until 30 January. Members can see they were severely 

disadvantaged. However, one of the residents told me they were told they were ineligible for 

assistance because they were not, in the words of the officer, ‘starving’. They approached me as their 

local member. 

I contacted the Minister for Communities to see whether I could get them some assistance. 

However, once again the department contacted them and said they were ineligible because they were 

not suffering. My constituents say they have been discriminated against. According to the minister’s 

media release of 29 January headed ‘Assistance for flooded Gold Coast and Logan area residents’ 

personal hardship grants were being offered for the replacement or repair of contents damaged by 

the storm. In their case they lost food from their freezers and fridge due to the extended power outage 

and they kept a list. Unfortunately, whilst they did suffer severe hardship they were told they were not 

entitled to anything because they did not suffer damage to essential household contents or have 

contents lost or destroyed. 

Whilst on the subject of floods it is often said that disasters bring out the best in people. My 

staff are constantly amazed by the community’s generosity to the flood appeal. It ran in conjunction 

with the Undies for Bundy appeal. We sent two further loads off recently and we have a small load to 

go. 

On International Women’s Day I would like to thank Vicki Va’a, the coordinator of the Nerang 

Neighbourhood Centre, for the work that she does. She has been nominated as the Gaven 

electorate’s inspirational woman for the International Women’s Day awards which Madam Speaker is 

hosting this morning. Vicki not only raised the profile of the Nerang Neighbourhood Centre when she 

became its coordinator through her invaluable networking and strong peer group communication skills 

but is also a strong advocate for New Zealand Pacific Islanders living in South-East Queensland— 

largely non-permanent residents. We are indebted to Vicki for her skills. She is a wonderful networker 

and a great advocate of social justice information. I thank her for raising another $22,000 for the 

Nerang Neighbourhood Centre.


Great Keppel Island, Resort 

Mr YOUNG (Keppel—LNP) (3.13 am): One of my first speeches in parliament was on Great 

Keppel Island, a once-booming tourist destination off the coast of Yeppoon in my electorate. Since 

the resort closed seven years ago, developers Tower Holdings have made three separate 

submissions for the redevelopment of the resort. After the first two proposals were denied by the 

federal government for environmental reasons, there has been much anticipation within the 

community as to whether the final proposal would be approved. 

It gives me great pleasure to stand in the House this morning and announce that the Newman 

government approved this project on Friday of last week and gained approval from the federal 

government environment minister, Tony Burke, on Tuesday of this week. The $600 million Great 

Keppel Island resort project includes a new beachfront hotel, several styles of low-rise resort 

accommodation, a marina, a retail village, a day spa, a golf course, an upgraded airstrip, a research 

centre and a 575-hectare environmental protection area. 

This resort project will be one of the largest tourist developments in the country and will be a 

major tourist attraction for not only Queensland but also Australia. The flow-on effect for businesses in 

my electorate will be significant. Previously a lot of Australians have been going overseas for 

holidays, and this is going to give Australians a genuine alternative. The new and modern 

development will provide a range of activities including designated bushwalking tracks, fishing trips, 

leisure cruises, cafes and restaurants, bars, a golf course, a day spa facility or just the ability to 

lounge around on a beautiful beach next to Australia’s most important national attraction, the Great 

Barrier Reef. 

The resort proposal includes a marina which will provide safe, equitable and all-weather access 

to the island, allowing greater enjoyment of the resort and the resort facilities. The proposed resort will 

also provide a huge boost to the construction industry. The project itself will create 1,400 jobs for the 

region, and Tower Holdings has said they will use local suppliers wherever possible and viable. 

The proposal development would be the most sustainably advanced resort in the Great Barrier 

Reef and Australia’s first truly carbon positive and Green Globe certified resort. It will be committed to 

achieving a net carbon positive energy status, and the 24,000 solar panels on the resort infrastructure 

are expected to generate enough energy to offset and surpass the resort’s emissions. 

The Newman government has been working tirelessly to ensure this critical priority project has 

responded to the environmental considerations. I would like to thank the Coordinator-General and his 

staff for their dedicated hard work in bringing this proposal to conclusion in just 10 months, after years 

of languishing under the previous state government. 

Clean Up Australia Day 

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

(3.16 am): I want to congratulate the organisers of Clean Up Australia Day and thank the many 

volunteers across Queensland who helped improve their local environments by removing rubbish on 

Sunday, 3 March this year. There are a couple of events in my electorate that I want to pay particular 

attention to this morning. Firstly, thankyou to the year 7 students at Wamuran State School who a 

little later than this on Friday morning of last week got stuck into cleaning up both sides of the 

D’Aguilar Highway at Wamuran. Unfortunately, most of the rubbish we found was cigarette butts. We 

have managed to stamp out a few things but seeing those cigarette butts left on the ground is quite 

appalling. 

It was also my pleasure to join a band of soggy but dedicated volunteers and lend a hand to 

clean up Beerburrum Forest on Sunday. I joined approximately 50 volunteers who filled the equivalent 

of 26 one-tonne utes with waste from just 1.2 kilometres of forest tracks. We collected televisions, 

lounges, a sink, a bird cage, washing machines, fridges and roughly 150 tyres and even a bag of 

used nappies. As I helped a couple of four-wheel drive enthusiasts push a fridge out of the forest, I 

thought to myself, ‘Wouldn’t it be great if we could do away with the need for Clean Up Australia Day 

altogether?’ I wish we did not have to do it. I wish people had the mindset that they should not litter 

and they need to do the right thing. 

We in the Newman government are certainly doing our bit to ensure that littering is not the easy 

option. We are making it harder for those who are dumping in places like Beerburrum state forest. We 

did get rid of the waste tax. We are working on a new waste strategy and we are working in 

partnership with organisations like Keep Australia Beautiful Queensland and the Australian Packaging 

Council.


We had a couple of other things going on on Clean Up Australia Day, and I want to 

acknowledge that through funding allocated in Everyone’s Environment grants we had a fantastic 

effort from Reef Check Australia. They received $40,000 which they put to good use on the weekend 

by holding a Moreton Bay Clean Up Australia Day event on North Stradbroke Island. They had a 

range of partners including the Quandamooka people, Wild Mob and Stradbroke Wildlife Rescue. 

Unfortunately, they too were very successful. They picked up 124 kilograms of litter which included 

things like 767 cigarette butts, 659 pieces of plastic consumer items, 226 metal bottle caps and an 

estimated 1,000 metres of fishing line. 

Litter impacts our public spaces. It affects our recreational spaces and our tourism industry, 

and it impacts on property values. We must do better, but in the meantime I thank all of those tireless 

volunteers and the many members in this chamber who did their bit last Sunday. 

North Queensland, Rail Contractors 

Mr KATTER (Mount Isa—KAP) (3.19 am): I rise to call on the government to use its authority to 

reverse a worrying trend with North Queensland rail contractors which is threatening to erode jobs 

and communities in rural and remote areas. I refer to the practices of new private contractors now 

competing with QR National entities on the great northern rail line. The most significant of these is the 

use of driver sleeper wagons. Consideration of this issue will make the government take a conscious 

position on whether or not they want some rural towns to exist in the north-west. Rail jobs in towns 

such as Hughenden and Cloncurry are the foundations of their economy. When the cattle industry 

wanes, the rail workers are still buying groceries and goods in the town. When the mining industry 

declines, the rail families again remain. Any major threats to these jobs can have diabolical effects on 

the towns. 

I also raise a raft of safety concerns that has arisen as a consequence and that is causing 

grave concerns amongst our long-distance train drivers. This dire situation has come about following 

the previous awarding of an Xstrata magnetite delivery contract from Townsville to Cloncurry—a 

contract previously held by Queensland Rail which was undercut by the winning company. The 

reason QR National, now trading under the Australian Railroad Group, was undercut was that this 

government allowed Pacific National to operate unsafe processes, albeit while flying just under the 

level of legal safety requirements. 

The Townsville to Cloncurry run has always utilised locally based Cloncurry drivers to toggle 

with the Townsville based drivers for the long, 48-hour turnaround. This meant there were more 

people, more houses, more families and more money in Cloncurry. Pacific National has dispensed 

with that and uses driver sleeper wagons, which means that drivers from Townsville never leave the 

train. After they leave Townsville for Cloncurry, they then return to Townsville again. This practice has 

also extended to service workshops, storage and other areas. In one instance a private contractor 

asked for assistance from one of the local councils with maintenance as they have never been willing 

to invest in any support infrastructure outside of Townsville. There are just four drivers doing a 10- 

hour on-off roster, sleeping while the train is going, never leaving the train and never spending a cent 

in any of the communities along the length of the line—and certainly not in Cloncurry. 

I am reliably informed that another major contract for system products for mining giant Xstrata 

is up for tender very soon. I am gravely concerned that the winning transporter—be it Pacific National 

or not—will adopt the same unsafe driving practices which are damaging to our communities. The 

Transport Workers Union in Townsville, on behalf of the train drivers, has previously put forward a 

case to the state government against this practice. That advice was ignored by the previous 

Queensland government. I strongly urge this state government to liaise with the TWU, the drivers and 

the mayors of affected communities en route to amend unsafe driving practices by putting in a caveat 

that encourages Xstrata and the winning tenders to base train drivers locally. I ask that the Minister 

for Transport work with me and these mayors in fighting for the safety of our train drivers and for the 

future of our communities. 

I would also like to take this opportunity to identify the issue of the proposed discontinuation of 

The Inlander service by this government—an initiative tried and backed away from by Labor. 

Australian Sprintcar Championship 

Mr STEWART (Sunnybank—LNP) (3.22 am): Today I would like to inform the House of the 

outcome of a great event that was held in my electorate earlier in the year. This event was the 

Supercheap Auto Australian Sprintcar Championship held at Supercheap Auto Archerfield Speedway


in mid-January. One by one the rigs rolled through the gate, with the dreams of a team national title 

and a year’s bragging rights hanging on one man’s decision to push through the corner or to hug the 

cushions for three days of fierce competition. As the dust settled in the car park, the crews fired up 

the engines and the smell of methanol wafted across the arena. 

The first day of qualifying saw Queensland’s own Todd Wanless—Queensland’s only national 

champion—produce the fastest lap and lead the 50-strong field into day 1 of competition only to be 

clipped and be unable to finish the race. Kerry Madsen cruised to victory with a comfortable margin in 

the 25-lap event. 

The second day saw defending champion Brooke Tatnell with incidents in two of his qualifying 

heat races all but put an end to his chances of back-to-back victories. World Series Sprintcars 

champion James McFadden staked his claim for the crown with an impressive drive to win the second 

round and a top spot in overall qualifying points heading into the final. The final night yet again saw 

families from all over Australia coming to cheer on their team, and by far the hot favourite for the 

championship was McFadden. However, the night did not go to plan for local Todd Wanless, as in the 

final round of elimination heats his engine blew. He was, however, able to roll across the line to 

secure a start in the final. This, however, had one catch associated with it: the Wanless team had 15 

minutes to change the engine. What I saw then were different pit crews coming together to assist 

Todd’s team to ensure he made it to the starting grid. With a deep crowd of onlookers and spanners 

flying everywhere, they managed to get the job done and secure a full field for the final. 

The race was tight, with David Murcott leading for much of the 40-lap final. However, in lapped 

traffic and six laps remaining James McFadden took the lead. McFadden crossed the line and took 

the honour of the 51st national champion and the second Queenslander to hold the title. Third across 

the line was Steven Lines followed by previous Australian championship winner Kerry Madsen. The 

event showcased some of the best feature races ever seen at the venue, with drivers from around 

Australia and the United States in front of near-record crowds. 

I would like to congratulate James on his win, but it is also important to extend congratulations 

to each and every driver, their teams and sponsors who competed. Thanks for the show that you put 

on for the fans and for boosting our local economy. Thanks also to Kathy and John Kelly, all the 

officials, the staff and the volunteers who came together to make the championship a success. 

As today is International Women’s Day, I would like to acknowledge all women—from full-time 

mothers to Speakers of state parliaments and especially my wife. 

Newman Government 

Mr JUDGE (Yeerongpilly—Ind) (3.25 am): Like the Attorney-General, the Premier often speaks 

about the importance of restoring accountability in government which he claims has caused 

Queenslanders to lose faith in their leaders. I assert that to date nothing has changed under his 

leadership. To substantiate this assertion, I remind the Premier of an article in the Brisbane Times of 

4 April 2011 in which he is reported as saying words to the effect of ‘the Public Service has nothing to 

fear from a Liberal National Party government’. Accordingly, it now seems hypocritical for the Premier 

to criticise the opposition about state asset sales without a mandate and, similarly, to criticise the 

Gillard government about introducing a carbon tax without a mandate. 

The truth is that the Premier has likewise acted without a mandate by recklessly and ruthlessly 

eliminating thousands of Public Service positions after having made a pre-election promise that the 

Public Service has nothing to fear. Significantly, on 7 December 2012 after the Premier returned from 

a trade mission to India, ABC News reported him as saying that the member for Condamine, the 

member for Gaven and I, as the member for Yeerongpilly, chose to leave the LNP because we did 

not want to keep our commitment to the people of our electorates. I assert that nothing could be 

further from the truth. It is quite the opposite, in fact. Our electorates can have faith that we will 

represent them with honesty and integrity. 

Personally, I resigned from the LNP for a range of reasons including local people losing their 

jobs, which hurts families, as a result of Public Service cuts despite election promises; a lack of 

evidence based legislation; and cuts to important services. Furthermore, my continued involvement 

with the Newman government became untenable after an absurd demand to pledge 100 per cent 

loyalty to Campbell Newman and his government. I refused this ultimatum because I was elected to 

broadly serve and act in the best interests of constituents from the Yeerongpilly electorate. I want to 

reassure them that that is exactly what I will continue to do in this parliament.

624 Attendance 7 Mar 2013 

Regarding the Premier’s criticisms of the member for Condamine, the member for Gaven and 

me, as the member for Yeerongpilly, for allegedly not wanting to keep our commitment to the people 

of our electorates, it is far from the truth. It is irrefutable that the Premier himself has failed to keep his 

election promises especially to the Public Service. On this count the Premier has further eroded 

accountability in government which he claimed to be so sadly lacking and causing Queenslanders to 

lose faith in their leaders. 

As the representative for Yeerongpilly in this parliament, I accept my responsibility in restoring 

accountability and I assure each and every one of my constituents that they have my 100 per cent 

pledge to work with energy, take a no-nonsense approach to politics and always stand up for locals 

first and foremost. 

HeartKids Queensland 

Mr SYMES (Lytton—LNP) (3.28 am): Tonight I want to talk about the good work that HeartKids 

Queensland does in the community, as it is something which is very close to my heart—no pun 

intended. February was the organisation’s heart awareness month. HeartKids is a not-for-profit 

organisation dedicated to providing support, encouragement and hope for families of children with 

heart disease while raising awareness and vital funding into the causes of this chronic disease. 

While the future of many families of these children is clouded with uncertainty, HeartKids’ goal 

is to secure the future of these very special kids. In partnership with this organisation there was a 

planned barbecue on the Wynnum foreshore with me as guest speaker and country music band 

O’Shea to perform songs from their recent album. 


Mr SYMES: I have not heard them, but I believe they are very good. However, unfortunately 

due to the recent storm event the barbecue was cancelled. I look forward to conducting this event 

next February to raise funds for this worthwhile awareness group. I also want to put on the record my 

appreciation for Donut King, the Coffee Club, the Brisbane Broncos and other businesses which 

undertook Heartkids’ events— 


Mr SYMES: They did. I must admit, they are a very good business. Some of these businesses 

raised money last month for HeartKids and some promoted the organisation through social media or 

television advertisements. One in 100 kids in Australia will be born with CHD, cognitive heart disease, 

with up to four kids each week passing away. As a government member, I will be doing everything in 

my power to promote this worthwhile cause. I urge my parliamentary colleagues to promote 

HeartKids’ work in their respective electorates. 

Madam SPEAKER: Happy International Women’s Day, members. Thank you for your 

comments. 

Question put—That the House do now adjourn. 


The House adjourned at 3.31 am (Friday). 

ATTENDANCE 

Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Byrne, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, 

Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Cunningham, Davies, C. Davis, T. Davis, Dempsey, Dillaway, Douglas, 

Dowling, Driscoll, 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

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS - Queensland Parliament ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?