QUEENSLAND RECONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY BILL

Second Reading

Resumed from 16 February (see p. 193), on motion of Ms Bligh—

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr DOWLING (Redlands—LNP) (11.37 am): Today I rise to speak to the Queensland Reconstruction Authority bill 2011. This bill seeks to amend six acts: the Building Act 1975, the Disaster Management Act 2003, the Integrity Act 2009, the Land Valuation Act 2010, the Public Service Act 2008 and the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971. I am not entirely clear why the amendment to the Building Act 1975 has been proposed. Could it be because of the impossible deadlines that were set only some six months ago in relation to the pool fencing legislation—something that was echoed here in this House? I am also not sure—and when you read it, it is ambiguous to a point—whether this amendment applies immediately right across the state. Obviously, these questions will come out in the course of the consideration in detail. Why would the amendment relate to communities that have not been affected—areas like mine, for instance? Redland City was unaffected by flood. This pool safety initiative was heralded by the government as a must-do thing to preserve life at all costs. The Redland community has not been affected in any way, shape or form by the floods other than through their generosity. Why would that community be in this deferred plan for pool compliance. It also begs the question about communities like the Gold Coast, which was not affected, and the Sunshine Coast, which was largely not affected. It throws up some questions and I suggest to the House that it could relate to the impossible deadlines that were set back then and the lack of a capacity for communities to comply.

The second amendments I have questions about—and, again, it is probably more about the process—are the amendments to the Land Valuation Act from a UCV to a site based valuation. Again, I believe there were some impossible deadlines and that that is primarily why these amendments have been included with this bill. I would also question again why it involves communities like Redlands, the Gold Coast and a number of other communities around Queensland which were not affected, which had no flood issues and which had no properties involved. Why has it been moved out unnecessarily for these councils? These councils rely upon these valuations to determine their rate base, their strategy and their budget. It raises questions about the broad, sweeping nature of some of the conditions within this legislation as well as some of the more specific ones.

 The LNP will be supporting this bill because the bill is an essential step towards restoring Queensland’s flood affected communities—or at least that is the intent. While it is not a perfect bill and it is not a response without risk, it is a response. More importantly, we have a responsibility to our communities. They need the reassurance of this parliament that the recovery effort is underway and is being done in a cohesive and bipartisan way. As outlined by the Leader of the Opposition during his condolence motion, we have a higher responsibility now, in the period post the floods and during the recovery, to ensure that no-one is left behind. I recognise that the Premier spoke about this in her second reading speech, when she said that our message to Queensland is that no part of Queensland will be forgotten. That is important as we go forward, so I recognise that.

 Communities that have been through this trauma need to know that we will rebuild and we will protect them. They need to believe that lessons are being learned from the floods and the cyclones, and they need that bipartisan commitment that we will assist them. In the last couple of days we have spoken in this House about the grief that has struck at the heart of our communities and our state. We have heard harrowing recollections and we have saluted the courage and bravery of everyday Queenslanders who have made us proud. We now need to show action. We need to make a start on building a better Queensland—a stronger Queensland and stronger communities—from the debris and the wreckage. This bill is an effort in that direction. It is one step and it must be accompanied by the commitment of this government to listen to criticism, to improve on its performance, to measure its achievements and to learn from its failings.

The commission of inquiry is underway and its first report is due in August. Under this legislation, the authority has no role in the hindsight issues of floods and cyclones. Its job is to rebuild; it is not to provide blame nor exoneration. That is rightfully the role of the commission. It was, however, of concern to me when reading the explanatory notes to this bill that one of the authority’s functions will be the ‘possible implementation’ of the commission’s recommendations. If we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. Answers are needed and answers will come. When they do, our communities deserve to hear them and they deserve a response to them. The implementation of the recommendations of the commission will be core to that response.

 A recovery effort does not need escape clauses. It needs the government to front up to its responsibilities. There is no point in having a commission if the government intends to ignore its findings. I am pre-empting the findings, but I believe that an issue that will be spoken about is advance warnings. When I travelled through some of the west country, through Cecil Plains and that area, I heard from farmers, locals and business operators that the river warning systems along those rivers are inadequate in some areas and non-existent in others. That advance warning system is critical if we are to do anything towards preserving life and making communities immune to flood. Those types of issues need to be addressed in the creeks, waterways and rivers right across Queensland.

 There will be questions about the management of Wivenhoe, both generally and on the day. I suspect there will even be questions about how the Wivenhoe management strategy has been able to change post the flood as compared to pre the flood. There will be questions about insurance—how this government manages its own insurance issues and how insurance companies behave and perform within our community. There will be questions about flood immunity.

 The flood mitigation measures will have to be implemented quickly, in time for next summer. The first findings of the commission will be released in August, in a preliminary report. That leaves very little time for the authority to act to implement any strategies. I also note that the authority has been given the responsibility for facilitating flood mitigation. While it is necessary, it is of concern that these responsibilities have been so freely and happily handed over to the authority.

While this is a time for compassion, support, recovery and rebuilding, it is not a time for the government to escape responsibility for its neglect. Floods are not a new occurrence in this state of Queensland. The devastation wrought in the last few months is not an opportunity for a handover of forgotten responsibilities. Previous disasters have brought torrents of promise and commitments.

 Unfortunately, we have seen many of those discarded with the debris, forgotten soon after the houses were rebuilt and the communities were re-established.

The aftermath of Cyclone Larry is a case in point. So much that should have been learned from Larry has again been shown up in Cyclone Yasi to the detriment of Queensland communities. The greatest result this bill can deliver is effective assistance and rebuilding. The worst is a jungle of bureaucracy, buck-passing and conflict between levels of government and departments. My fear is that the layers of bureaucracy already evident in this legislation will slow down the process, will divert resources from those in need and will make the rebuilding a saga to be endured rather than a process to be enjoyed. This is part of the reason that a separate ministry for recovery and reconstruction is required. The priority for the state is the reconstruction, and that needs the dedication of a minister who can concentrate solely on the important task—someone who can be devoted to ensuring communities and individuals get back on their feet.

The priority for this state will be to act as quickly as possible and to keep the bureaucratic impositions and processes to a minimum. The factor in this is cooperation between the levels of government, yet the authority has overriding powers in the legislation. While the need is evident, my hope is that those powers will be used cooperatively and not confrontationally.

 Our councils have been battered; they have been as battered as the communities they represent. They deserve the support of the government and not the Big Brother approach of dictating directives. The government has a record of telling communities what is best for them instead of listening to the voices of the communities. This is a good opportunity for the government to change its approach and start listening to what our communities need. Never has it been more evident than in the accolades given to local authorities the length and breadth of Queensland because of the way their mayors and councillors stepped up to the plate and worked in partnership with the emergency services and police and delivered on the ground. I think they have demonstrated that they have the capacity and the ability and that they are willing, so they should be very involved in that process. Instead of sidelining communities and decisions which affect them, it is time the government realised and learned from the experience and common sense that those people possess. Their input is to be valued.

 The legislation before us gives the minister a number of powers of oversight and intervention. There is a great onus on the responsible minister to utilise those powers wisely without being political. The communities that will emerge from the rebuilding need to be a sign of the respect and consideration that is owed to their residents. The rebuilding is not a memorialisation of government or the Premier; it is a chance to give our communities the best possible future and to provide them with a safer place to live, better infrastructure and economic re-establishment. The economy in smaller communities particularly is essential. If we do not get those businesses functioning, if we do not get those men on the land spending and investing in their communities, those communities will cease to exist. There are towns that are reeling and will continue to reel from the disaster. These areas urgently need infrastructure and services to ensure their continued viability. They need to have attention paid to the social impact on an equal par with the economic impact. Without restoration of the heart of these communities the economic lifeblood will also drain away. The response to these disasters needs to be quick and effective. It cannot be a hastily put together job that fails to fulfill its brief. It cannot be a drawn-out process that would allow the damage to accrue and fester.

Under this legislation the powers of the authority will be quite wide ranging. There are a number of interventions that can be undertaken. Land can be declared as acquisition land. This rightfully allows the owners to remain on the land until a later time but the owner cannot dispose of the land to any other entity. While the value of the land will be compensated to the owner there have to be questions raised over the effect that such a declaration will have on the value of the land such as the time at which it is done and who the entity will pass on to. There are questions about what will occur when the authority disbands. Will the particular department or local authority still pay for that property?

 Several of the clauses are breaches of fundamental legislative principles justified by the fact that they are required to effectively and safely rebuild communities. However, provisions such as entry to land are necessary to ensure full and proper knowledge of the facts. Others such as the power to require information from any person, a penalty-accompanied measure, have an obvious basis but also raise concerns over the limitations of its use.

Putting into effect the strategic priorities of the board is essential if these priorities best serve the communities. If political interference weighs heavily in the process it will be to the detriment of all. While those who are affected by the disaster need our support and attention we must be vigilant that in assisting those people other people are not disadvantaged. The paramount considerations in the rebuilding should be cooperation, teamwork and compassion. That is a solid foundation for the future.

 As long as those principles are kept at the forefront of operations the bill will serve our community well. If they are forgotten, lost in the process or overlooked for expediency’s sake then the community will lose all over again.

Instances of profound tragedy still haunt our state. The disaster experienced in Grantham, Toowoomba, Murphys Creek and Withcott, in isolation an event so filled with grief and hurt, is one particular tragic piece of the overall picture of loss and sorrow. Our thanks and gratitude go to those who have demonstrated the spirit of Queensland. Our sympathy and our thoughts go to those who have lost so much. Our hopes and optimism go towards the rebuilding that will occur throughout the community and our state. The experiences will ensure that we forget neither the people nor the lessons. We need to ensure that advance warnings are better and more accurate. We need to include rural communities and farmers as a priority. We need to ensure that employment and economy are at the forefront of any recovery. We need to ensure that waste is minimised. We need to ensure that red tape is cut. We need to rebuild the economy. We need to rebuild infrastructure. We need to rebuild community. Tragically Labor has a pedigree of waste, mismanagement and debt. We need to learn from the past or we are deemed to relive it at our peril.