PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Hansard Home Page: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/hansard/ E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (07) 3406 7314 Fax: (07) 3210 0182

Subject FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT Page Thursday, 12 October 2006

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT—REGISTER OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS ...... 137 Tabled paper: Eighteenth Report of the Register of Members’ Interests...... 137 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT—EXPENDITURE OF THE OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER ...... 137 Tabled paper: Paper titled ‘Statement for Public Disclosure—Expenditure of the Office of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly for the period 9 August 2005 to 30 June 2006’...... 137 Tabled paper: Paper titled ‘Statement for Public Disclosure—Expenditure of the Office of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly—Independent Audit Report’ 9 August 2005 to 30 June 2006...... 137 PETITIONS ...... 137 TABLED PAPERS ...... 137 TABLED PAPER ...... 138 Hendra Virus ...... 138 Tabled paper: Report of the independent review of an equine case of Hendra virus infection at Peachester dated 14 September 2006...... 138 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 138 Federalism ...... 138 Tabled paper: Copy of an article titled ‘Local Government in Germany shaped by regional differences’ downloaded 11 October 2006...... 138 Audit Office Annual Report ...... 140 Tabled paper: Annual Report of the Queensland Audit Office 2005-06...... 140 Legislative and Regulatory Reform Initiatives ...... 141 Tabled paper: Report by the Service Delivery and Performance Commission titled ‘Review of legislative and regulatory Reform Initiatives in the Queensland Government’ dated July 2006...... 141 Review of ICT Governance ...... 141 Tabled paper: Report on Review of ICT Governance in the Queensland Government...... 141 Commercialised Business Units Review ...... 142 Tabled paper: Paper by the Service Delivery and Performance Commission titled ‘Position Paper on Government Commercialised Business Units’ dated October 2006...... 142 Science and Innovation Reception ...... 142 Water Grid ...... 143 Cyclone Larry ...... 143 Brisbane Broncos ...... 144

L J OSMOND N J LAURIE CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT Table of Contents — Thursday, 12 October 2006

Patel, Dr J ...... 144 Patel, Dr J ...... 145 Queensland Economy ...... 146 Lungfish and Fishway Monitoring ...... 147 Tabled paper: Migratory Fish Communities at Claude Wharton Weir, Gayndah...... 148 Tabled paper: Upstream Passage of Queensland Lungfish at Ned Churchward Weir Fishlock...... 148 Tabled paper: Downstream Passage of Fish at Ned Churchward Weir...... 148 Tabled paper: Assessment of the Walla Weir Fishlock, Burnett River...... 148 Tabled paper: Storage Operational Management Plan for Walla Weir...... 148 Tabled paper: Lungfish Monitoring at Ned Churchward Weir 2002/03...... 148 Tabled paper: Ned Churchward Weir Fishlock Contingency Revised Plan...... 148 Tabled paper: Final Report: Operation of Ned Churchward Weir between 1998-2005...... 148 Tabled paper: Walla Weir—Hydrologic Assessment of Proposed Operational Strategies...... 148 A Current Affair ...... 148 Tabled paper: A letter dated 10 October 2006 from Dr James Morton...... 148 Indigenous Policing ...... 149 Tabled paper: A paper titled ‘Number of Queensland Police Service approved positions on all Aboriginal communities in Queensland’...... 149 Cyclone Larry, National Parks ...... 150 Johnstone Shire Council ...... 150 Transport Infrastructure ...... 151 CMC Investigation ...... 151 Tabled paper: A letter from Mr Stephen Lambrides, Assistant Commissioner—Misconduct of the Crime Commission dated 5 October 2006 relating to the CMC investigation—Ms Virginia Hancl’...... 151 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 152 Marine Parks (Great Sandy) Zoning Plan ...... 152 PRIVATE MEMBER’S STATEMENT ...... 152 Patel, Dr J ...... 152 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 152 Patel, Dr J ...... 152 Patel, Dr J ...... 153 Great Barrier Reef ...... 154 Patel, Dr J ...... 155 Cyclone Larry, Relief Appeal ...... 156 Patel, Dr J ...... 156 Water Infrastructure ...... 157 Patel, Dr J ...... 157 Oats Hill, Crown Land ...... 158 Home WaterWise Rebate Scheme ...... 159 Tabled paper: Copy of a correction notice dated 17 June and articles dated 14 and 15 June 2005 from the Courier Mail...... 159 Pandemic Influenza ...... 160 Patel, Dr J ...... 160 National Highway, AusRAP Report ...... 160 Tabled paper: A copy of a report by the Australian Automotive Association titled ‘Star Ratings—Australia’s National Network of Roads’ dated October 2006...... 160 Patel, Dr J ...... 161 Skills Shortage, Overseas Workers ...... 161 Patel, Dr J ...... 162 Summer Storm Preparedness ...... 162 Patel, Dr J ...... 163 Young Athletes Assistance Program ...... 163 ENERGY ASSETS (RESTRUCTURING AND DISPOSAL) BILL ...... 164 Remaining States; Allocation of Time Limit Order ...... 164 Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to...... 164 Resolved in the affirmative...... 164 YEPPOON HOSPITAL SITE ACQUISITION BILL ...... 164 Remaining Stages; Allocation of Time Limit Order ...... 164 Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to...... 166 Resolved in the affirmative...... 166 ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 166 ENERGY ASSETS (RESTRUCTURING AND DISPOSAL) BILL ...... 167 Second Reading ...... 167 Consideration in Detail ...... 178 Clauses 1 to 75, as read, agreed to...... 178 Schedule, as read, agreed to...... 178 Third Reading ...... 178 Long Title ...... 178 Table of Contents — Thursday, 12 October 2006

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 178 Suncorp ...... 178 ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 179 YEPPOON HOSPITAL SITE ACQUISITION BILL ...... 179 Second Reading ...... 179 Tabled paper: Copy of facsimile transmission sheet, dated 24 October 2006, from Bob Hodge, Acquisitions and Tenures Services, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water to Michael Leong, Deacons...... 180 Tabled paper: Copy of letter, dated 24 October 2006, from Bob Hodge to Deacons...... 180 Tabled paper: Copy of Statement of Reasons, dated 24 April 2006, by Peter John Gardiner, delegate of the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water, in relation to objection by Stanley William O’Brien to taking of land...... 180 Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time...... 193 Resolved in the affirmative...... 193 Consideration in Detail ...... 193 Clause 1, as read, agreed to...... 193 Clause 2, as read, agreed to...... 194 Division: Question put—That clauses 3 to 6, as read, stand part of the bill...... 194 Resolved in the affirmative...... 194 Clauses 3 to 6, as read, agreed to...... 194 Division: Question put—That the schedule, as read, stand part of the bill...... 194 Resolved in the affirmative...... 194 Schedule, as read, agreed to...... 194 Third Reading ...... 195 Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a third time...... 195 Resolved in the affirmative...... 195 Long Title ...... 195 CRIMINAL CODE (DRINK SPIKING) AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL ...... 195 First Reading ...... 195 Second Reading ...... 195 ADDRESS-IN-REPLY ...... 197 Tabled paper: Document headed ‘Kawana electorate promises’...... 197 SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT ...... 223 ADJOURNMENT ...... 224 Stock Dips ...... 224 Chronic Disease ...... 224 Heart Foundation Breakfast; Friends of Federation Walk ...... 225 Breast Cancer Awareness Month ...... 225 Townsville Hospital, Mental Health Unit ...... 226 Special Olympics Australia VIII National Games ...... 227 Mooloolah River, Dredging ...... 228 Indooroopilly Electorate, Bus Services ...... 228 Pinkenba Community Association ...... 229 National Police Remembrance Day ...... 229 ATTENDANCE ...... 230 12 Oct 2006 Legislative Assembly 137 THURSDAY, 12 OCTOBER 2006

Legislative Assembly Mr SPEAKER (Hon. MF Reynolds, Townsville) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 am.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT—REGISTER OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay upon the table of the House the Eighteenth Report of the Register of Members’ Interests. Tabled paper: Eighteenth Report of the Register of Members’ Interests.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT—EXPENDITURE OF THE OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay upon the table of the House the Statement for Public Disclosure of the Expenditure of the Office of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly for the period 9 August 2005 to 30 June 2006. Honourable members, I note that this is the first occasion that the full- year statement has been tabled under new guidelines and, for this reason, it differs from previous statements of disclosure for the office. Tabled paper: Paper titled ‘Statement for Public Disclosure—Expenditure of the Office of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly for the period 9 August 2005 to 30 June 2006’. Tabled paper: Paper titled ‘Statement for Public Disclosure—Expenditure of the Office of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly—Independent Audit Report’ 9 August 2005 to 30 June 2006.

PETITIONS

The following honourable members have lodged paper petitions for presentation— Peninsula Development Road, Bridge Ms Lee Long from 105 petitioners requesting the House to direct the urgent rebuilding of the wooden bridge on the Peninsula Development Road at Rifle Creek on the outskirts of Mt Molloy. Kulangoor, Ferntree Creek Road Mr Wellington from 1067 petitioners requesting the House to ensure that any application for a landfill site at Ferntree Creek Road, Kulangoor be thoroughly scrutinised and rejected so that the Government ensures the current permitted land uses on this site remain unchanged. Boggo Road Busway Ms Bligh from 883 petitioners requesting the House to move the proposed Boggo Road Busway station and associated portals, tunnels, roadways and entrances at least 300 metres from the Dutton Park State School. Southern Moreton Bay Islands, Police Resources Mr English from 70 petitioners requesting the House to investigate stationing Police on the southern Moreton Bay Islands.

TABLED PAPERS

MINISTERIAL PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial papers were tabled by the Clerk— Minister for State Development, Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Mickel)— • Response from the Minister for State Development, Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Mickel) to an e-petition sponsored by Mr Wilson from 66 petitioners regarding the creation of an Office of Employer Advocate (Queensland Building Construction Industry) Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development (Mrs Keech)— • Report to the Legislative Assembly by the Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development (Mrs Keech) pursuant to section 56A(4) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism (Ms Nelson-Carr)— • Report to the Legislative Assembly by the Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism (Ms Nelson-Carr) pursuant to section 56A(4) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 MINSTERIAL PAPERS The following ministerial papers were tabled— Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure (Ms Bligh)— • Queensland Treasury document titled Consolidated Fund Financial Report 2005-06 • Queensland Treasury Corporation document titled 2005-2006 Annual report Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport (Mr Fraser)— • Development Application by Emerald Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd 138 Ministerial Statements 12 Oct 2006

TABLED PAPER

Hendra Virus Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (9.35 am): I lay on the table of the House the Report of the independent review of an equine case of Hendra Virus infection at Peachester dated 14 September 2006. I move— That the House authorise the publication of the report. Motion agreed to. Tabled paper: Report of the independent review of an equine case of Hendra virus infection at Peachester dated 14 September 2006.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Federalism Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.35 am): This morning I want to address the outlook for the Australian Federation. Over the course of the last century we have seen the birth and maturing of the Australian Federation, but we have also seen a trend away from federalism in Australia. It is a trend away from a genuine sharing of power and responsibility. I want to highlight that this is contrary to the worldwide trend. Take the United Kingdom, for example. In recent years, devolution has been the political in word, resulting in the establishment of what are effective state governments in Wales and Scotland. Now England is demanding one as well. Even in the United States the trend is now away from concentrating power in Washington. Members might well ask: how is that consistent with COAG meetings—the Council of Australian Governments—because they are seen as being cooperative and constructive, and the states have made it that way? They generally are, but the real issue is what happens between the COAG meetings and outside the COAG framework. That is the heart of the problem. The issues for the Australian people are these: how do we plan our infrastructure to ensure that our investments are optimised in a national or international economy? This is particularly relevant when planning our electricity, gas, water, rail, road and port infrastructure. How do we ensure that national standards are met by our educational institutions to ensure continued economic growth and to provide our children with the skills to meet the challenges of the future without allowing bureaucrats in Canberra to impose a system that has little relevance to the needs of rural Australians? How do we structure, fund and resource our health system that should ideally offer a common standard of service to all Australians no matter where they live? This is one area where the Commonwealth has dramatically failed to ensure that young Australians are trained to serve the health needs of the community, that the needs of an increasing ageing population are met, and that the lifestyle decisions that threaten current and future generations are addressed. How do we best prepare ourselves to meet the threat posed by climate change while at the same time preserving our economic fundamentals? What is the relative role of the Commonwealth and the states in protecting the nation’s unique natural environment? How do we obtain a nationally consistent approach while at the same time recognising the need to accommodate local circumstances? What is the obligation of the Commonwealth to invest in innovation and research while at the same time recognising that a national strategy may fail to sponsor more localised initiatives and the development of a diversified nature of innovation and invention throughout the disparate regional Australian economies? There can be no doubt that Australians must, in all of these areas, think and act nationally while at the same time recognising the importance of local and regional diversities and differences. Striking this balance and defining it in a responsible way is the central challenge confronting the lawmakers and policymakers of all Australian jurisdictions. I hope that members of this House take this debate seriously, because I intend to pursue it in the national and state interests. I table a document which sets out the structure that applies in Germany that I referred to yesterday. Tabled paper: Copy of an article titled ‘Local Government in Germany shaped by regional differences’ downloaded 11 October 2006. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard more details to extend this debate. Leave granted. The first half of the 20th century was largely characterised by the States holding the balance of power over the Commonwealth. The turning point in the evolution of the Commonwealth powers came in response to the combined effect of the Great Depression and the Second World War. These two events provided the key impetus for the extension of Commonwealth powers with the emergence of the uniform taxation system; the development of a national approach to social security and the burgeoning significance of the role of Commonwealth policy in foreign affairs. Progressively throughout the ‘60s and ‘70s the Commonwealth continued to consolidate its influence with the 1967 referendum referring the race power to the Commonwealth. The Whitlam administration extended Commonwealth powers into a raft of new areas. 12 Oct 2006 Ministerial Statements 139

The establishment of the High Court as the highest appellate court also heralded in a new era of consolidation of Commonwealth powers with a predisposition to find in favour of the Commonwealth on constitutional issues over the States. The Hawke-Keating Governments opened up new frontiers for Commonwealth powers on a range of fronts with the ‘dams’ case confirming the authority of the Commonwealth in giving effect to Treaties under the foreign affairs power, the enactment of Corporations Law, the assumption of responsibility for native title legislation, the enactment of Commonwealth Environmental laws to override the States and through the implementation of National Competition policy. But no government in the history of the Federation has extended its reach into the domain of the states as significantly as the Howard/Costello Government. Julie Bishop’s foray into education policy is but the latest in a litany of such initiatives aimed at tipping the balance of responsibility for public policy in favour of the Commonwealth. The Costello tax reforms have seen the States progressively cede most of their revenue raising powers to the Commonwealth in return for access to the GST. The Commonwealth workplace choices law have effectively spelt the end of State involvement in industrial relations. Peter Costello has foreshadowed his plan to intervene in Infrastructure provision—to mention but a few. Concurrent with this approach has been the almost total failure of the Senate to discharge its Charter as the States House. The structure and composition of the Senate together with the influence of party politics in the election of Senators has meant that in the living memory of most Australians the Senate has operated without regard to the protection of state interests—its primary reason for being. It is therefore appropriate 100 years on to reflect on the future role of the Federation and the role that the states are to play in building the national society and economy of the 21st Century. While clearly it is critical that we continue to operate nationally, it is also imperative that we appreciate the importance of responding to the more localised needs of communities scattered across a vast continent confronting challenges that cannot always be met by a uniform approach. Sensible and practical policy formula to address the needs of the citizens of Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra may fail dismally to address the needs of people in Rockhampton, Bendigo, Alice Springs, Burnie or Burke. Yet this can easily be the result if the nation’s decision-makers are drawn dominantly from the urban concentrations of South East Australia. It must also be said that the Commonwealth has shown little enduring commitment to a sustained approach to addressing the needs of regional Australia. Its preferred approach is to use the power of the Commonwealth purse to support short-term policy experiments leaving either local communities or the States to pick up the responsibility in the long term. Today it is a Federal Liberal-National Government that is intent on the greatest shift in power away from the states and local government, to the federal government, in our history. Anything the Whitlam Government tried pales into insignificance by comparison. There is also a case for a stronger and better federal system—and not one which concentrates even more power in Canberra, or the Canberra/Sydney/Melbourne axis. I am certain that the people of Australia’s most decentralised State are as wary of the concentration of political power in the hands of the federal government—any federal government—today as they have ever been. The trend away from federalism in Australia, and a genuine sharing of power and responsibility, is contrary to the world wide trend today. Take the United Kingdom for example. In recent years, “devolution” has been the political “in word’—resulting in the establishment of what are effectively state governments in Wales and Scotland, and now England is demanding one as well. And even in the United States, the trend is now away from concentrating power in Washington. Now you might well ask how is it that COAG Meetings—the Council of Australian Government—are seen as being co-operative and constructive? They generally are, but it is what happens between COAG meetings, and outside the COAG framework, that is the problem. Hardly a week goes by now without a Federal Minister or Parliamentary Secretary proposing federal intervention in another area of state or local government responsibility. The pattern is predictable. A Minister raises an issue, attacks the states over their performance, talks about transferring responsibility to the federal government—but runs cold when challenged to provide adequate funding. Over the last 30 years the States have transferred to the Commonwealth legislative and administrative authority for a range of activities—such as corporations law, family law, laws necessary to combat terrorism, and overall responsibility for indigenous Australians. That has been done because the changing nature of the economy, or threats to our national security, has made the transfer of these powers sensible and in the national interest. But it is now more than ever a one way street. The role of the States, and the responsibility of the States, is under greater threat and challenge than ever—in school education, ports, water, rail transport, and, of course, industrial relations to name but a few. And there has been an even more sinister trend in federal-state relations under the Howard Government. And that is, as I mentioned earlier, the “tying” of payments to the States from the Commonwealth in areas—including education and health—to policies and programs determined by the Federal Government. That implies an acceptance that “Canberra knows best”. That Canberra “knows best” about the needs of the most decentralised state in Australia; that Canberra knows best about the needs of North Queensland, Western Queensland and Central Queensland. Key challenges that we must tackle as a Federation if we are to position our great nation to continue to compete in an increasingly globalised economic community include: • How do we plan our infrastructure to ensure that our investments are optimised in a national or international economy. This is particularly relevant in planning our electricity, gas, water, rail, road and port infrastructure. • How do we ensure that national standards are met by our educational institutions to ensure continued economic growth and provide our children with the skills to meet the challenges of the future without allowing bureaucrats in Canberra to impose a system that has little relevance to the needs of rural Australians. • How do we structure, fund and resource a health system that should ideally offer a common standard of service to all Australians no matter where they live. This is one area in which the Commonwealth has dramatically failed to ensure that young Australians are trained to serve the health needs of the community; that the needs of an increasingly ageing population are met or that the lifestyle decisions that threaten current and future generations are addressed. 140 Ministerial Statements 12 Oct 2006

• How do we best prepare ourselves to meet the threat posed by climate change while at the same time preserving our economic fundamentals. • What is the relative role of the Commonwealth and the States in protecting the nations unique natural environment and how do we obtain a nationally consistent approach while at the same time recognising the need to accommodate local circumstances. • What is the obligation of the Commonwealth to invest in innovation and research while at the same time recognising that a national strategy may fail to sponsor more localised initiatives and the development of a diversified nature of innovation and invention throughout the disparate regional Australian economies. There can be no doubt that Australians must in all these areas think and act both nationally while at the same time recognise the importance of local and regional diversities and differences. Striking this balance and defining it in a responsible way is the central challenge confronting law and policy makers in all Australian jurisdictions. One thing is clear, future generations are unlikely to be best served by submitting to a single national approach. Equally localised solutions outside a national framework are doomed to result in a suboptimal social and economic outcome. Co-operative engagement between the Commonwealth and State law makers both vertically and horizontally offers the greatest prospect of delivering a society of the future. Reinventing the Federation along these lines is the current challenge that State Premiers together with the Commonwealth must confront. While the Prime Minister has taken the lead in vertical engagement through COAG, the test confronting Premiers and Chief Ministers is to see whether we can develop a formula for effective horizontal engagement. This is the key test of the experiment undertaken by us in establishing the Council of the Australian Federation. Its success or failure will do much to define the kind of Australia that future generations will inherit. If we succeed, the Australia of the 22nd Century will undoubtedly have a strong national character while maintaining and strengthening the rich diversity of thriving regional economies and communities.

Audit Office Annual Report Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.40 am): I table for the House the annual report of the Queensland Audit Office for 2005-06. Tabled paper: Annual Report of the Queensland Audit Office 2005-06. This report highlights the significant progress being made by the Queensland Audit Office in implementing the 2004 Queensland Audit Office strategic review recommendations. Out of a total of 38 recommendations, 32 have now been actioned while the remaining six recommendations continue to be implemented. The Queensland Audit Office has performed well against its key performance indicators, with 100 per cent of performance management system audits completed and 100 per cent of audits completed in accordance with the QAO auditing standards. The Queensland Auditor-General tabled a total of five audit reports in parliament during the financial year. In accordance with the strategic review recommendations, he continues to meet regularly with the Public Accounts Committee to discuss the audit reports and the implementation of the performance management system audit mandate. The annual report recognises that a significant change in 2006-07 will be the proposed further expansion of the Audit Office’s performance management system audit mandate. Members may recall that, as part of the October 2005 Special Fiscal and Economic Statement, which I brought down, I announced that the government would extend the mandate of the Queensland Auditor-General to enable him to undertake an assessment of the relevance of the published measures used by government agencies. The extended mandate is considered an important amendment that has the potential to significantly enhance the value of performance management system audits. It will ensure that service delivery continues to meet community needs. The proposed extended mandate was introduced into the House yesterday as part of the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. I wish to take this opportunity to also advise the House of changes to the reporting of the remuneration of executives introduced by my government in this year’s annual reports, due for tabling by mid-November 2006. Members will recall that on 9 May 2006 I provided to the parliament the new remuneration structure for chief executive officers of Queensland government departments. In the interest of accountability, this year’s financial statements in annual reports include the disclosure of the remuneration benefits of senior executive service officers. The number of senior executive service officers who received remuneration benefits greater than $100,000 in the 2005-06 financial year is disclosed for each agency. This information is disclosed in $20,000 bands. The calculation of remuneration benefits in the financial statements differs to the usual published remuneration package. So this is new. The calculation includes the direct remuneration received, such as the payment of salary and superannuation, as well as items not directly received by senior executives, such as the movement in leave accruals and fringe benefits tax paid on motor vehicles. In other words, it is not a pay rise. We are including other matters in the salary. It will be a greater amount, but it will not be a pay rise because we are including additional items in the figure. Members should note that government departments are not required to disclose this information in order to comply with Australian Accounting Standards. As part of being an open and accountable government we have chosen to disclose this additional information, but I want it to be clearly understood in the context in which it is being provided—in other words, the information includes additional items. 12 Oct 2006 Ministerial Statements 141

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Initiatives Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 am): I am pleased to table the report of the Review of Legislative and Regulatory Reform Initiatives in the Queensland Government undertaken by the Service Delivery and Performance Commission. Tabled paper: Report by the Service Delivery and Performance Commission titled ‘Review of legislative and regulatory Reform Initiatives in the Queensland Government’ dated July 2006. This review was undertaken in response to concerns expressed by the business sector and some areas of the broader community that there is too much government regulation in Queensland. I am confident that this review, together with other initiatives being undertaken by the government, will address these concerns. Firstly, the government will be strengthening the governance arrangements for regulatory development and review. I will be establishing a Cabinet Regulatory Reform Committee, chaired by me or the Deputy Premier, dedicated to regulatory reform. I seek leave to incorporate more details in Hansard for the information of members. Leave granted. The Committee will oversee all major legislative reviews in Government and will drive the national and State regulatory reform agenda at a whole of Government level, including improving regulatory development processes and implementation. Key Acts, as well as regulations, will now be subject to the Regulatory Impact Statement process which will provide a higher level of public scrutiny for these Acts. The Government will also be reviewing the Regulatory Impact Statement process which will be conducted in conjunction with the development of a protocol on consultation on legislative development and review. The Government is looking to improve how departments provide information on regulatory matters to business and the community. This will reduce the costs to business in working out how to best comply with statutory requirements. The Government will be placing more emphasis on projecting the costs to business of regulation, and reporting on the regulatory burden across Government. The Service Delivery and Performance Commission will be undertaking a further review in 2007 to identify the potential cost savings from regulatory reform initiatives. The outcomes of the review will also support the Council of Australian Governments’ regulatory reform initiatives announced earlier this year. The review will also provide the overarching governance arrangements for the outcomes of the reviews recently undertaken by the Department of State Development, Trade and Employment. Review of ICT Governance Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.43 am): I am pleased to table the report on the Review of Information Communication Technology Governance in the Queensland Government. Tabled paper: Report on Review of ICT Governance in the Queensland Government. As you would be aware, Mr Speaker, I promised that we would table these reports. We are delivering on that commitment. The report, produced by the Service Delivery and Performance Commission, provides for a more strategic approach to the delivery of information and communications technology services in the Queensland government. Outcomes of this review include the establishment of a Queensland Government Chief Information Office to replace the existing Office of Government ICT. The new office will focus on information management, supporting agencies in developing and applying improved planning and project management practices, and managing relationships with key ICT suppliers to the Queensland government. CITEC, the government’s ICT business unit, will be re-oriented to become the provider of technology services to the Queensland government. CITEC will supplement its current operations with the establishment of a Queensland Government Chief Technology Office and an Innovation Centre. The Innovation Centre will work with industries to encourage the discovery and utilisation of innovative services and technologies that will support improved government service delivery. That is part of our Smart State Strategy. It is proposed that CITEC will actively manage the whole-of-government requirements for data centres, networks and infrastructure. Aggregation and consolidation of these services will provide service delivery improvements for the government by providing a common platform from which cross- agency initiatives can be delivered. It will also enhance risk management by ensuring minimum security and disaster recovery standards are met and, when fully implemented, it will offer savings to the government of more than $135 million per annum, a matter previously referred to by the Treasurer. A new service delivery vision will be developed to articulate the strategic direction for Queensland government services in response to demographic and other challenges confronting Queensland. Systematic, whole-of-government analysis of agency priorities, plans and applications will ensure that future ICT investments are made in the areas where there is highest potential to improve government 142 Ministerial Statements 12 Oct 2006 service delivery for communities throughout Queensland. The review report can be obtained by accessing the Queensland government web site. Implementation of the recommendations will commence immediately. In line with this, I also wish to acknowledge the importance of ICT by its formal recognition in a ministerial portfolio from today. Therefore, I wish to inform the House that, in accordance with the Constitution of Queensland 2001, I have asked that Her Excellency the Governor appoint Robert Evan Schwarten to be Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology of Queensland. It is intended that his appointment will occur later today and he will be sworn in in that portfolio. Commercialised Business Units Review Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.45 am): I wish to table a position paper on government commercialised business units. Tabled paper: Paper by the Service Delivery and Performance Commission titled ‘Position Paper on Government Commercialised Business Units’ dated October 2006. The position paper, produced by the government’s Service Delivery and Performance Commission, looks at how the Queensland government applies commercial practices for streamlining the operations of key internal support functions and improving service delivery. The position paper provides a framework for periodically assessing the roles of the Public Service and the private sector in ensuring that services are provided efficiently. I seek leave to incorporate full details in Hansard. Leave granted. In compiling this paper, our Government has worked in collaboration with industry in understanding how various partnering options with the private sector can benefit the delivery of government services and functions. Commercialisation practices were adopted by the Queensland public sector in the early 1990s. The objective was to bring about a change in culture and work ethos. In October 2005, my Government announced that it would review the operations of a number of Commercialised Business Units to ensure that they remain viable and that they offer an appropriate service delivery model for the Government. This Position Paper provides the basis for conducting individual assessments of Commercialised Business Units. These assessments will be against a set of key principles including appropriateness, sustainability, flexibility, accountability and risk. Management teams responsible for existing or proposed Commercialised Business Units will use the assessment guidelines in the Position Paper and the Service Delivery and Performance Commission will also use the guidelines to undertake their independent reviews of these areas in 2007. The Position Paper can be obtained by accessing the Service Delivery and Performance Commission’s website. Science and Innovation Reception Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.46 am): Queenslanders have every right to be proud of our state’s scientists and innovators. That is part of our Smart State ethos. Professor Ian Frazer’s groundbreaking cervical cancer vaccine, Professor Allan Paull’s scramjet engine, which has achieved speeds of over 8,000 kilometres an hour, and Professor Matthew Saunders’ Triple P—Positive Parenting Program are just a few of the Smart State’s most significant achievements. I am pleased to announce a special science and innovation reception will be held here at Parliament House on Tuesday, 31 October to recognise and celebrate these and other science successes. I seek leave to incorporate full details in Hansard. Leave granted. Leading Queensland scientists, researchers and innovators will be invited to the reception as part of this Science in Parliament initiative. Members will have the chance to talk with Queenslanders who are at the forefront of issues such as health and medicine, the environment, education, and tropical science. A group of Queensland’s top Year 12 science students will also be invited to the reception. Some of these young Queenslanders are expected to make major contributions to our Smart State in the future. Since 1998 our Government has been committed to Queensland’s development as a Smart State. We know that becoming a Smart State in a competitive and rapidly changing global environment requires leadership, determination, focus and constant vigilance to ensure we stay on the right track. That is why our Government is committed to on-going investment in our people, in our economic and social infrastructure and in ensuring that our industries are sustainable. This reception is an example of our Government working with the scientific community to help develop smarter education and training systems, competitive traditional industries and high-tech industries that offer thousands of new jobs. I urge all Members to make the most of this reception, and take the opportunity to speak with scientists, innovators, and students about their exciting work. 12 Oct 2006 Ministerial Statements 143

Water Grid Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.47 am): Work on producing pipes for the southern regional water pipeline has begun. The Minister for Infrastructure, Anna Bligh, and I witnessed the inaugural rollout of steel pipes from Tyco Water at Carole Park for the 100-kilometre route. More than 17,000 tonnes of steel pipes will be needed for the pipeline, which is part of the water grid that will connect water from water storage facilities and water treatment plants including a range of dams. In fact, the minister and I will be inspecting the first laying of those pipes today. I seek leave to incorporate full details in Hansard. Leave granted. More than 17,000 tonnes of steel pipes will be needed for the pipeline which is part of the water grid that will connect water from water storage facilities and treatment plants including: Wivenhoe Dam North Pine Dam Somerset Dam Hinze Dam Leslie Harrison Dam Ewan Maddock Dam The Gold Coast desalination plant Cedar Grove Weir

Tyco has boosted its staff by 90 workers to cope with the demand of manufacturing up to 100 pipes a day over the next five months for the two pipelines.

The first batch of pipes produced by Tyco is expected to be laid in Ipswich in October.

The SEQ water grid represents a massive investment in major water infrastructure including around 400km of new pipeline connections that will ensure a continued and reliable supply of liquid gold for the South East.

We are working to very tight timeframes to ensure the pipelines are operating by the end of 2008.

The pipes being produced by Tyco will also allow larger water users like power stations to avoid using precious drinking water from dams.

The Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme will have the capacity to supply up to 230 million litres of recycled water per day to industrial users including power stations by December 2008, with the first stage to be completed by July 2007.

This will replace approximately 90 million litres of drinking water currently used by power stations, with the remainder available to replace supplies used by other industrial and agricultural users.

Cyclone Larry Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.47 am): I am pleased to advise the House that a thank you barbecue for all those involved in the Cyclone Larry relief effort is being held on Sunday, 29 October 2006 at the Innisfail showgrounds. I mention that simply as an opportunity on behalf of all members to thank the volunteers for the brilliant work that they did in support of the Cyclone Larry relief effort. I know Warren Pitt, the local minister and local member, would appreciate that support as well. I seek leave to incorporate a tribute in Hansard. Leave granted. On 20 March 2006, Cyclone Larry caused widespread destruction of homes, schools, businesses and crops in Far North Queensland.

The immense task of rebuilding communities and rebuilding lives following the devastation of Cyclone Larry has transpired, in large part, due to the outstanding effort of thousands of volunteers and paid workers.

The Thank You BBQ provides the opportunity for my Government to formally thank all those involved.

I encourage all volunteers and paid workers who were involved in the heroic Cyclone Larry relief effort, together with their colleagues and families to attend this event and enjoy a free BBQ with entertainment for the whole family.

The BBQ will be held from 11:30am-3:00pm, with official proceedings commencing at 12:15pm.

And Mr Speaker, as part of my Government’s election commitments to safeguard cyclone communities, I announced a summit would be held to review the lessons learnt from Cyclone Larry and consolidate planning for the 2007 cyclone season.

Planning is now underway to hold this summit in early December in Cairns.

A range of eminent speakers—including international guests—will be invited to attend to discuss important issues such as climate change and the latest trends in cyclone and storm management.

I will advise the House of further details of the summit when arrangements are finalised. 144 Ministerial Statements 12 Oct 2006

Brisbane Broncos Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.48 am): I also want to include a tribute to Wayne Bennett and the Broncos for their great success. I seek leave to incorporate that tribute in Hansard. Leave granted. In a true show of Queensland spirit, thousands of fans turned out last Wednesday to celebrate the mighty Brisbane Broncos 2006 NRL Premiership win. The Victory Parade made its way through a sea of fans in the Queen Street Mall before making its way to Suncorp Stadium where our champions were greeted by more than 4,000. Mr Speaker, I would like to place on record our congratulations to the Broncos for their magnificent performance on Grand Final night and for their hard work throughout the 2006 season. Much of the team and its coach were written off earlier this year, and they have emerged with the Premiership trophy and the most successful NRL coach ever in Wayne Bennett. They have made all Queenslanders proud and we wish them all the best for a successful 2007 season. Mr Wallace: Go the Cowboys! Mr Johnson: Your time will come. Mr Schwarten: Get that stupid dog off your coat. Mr BEATTIE: Mate, even the Canterbury supporters had to admit that it was a great win. There is only one thing wrong with him: he’s a Canterbury supporter. Other than that he should be on this side of the House. Mr Johnson: I’m on the right side here. Mr BEATTIE: There is a bit of an argument about which is the righter side of the House these days. Patel, Dr J Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.49 am): I have a serious matter that I wish to deal with. There have been various media reports today in relation to Jayant Patel. I want to spell out the facts to the House. On 22 June this year the Attorney-General was made aware of an approach by Patel’s lawyers to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Attorney-General informed me of her rejection of the offer a few days later. The proposal involved Patel returning to Australia but with the following conditions—and I want all Queenslanders to listen to these proposals from Patel’s lawyers. Firstly, there were to be no extradition proceedings. There was to be no public announcement that he was coming back to Australia—so, it was to be done in secret. He would arrange when he was to be charged—so, in other words, unlike every other citizen, he would determine the timing of his charge. He was to appear before the court without any publicity—in secrecy. He was to be able to return to the United States immediately after being charged—so, in other words, he would turn up, be charged and then go back to the United States or go on holiday. He would come back for committal proceedings and again return to the United States until a trial if he was committed. Bail would not be opposed at any time—so, in other words, he could leave the country at any time and not return. Unlike any other person charged in our court system, he could leave and go on holiday in Bermuda and not return if he did not want to. The Attorney-General was to give an undertaking that, should he be charged, no more charges would be added once he arrived back in Australia. The Attorney-General was not prepared to support a proposal that offered a special deal to Patel and his lawyers. We do not do special deals in relation to people charged with such serious offences unless there is some great public interest in doing so. There will be no shonky deals here. This was a legal decision, not a political decision. In making that decision, the Attorney-General weighed up the risk of him changing his mind at any time against any risk that would be involved in an extradition. Patel could change his mind at any time under this proposal. The Attorney-General came to the conclusion that extradition proceedings would have been a much more secure way of ensuring that Patel faced any criminal proceedings. The Attorney-General, through the Director of Public Prosecutions, made a counteroffer: return voluntarily and face the court like anyone else. Our position is very simple: if Jayant Patel is serious about facing these charges, he should immediately voluntarily return to Queensland and face the charges like anyone else accused. The Attorney-General advised the DPP that she would only give the undertaking that no further charges would be added, the same as would occur under an extradition, if he came back voluntarily and faced the court. We have not heard back from Patel’s lawyers. Let me make it clear: I supported the Attorney- General’s decision to reject the offer from Patel’s lawyers, and I do so today quite openly. There were simply too many risks involved with this proposal. It was stacked in Patel’s favour. He would decide if he returned, when he returned, whether he would stay or whether he would go, or whether he would have a holiday and then go. 12 Oct 2006 Ministerial Statements 145

Mr Lucas: Christopher Skase. Mr BEATTIE: It is up to the courts to decide matters such as bail, not Patel. If any member of this parliament were charged, the courts would determine whether they got bail, not some secret deal. It is also up to the court to decide, if bail is granted, whether he could leave Australia. One could imagine what the patients of Jayant Patel would have thought if we had entered into an arrangement which meant he could have gone on holidays and left any time he wanted. If the committal proceedings determined that he should go to trial, Patel could decide to leave the country and never return. What sort of arrangement would that have been? What a betrayal of the people of Bundaberg that would have been. There will be no Christopher Skase deals done with people like Jayant Patel, let me make that clear. As I said before, if Jayant Patel is serious about returning to Australia, he is able to get on a plane today and come here, if he wants to. It is ridiculous to suggest that the decision to reject this offer was in any way linked to the election. As I said before— Opposition members: Ha, ha! Mr SPEAKER: Order! You have had your laugh. Come on! Mr BEATTIE: As I said, Mr Speaker, it is ridiculous to make that suggestion. As I indicated before, the DPP discussion with the Attorney-General was on 22 June and I was advised a few days after that— June, Mr Speaker, late June. There had been no decision about an election date; it was late June. The government could have made— Mr Horan: You could have made a ministerial statement. Mr BEATTIE: You do not want to hear the truth. The government could have made itself a hero if it had wanted to by bringing Jayant Patel back here prior to the election. We could have made ourselves heroes by bringing him— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the members of the opposition who are interjecting to please desist. Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to tell members the truth on this matter. If the members opposite want to try to disrupt my telling the truth, that is a matter for them. Let me come back to this point: we could have made ourselves heroes by bringing Patel back prior to the election, but that would not have guaranteed that he would have stayed here or that he would have been here for the trial. There will be no Christopher Skase deals with Jayant Patel. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members of the opposition, please listen to what I am saying. You have had a pretty fair go with interjections. The Premier also has the right to speak and I would ask you to understand that. Mr BEATTIE: It did not take them long to turn into a rabble. Let me come back to the point. When the decision was made by the Attorney-General, an election had not been called, nor was one planned. In addition, if she had agreed to the proposal we would have been rightly criticised for cutting a special deal to try to make ourselves look like heroes, and we were not prepared to do that. However, that would not have provided justice to the victims. What Patel wanted was a secret deal behind closed doors where he could have avoided the ordinary court processes. That is what he wanted to do—to avoid the ordinary court processes that every other Queenslander has to face. Why should this man be given special treatment? He is facing serious allegations, and any return to our shores should not be treated like a holiday, and it will not be. We want Patel back more than anyone, but he should face the courts like anyone else, without special favours or special deals. My challenge today is this: I understand that Jayant Patel’s lawyers are leaking these things to Hedley Thomas. We are not stupid. We understand exactly what games are being played here. But let me tell the lawyers of Jayant Patel, both current and any future lawyers, that they can run whatever media campaign they like but there will be no special deal for Jayant Patel. Patel’s lawyers think that by leaking this to the Australian they are going to embarrass us into doing a special deal for Jayant Patel; they are dead wrong. We are not going to do a special deal for Jayant Patel. The final thing I say to Jayant Patel is this: if he has nothing to worry about, he should get on a plane today, come back voluntarily and face his victims. Patel, Dr J Hon. LD LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Women) (9.47 am): The Attorney-General holds a unique position in government in Australia. The position has dual roles—firstly, as the first law officer of the state and, secondly, as a cabinet minister. The Attorney- General is required to make decisions on a regular basis in the role as the first law officer of the state. 146 Ministerial Statements 12 Oct 2006

These are legal decisions and are made independent of cabinet. They are legal decisions, not political decisions. They are based solely on legal principles. It was in my role as first law officer of the state that I met with the Director of Public Prosecutions and two senior prosecutors from her office on 22 June this year. At this meeting they advised me of the offer made by the lawyers for Jayant Patel which involved a package of conditions under which he would return to Queensland to face criminal proceedings. The terms of the offer which were put to me were as follows: he would return to Australia voluntarily but there would be no extradition proceedings; there was to be no public announcement that he was coming back to Australia; he would arrange when he would be charged; he was to appear before the court without any publicity; he was to be able to return to the United States immediately after being charged; he would come back for committal proceedings and again return to the United States until a trial, if he was committed; bail would not be opposed at any time; the Attorney-General was to give an undertaking that, should he be charged, no more charges would be added once he arrived in Australia; and the Director of Public Prosecutions would also give a similar undertaking about the charges. I can also advise that there were no dates proposed at that time in relation to his return. I gave due consideration to this proposal. My main consideration was to weigh the risks involved. The proposal relied solely on Jayant Patel’s good faith to honour an agreement to return to Queensland, and it was based on his continued good faith once he had left the state between the various court hearings. It gave him options which no other defendant has. Judging this against extradition proceedings and being satisfied that there was no extra risk in extradition proceedings for Patel in particular, I came to the conclusion that I should decline to give my undertaking in the circumstances. I am of the view that extradition proceedings would be a much more secure and just way to have Patel face criminal justice than the proposal put. The proposal would have put Patel in a much stronger position and the state in a much weaker position, as opposed to extradition proceedings. I formed the view that the terms of the proposal were unacceptable and that giving special treatment to Jayant Patel was unacceptable. Having reached this conclusion, I sought a meeting with the Premier and advised him of my decision. I told him of the reasons for my decision and he understood and accepted my decision. I stand by my decision today. There is no stop to Jayant Patel coming back to Queensland today. When I declined to give the undertaking in those circumstances, I made a counter offer through the Director of Public Prosecutions that, if he returned voluntarily and faced ordinary court proceedings, I would give the undertaking in the terms sought—that is, that no further charges would be added to those initially laid upon his arriving in Australia. This is consistent with extradition proceedings. We have not closed the door on Jayant Patel returning to Queensland. He can come at any time. Can I also say in my second role wearing my political hat that in retrospect there was one attraction in this offer: Patel would have been brought back quicker to face charges and this would have been a political advantage. But of course political considerations were immaterial and irrelevant. It was about the most secure way to have Jayant Patel face the Queensland courts. Queensland Economy Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (10.01 am): Recent economic releases continue to confirm the strength of the Queensland economy relative to the rest of Australia. The latest Queensland state accounts indicate that Queensland’s annual economic growth was 3.8 per cent in 2005-06—that is 1.4 percentage points higher than the 2.4 per cent growth in the rest of Australia. High rates of infrastructure investment and consumer spending continue to support domestic economic activity in Queensland. Business investment increased by 20.1 per cent in 2005-06—that is 20.1 per cent in one financial year—after rising 17.6 per cent in the previous year. This is well above the 16.4 per cent experienced in the rest of Australia. High commodity prices and strong global demand for the state’s resources continue to support investment in the mining sector, while strong population growth and domestic demand have boosted investment spending in the commercial and industrial sectors of the economy. The latest ABS population data indicate that Queensland’s population grew by two per cent over the year to March quarter 2006, compared with a population growth of 1.1 per cent in the rest of Australia. So Queensland’s population growth is almost double what is being experienced in the rest of Australia. Despite easing from higher levels during the peak of the housing boom, Queensland’s population continued to grow by more than 1,500 persons per week over the year to March quarter 2006, underpinned by high levels of interstate and overseas migration as well as our own natural increases. Queensland’s greater employment opportunities, lower cost of living and preferable climate continue to encourage higher rates of interstate migration than any other state. On average, a net inflow of more than 500 persons moved to Queensland from interstate each week over the year to March 12 Oct 2006 Ministerial Statements 147 quarter 2006. It is interesting to compare this with around 50 people a week moving interstate to Western Australia and six people a week moving interstate to Tasmania. These are the only other states in the country to record positive interstate migration in that year. So six people a week move interstate to Tasmania, 50 people a week move interstate to Western Australia but 500 people every week move interstate to Queensland. That is what accounts for interstate migration in Australia. The state government also continues to support population growth and the economy through our significant capital works program. State and local government investment from the general government and public trading enterprise sector surged by 23.6 per cent in the last financial year. This stands in very stark comparison to what is happening in the rest of Australia, where investment by state and local governments increased by a mere 0.2 per cent over the same period. Relatively higher growth in wages and employment continues to underpin higher rates of consumer confidence and spending in this state. Retail turnover in Queensland grew by 7.2 per cent over the year to August, compared with a 5.9 per cent growth in the rest of Australia. Finally, very strong growth in Queensland’s major trading partners, including emerging economies such as China, has bolstered the value of Queensland’s overseas merchandise exports. The value of overseas exports of goods increased at an annual rate of 13.9 per cent in the three months to August 2006, reflecting strong growth in the value of processed mineral exports, coal exports and metal ore exports. The strength of the domestic and trade sectors in Queensland has resulted in record labour market outcomes. Employment rose by 3.3 per cent over the year to August, reflecting the fastest rate of jobs growth of any state in Australia. Further, we created around 55,000 full-time jobs over the year, accounting for more than one-third of national full-time job creation. So we represent just over 19 per cent of the country’s population, yet we are creating more than 30 per cent of the jobs. We are punching well above our weight, as always, on job creation. Following very strong growth in employment, Queensland’s unemployment rate fell to a 28-year low of 4.5 per cent in August 2006 and has remained below the national average for more than two years. As a result, a greater share of the Queensland population is now in employment than ever before. A more detailed breakdown of state economic activity, including domestic and trade sector performance, is available in the June quarter 2006 Queensland state accounts released by the Office of the Government Statistician. Can I just say to all members that when the Prime Minister of Australia or the federal Treasurer claim that it is their financial management and their policy settings, like WorkChoices, that are driving the economic performance of states— Mr Johnson: Absolutely right. You know it too. That grin gives you away, sister. Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member for Gregory to use parliamentary terms. Ms BLIGH: I do not think ‘sister’ is unparliamentary, Mr Speaker. As I said, when members hear the Prime Minister of this country claim that it is his policy settings like WorkChoices that are driving the economic performance of states, ask this question: if it is John Howard doing it, why is Queensland outperforming every other state on so many measures and so consistently? The truth is the reverse— that is, Queensland is the engine room of Australia’s economy, and we are going to keep it that way. Lungfish and Fishway Monitoring Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (10.07 am): In response to recent public interest concerning Queensland’s lungfish and the operation of fishways, I have undertaken a review to establish the current state of play to ensure the sustainability of this iconic species in the Burnett River catchment. The Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries has been monitoring populations of lungfish and the success of fishway devices in the Burnett River since 1995. The Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries and other government agencies have produced a number of reports since that time outlining actions to improve the efficiency of fishways and monitor fish movements. A number of questions remained unanswered by these reports. Some $500,000 has been provided to the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries under the Burnett Program of Actions for three completed reports and two other projects currently underway. I would like to table a number of recently completed lungfish reports which were the subject of my review, along with a detailed outline of measures in regard to lungfish and fishway monitoring. The reports are: Migratory Fish Communities at Claude Wharton Weir, Gayndah; Upstream Passage of Queensland Lungfish at Ned Churchward Weir Fishlock; Downstream Passage of Fish at Ned Churchward Weir; Assessment of the Walla Weir Fishlock, Burnett River; Storage Operational Management Plan for Walla Weir; Lungfish Monitoring at Ned Churchward Weir 2002-03; Ned Churchward Weir Fishlock Contingency Revised Plan; Final Report: Operation of Ned Churchward Weir between 1998-2005; and Walla Weir—Hydrologic Assessment of Proposed Operational Strategies. 148 Ministerial Statements 12 Oct 2006

Tabled paper: Migratory Fish Communities at Claude Wharton Weir, Gayndah. Tabled paper: Upstream Passage of Queensland Lungfish at Ned Churchward Weir Fishlock. Tabled paper: Downstream Passage of Fish at Ned Churchward Weir. Tabled paper: Assessment of the Walla Weir Fishlock, Burnett River. Tabled paper: Storage Operational Management Plan for Walla Weir. Tabled paper: Lungfish Monitoring at Ned Churchward Weir 2002/03. Tabled paper: Ned Churchward Weir Fishlock Contingency Revised Plan. Tabled paper: Final Report: Operation of Ned Churchward Weir between 1998-2005. Tabled paper: Walla Weir—Hydrologic Assessment of Proposed Operational Strategies. My review of these reports has revealed that there are a number of issues requiring more attention, and there are some outstanding actions that are yet to be implemented. In my view this is not good enough. As the responsible minister, I am committed to addressing these outstanding issues. We will establish a new fishway at Claude Wharton Weir in 2007; establish or upgrade fish electronic monitoring devices at Ned Churchward Weir, hopefully by 1 December 2006, and at Kirar Weir by early 2007; undertake further investigations into lungfish spawning, in particular where lungfish are successfully spawning in impoundments at Paradise Dam, Ned Churchward Weir, Claude Wharton Weir and at Enoggera Dam and North Pine Dam in Brisbane; undertake a 10-year lungfish monitoring program at a cost of $1 million; and complete preparation of a lungfish recovery plan or management plan by January 2007, for which $1 million has been reserved under the Burnett Program of Actions to implement this plan and a range of other measures. A Current Affair Hon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Communities, Disability Services, Seniors and Youth) (10.10 am): I would like to draw to the attention of the House how A Current Affair has resorted to a personal vilification and semantics to falsely accuse me of misleading this House. Why is this? It is designed to divert attention from the real issue, that is, that A Current Affair has been caught out dealing in dishonesty. It has been caught out fabricating information, suppressing contrary views and distorting the facts. It is no wonder that it is lashing out; its already poor credibility has been challenged and it does not like it. I seek leave to table and have incorporated into Hansard for the information of the House a letter from Dr James Morton of the Autism Early Intervention Outcomes Unit. Dr Morton appeared on A Current Affair on Tuesday night. His letter illustrates the deception and dishonesty of A Current Affair. Leave granted. Tabled paper: A letter dated 10 October 2006 from Dr James Morton. October 10, 2006 The Honourable Warren Pitt Minister for Communities, Disability Services, and Seniors Dear Minister I am writing to express my disappointment in the portrayal of your the government’s support of children with autism as reported on A Current Affair tonight. Today I was interviewed by Amanda Paterson concerning Early Intervention Services for children with autism and the current funding issues in this very important area. During the interview I focussed on the anomaly associated with the administration of the Inclusion Support Scheme by the Federal Department of Family and Community and Services. I indicated that a mainstream childcare centre enrolling a child with autism is entitled to receive up to $19000 funding per annum under this scheme to hire an extra child care assistant, yet programs such as AEIOUs, which provide the equivalent of long stay child care, linked to a high quality early intervention program, including full time speech therapy, occupational therapy, psychology and early childhood teaching, does not. I expressed the view that the Federal Government must expand access to this funding stream to providers of specialised childcare such as AEIOU. Whilst I greatly appreciated the opportunity to highlight the importance of early intervention for children with autism, I feel that the editing of this interview linked these comments to a failure of performance by your government in this area, a sentiment that I did not express and a view that I in no way hold. Furthermore, comments which I made in this interview expressing our appreciation for the efforts made by you personally and your government in supporting children with autism were not reported. I have been interviewed "live" on several previous occasions, most recently by Steve Austin, and my recognition of your efforts is this area is not new. Through your personal background as an educator you have championed the importance of early intervention and coordinated care for our children with ASD and their families and launched new initiatives in this area, with new recurrent funding of $2M announced over the last 2 years. Minister, I can only encourage you to continue with your efforts in supporting children with autism, and continuing to build a brighter future for them and their families. Yours respectfully Dr James Morton Mr PITT: Dr Morton expressed reservations about the role of the federal government in respect of payments to families for child care. A Current Affair turned this around and attributed the blame to the state government. Dr Morton’s letter highlights the inappropriate editing by A Current Affair to remove any positive reference to the work of the Queensland government. This letter proves that A Current Affair has an agenda of its own and is prepared to go to any lengths to achieve it. 12 Oct 2006 Ministerial Statements 149

Who are the real victims here? Not me as minister, although I have been maligned and misrepresented. Not the department, although it too has been misrepresented when in this matter staff have acted appropriately, ethically and compassionately. The real victims are the individuals and the families who live with the demands and difficulties of extreme autism every day. A Current Affair has shamelessly exploited them and set about destroying their confidence in society’s capacity to assist them. There is genuine help available from government and also hardworking NGOs for individuals and families concerned, but their situation certainly is not being assisted by A Current Affair. Finally, I urge the member for Currumbin to also take a responsible approach to this very important issue and not to be an agent, knowingly or otherwise, of the dishonest approach of A Current Affair. I repeat my offer to the member for Currumbin of a full briefing on this matter. I look forward to her agreement to do this so that she can become properly informed. On another matter, in my role as disability services minister I advise members that today is World Sight Day and Shades Day here in Queensland. To highlight the important message of protecting our sight from the harm and damage of ultraviolet light, I have distributed a pair of shades to all members.

Indigenous Policing Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (10.17 am): Yesterday, the federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, announced that a former deputy commissioner of the Northern Territory police would review policing levels in remote Indigenous communities in Queensland as well as other states in Australia. I am very surprised by this announcement, because when I went to Canberra for the Indigenous Summit, I made Queensland’s position very clear to Mr Brough. It was that the review was not necessary because we were more than happy to publicly state the number of police officers in our Indigenous communities in Queensland. Today I will be writing to Mr Brough to decline Queensland’s participation in this review. Our level of policing in Indigenous communities would set a benchmark for other states to follow. We already have some of Australia’s highest police to population ratios. The national police to population ratio is one officer to every 440 people. Of course, we do better than that in Queensland where our statewide police to population ratio is one officer for every 438 people. In Aboriginal communities like Kowanyama, there is one officer for every 115 people, on Palm Island it is one officer for every 135 people and in Doomadgee it is one officer for every 126 people. I table for the benefit of the House the number of police approved positions in Indigenous communities. As well, I table information on the population in each of those communities. I also table the number of approved strength PLOs in Queensland. Tabled paper: A paper titled ‘Number of Queensland Police Service approved positions on all Aboriginal communities in Queensland’. A permanent state police presence exists on all but two of the mainland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Next year we will open a new police station in Wujal Wujal, which is likely to cost in excess of $3 million. There will be two officers in Wujal Wujal for 268 people, a ratio of one to 134. Areas such as Old Mapoon are covered by Weipa police, where there are nine police officers and three CIB officers. Recently they have also been given an additional vehicle. Last year, the Premier opened the brand new Hope Vale Police Station at a cost of $2.7 million. There are two officers in Hope Vale for 754 people, which is a ratio of one to 377. I am considering whether the Queensland government should review the staffing levels of the Australian Federal Police in Queensland in order to determine whether there are sufficient AFP numbers for them to adequately discharge their federal responsibilities. Anyone who has visited the Torres Strait or the cape would know that daily our Queensland police officers do Commonwealth work such as assisting immigration functions, border security, customs and even watching over federal prisoners in our watch-houses and our prisons. There is only one AFP officer in the Torres Strait. So short is the Australian government of police officers that Queensland is continually being asked by the Commonwealth to send our police overseas for international deployment to places such as East Timor and the Solomons. The federal government cannot even provide enough federal police to provide a permanent police presence at our airports. It is asking the Queensland government to do this for it. Instead of bothering about whether Queensland is discharging its responsibility in Indigenous communities, the federal government should be taking a long hard look at its own shortcomings in the federal policing arena. The announcement of this review without proper consultation with the states is a ham-fisted and amateurish attempt by Mr Brough to subordinate the states. It is in keeping with John Howard’s doctrine of federalism and his attempt to run Queensland from Canberra. If the federal government wants to spend some of its promised $130 million package to improve law and order in Indigenous communities, then it should give us some of that money to support our police in the Torres Strait in particular, where they spend much of their time undertaking duties that should be done by the federal government. 150 Ministerial Statements 12 Oct 2006

Cyclone Larry, National Parks

Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism) (10.19 am): It has been six months since Cyclone Larry devastated the far north of Queensland on 20 March 2006. I am pleased to report that impressive progress has been made to clean up the damage to the region’s national parks. In the immediate aftermath of the cyclone, 39 parks were closed and a further 33 state forests and reserves were also inaccessible. More than 417,000 hectares of the estate were affected by the cyclone. Areas around Innisfail, Mission Beach and the Atherton Tableland sustained the worst damage. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service staff continue to work tirelessly to clear debris, reopen walking tracks and roads, and repair park infrastructure. Rangers are being greatly assisted by field staff working under the Community Jobs Plan project as part of the Beattie Government’s Cyclone Larry Employment Assistance Package. Local communities, commercial tour operators, the Cyclone Larry Recovery Task Force and volunteers are also assisting in this very arduous work. In the first weeks and months after the cyclone, priority was given to reopening the iconic parks— the popular, highly visited parks that are so important to tourism in Queensland. These included Barron Falls, Lake Barrine, Curtain Fig Tree, Danbulla Forest Drive, Mount Hypipamee National Park, Josephine Falls, Mount Lewis Road and Tully Gorge. Since then, work has continued unabated with parks, reserves, walking tracks and camp grounds being reopened on an almost daily basis. Last month we saw the reopening of several sections of the extensive Misty Mountains walking trail network, extending from the tablelands to the coastal plain near Innisfail. In the last two weeks, we have seen the reopening of the Wet Tropics Great Walk through the Girrungun National Park. Visitors can once again trek the entire 110 kilometres of this world-class walk that is home to two of Queensland’s most beautiful waterfalls. Today, very few areas and walking tracks remain closed. These areas represent the most inaccessible or most damaged areas within Queensland’s protected estate. QPWS staff are confident that most facilities currently closed will be reopened by Christmas. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hardworking staff of the QPWS, volunteers and community members for their dedication during this massive clean-up campaign. An incident having occurred in the public gallery— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I order that that person be removed from the gallery.

Johnstone Shire Council

Mr FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport) (10.20 am): Within a very short time frame I will make a decision on the future of the Johnstone Shire Council. For some time this council has been at the centre of serious allegations and concerns regarding bullying and intimidation, meeting procedures and staff morale. In August this council was issued a show cause notice requiring it to address the issues of concern. Last Friday I met with the council in Cairns and I believe this is a most serious matter which now requires swift action to bring it to a resolution. I have given notice to the council that I intend to formally take advice and deliberate on the matter within seven days of that meeting. The people of this shire— indeed, of any shire in the state—require and deserve strong and capable local government. It is particularly pertinent to the people of Johnstone shire given they are located in the heart of the area that still requires much rebuilding in the aftermath of Cyclone Larry. Additionally, a formal departmental investigation into Douglas Shire Council, located in the Cairns-Mossman area, has been completed. I will use section 167 of the Local Government Act to appoint Mr David Spearritt as independent advisor to formally monitor the council’s performance. Mr Spearritt will report on Douglas shire’s attempts to address the issues identified and on future options for action. On 30 January the Mornington Shire Council was issued with a show cause notice as to why it should not be dissolved. The show cause notice was issued after ongoing concerns over the operations of the council. Subsequently, Mornington shire was given a three-month trial period to demonstrate its commitment to improve its performance. I am pleased to report that this council has made quantum leaps such that dismissal is now not warranted, but it is still not fully up to scratch. Accordingly, I have also elected to appoint an independent advisor, in this case Mr Gary Kleidon, to monitor this council and assist it in its activities until December. Ratepayers need to have faith that their best interests are paramount to their elected local government representatives. The actions detailed today pursue that goal. 12 Oct 2006 Ministerial Statements 151

Transport Infrastructure Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (10.22 am): Queensland is experiencing a transport infrastructure gold rush. In the first four weeks of this term the state government has announced almost $6 billion worth of transport infrastructure—that is, $210 million worth of infrastructure a day. That is a gold rush by anyone’s definition and it has a few things in common with the gold rush that Queensland experienced in the second half of the 19th century. Both of them led to economic boom times, attracted people to Queensland who had a bit of the pioneering spirit and marked times of great optimism. Whilst the gold rush helped to establish Queensland, the transport infrastructure boom underway will be building Queensland in the 21st century and beyond. Three weeks ago we announced the successful tenderer for the $1.9 billion Gateway upgrade which will duplicate the existing bridge and upgrade 20 kilometres of motorway. On the weekend the Premier announced the approval of the business cases for the northern busway and airport link. Construction of both projects is scheduled to start in 2008. When completed they could cut traffic on major north side roads by up to 45 per cent. The latest round of community consultation for both projects commenced yesterday. That is not all we are doing—far from it. We have got a massive program of track-building work and new carriage construction to boost capacity on the Gold Coast rail corridor by 50 per cent. On the Inner Northern Busway work is well and truly underway and it is due for completion in 2008. There is the $333 million extension from Queen Street to a new station at King George Square and on to the new station at Roma Street, where 2,000 bus services and 700 train services a day will connect. Planning is well underway for the eastern busway with the preferred alignment currently being finalised. The $954 million project will see a dedicated busway between the Buranda busway station and the Capalaba town centre. Construction is expected to commence in 2008. Construction on the Boggo Road busway commenced in May and is due to be completed in 2008. This $217 million project will link the PA Hospital and the future Boggo Road precinct with the Eleanor Schonell Bridge. Work on the Tugun bypass is progressing well, with the project team on track to hand land over to the Gold Coast airport next month. That will allow it to get underway with extending the runway. This term of government is about delivering the transport infrastructure our growing state needs. We have done much of the preparation and planning needed already. Drivers and public transport users will be reaping the benefits for a long time to come.

CMC Investigation Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (10.25 am): Earlier this year I informed parliament of a CMC investigation into allegations raised by a Prince Charles Hospital doctor. The doctor’s allegations centred on the appointment of a nursing administrator at the hospital, how the doctor’s concerns were handled and how he was treated when he reported his concerns to management. After receiving a related report from the Office of Public Service, Merit and Equity the Director-General of Queensland Health referred the matter to the CMC for a full and independent investigation. She also suspended three senior Queensland Health officials pending the outcome of the investigation. Members may recall that at the same time the director-general and I issued a formal apology to the doctor, accorded him whistleblower status, offered to pay any legal expenses he incurred and wiped any record of disciplinary action from his record. Last week the director-general received a letter from CMC Assistant Commissioner Stephen Lambrides about the investigation, which I table. Tabled paper: A letter from Mr Stephen Lambrides, Assistant Commissioner—Misconduct of the Crime Commission dated 5 October 2006 relating to the CMC investigation—Ms Virginia Hancl’. In the letter, Assistant Commissioner Lambrides advises of a delay in the publishing of the CMC report due to Supreme Court action taken by the nurse involved. However, the CMC has provided clarity on the status of the Queensland Health officials stood down. Assistant Commissioner Lambrides advises— ... the CMC’s investigation has concluded that there is no evidence to warrant the continued suspension of the three officers. On the basis of this advice, the director-general has invited Dr Michael Cleary, Gloria Wallace and Linda Dawson back to work. I want to stress that the approach the director-general and I took when new information came to light earlier this year was the right one. Regardless of the outcome of the investigation, the allegations relate to circumstances under the old regime. Actions taken this year demonstrate the new Queensland Health. Staff and the public have a right to raise legitimate concerns with Queensland Health and expect those concerns to be managed properly and openly. Under Queensland Health’s new structure and clinical leadership, the principles of openness, transparency, accountability and fairness are now paramount ensuring that all employees are treated with respect and dignity. 152 Questions Without Notice 12 Oct 2006

NOTICE OF MOTION

Marine Parks (Great Sandy) Zoning Plan Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (10.27 am): I give notice that I will move— That the Marine Parks (Great Sandy) Zoning Plan 2006 (Subordinate Legislation No. 229 of 2006), tabled in the Parliament on 11 October 2006, be disallowed.

PRIVATE MEMBER’S STATEMENT

Patel, Dr J Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.27 am): Sitting in the parliament this morning one could be forgiven for being reminded of ‘Comical Ali’, the Iraqi information minister who continually tried to deny the self-evident. The explanations that the parliament has been presented with this morning with regard to the tragic circumstances surrounding the Bundaberg Hospital and Dr Patel have about as much credibility as the arguments put forward by the Iraqi information minister. What happened in Bundaberg was a great tragedy which affected many people’s lives and cost many people their lives. It continues to affect the lives of many of the patients of Dr Patel. But the government’s response this morning is the same as it was on day one. The government’s response has been to protect itself and care about itself at the expense of the patients and the people whom it should care about. While we cannot reverse some of the tragedies that happened in Bundaberg, while we cannot bring back to the widows the husbands they lost and to the families the family members they lost, we can ensure that those people at least get some sort of closure and finality and see some sort of justice done. But this government is making no attempt to do that; in fact, it is just the opposite. For base political purposes it is protecting its own political hide. To protect its own political interests, it has sought to deny that closure and that justice to those people—just as it tried to close down the inquiry, just as it tried in the first instance not to have an inquiry, and just as it has tried to sweep this matter under the carpet from day 1. It might try to rewrite history, but it has tried to suppress this matter from day one.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the Leader of the Opposition, I welcome to the gallery teachers and students from Mabel Park State School in the electorate of Waterford, which is represented in this parliament by Mr Evan Moorhead.

Patel, Dr J Mr SEENEY (10.30 am): My first question without notice is to the Premier. The Attorney-General has said this morning that the decision to reject Dr Patel’s offer to return to Queensland to face charges before the election was rejected for legal reasons. If that decision was made for legal reasons alone, why was the Premier involved at all and why did he feel the necessity to explain the decision to the parliament this morning? Mr BEATTIE: Because that is what premiers do. I have never walked away from a tough decision in my life, and I never will. Let us be clear about that. The Attorney has made it clear, and so have I, that she informed me of the decision that she had made. It was her decision and she informed me of that decision. The Attorney is the first law officer of this state and the only minister in my cabinet who has a degree of independence outside the political process, and that is because she is the first law officer and hence the Attorney. However, she felt it appropriate to inform me—and that is appropriate—but it is her decision and her decision alone, not mine. However, I am quite happy to say to the member that, on the facts that the Attorney-General explained to me, I agreed with her decision. I believe that if that is my view I should tell the House and the people of Queensland. So let me be clear about that. Let us be clear about that. Mr Messenger: Did you ask the victims what they wanted? Mr BEATTIE: Let us deal with that interjection, because one thing that we are not going to do is agree to some secret rort with Jayant Patel, because that is what this was about—a secret rort with Jayant Patel. If those opposite are genuine in their concern for the people of Bundaberg—which we are, and I would hope there is some bipartisan agreement on that—then they will not try to play politics on the back of the people of Bundaberg’s misery. The reality— Mr SEENEY: I find that highly offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn. 12 Oct 2006 Questions Without Notice 153

Mr BEATTIE: With all due respect, I would have thought that there would have been one person on that side who would not have been too sensitive, but if that is the way he wants it then fine: I withdraw. But let me come back to the central point, and I will restate it: if those opposite want justice for the people of Bundaberg then they should let justice take its proper course. The proper course can be taken in one of two ways in relation to Jayant Patel: either he is extradited to come here—done properly by the DPP—and returned to face justice, or he gets on a plane and comes here and faces justice like every other Queenslander. Mr Messenger interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Why should we give him some special deal that in between court hearings he goes on holidays to the Barrier Reef? What are we running? We have a justice system where everybody gets treated equally before the law. Mr Messenger interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Everybody gets treated equally before the law. One of the great tenets of the British legal system which we have inherited in this country is that we get treated— Mr Messenger interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Premier, can I ask you to take your seat for a moment. I say to the member for Burnett that you are being tedious and repetitious and I ask you to desist from that behaviour. Mr BEATTIE: Let me make it clear: the rule of law that applies in this country is equality before the law—no secret rorts, no secret deals, and we are not prepared to do any. I made it clear that there would be no Christopher Skase deals here, because he is not going to have special conditions whereby Patel could be on clover while his victims suffer. That is what he wanted. He wanted to be on clover. We are not going to buy that sort of nonsense. The Attorney made a proposal in return which basically said, ‘Come here. Face justice.’ And, of course, that is a proposal that we agree with. Patel, Dr J Mr SEENEY: My second question is also to the Premier. Dr Patel was flown out of the country by Queensland Health before he could give evidence to any inquiry about the disaster at Bundaberg Hospital, and now his offer to return voluntarily to face charges in court has been rejected by the Attorney-General. Have they just been two lucky coincidences or has it been deliberate political desperation to ensure that there has been no justice and no fairness to protect the Premier’s own political interests? Mr BEATTIE: The first part of the question is untrue, and the Minister for Health has repeatedly explained— Mr McArdle: Why didn’t you tell the people of Queensland? Mr SPEAKER: I have asked members of the opposition to cease interjecting. The Premier is on his feet. I have given you quite some latitude, but I am asking you to let the Premier speak in the parliament. Mr BEATTIE: It is not a great idea to interject on your own leader, but let us come back to the point. The Minister for Health has repeatedly explained to this House why the first tenet of that question is untrue. I refer the Leader of the Opposition to what is on the record by the health minister. That is dealt with. Let us deal with the second part. The second part— Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Do those opposite want an answer or do they just want to be rabble? The Leader of the Opposition has asked me a question on a very serious issue. I am going to take him seriously and I want to answer his question seriously. The point I am trying to make in relation to the second part of the question is this: we want Jayant Patel back here, but we are not going to do a special deal to get him here which means that he does not face justice. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that Patel could have come back under his secret deal, not even telling the media and getting access to a court which no-one else gets—secret through the back door. But had he come home for the committal proceedings and had he been committed, what could he have done? He could have left the country and never returned. And who would have been the first out there attacking us for that? The Leader of the Opposition! He would have said, ‘Why would you have done such a stupid deal that meant that he came back and could leave whenever he wanted to?’ He was saying to the Attorney, ‘Don’t ever oppose bail.’ What sort of an extraordinary corrupt arrangement would that have been? What an extraordinary corrupt arrangement that would have been! And the Leader of the Opposition would have been the first person to say that the Attorney should resign if Dr Patel had come home for a committal and then disappeared somewhere else in the world. 154 Questions Without Notice 12 Oct 2006

Those opposite are not about justice for the people of Bundaberg; they are about politics—cheap, crude politics. Let there be no doubt about it, because if the Leader of the Opposition was sitting in my spot and he was the Premier and the Attorney had come to him, he would have said, ‘Well, we’re doing no sleazy deals with Jayant Patel,’ which is exactly the decision of the Attorney I supported. Let us be really clear. The Leader of the Opposition should go out and tell the people of Queensland today whether he would have done this secret sleazy deal. If he would have done this secret sleazy deal, he should go out and tell everybody. He should go and tell the people of Bundaberg and elsewhere that he would have done this secret sleazy deal. There are going to be no secret sleazy deals with Jayant Patel from my government. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I assume, Mr Speaker, the opposition is saying it would have done this deal. Is that right? Come on! Come on! Would you have done this deal? Mr Seeney: We wouldn’t have let him go in the first place. Mr BEATTIE: Hang on. Patience, everybody. The Leader of the Opposition would not agree that he would do the deal, yet he insists that we should. Come on! Would you have done the deal or wouldn’t you? Come on! Stand up in the House. Would you have done the deal? You would have said, ‘Here’s another secret deal.’ Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker— Mr SPEAKER: Is this a point of order, Leader of the Opposition? Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker— Mr SPEAKER: Is this a point of order? Mr SEENEY: Yes, Mr Speaker, it is. I find— Mr SPEAKER: Hang on a second. Mr SEENEY: I find the— Mr SPEAKER: No, hang on a second. I am asking you a question which you did not answer. Mr SEENEY: I am sorry. Mr SPEAKER: I think in courtesy if I ask you if it is a point of order you could reply. Mr SEENEY: I accept that, Mr Speaker, and I apologise. Mr Speaker, it is a point of order. Mr Speaker, I find the Premier’s attempt to put words in my mouth offensive and I ask him to withdraw. Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Great Barrier Reef Ms JARRATT: My question without notice is to the Premier. Can the Premier advise of initiatives being undertaken to protect one of Queensland’s great natural treasures, the Great Barrier Reef? Mr BEATTIE: I can, and I know the member for Whitsunday shares the government’s passion for the protection of the Barrier Reef. On Monday, 2 October 2006 the Commonwealth government released the findings of its review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. The Great Barrier Reef is a globally significant environmental icon in the care of both the Queensland and Australian governments, as the honourable member knows. The reef is a major contributor to the economy and sustains many communities on the Queensland coast, including ones in her electorate. After the review commenced in September 2006, I made it clear to the Prime Minister that my government would actively oppose any move to dismantle the joint management arrangements that had served the marine park well for many years. I also stated my strong opposition to any proposal to withdraw administration of the marine park authority from Townsville to a Canberra bunker. I am pleased to advise the House that the efforts of this government and the efforts of others with the best interests of the Great Barrier Reef at heart have been successful. Neither of these actions have eventuated. In fact, the review provides a sensible and practical approach to joint management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. I am particularly pleased that the review has recommended that the Great Barrier Reef continue to be managed by an independent authority and that Queensland will continue to have representation on the authority’s board. The review also recommends that the Queensland and Commonwealth governments work to modernise the Emerald Agreement that former Premier Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser signed in 1978. The new intergovernmental agreement will articulate clearly our respective objectives, functions and accountabilities for the management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. I am also pleased to note that the Commonwealth has reaffirmed its commitment to protect the outstanding natural values of this national treasure. I have no hesitation in stating Queensland’s 12 Oct 2006 Questions Without Notice 155 longstanding commitment to this goal, as I said to the federal environment minister when he mentioned this to me at a function we both attended and I arranged for Ross Rolfe, my director-general, to continue the dialogue when we were briefed on the report. My government will continue to work closely with the Commonwealth on the review’s recommendations in order to ensure that we continue to provide high- level, quality protection for this outstanding World Heritage listed icon. Mr Speaker, I should add—because I know that this is a matter of particular interest to you, being the member for Townsville in addition to your role as Speaker—that one of the great concerns that we have is the impact of climate change and what that means in terms of bleaching of the reef. The Commonwealth minister for tourism and the minister for environment knows this. Clearly, global warming is having an effect. We need to work through these matters. The Great Barrier Reef is a very sensitive ecosystem and we need not just good management but long-term strategies to support it. Today, I pledge my government’s commitment to the long-term future health and wellbeing of the Great Barrier Reef, one of our great icons.

Patel, Dr J Dr FLEGG: My question is to the Attorney-General. I refer the minister to media reports today in relation to Jayant Patel which, no doubt she is aware, are of extreme public interest. I ask the Attorney- General: why did she choose to hide this matter and her decision from the public of Queensland by failing to make an announcement and ensuring that Queenslanders could find out only through the media? Mrs LAVARCH: I thank the member for the question. Yes, it is a matter of public interest. It is also in the interests of justice and in the public interest that I made the decision that I made. The member asked why there was no disclosure that there had been discussions between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the lawyers. Can I say that there has been continuing dialogue occurring between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the lawyers on the terms and conditions that would be acceptable to both Patel and the DPP. What happened—and as the member would have heard the Premier say and me say in my ministerial statement this morning—when I— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I say to the members of the opposition that if there is going to be orchestrated interjecting, I am giving them a fair bit of leverage here. I ask that the Attorney-General be heard. Mr Johnson: We can’t hear her. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Gregory, I think you understand what I am saying and you immediately interjected. If you are having orchestrated interjecting across-the-board, I would ask that the Attorney-General be heard. Mr JOHNSON: Mr Speaker, I apologise for that, but we cannot hear the Attorney-General. Mr SPEAKER: I take that point and I have a concern in that regard myself. I ask the Attorney- General to ensure that she speaks into the microphone. Mrs LAVARCH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was not avoiding the microphone at all. Mr SPEAKER: I understand that. Mrs LAVARCH: The question from the Leader of the Liberal Party related to why there was not disclosure at the time I made the decision that I would not give the undertaking as required by the package of terms and conditions put by Jayant Patel’s lawyers. As I said in my ministerial statement this morning—and as the Premier also said—when I declined to give the undertaking on the basis that they requested I put what the member might want to call a counterproposal. There is nothing to stop Jayant Patel voluntarily returning to Australia today. He can return to Australia today. I advised that, if he voluntarily returned to Australia, then I would be prepared to give an undertaking in the terms sought should the charges be laid. The reason I would give that undertaking is that the undertaking requires that no further charges be laid than you would have in an extradition proceedings. So it puts it akin to an extradition proceedings. Mr SPEAKER: Attorney, I must ask you to wind up. I note the importance of this matter so I am giving you a little bit of leeway. Mrs LAVARCH: I will conclude by saying that I was prepared and advised to give that undertaking, should he voluntarily return, without all the added conditions. I have not heard any response in relation to that. In that way, there is still obviously dialogue occurring and it would not be in the interests of justice for there to be megaphone conversations or press releases about each individual contact between the Director of Public Prosecutions and lawyers. 156 Questions Without Notice 12 Oct 2006

Cyclone Larry, Relief Appeal Mr O’BRIEN: My question is to the Premier. Following the crossing of Cyclone Larry into Innisfail earlier this year, many Australians and Queenslanders gave generously to the relief appeal. Can you advise on the progress of the distribution of funds under the Tropical Cyclone Larry Relief Appeal? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the member for Cook, because there were some ramifications of this cyclone and, of course, others in his electorate. I know that the member has followed this process very closely with me. I am happy to advise him on this issue, because as you would know, Mr Speaker, members representing areas in north Queensland are acutely interested in what happens after cyclones hit. I am pleased to advise the House that the Tropical Cyclone Larry Relief Appeal has collected donations of $21.604 million. This money includes a generous contribution from members of the public and the corporate community and nearly $4 million from state, federal and local governments. The residents and communities of far-north Queensland are benefiting from this generosity, with assistance to repair homes and community facilities well underway. The chairperson of the appeal’s distribution committee, Terry Mackenroth, has advised me that the distribution committee has now approved and allocated approximately $10 million from the appeal fund. That includes over $2 million paid in emergency assistance to persons whose homes were left uninhabitable, with an additional $8 million allocated under the second funding round to repair structural damage to owner-occupied residences. Payments under the second funding round have the rebuilding effort in full swing. To ensure the responsible management of the appeal fund, payments over $10,000 are being held in accounts on behalf of applicants and paid directly to builders on completion of their repair work. The appeal fund is also funding the repair of facilities owned by not-for-profit community organisations. To date, the distribution committee has focused its efforts on the essential needs of assisting displaced persons and rebuilding homes and community facilities. It is now apparent that, due to the significant generosity of the Australian public and business community, there will be additional funds available to the far-north Queensland community after the current funding rounds are finalised. I am advised by Terry Mackenroth that the distribution committee met in Cairns on Tuesday to consider further disbursement options for the appeal fund. I am pleased to inform the House that the committee has approved a fourth funding round to assist those people who are experiencing continual financial hardship. Subject to an income and assets test, help will be provided to those people who are still doing it tough to recover from the effects of the cyclone. This includes, but is not limited to, replacing lost household items, minor repairs to property not covered by other assistance, and clearing dangerous debris from rural residential properties. As with the previous funding rounds, application forms will be available from Monday next week at the Department of Communities’ one-stop shop and on my web site. Applications will close on 1 December 2006. It is the committee’s intention to make payments in the lead-up to Christmas. I again thank the generosity of all of those donors who have chipped in to assist the community of far-north Queensland. I also want to thank all the government departments and employees and my ministerial colleagues who have worked incredibly hard to support this community. I know that Warren Pitt, who is the local member, has indicated to me that he is grateful for the overall support from the government. I know that the Minister for Emergency Services has been there regularly and we have all given a commitment, including the minister for primary industries.

Patel, Dr J Mr McARDLE: My question is to the Attorney-General. I refer the minister to media reports today. Can she advise whether it would not have been subsequently easier to extradite Dr Patel had he agreed to voluntarily return to Queensland to face justice even if he later reneged on any such deal? Isn’t it true that Patel is no closer to being brought to Queensland now than in June of this year? Mrs LAVARCH: If Jayant Patel voluntarily returned to Queensland there would be no need for extradition proceedings. If I am to understand the premise of the member for Caloundra’s question— Mr McArdle: All your colleagues do. Mrs LAVARCH: If I am to understand the premise of the member for Caloundra’s question, it is that he believes that I should have agreed to the undertaking as part of that package of conditions as the shadow Attorney-General and the person who would seek to have the office of Attorney-General in this state would have made the decision to sign the undertaking and commit to that package but with a reservation that Patel would renege on the deal so that it would be easier to do the extradition. It does not make sense. I stand by my decision. In the interests of justice and the law and in the public interest of Queensland, I contend that it is the right decision. 12 Oct 2006 Questions Without Notice 157

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member for Bundamba, I welcome to the Speaker’s Gallery a delegation from the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission from the parliament of Western Australia. Water Infrastructure Mrs MILLER: My question is to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure. The state’s plans for water infrastructure, especially in south-east Queensland and particularly in the electorate of Bundamba, are comprehensive. In fact, only last weekend we had a sausage sizzle in Bundamba to discuss the water infrastructure initiatives. Can the minister detail any further progress with this hive-of- activity program? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question and for her ongoing interest in this issue. Can I also say how pleased I am to hear an intelligent question being asked in the chamber. I also note the new-found interest by the Courier-Mail in the questions being asked. I would hope that the one that was just asked by the shadow Attorney-General takes out the inaugural monumental stupidity award for questions. I am very pleased to advise the House, as the Premier alluded to earlier, that today is a very significant day in the implementation of our water grid. Today we will see the first pipes laid to link Brisbane with the Gold Coast with the southern regional pipeline. This pipeline is absolutely critical in our comprehensive plan to create a water grid to move water from where it is stored to where it is needed as those two things change from time to time. We committed during the election to start construction on this pipeline within our first 100 days, and today we are delivering. The member for Bundamba will know that part of her electorate is about to become an absolute hive of activity as it becomes the construction hub for the water grid. An initial five crews will be working on laying the pipes and infrastructure in pockets from the Brisbane River to Redbank Plains. The project is expected to create 400 direct jobs—160 are already employed and more will come daily. Along the 100 kilometres of pipeline there will be five pump stations, three balance tanks, and road and rail crossings. The project is due to be completed by the end of November. Given that the pipes are being laid one week ahead of schedule, that bodes well for a very satisfactory completion date. Our government, unlike the Queensland coalition, has a fierce commitment to building the infrastructure that Queensland needs, and not only in the area of water. Members, and particularly some of the newer members, will have noted members of the opposition in here yesterday beating their chests about infrastructure. By the end of the day they had confirmed on the record that they remain opposed to the Traveston Dam, despite the overwhelming mandate that the people of Queensland have given for the construction of that dam. They confirmed in this morning’s Courier-Mail, through the shadow minister for local government and member for Warrego, that they will be opposing a vital power link on the Darling Downs—a vital piece of energy infrastructure. They will not support it. This is par for the course. As members sit and listen to opposition members in here, they will find that those opposite say one thing in here but then go outside and oppose things like the redevelopment of Suncorp Stadium and the construction of the Goodwill Bridge. They should talk to the 50,000 people who go and enjoy Suncorp Stadium. They should talk to the 70,000 people who cross the Goodwill Bridge. When it comes to infrastructure they talk tough in here but when they go outside and confront the reality of building a piece of infrastructure they go to marshmallow and are spineless. Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member for Maroochydore, I have pleasure in welcoming to the gallery a further group of teachers and students from the Mabel Park State School in the electorate of Waterford, which is represented in this House by Mr Evan Moorhead. Patel, Dr J Miss SIMPSON: My question is to the Premier. The Premier says that he is happy to explain his government’s actions regarding the Dr Patel case because ‘that’s what premiers do’. Why did he not explain himself during the August parliamentary sitting and prior to the state election? Mr BEATTIE: I am very happy to answer that question. The Attorney-General actually answered it before, but let me answer it again. What the Attorney-General advised me and what the Attorney- General has just told the House is that she put in a counterproposal. The counterproposal to Jayant Patel was to come back and face justice and if— Mr Seeney interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Do you want to be rude or do you want an answer? I am happy to give the deputy leader an answer. Just stop being rude. In other words, a counterproposal was put to Jayant Patel’s lawyers, and Jayant Patel’s lawyers were told that if Patel comes back voluntarily then the 158 Questions Without Notice 12 Oct 2006 arrangements that would apply would be those that normally apply to extradition—that is, the charges that were set out prior to coming back would be the only charges. That is normally what happens with extradition. We did not get a reply to that, but that would have been a worthy outcome because that would have saved the extradition. Why would we do anything that could sabotage the possibility of Patel coming back voluntarily on basically the same conditions that would apply to an extradition? He was not prepared to do that, but why would we not allow that due course? Why would we scuttle that? The only secrecy that was being requested here was from Patel’s lawyers. The Leader of the Opposition knows that as well as I do—and he has not answered one question yet. He has not answered this question. Dr Flegg: Deal or no deal? Mr BEATTIE: There was no deal. That is very simple. If the member for Moggill has not got that yet, I do not know how many times I have to say it. Let me say it again: there was no deal; there will be no deal. One thing the Leader of the Opposition has not said is whether he would have done the deal. The real question is—and I have asked the Leader of the Opposition this—would he have done the deal? Go out and tell Queenslanders today whether he would have bought this pig in a poke. Go out and tell people whether he would have bought this deal, this rort, this Christopher Skase proposal. If he can come in here and attack the Attorney-General, I ask the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party: where do they stand? Would they have done this shonky deal? Go out and tell people. The opposition has an opportunity today to tell people whether they would have done this shonky deal. No, the Leader of the Opposition just grins. Mr Seeney: Hang around. Don’t go away. Mr BEATTIE: Yeah, yeah. The reality is that if he had used his common sense he would not have done this shonky deal either. He would not have done it either if he had any decency. We had the shadow Attorney-General, who is over there giving lawyers a bad name, coming up with some extraordinary proposal. He would come up with some arrangement for this with an understanding that it would be broken. It is no wonder those mortgage investors that he was a part of dudding got dudded. He is absolutely consistent. Let me come back to the central issue here. The central issue is very clear: should the Attorney and the DPP have done this shonky deal? The answer is no, no, no and no.

Oats Hill, Crown Land Mr BOMBOLAS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Public Works and Housing. As the minister is aware, I made a commitment to the electors of Chatsworth that, if elected, I would have state government owned land at Oats Hill preserved for environmental purposes. As the land in question is under the minister’s portfolio, will the minister kindly advise what steps are being taken to preserve this land? Mr SCHWARTEN: What a refreshing face to have representing the seat of Chatsworth— someone who is entirely honourable, decent and wants to keep his promise. Contrast that with the previous member, who during the election campaign— Opposition members interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: They do not want to hear about it. I know that. We know that ‘Bomber’ did them a big favour by getting that weasel out of their ranks, but they do not need to go on about it so much. The reality is that the previous member promised the people of that electorate when he was a councillor that the lord mayor would buy that property that we talked about. We had ‘Can-do’ Campbell and ‘Can-do-nothing’ Michael promising that, should he be elected, they would purchase at-risk bushland on Oats Hill and Carina Heights. Did that happen? No, it did not. During the election campaign we had this disgraceful, underhanded, despicable activity which suggested that we would knock down bushland there—something that I promised Terry Mackenroth many years beforehand when he took me traipsing around there—and that we would put cheek-by-jowl, high-density housing on it. Nothing could be further from the truth. To put that beyond any doubt whatsoever, we undertook to transfer it to the minister for the environment for environmental purposes to put that right beyond risk and to ensure that scurrilous stuff went out of existence. It did not end there, of course. Dear old Michael wrote to every elector, and obviously it was a big hit with them. He suggested that what we were really going to do was transfer it over before the election and then transfer it back. Let me tell the House, first of all, that that was never the intention. Secondly, it is great to have an honourable member whom I can deal with and deal honestly with and someone whom I can hold at their word and hold at my word. That land will be transferred over to the department of the environment as we said it would be, and the negotiations are underway in both departments at this point in time. 12 Oct 2006 Questions Without Notice 159

The regrettable thing about it is that ‘Can-do’ Campbell, as he calls himself, cannot do in this respect. He cannot tell the truth and he cannot honour the commitment that he made to the people. The people who miss out on this are the people he says he cares about—the homeless in this state— because that is where the money is coming from in the budget. It is coming out of the housing department. It is all very well for the council to big-note itself. It is all very well for Mr Caltabiano. We know that the tories over there do not care a fig about the plight of the homeless. Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member for Gladstone, I welcome a further group of teachers and students from Mabel Park State School in the electorate of Waterford, represented in this parliament by Mr Evan Moorhead.

Home WaterWise Rebate Scheme Mrs CUNNINGHAM: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Access to water rebates in the south-east corner has rightly generated significant interest and action. Prior to the election I wrote to the Premier seeking extension of the rebates to all Queenslanders, and under the hand of his adviser during the election campaign I received a letter advising that, if re-elected, the Premier would roll out the rebate scheme across Queensland. As interest in this rebate is high in my electorate, can the Premier clarify what the dates are for the rollout of the scheme to all of Queensland? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Gladstone for her question. Yes, she did write to me. Yes, I have indicated that we will roll the rebate scheme out on a statewide basis. I do not have the dates with me. The Deputy Premier and I have just had a discussion. She will contact you in the next few days to give you advice about the likely dates. We will do it as quickly as we possibly can. The reason we need to time the roll out is to make sure that there is a supply of tanks and other equipment available. During the election campaign the member may recall that the member for Hervey Bay and I visited one of the suppliers. Clearly in those discussions, and in discussions that I have had elsewhere, we need to make sure that the supplies are available; otherwise we will end up with applicants being frustrated that they are not getting the tanks or the equipment. We need to make certain that there is a supply within a reasonable period and there is a process for the processing of rebate returns. Basically what we are doing is getting a system in place to deliver the commitment I gave during the election campaign. Anyone who applies from various dates will be able to access it, and we will do it as quickly as we possibly can. The Deputy Premier and I think we can give a commitment to the member today that we will make the information available to her within a week, at the very latest, about when those programs will become available. Mr Speaker, I wonder, with your latitude, whether I might add something to one of the questions that was asked of me a little earlier by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in relation to disclosure of these matters. I note—and the Attorney-General and I have been discussing this—that on 14 June 2005, 15 June 2005 and 17 June 2005 there were reports in the Courier-Mail involving Jayant Patel’s lawyers arising out of various discussions, including reports I think done by Tony Morris at the time. I will read from them because this has been an ongoing matter involving his lawyers. On 15 June the Courier- Mail stated— Fugitive doctor Jayant Patel will be offered a one-way economy air fare and secure accommodation but no indemnity from prosecution in an effort to lure him back to Queensland. We ruled out any indemnity. There were discussions with his lawyers. On 17 June the Courier-Mail stated— Lawyers for Jayant Patel have told the Queensland Government the rogue surgeon— I am sure I did not use those words; this is the Courier-Mail, not my words— will not be coming back to face his accusers unless forced to do so. I table this. Tabled paper: Copy of a correction notice dated 17 June and articles dated 14 and 15 June 2005 from the Courier Mail. We disclosed those three reports—and I am sure there are more—and from time to time there has been contact arising out of those reports. Patel’s lawyers have been very public. I have no doubt that his lawyers have been behind the release of this information—or his former lawyers. It is all designed to pressure the Queensland government into doing a sweetheart deal. I say to Jayant Patel’s lawyers, past and present, that no amount of political or public pressure will change our view. There is no sweetheart deal. I say to Jayant Patel: come home and face justice, but there will be no sweetheart deals. 160 Questions Without Notice 12 Oct 2006

Pandemic Influenza Ms CROFT: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Can the minister outline what steps are being taken to ensure Queensland is better prepared to respond to any potential outbreak of pandemic influenza? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the member for Broadwater for the question, because next week Brisbane hosts a national exercise to test Australia’s preparedness to respond to an outbreak of pandemic influenza. Exercise Cumpston is the first pandemic influenza simulation exercise of its size and scope anywhere in the world. Government agencies from across Australia are involved and 55 international observers are flying in to observe. Brisbane International Airport will be the operational focus of the four-day exercise starting on 16 October. On Tuesday the airport will host an exercise based on the simulated arrival of a suspected pandemic influenza case aboard an international flight. This will help test Australia’s border control and surveillance readiness as well as the capacity of Health and other agencies to respond quickly and effectively to such a threat. It will also test the effectiveness of whole-of-government contingency planning plus coordination between Commonwealth and state agencies, the private sector and NGOs. Queensland Health will play a key role in this exercise. It will lead the health response at the airport as well as test its other response mechanisms including distribution of antiviral drugs, disease containment and the efficiency of laboratory sample testing processes. The Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital will test its procedures for the assessment and admission of suspected influenza patients. This will follow the presentation of a suspected influenza patient at a Springwood GP clinic on Monday. On Wednesday, a community assessment clinic for pandemic influenza will be set up and operate at the Logan Entertainment Centre. Queensland is well advanced in preparing to minimise the potential health, social and economic impacts of human influenza pandemic. We have a whole-of-government Queensland pandemic influenza plan in place, and Queensland has its own stockpile of over 30,000 courses of antiviral drugs ready to respond to any local influenza pandemic outbreak of bird flu in humans. But the importance of Exercise Cumpston should not be underestimated. Not only will it help Queensland and other Australian agencies hone and improve their existing contingency planning and response mechanisms; it will also ensure Queensland and national agencies work better together so that we can quickly and effectively respond to any potential entry of pandemic influenza to our shores. Patel, Dr J Mr LANGBROEK: My question without notice is to the Attorney-General. I refer the honourable minister to today’s Australian newspaper. Can she advise the House what the DPP’s advice was in relation to the offers from Dr Patel’s lawyers, and did she accept their advice or come to her own decision? Can she please advise the House of this? Mrs LAVARCH: I thank the honourable member for the question. This was not a matter seeking the DPP’s advice. I was called to a meeting with the DPP where the approach from the lawyers was put to me. It was a matter where I took in the information and I then gave it consideration. I did it as the first law officer of this state. I did it as the independent Attorney-General. National Highway, AusRAP Report Ms NOLAN: My question is to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. Can the minister advise the House of the findings of the independent Australian Road Assessment Program—that is, the AusRAP report—which recently gave a safety rating to every piece of the National Highway network? Can he advise the House of what it found for Queensland? Does this reinforce what Queensland has been saying about federal road funding for the state? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for her question. She is someone who is assiduous in pursuing the federal government to meet its responsibility to motorists in her electorate and the rest of Queensland. The AusRAP report, which I table, rates the National Highway network with a rating between one and five, with five being excellent. Tabled paper: A copy of a report by the Australian Automotive Association titled ‘Star Ratings—Australia’s National Network of Roads’ dated October 2006. It must be a very small comfort to the member for Ipswich and the member for Ipswich West that the only five-star stretch of the National Highway in Queensland is between Hatton Vale and Minden, and it is about 656 metres long. To put that in perspective, our state controlled network contains 33,000 kilometres of road. The AusRAP report rates the National Highway network on the star system. It is an independent report from the nation’s motoring bodies. It is based on design elements, such as lane width, shoulders, if the road is divided, the number and sharpness of curves, line markings, trees and poles et cetera. A 12 Oct 2006 Questions Without Notice 161 rating of five is excellent, and then it goes all the way down to one, which is very dangerous. Almost 60 per cent of Queensland’s National Highway network is rated ‘unacceptable’; 85 per cent of the Bruce Highway stretch between Brisbane and Cairns is ‘unacceptable; one per cent of the network is listed as ‘dangerous’; and none, fortunately, is listed as ‘very dangerous’. The two-star ‘dangerous’ sections include the stretch of the Bruce Highway from Cooroy to Gympie, the stretch of the Bruce Highway from Townsville to Cairns and the stretch of the Bruce Highway from Mackay to Proserpine. Yesterday in his first speech in here the member for Gympie said that the reason he chose the National Party was that it would allow him to proffer the interests of his constituents ahead of his party political line. Then in the same speech he had the cheek to say it is the state government’s responsibility to fix the Bruce Highway. At least Pontius Pilate washed his own hands. The member for Gympie washed the federal National Party’s hands in his own speech when he said he would proffer the interests of his electorate before the interest of politics. He got caught out at the first go. Canberra grabs $2.7 billion a year in road funding, and we get back 17 cents in the dollar, and I will look at some other comparisons as well. The Local Government Association clearly hits the federal government on the head for this, as do the south-east Queensland mayors. In fact everybody does, except the apologists on that side of the House. I will exclude the member for Gregory from that, because when he was transport minister he was happy to take on the federal government. I do make that exclusion. What about our spend? Our spend in Queensland is $495 per person compared to $218 per person in Victoria and $249 per person in New South Wales. We have shown that we can work with the Gold Coast City Council and the Brisbane City Council on major projects. We made the announcement on the weekend about Airport Link. Do members think the federal government could ever make an announcement like that? We are putting the lion’s share of money into Airport Link, but we can at least deal with local authorities. There is one thing opposition members need to do if they ever want to be seen as a credible government. They need to be able to stand up to the federal government. They failed the first test at the barrier. Patel, Dr J Mr MESSENGER: My question without notice is to the Attorney-General and minister for justice. The minister told the media this morning of her decision not to accept the deal for Patel to return to Australia to face the courts but that she did offer that he face no further charges. Minister, given the fact that we have had two royal commissions and a brief of police evidence with some 28 charges before the DPP since February this year—some eight months—can she now explain why she has not immediately commenced extradition proceedings against ‘Dr Death’? Mrs LAVARCH: I think the member for Burnett has misunderstood what the request for the undertaking was all about. I believe I have explained it in my ministerial statement and throughout question time today. The question was in relation to the extradition proceedings. I do not commence the extradition proceedings. It is the Commonwealth Attorney-General who commences the extradition proceedings. Mr Messenger interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Burnett, you have asked your question and the question has been answered. Please respect the House. Skills Shortage, Overseas Workers Mr CHOI: My question is directed to the Minister for State Development, Employment and Industrial Relations. While we understand Queensland is suffering a skills shortage, is the minister aware of any anomalies with the federal government’s section 457 visa application? Can the minister advise this House how the federal government is using the skills shortage as a smokescreen to allow employers to import migrants to undermine working conditions not just for the guest workers but also for Queensland workers as well? Mr MICKEL: We are 10½ years into the federal Howard government, and what do we find? The federal government has known of a skills shortage in this country for years, and every employer has been beseeching our government to try to do something about the skills. The Minister for Health has had to go overseas, but what does the federal government do? After slashing funding for skills over the years, we have an announcement in the Courier-Mail today that it is going to try to do something about it. It is years too late. The federal government has been asleep at the wheel. The federal government has now embarked on a subclass of visa system called 457 for foreign guest workers. Let me be up-front. We support such a system when it is going to bring in skilled workers that we do not have because of that federal government neglect, whether it be in the area of health, the electricity sector or other areas of this economy where there are genuine skill shortages. However, we 162 Questions Without Notice 12 Oct 2006 object to the mismatch of bringing people in where they may not be needed. We object to the mismatch whereby people are brought in under an AWA to weaken the existing working conditions of Australian and Queensland workers. I am scared that there has been a complete mismatch between the department of migration and the federal department of employment. We have seen a recent massive growth in the number of guest worker visas—in fact, a 66 per cent increase in the number granted in Australia since 2004. In 2005-06 around 40,000 workers were brought into Australia on these temporary work visas. In Queensland alone, DIMIA estimates somewhere between 4,000 and 7,000 workers have been brought in. That is its rough guess. The Queensland government, which is a registered certifying body, has brought in 391 workers, but the difference with the Queensland government is that we make sure those people are paid award wages. We make sure they get the penalty rates. That is not the case when workers are brought in under the AWAs, because we have found that every one of the AWAs we have examined has taken conditions off people. Let us look at the case that was reported in yesterday’s paper. A worker was brought into this country under the controversial 457. He had to sign an illegal contract preventing him from joining a union, engaging in politics or even religious activities. How outrageous was that? Under no circumstances was that person allowed to be involved in political, union or radical activity. While at work, the man broke both wrists. The employer, the man who signed him up, sacked him while he was on sick leave. Patel, Dr J Mr COPELAND: I ask the minister for justice and Attorney-General what approaches she has made to the federal Attorney-General to commence extradition proceedings against Dr Jayant Patel, when were those approaches made and when will extradition proceedings begin? Mrs LAVARCH: I thank the honourable member for the question. The independent Director of Public Prosecutions makes the extradition request to the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s office. For the information of all members of the House, I will outline the process. If it is decided to lay charges, the QPS will issue a warrant to arrest on the charges. The extradition request is then made to the Commonwealth Attorney-General. The Commonwealth Attorney-General’s office then needs to ensure that the request complies with the relevant treaties and the Extradition Act 1988. The Commonwealth Attorney-General’s office signs the extradition request and it is then transmitted through diplomatic channels. Mr Copeland: Has any of that been done? Mrs LAVARCH: The Commonwealth Attorney-General will advise the Queensland Police Service if the— An opposition member interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question is being answered. Let us give the minister for justice and Attorney-General a go. Mrs LAVARCH: The Commonwealth Attorney-General signs the extradition request and it is transmitted through diplomatic channels. Then an arrest is made in the country where the extradition is to be proceeded with. Of course, then it can go through legal proceedings. Those are all matters for the independent Director of Public Prosecutions. Summer Storm Preparedness Ms JONES: My question is to the Minister for Mines and Energy. With the summer storm season upon us, it is not a matter of if we lose power but when. I ask the minister: how geared up are Energex and Ergon to deal with the inevitable outages and blackouts? Mr WILSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. I welcome her to this chamber. She is a new member who is adding to the number of women that we have in this House. The first storm of the season hit Brisbane in the last week of September. History tells us that there will be many more across the state in the coming months. I can report that Energex dealt with that storm very well. Supply was quickly restored when outages occurred. Energex and Ergon are implementing comprehensive summer preparedness plans. Both have increased the capacities of their networks to cope with peak demand. Some interruptions will be unavoidable. Powerlines will always be susceptible to damage from high winds and lightning strikes. A record 1,000 Energex workers are on standby and are ready for action. Field crews, call centre operators and support staff are on roster right now through to the end of March. Energex has boosted its fleet with an extra 280 trucks, and 300 vehicles have been replaced in a $50 million fleet fit-out. On the day that I was sworn in as minister, I inspected the latest addition to the 12 Oct 2006 Questions Without Notice 163 fleet at the Banyo depot, a $400,000 state-of-the-art Volvo carrier designed and proudly built in Queensland. It is virtually a one-stop shop for electricity work. Energex is spending more than $2 million a day on upgrades and maintenance of south-east Queensland’s electricity network. A series of community safety initiatives and programs is also planned as part of a comprehensive strategy. In the past few months, Energex has conducted helicopter patrols to monitor vegetation around overhead lines. It spends $1 million a week on vegetation management in the south-east. Energex is also on track to install extra electricity capacity in the south-east for the summer—the equivalent of the entire power use for the Gold Coast City area on a normal spring day. A record $300 million has been allocated for extra electricity capacity and to carry out capital works, improvements and maintenance across the network. Energex and Ergon are getting on with the job of preparing for the inevitable storms of summer. Patel, Dr J Mr DEMPSEY: My question is to the Attorney-General. Given the enormous interest in the fate of Dr Jayant Patel to the people of the Bundaberg community, particularly those affected by his botched surgery, will the Attorney-General come to Bundaberg next Monday to explain why since June she has hidden from them the secret negotiations with him to return? Will she give them a guarantee that Dr Patel will be quickly returned to face justice so that his victims and their families can have some closure? Mrs LAVARCH: I thank the honourable member for Bundaberg for his question. I understand that this is the first question he has asked in his parliamentary career. The member has extended to me an invitation to go to Bundaberg to meet with the former patients of Patel. I would have to check my diary, but I have no problem with meeting with the former patients of Jayant Patel. I have been to Bundaberg on two occasions for full public meetings. If I am available, I am more than happy to go. In his question the member raised an allegation that we were part of the secret deal. I reaffirm that it was my decision not to give the undertaking required, which was part of that package— Mr Beattie: Which was secret. Mrs LAVARCH: —because the whole deal was secret, but I made it on the basis that the terms of the conditions were unacceptable. It was an independent legal decision. Young Athletes Assistance Program Mr PEARCE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport. Many people in the Fitzroy electorate believe that there should be a fund for assisting young people to travel to state championships and were disappointed when the previous program was closed. Will this program be reopened? Mr FRASER: I thank the honourable member for the question and for his acute interest in the future of the Young Athletes Assistance Program. I know that it is an interest that is shared by most members of the government and, indeed, even by some members of the opposition. This was a great program and a great idea. For the first time, under this government we had a program in place to assist young athletes to attend championship programs around the state. When it first opened the program was incredibly oversubscribed. I am pleased to announce that the Young Athlete Assistance Program will reopen as of today. It will reopen with new terms and conditions and new eligibility criteria that will mean that more people will be able to access it and a more fair and equitable distribution of the money will be available. It will be funded with $2 million this financial year. Originally we budgeted half a million dollars for the program and we will go into this year with $2 million to provide assistance to young athletes and their families. All members receive vast numbers of letters and requests to assist families in meeting sporting costs and in helping their children achieve their hopes and dreams by attending sporting championships. I have taken the view that we need to flatten out and broaden the criteria to allow more people to access the program in a simpler manner so that people whose children want to go to state level championships can access the program. I am pleased to announce to the House that as of now that program has been reopened without a closing date. This morning I checked the population figures for New South Wales and Victoria. New South Wales has a population of 6.8 million people, Victoria has five million people and Queensland has four million people. New South Wales provides $260,000 under an equivalent program for 6.8 million people, Victoria provides $120,000 for five million people and Queensland will be providing $2 million for four million. We are far out in front of the rest of the country on this one, as we are with so many other things. 164 Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Bill 12 Oct 2006

This program will not assist everyone. I have to make that point. But the reality is that we need to make programs that fit within the overall strong financial management of our government. We have allocated $2 million for it. The program is open from today. That money will run out. But the point is that we need to always conduct these programs in a way that respects the strong economic and financial record of the state and the Beattie Labor government in particular. It means that, for sports such as cricket, softball and athletics, which have championships starting this weekend and continuing for the rest of October, people will be eligible to apply for a rebate under the scheme. It is good news for the parents of children who want to attend these championships and need assistance to achieve that.

ENERGY ASSETS (RESTRUCTURING AND DISPOSAL) BILL

Remaining States; Allocation of Time Limit Order Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (11.31 am), by leave, without notice: I move— (1) That under the provisions of standing order 159, the Energy Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill be declared an urgent bill to enable the bill to be passed through all its remaining stages at this day’s sitting. (2) That notwithstanding anything contained in the standing and sessional orders, further time for debate on the bill to pass all of its remaining stages is limited to two hours with: (a) the second reading being completed within 1 hour and 30 minutes; (b) consideration in detail being completed within 1 hour and 50 minutes; (c) the third reading being completed within 1 hour and 55 minutes; and (d) the long title being agreed within the 2 hour period. (3) If the bill has not passed each stage at the time outlined in (2) above, Mr Speaker shall immediately put the relevant questions necessary without further amendment or debate, including clauses and schedules and any amendments to be moved by the minister in charge of the bill en bloc. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (11.31 am): I second the motion moved by the Leader of the House. Hon. KR LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (11.32 am): The opposition will obviously be opposing the motion moved by the Leader of the House. The opposition had agreed to allow this bill to go through today—that is a very unusual process—because we understood the urgency. There were only three opposition members on the speaking list. There was no worry about this legislation going through today. There is no need for the government to gag debate on this bill. We will allow it to go through as an urgent bill but we will not agree to it being gagged in this parliament. Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to. AYES, 56—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan NOES, 29—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson Resolved in the affirmative.

YEPPOON HOSPITAL SITE ACQUISITION BILL

Remaining Stages; Allocation of Time Limit Order Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (11.39 am), by leave, without notice: I move— (1) That under the provisions of standing order 159, the Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Bill be declared an urgent bill to enable the bill to be passed through all its remaining stages at this day’s sitting. (2) That notwithstanding anything contained in the standing and sessional orders, further time for debate on the bill to pass all of its remaining stages is limited to two hours with: (a) the second reading being completed within 1 hour and 30 minutes; (b) consideration in detail being completed within 1 hour and 50 minutes; (c) the third reading being completed within 1 hour and 55 minutes; and (d) the long title being agreed within the 2 hour period. (3) If the bill has not passed each stage at the time outlined in (2) above, Mr Speaker shall immediately put the relevant questions necessary without further amendment or debate, including clauses and schedules and any amendments to be moved by the minister in charge of the bill en bloc. Mr SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. 12 Oct 2006 Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Bill 165

Hon. KR LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (11.40 am): Mr Speaker— Mr SPEAKER: You are getting up just slightly— Mr LINGARD: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. If I do not do this you can put the question immediately and then say that there were no speakers against the motion. Mr SPEAKER: Can I ask the member to take his seat for a moment. I was not going to propose that you not speak, but I had started to speak before you got up on your feet. I was going to give you the call. Mr LINGARD: I rise to a point of order. You should call for a seconder now that I want to speak. Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. I call the Treasurer. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (11.41 am): I second the motion moved by the Leader of the House. Mr SPEAKER: I call the Manager of Opposition Business. Hon. KR LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (11.41 am): The procedure and the practices in this Queensland parliament have been that when a bill is introduced there are two readings: an immediate first reading of the title of the bill and the second reading in which a minister presents their second reading speech. Therefore, all members of the parliament have the second reading speech of the minister, which is the intention of the legislation, and the legislation in order to go out and talk to the public and bring back those ideas so that when the bill is debated in the second reading debate they know both their own opinions and the opinions of the people of Queensland. We always had five days after legislation was presented to the House to take that legislation out to the people of Queensland—to take it out to our communities—and then come back with the opinions of the Queensland people and ourselves so that we could discuss it openly. Five days was not considered to be enough at one stage. The Independents thought that, with all of the bills they had to look at, those five days should be extended. Recently it was extended and we now have 13 days in which we can discuss with people the legislation and the minister’s second reading speech, which sets out the intention of the legislation. This morning we said that sometimes emergency legislation may be allowed, and we have allowed the Energy Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill to go through as an urgent bill. However, this is not urgent legislation. This is legislation that we discussed at the regional sittings in Rockhampton. We do not believe it is so urgent that we should not be allowed to, firstly, look at the second reading speech and, secondly, go out and discuss it with the people of Queensland. This is not democracy. This is not the way to run parliament. If it is that the government wants to bring in urgent legislation, we will look at it and we will make a decision, as we did in relation to the energy bill. With regard to that bill, we said that we would allow it to go through. We do not agree with gags. We do not agree that the government should impose a time limit. Yet here today we have two pieces of legislation—the first two pieces of legislation in this House—and the government has gagged debate on both of them. We are saying that the Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Bill is not urgent legislation. This should be taken out to the Queensland public to be discussed. If in two or three weeks time the government wants to bring it on for debate—that is, after 13 days—it can do it. But we certainly disagree. We will not support the government in, firstly, debating this as an urgent bill and, secondly, once again putting a gag on debate of the legislation. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (11.44 am): In speaking to this motion, I would like to hear someone from the government side explain to the House why this is an urgent bill, why we need to be bringing this matter forward and, more importantly, why the bill cannot lie on the table for the 13-day period before being debated. Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (11.44 am): Very simply, let me assure the House that I was not dreaming yesterday when the second reading speech was delivered in this House. So the second reading speech has actually been delivered. Might I also correct the former Speaker of this parliament that this is not a gagged debate at all. Opposition members interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: If those opposite are going to get up and big-note themselves in this place, then they should at least use the right terminology. This is a guillotine motion, not a gag. And if they do not know the difference between them it is no wonder they are laughing at themselves. The question that has been asked is a very serious one and it will get a serious answer. The first point I would make is that on the last day the previous parliament sat the Premier announced that we would legislate to gain that site for the urgent need to build a hospital at Yeppoon. He announced that that was the case. I do not know how many days there have been since then—it is closer to two months than a month—but the reality is that this issue has been mandated, as far as I am concerned, by the 166 Order of Business 12 Oct 2006 people of Queensland. Members should ask the people in the electorate of Keppel whether they want us to mandate a hospital site that has shillyshallied because the bloke who we are dealing with has indicated time and again that he does not want to deal in any shape or form in any reasonable manner with the government of the day. He does not want to do that. This is the only method by which we can procure this land for the hospital, and that is why the legislation is urgent. Opposition members interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: Mr Speaker, may I be allowed to continue, please? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members, I am determined to ensure your right to interject, but I am also determined to ensure the right of the Leader of the House to be heard. I would ask you to respect that. Mr SCHWARTEN: On top of this, we went to the people of Queensland and said that within 100 days we would legislate for this site. We are keeping our word. The sooner we can get on to that site, the sooner we can start to build a hospital. That is the most urgent need for the people of Queensland. It is the most urgent need for the people of Keppel. I cannot believe that the National Party, which made so much fuss about this during the election campaign, now wants to stymie the attempts of the parliament to make this happen. I cannot believe it. Those opposite should not come in here with this nonsense, especially the Manager of Opposition Business, who sat through the Bjelke-Petersen days of the sausage machine that took away the rights of workers in the middle of the night. They should not equate this piece of legislation— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: This is a robust chamber where you give it and you need to take it as well. I am asking you to respect the fact that the Leader of the House is on his feet. Let us hear him in silence. Mr SCHWARTEN: I will go back to the question asked by the member for Nicklin. Why is this urgent? It is urgent because every day that we delay getting on to that site is another day that the people of Keppel go without a hospital. That is what it means. Has there been notice to the people of Queensland? Too right there has been—in our election commitments. Has this chamber been advised before? Yes, it has—on the last sitting day of the previous parliament. It was stated by the Premier that this is what we were going to do. I would have thought it was not controversial. I would have thought every member of this parliament— Opposition members interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: It is controversial that this site be acquired! That is news to me. I am glad to have on the record that the National Party opposes this site and opposes the building of this hospital. As the public works minister I can say that we want to get out to tender on this job as soon as we can. We cannot do that until we can allow people to gain access to this site. The bloke who owns it will not allow us on to that site in any shape or form of goodwill. He will not allow us to take soil tests or anything else like that. The reality is that sometimes this parliament needs to stand up and be counted in terms of infrastructure that is required in this state. The people of Queensland should not be held to ransom by one single individual, who is lying like a dog in a manger trying to stop us building that hospital and also trying to screw the arm of the taxpayer to get more money into his pocket. That is the reason it is urgent. This person has been treated with all due respect that the law demands he be treated with, but it is now time to act. If those opposite want to oppose debating this bill urgently today and getting it out of the way, then they will bear the brunt of the public criticism that comes their way when this project is yet again delayed along the way. Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to. AYES, 55—Attwood, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Nelson- Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan NOES, 28—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson Resolved in the affirmative.

ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (11.56 am): I move— That government business order of the day No. 1 be postponed. Motion agreed to. 12 Oct 2006 Energy Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill 167

ENERGY ASSETS (RESTRUCTURING AND DISPOSAL) BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 11 October (see p. 62). Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (11.58 am): I rise to speak to this bill, which relates to the privatisation sale of extensive energy assets held by the state of Queensland. At the outset, I want to say that the government, by applying the guillotine to the debate of this vital bill, is insulting the people of Queensland. In fact, to borrow an expression that was used yesterday in the House by the Treasurer, it is ridiculous and more so because it was unnecessary given that we had already indicated that we would be supporting the bill. The speaking list was appropriate to that indication. The Treasurer has already thanked us for our support of the bill. In my view, to then suspend the rules of this House and apply this rigid restriction to the debate is a very bad start to the parliamentary term. I say to the Leader of the House that it does not matter very much whether it is a gagging or a guillotining of this debate; this is a debate of a major bill. This is not a minor bill in any sense. It deals with in excess of $2 billion of taxpayers’ money, it involves the setting up of a future fund and it represents a major change in the government’s approach in terms of the funding of infrastructure and other expenditures. Yet this government wants to ram this bill through the House. It does not want a public debate of this bill. I think the people of Queensland should be insulted and offended by that. Certainly, those who have an acute interest in infrastructure and privatisation have been deprived of the opportunity to participate in this debate. As I said, the members on this side of the chamber will be supporting the bill, but there are a number of important matters that need to be discussed in relation to the approach that the government is taking. Unlike the members opposite, members on this side do not have an ideological objection to the disposal of public assets where we believe that governments no longer have a role to own and operate them and where such a sale can provide a better service to the people of Queensland under private enterprise ownership and management. It is curious that the members opposite are comfortable with the sale of an infrastructure asset where the proceeds go into a future fund, yet they oppose the Commonwealth government disposing of an infrastructure asset, that being Telstra, and its proceeds going into the Commonwealth’s Future Fund. I am sure that the members opposite will rationalise that inconsistency in their ideology and will continue to oppose the Commonwealth’s plan to sell infrastructure while at the same time voting to sell state infrastructure. That raises the question as to why this sale is happening. The sale of this asset would not have been necessary had the Beattie government maintained the same policy of previous Queensland governments of consistently investing in infrastructure ahead of need and of planning for the future instead of waiting for a crisis to develop and beset the community and then attempting, at much greater cost, to get out of the crisis that their own failure to plan has created. This type of reactive policy typifies the Bligh-Beattie approach to government. Members opposite were quite content to loot government owned power corporations and have them rack up debt to underwrite past budgets, even when this pillaging resulted in blackouts and inconvenience to the people of Queensland. When caught out, the Premier tried to turn the crisis into a virtue by appealing to the people of Queensland to support him to solve the crisis in power distribution, which was created by his own hand. This was the same for child safety and the state’s public hospitals, both of which the member for Brisbane Central allowed to become run-down and fall into disarray before acting—or, more to the point, promising to act—to fix the crises that he should have foreseen and prevented. Now we find that the member for South Brisbane wants to set up a future fund to fund vital infrastructure in this state which other Queensland governments in the past have managed to do within state budgets. It begs the question: what is the member for South Brisbane doing with the record amounts of GST revenue being received from the Commonwealth and the increase in the levels of state taxation that have been levied during the Beattie government? I think that is at the hub of this debate. Why we are looking at selling infrastructure at this particular point in time when the economy and the inflow of funds has never been better? One could perhaps better understand the sale of assets as being a financial necessity during difficult economic times or during recession. But here we are saying that we need to sell off assets, not for business or efficiency or competition reasons but because we cannot afford to build the state’s infrastructure, and we are saying that at a time of the greatest prosperity and greatest government revenue that this state has ever seen. Neither of the two financial windfalls that this government has had were available to past state governments, which were still able to fund essential infrastructure from available consolidated revenue without the need for forced assets sales. This is not the case at present and is a clear marker that something is desperately wrong with the management of the state’s finances during this period of unprecedented prosperity. 168 Energy Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill 12 Oct 2006

The debate on the sale of this asset gives the House an opportunity to assess the Beattie government’s approach to management. In fact, it was the Beattie government that purchased Allgas back in 1998. At that time, I understand—and perhaps the Treasurer can confirm this for us later on— that Allgas had a customer base approaching some 90,000 customers. Media reports that have accompanied the sale process of Allgas have indicated that that customer base may now be as low as 65,000 customers. It would seem that the Beattie government has spent the last eight years running this business into the ground and is now disposing of it before it becomes even more embarrassing. In the hurried nature of this debate, the consultation process has been somewhat truncated, but I have made inquiries to people in the gas industry and, if there is some doubt about the customer numbers, there is certainly no doubt that under the ownership of this government no effort has been made to grow and expand the business of Allgas. In fact, that really is an embarrassing record for the government given the benefits of gas. If we compare the conduct of the Allgas business in Queensland government ownership to businesses in the same field such as AGL in Sydney or Alinta, which grew out of the gas business in Western Australia, we see that they are businesses that have had explosive growth and have generated enormous amounts of shareholder wealth; whereas we have seen no commitment to expanding the gas business of Allgas for the long eight years that it was in government ownership and at a time when the energy infrastructure and industries have boomed in an unprecedented manner and in a manner that seems to have created wealth for every shareholder and stakeholder except the Queensland taxpayer. One would think in recent years with the lack of investment in power generation that it would have been an ideal opportunity for the network of clean natural gas to be expanded. This would have taken pressure off the power grid and provided environmental dividends. However, the Beattie government’s approach has been to decrease Allgas’s customer base and, at the same time, ignore the environmental dividends that it is happy to espouse when seeking green preferences just before an election. Had the Bligh-Beattie government not run the customer base down, not run the business into the ground in comparison to its rivals in the other capital cities around Australia, it is easily arguable that the people of Queensland could have received a significantly greater return on this asset than the $521 million currently on the table. This may be a good figure for the asset being sold—I am not 100 per cent convinced that that is the case but if we accept that at face value—but clearly, and I think indisputably, that could have been a significantly larger windfall had the asset not been so neglected over the past eight years. There is an additional unresolved question in the whole transaction. When Energex acquired the Allgas asset in 1998, what debt was held in that business and what borrowings were used in the purchase of that business? Clearly, we are, and should be, in this state strong supporters of the use of natural gas as an energy alternative, and I note comments in the House yesterday by the government along those lines. So it is inexplicable that we have heard and seen so little about the expansion of gas infrastructure in Brisbane over the time that the government has owned Allgas. I recall seeing very little promotion and certainly no expansion of its network. It would appear that the Treasurer by sleight of hand is now taking the Allgas assets from Energex, pocketing the proceeds from the sale, yet leaving Energex saddled with any debt which may have been acquired along the way—whether acquired at the time of the original purchase of Allgas or subsequently. If this is correct, it would illustrate the extent to which this House has been deceived by this government using another means to saddle government owned corporations with debt while massively reducing its capacity to service it, because there is a substantial revenue loss to this government owned corporation as a result of the sale. Perhaps the Treasurer in her subsequent remarks might clarify not simply the purchase price and disposal price of Allgas but the enterprise value of Allgas at the time of purchase and of sale—of course, this is a much more meaningful figure that incorporates any aspects of debt that are also in the business. I am in no doubt that the Treasurer will not reduce her government’s insatiable dividend demand on Energex as a result of this sale. I am sure that the member for South Brisbane will reassure this House that her government will closely monitor Energex to ensure that it has the capacity to not only service its debts but also adequately invest in and support the infrastructure that remains in public ownership. This short-sighted approach means that as long as any problems for Energex do not happen in this term then clearly the government does not appear concerned about them. I also look forward to the member for South Brisbane’s explanation of the $1.024 billion underspending on capital promised by her government over the last two financial years. Clearly, the government has made substantial promises in relation to capital spending over recent years and has failed to deliver even the spending let alone the infrastructure. Queenslanders are rightly scratching their heads asking, ‘Where has the money gone that was promised but not spent on infrastructure?’ Yet here we are selling assets and saying that we need even more money to pay for infrastructure that was budgeted but not spent previously. At first glance it appears that during the 2005-06 and 2004-05 financial years the government promised $14.86 billion in capital spending and delivered just over $15 billion in capital spending, yet a 12 Oct 2006 Energy Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill 169 closer analysis of this capital spending reveals a number of departments had grossly overspent on capital works while a number significantly underspent. When the underspending across the two financial years is totalled, it amounts to over $1 billion that was not spent. This includes short-changing the people of Queensland $240 million in spending on health capital works, representing 32 per cent of the budget for those two years not spent in the health department at a time when Queenslanders were crying out for vital health services. At Q-Fleet, which has been exposed as having overspent on vehicles for its fleet, it also overspent its budget during those two financial years by over $26 million—more than seven per cent above its budget. Now the Treasurer tells members of this chamber that she wants more funds for infrastructure, yet it is clear that her government cannot manage the funds it has already allocated. I want to record in this chamber the fact that past governments would not have found it necessary to sell assets to meet budgetary requirements or to pay for infrastructure or other initiatives that would previously have been spent out of general budget revenue. The record should reflect the disgraceful way that the Beattie government has run down the asset base and failed to invest in the state’s infrastructure to the point where this has, in effect, been a forced sale. The record should also reflect a sleight of hand from the Beattie government in removing an asset from a government owned corporation and leaving all residual debt within the government owned corporation whilst continuing to take dividend streams. The opposition parties support this bill despite the extensive reservations that I have detailed, because we accept the principle that sometimes we need to sell government owned assets in order to ensure that they are competitive and grow to the benefit of the state; that also sometimes we need to sell government owned assets in order to reinvest those funds in more urgently needed infrastructure that it is more appropriate for a government to provide. Clearly, whilst I am of the view that with prudent financial management and careful infrastructure planning Queenslanders could have had much of this infrastructure provided to them by normal revenue streams, I think the example of Allgas illustrates the point: this is a business that has failed to prosper in government ownership, and it is an indication that here in Queensland the state is best served, in our view, by a prosperous, vigorous, competitive private sector. We would like to see the head offices of some of these companies that are coming out of public ownership remain here in Queensland, because we still have in this state a serious deficit of head office type functions from companies. I noted yesterday that the Deputy Premier took some exception to a comment that I made that this sale, in effect, was to prop up the government going forward. She quoted, I think, from last year’s budget surplus, but clearly she was having something of a lend of me with that statement because this sale did not take place last year and had nothing to do with last year’s budget surplus. In fact, this sale is taking place this year. If we look at the budget, of course, the projected surpluses or cash deficits going forward are skinny indeed. That is why infrastructure that had been previously announced now requires, subsequent to their announcement, the sale of public assets in order to fund them—an issue that was not raised when those assets were first mooted. Let me say in relation to the Queensland future fund that again this is an initiative of the government that we are pleased to support. Its purpose is somewhat different from the federal government’s Future Fund. As members would be aware, the federal government’s Future Fund is to help deal with the issue of unfunded superannuation federally and makes the Howard government one of the few governments around Australia to seriously attempt to tackle that important issue. Fortunately, it is one that does not confront Queenslanders because of the prudent management of superannuation liabilities in the past. The initial assets to be funded by the Queensland futures fund include some water infrastructure assets. Clearly, they are assets that are badly needed in the state. They are assets that had been previously announced, but now as a subsequent measure when the government has reviewed its budgetary situation it has realised that it cannot fund those water infrastructure buildings out of recurrent revenue and at a later date announced it will do asset sales and fund them in that way, because the budget no longer has the capability to provide for those previously announced assets. So the initial assets to be dealt with by the future fund are not new initiatives; they are initiatives that had been previously announced by the government. In relation to the other aspect of the future fund, which is the clean coal technology—and I see that the Treasurer is here and I might be able to surprise her with what I say about this—I think this is a good initiative. Queenslanders have two realities that confront them. One of those realities is that this state has a very large dependence on its energy assets and will have a dependence on those energy assets long into the future, and obviously one of those critical energy assets is coal. The other reality that is facing Queenslanders—as it is facing everybody else globally—is that we are living in a world where I think everybody accepts there is climate change as a result of the activity of human beings, in particular the burning of fossil fuels. This state is on the horns of a dilemma in the sense that we are a major producer and exporter of fossil fuels in a world where fossil fuels are being seen as increasingly detrimental to the environmental health of not just Queensland but the world. 170 Energy Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill 12 Oct 2006

Given the importance of the coal industry—an industry that coalition governments brought to the fore in this state through the construction of railways and ports—it is appropriate that we support this industry by developing technology that will minimise the impact on the environment of the continued burning of Queensland coal. We recognise that we need a strong, active, growing coal industry if Queensland is to continue to enjoy the economic prosperity that the minerals boom and years of coal exporting has brought to the state. One thing I am particularly disturbed about in relation to this bill is the fact that we have had very little debate from the government and very little opportunity for consultation in the business community and the wider community about what approach would have delivered the best value for Queenslanders. Clearly, the government has taken an approach in selling these assets. I gather that some in the ALP have difficulty with any sale of assets, and clearly there has been a political consideration of which assets to sell. I think Queensland would have been much better served if we had had a widespread community debate about the nature of this privatisation and which of the GOCs would have delivered the greatest value. Ms Nolan: What would your position have been? What would you have sold? Dr FLEGG: We would very much like to have a debate and consider what would deliver the best value for Queenslanders. Unfortunately, that sort of information has not been forthcoming from the government. There is a paucity of information about how these values were arrived at and what other value these assets would have had had this been approached differently. Ms Nolan: So what would you have sold? Dr FLEGG: The member for Ipswich thinks it is question time again, but she is a bit late. The government has used the full retail contestability as an excuse to indicate that there is some urgency in this sale process. I note that the minister in her second reading speech referred to the risk to these assets from full retail contestability. I can inform the Treasurer that the potential purchasers of these assets know that we are facing full retail contestability, so the risk to the value of these assets because of contestability is in fact going to be in the price that we get. So the minister’s reference to the fact that the sale process is enhanced and sped up because of the risk to the value is in fact a suggestion that in public ownership these assets would be unable to compete. Ms Bligh: No, in a monopoly ownership. Dr FLEGG: In public ownership, where they would be subject to retail contestability, to suggest that the subsequent price would decline is a reflection of the fact— Ms Bligh: What happens when a monopoly becomes a contestable? Dr FLEGG: I see the Treasurer thinks it is question time as well. Anyway, in view of the fact that we are facing a guillotined debate here and I know that there are some other speakers, I will get to the final stages of what I want to say. Firstly, in relation to that Allgas sale for $521 million, I note that that business has been stripped clean of any debt, so that is in fact the enterprise value free of any debt out of that business. It has within it a tangible asset base of over $300 million. Perhaps those businesspeople who run their ruler over it will easily do the comparison between the value being obtained for this asset in comparison to the value that has been enhanced by some of the other gas assets around the place. I have not dealt in a lot of detail with the individual mechanisms contained within this bill. Obviously, a lot of them facilitate the bundling up of these assets in a particular way and give the Treasurer powers to ensure that various contracts are reallocated and that commercial counterparties to contracts are unable to escape their contractual liabilities because of the change of ownership and so forth. Obviously, I accept those things as being machinery matters and I will not be disputing any of those. For clarification for people who have an interest in this issue, particularly given the paucity of public information coming out of the government, Energex had 1.2 million customers in the electricity area, which I understand is now called Sun Retail. These will be packaged into two sale packages. Sale package No. 1 will have 800,000 of those Sun Retail customers, and sale package No. 2—which I understand is the northern suburbs of Brisbane up to the Sunshine Coast—will contain the other 400,000 contestable customers. That will be a second and separate sale package. The Allgas sale was a separate sale in its own right. There are also a number of Ergon customers who will move from Ergon in the sale process, but I understand that number is very small. Around 600,000 Ergon customers will be retained within Sun Retail. These are customers from the less densely settled parts of the state. My understanding is that the government’s reason for not including these 600,000 Ergon customers is that they are not regarded as commercially viable or profitable customers to take place in the sales process. We will support this bill. We are disappointed with the fact that the government has found it necessary to be selling assets at this time for budgetary reasons. However, we do believe that these are assets which are more appropriately sold. We think there should have been a lot more public discussion 12 Oct 2006 Energy Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill 171 about it—in particular in relation to what mechanisms would have released the greatest value to the Queensland taxpayer for the assets being sold. But in terms of the sale itself and this legislation that enables the minister to enact that sale process, we will be supporting those measures. Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (12.29 pm): It is a pleasure to rise to support the Energy Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill. In doing so, I put on record my hope that I support the bill for all the right reasons. The Leader of the Liberal Party and would-be treasurer of the state has spent 30 minutes demonstrating explicitly to this House that he has not a clue about the energy industry. He has no concept whatsoever of the history of the evolution of the National Electricity Market. Sadly, that he could make such a contribution on such an important matter reflects his inexperience in the position that he holds. The shadow Treasurer seems to think that this process has sprung up in the last few days. In terms of Queensland’s involvement, the evolution of the National Electricity Market has been happening since 1997. We have been involved in the long, steady and ongoing process of evolving from a series of monopoly structures to competitive markets. In the process of joining the National Electricity Market, Queensland has built the interconnector to New South Wales, split the generators, created new trading corporations and folded the seven distributors into two. This is the next step in a process that all the states, in partnership with the Commonwealth, have been following for nearly a decade. The shadow Treasurer’s suggestion that this bill is simply a fire sale to build infrastructure completely puts the cart before the horse. The fact that the proceeds of this sale will go into infrastructure is a good thing, but it is not actually the reason or the motive; it is the bonus. We have to do this. This is simply a matter of managing the risk that happens when there is transition from a public monopoly to contestable markets. That risk is very clear in the electricity industry. A decade ago, there was no risk to government in trading electricity. We owned the generators and the retailers. If the retailers had a bad day, the generators had a win. If the generators had a bad day, the retailers had a win. The reality is that over the last decade we have been building private generation capacity in Queensland. I am sure it will surprise the shadow Treasurer to know that 45 per cent of Queensland’s electricity generation capacity is in fact private. We have been working in contractual partnerships and also via the gas target to encourage the creation of private electricity capacity. That generating capacity has been fantastic for Queensland. One of the shadow Treasurer’s more absurd statements was that there has been little expansion in gas infrastructure in Queensland. Hello! Since 1998, a sum of $3.4 billion has been invested to create 2,500 megawatts of new generation capacity in Queensland and 70 per cent of that investment has been private. One of the great unheralded successes of the Beattie government has been the fact that the 13 per cent gas target has been met in five years. In partnership with the private sector, we have created an electricity industry that supplies over 13 per cent of its electricity from sources involving gas. That is outstanding. Frankly, it is embarrassing for the shadow Treasurer of Queensland to stand here and talk about how there is not enough investment in gas when we lead the nation in investment in gas. Dr FLEGG: I rise to a point of order. The member is deliberately misleading the House. He knows full well that I spoke about the investment in the Allgas business being sold and not in the gas infrastructure of the state. It is ridiculous. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! There is no point of order. Mr McNAMARA: It is wonderful that today we see the maturing and strengthening of the Queensland electricity market through our work with the private sector. The Treasurer is to be congratulated for bringing this bill forward at this time. We have extraordinary private capacity in generation and it is continuing to grow. Wholly privately owned power stations at Millmerran, Collinsville, Mount Stuart, Oakey, Roma and Barcaldine add tremendous depth to our electricity generating capacity. Of course, terrific projects are underway, for example, with Callide C and Tarong North, which are generating very substantial amounts of power—914 megawatts and 414 megawatts respectively. This process is a good one. I support the bill completely. I congratulate the government and, particularly, the Treasurer for bringing this bill forward today. I commend it to the House. Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (12.35 pm): The Energy Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill 2006, introduced by the Treasurer, deals with emerging issues within the Energy portfolio. It gives me great pleasure to address this bill as I rise for the first time as shadow minister for the Energy portfolio. The energy industry restructuring process has been a complex and staged process that has previously involved the separation of the electricity generation transmission and distribution components of the industry from the government owned monopolies that previously ran the whole system. The point of this process is for the government to prepare the energy distribution components of the industry for privatisation and ultimate sale. The bill will allow for the preparation of the packaging process to occur within a time frame that is intended or supposed to achieve the maximum financial return for the state. 172 Energy Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill 12 Oct 2006

In expressing concern on a number of issues associated with the privatisation of Queensland’s electricity retail supply industry, I am very keen to seek the Treasurer’s assurances on a number of matters, especially those involving ordinary electricity consumers in rural and regional electorates such as mine. For the most part, they will be among the 600,000 or so consumers not serviced by the new privatised energy entities that will operate in the full retail competition market after 1 July 2007. The government has recognised that some parts of the retail energy market are simply never going to be profitable enough to be attractive or viable for private sector operators. From the briefing on the bill provided by Treasury, my understanding is that there will remain approximately 600,000 retail energy consumers who are mostly current Ergon customers whose retail energy needs will continue to be met by an energy entity that is a government owned corporation. By necessity, this GOC will need to be funded as part of the government’s community service obligation. It will not be in the position to deliver a profit to the government for reinvestment in its infrastructure base. I respectfully ask the Treasurer, in her summing-up on the debate of the bill, to outline for the House how she will ensure that those 600,000 electricity consumers who will need to depend on the government’s own electricity entity will be adequately provided for. This is a major issue for constituents in my electorate of Charters Towers and, I am sure, for many others in remote parts of the state. In raising this issue I convey to the Treasurer in the strongest and most sincere terms that I am not overdramatising or exaggerating the importance of this matter to people in rural, regional and remote parts of the state. There is a world of difference between the profitable electricity market of the south- east corner of the state which, through this bill, is being groomed for privatisation and the market provided by my constituents. For the benefit of this House, I would like to inform members firsthand of some of the harsh and expensive realities involved in being connected to an electricity supply in rural and regional Queensland. I shall share the experience of one of my constituents who resides on a property in Hidden Valley. This constituent received a letter from Ergon Energy dated 29 September 2006 thanking him for his request for Ergon Energy’s network connection service to provide an electricity supply to his premises. The letter includes a quotation for this connection service, which requires a customer contribution of $225,000. That is not an amount one would expect to pay when moving house somewhere in south-east Queensland. However, the quotation does include an Ergon Energy contribution of a lousy $11,000. Through my constituents— Ms Nolan: Who should subsidise it then? Mr KNUTH: I am talking about a husband and wife who are wanting to provide power for their son and daughter whose home is 730 metres away. This is a contribution that they want to make to their family and they are told that they have to pay $225,000. If this situation were occurring in the south-east corner, in the heart of Brisbane, the story would be on 60 Minutes or A Current Affair. This is what we are putting up with week in and week out. These are the issues that we face. Ms Nolan interjected. Mr KNUTH: Who pays for the rail transport in Brisbane? That is subsidised, is it not? This is a service obligation. I wanted to bring this situation to the attention of the House. Should this constituent have to pay $220,000 to have his power connected so that his son can have electricity? It is not considered to be a part of Ergon Energy’s community service obligation to ensure the provision of a basic, reliable electricity supply to retail customers in remote areas. We are all Queenslanders. We may live in rural Queensland, central Queensland, southern Queensland or Brisbane but we are all Queenslanders. The situation for retail customers in the non-profitable parts of the Queensland market is not good at present. On behalf of my constituents I seek an assurance from the Treasurer that the situation will not get worse after privatisation. We are hoping that it will actually improve after the introduction of full retail competition on 1 July 2007. If the minister cannot give this assurance then the parts of Queensland which non-metropolitan members like me represent are going to miss out on the future benefits which have been promised under the electricity industry reform process. My constituent’s case highlights the issues which make retail electricity connections in the bush so expensive. The transmission and distribution of power over long distances is expensive because the units of power diminish over long distances. Power is cheaper the closer it is delivered to the source of generation. The proximity of the power generation source to the retail consumer affects the end cost to the consumer. An electricity generating facility such as the coal-fired baseload power station at Pentland would have a significant positive effect on the retail price of electricity for consumers in north Queensland. Such a project has the support of the Western Development Corporation, communities in north Queensland and mining companies attempting to invest in these regions but which cannot until there is a guaranteed reliable power source. This project would bring great benefits to the people of north Queensland through the creation of jobs, new industries and cheaper power. New initiatives like the 12 Oct 2006 Energy Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill 173

Pentland baseload power station must be given proper consideration by the government as a means of reducing electricity supply costs to rural consumers and meeting consumer demand. Over the years there have been many detailed plans and projects to restructure the electricity industry. A power station at Pentland does not yet appear to be part of the government’s plan. We must seriously consider the possibility of a new, innovative solution to regional Queensland’s energy supply issues. In rural and regional areas we have the problem of getting a reliable power source. The power generated in Gladstone is very costly. We have companies that are looking to invest and trying to invest in rural and regional areas but will not because there is not a reliable energy source. Pentland is a suitable site. It is a rural area. No metropolitan areas will be affected. It has a reliable water supply. It also has a railway that goes past. At Pentland there is a massive coal resource ready to be utilised. It is not wonderful quality coal, but it is as good as the coal we have at Collinsville which has been used for generating power for more than 45 years. I bring to the attention of the House the importance of that site and the suitability of that site to meet the needs of consumers in rural and regional areas. It will be a worthwhile investment for the state in terms of creating jobs. Another issue that relates to the whole energy industry restructuring process is the welfare and security of employees of the various energy entities which are being restructured. I worked for Queensland Rail for 20 years. This would be of deep concern to the workers. I understand about sick days, long service leave and superannuation. I was in rail super. I understand those issue. These matters would be of deep concern to those employees who are to be moved from a government owned organisation to a private company. It is very important that we protect the conditions of those workers, that is, their superannuation and long service leave entitlements. Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr KNUTH: The member would have to understand where I am coming from in terms of this issue. It would be of concern to the Ergon workers who are going to work for a big private company. We want to ensure that they have the same superannuation, long service leave and sick leave entitlements. This is very important. Two or three years down the track those opposite will be fighting alongside me to ensure that the conditions of those workers continue. Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr KNUTH: The member will be backing me, so that is good. Mr Lawlor: You are not backing us. Mr KNUTH: Do those opposite remember where I sat when the vote was taken? Did they see the papers? I am sure that they will be with me, backing these employees when their workplace agreements come to fruition in a couple of years time. I bring that to the attention of House. Mr ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (12.46 pm): It is a bit ironic to sit in this chamber and listen to a National Party member express concerns about the superannuation benefits of people who work in the electricity industry. I think the member for Charters Towers might like to read back through a bit of the history of this chamber and go back to 1985 when the National Party, of which he is a member, stripped the superannuation entitlements of the thousand sacked SEQEB workers. It took a Labor government in 1989 to return those benefits. I want to respond to a couple of issues raised by the member for Moggill. The member for Moggill said that the bringing on of this bill today indicated that the government was not willing to talk about this issue or the sale of these assets. I am a little surprised at that comment. The public announcement of this issue took place in April of this year. There has been extensive public discussion and debate about these issues since that time. This bill really just contains some basic structural and mechanical provisions which will facilitate those sales. The other furphy which the member for the Moggill continues to peddle in this place—and it is peddled by other members of the coalition at both federal and state levels—relates to the amount of money the state receives from the GST. They imply that we are awash with money as a result of the GST arrangements with the Commonwealth. The reality is that the GST delivers about 20 per cent of the revenue required for the state budget. As a result of the intergovernmental agreement that the state entered into with the Commonwealth at the time the GST was introduced, we are abolishing a whole range of taxes. I think it is worthwhile to reiterate the impact of the abolition of those taxes on our revenue base. What it means is that savings are delivered to taxpayers in Queensland. If we take into account all of the taxes abolished under the intergovernmental agreement, it has resulted in savings to taxpayers in Queensland of around $290 million in 2005-06, increasing with additional taxes that we are abolishing to around $1 billion by 2011-12. The cost to revenue for the Queensland government over that seven-year period is about $4½ billion. This myth and furphy that the coalition continues to peddle that we are awash with money as a result of the GST needs to be quashed. People should be aware of the actual situation. 174 Energy Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill 12 Oct 2006

This bill enables the restructure and sale of particular energy and gas businesses owned by Energex Pty Ltd and Ergon Energy Corporation Ltd. The impending introduction of full retail contestability and the ever-changing landscape confronting the energy industry in Queensland convinced the government that continued government ownership of electricity retailers provided significant risk to the taxpayers of Queensland. On 26 April this year the government announced a number of measures to reform and restructure the electricity retail industry, and that included the sale of Sun Retail and Sungas Retail comprising the electricity and gas retail businesses of Energex Ltd, Energex’s Allgas network and elements of the contestable and selected non-contestable retail businesses of Ergon Energy Corporation Ltd. This process is now well and truly underway and the government recently announced the completion of the first component of the sale process, that is, the sale of the Allgas distribution network to the Australian Pipeline Trust for an amount of $535 million— an amount which financial commentators agreed was an exceptional outcome for Queenslanders. As the Treasurer has indicated, the sale proceeds will be deposited in the Queensland Future Growth Fund, which will be used to fund infrastructure such as dams, weirs, clean coal technology initiatives, which I am pleased to see the member for Moggill supports, and also through our GOCs in terms of significant enhancements and improvements to our rail and port infrastructure. They are just a few examples of how this government is getting on with the job and building the infrastructure that Queensland needs to prosper. This bill is necessary to facilitate the restructure and divestment of the particular energy and gas businesses owned by Energex Ltd and Ergon Energy Ltd and it ensures a speedy process to deal with the appropriate licensing of the energy retailers. States such as South Australia, New South Wales, Western Australia and Victoria have also introduced similar special legislation to facilitate the rationalisation of their electricity entities. Another key aspect of the bill is that it enables the Treasurer to transfer or second employees between companies within the Energex group and the Ergon group for the purposes of preparing the relevant businesses for sale. While the bill provides for this, the government’s approach since the announcement of the sale process has been to have the businesses negotiate with employees and their unions to voluntarily agree to transfer into a particular business that is to be sold rather than forcing them to do so. To this end, the government has consulted closely with unions. The government’s objective is to ensure an effective process for transitioning employees between these businesses and ensuring that the terms and conditions of employment for these employees are protected. To the extent that some employees may have to be transferred or seconded through the provisions set out in the bill, it does provide for the protection and the rights of existing employees who are transferred or seconded from one energy entity to another. The bill ensures that a transfer or secondment does not affect the employees’ benefits, entitlements or remuneration; does not prejudice the employees’ existing or accrued rights to superannuation or recreation and sick leave, long service leave or other leave; does not interrupt continuity of service; and does not constitute a retrenchment or a redundancy. These provisions are designed to look after employees’ interests and deliver a fair and balanced industrial relations outcome for all concerned. With those few words, I commend the bill to the House. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (12.53 pm): I rise to speak to the Energy Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill 2006 and in doing so at the outset put on the record my general opposition to the sale of strategic infrastructure. This has been my position when I was elected and prior to being elected to this parliament, including when negotiations occurred for the sale of the power station in Gladstone, only because I firmly believe that strategic assets should be retained by government for the security of supply and availability for the people in the community. I thank the minister for the briefing we were given on the bill prior to the election, and of course the bill dropped off the list after the parliament was prorogued. However, there are a few issues of concern that I want to raise. There is a clause in this legislation that removes the ability of decisions made under this legislation to be reviewed, including judicial review. In our original briefing I was advised that that in part was to have regard to the caretaker convention should an election occur before this bill was fully enacted. Given that the election has been completed, I question why that condition has to be reinserted to the same extent as it was previously or whether there are other purposes for that non-reviewable clause to be included. The second issue that I want to seek clarification on relates to clause 6 regarding the meaning of the project. It states— ... to facilitate the disposal of particular gas and electricity businesses of energy entities ... It then goes on to qualify other projects. At the time of the briefing I questioned whether, given the scope of the legislation, the bill would empower the government to sell other arms of the energy business without recourse to parliament for further debate. I was advised that the elements of the electricity business and the gas entity which were to be disposed of or quantified by the bill were the commercial parts of Ergon but not the franchise entities and the gas distribution, that is, Allgas and Sun Retail, which would be divided into two groups—800,000 customers would be the first tranche and 400,000 customers would be the second tranche. I am just clarifying that that has not changed—not that the words have changed but that the intent or the implications of the legislation as it is written could 12 Oct 2006 Energy Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill 175 allow the government to sell other parts of the electricity business, as I said, without recourse to parliament for debate. It is my understanding that parts of Ergon and Energex, such as the billing section, the human resources section and the technical services section, will stay with the government owned corporation. I seek those clarifications. The last clarification I would seek is whether the sale of these assets will in any way diminish the ability of government to negotiate competitive power tariffs for large industrial players. As most members would know, there are a significant number of large industries in my electorate, a couple of which are significant power consumers. BSL and QAL were party to purchasing NRG, the power station in my electorate, because of that matter, although they do generate into the grid as well. While I am not advocating that domestic consumers should subsidise the price that industry pays for power, there are at the moment flexibilities for the government to negotiate power tariffs offset by other incomes from the major industries to government coffers. I would seek an assurance from the Deputy Premier that nothing in this bill will undermine the ability of the government to be able to negotiate what have been competitive power tariffs for industry in the past and that nothing in the full contestability will undermine that. I look forward to her clarification. Sitting suspended from 12.58 pm to 2.30 pm. Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (2.30 pm): I rise to add my support to this bill, which facilitates the privatisation of Queensland’s state owned electricity retailers Ergon and Energex Retail as well as Energex’s Allgas network. As we well know, this privatisation is a further step in the reform of the Australian electricity industry—a process that has been happening since the early 1990s and which has mostly happened since 1995 under the guise of national competition policy. Electricity reform has seen the industry transformed from a series of inefficient, stand-alone state owned utilities in the 1990s to a genuine national electricity system and a genuine national electricity market today. The new national network provides a greater breadth of generation into the network and facilitates greater price competition. There also should be no doubt that there are now a broader range of power sources than there were before the national market was set up. Where once there was primarily reliance on coal-fired power, we now include coal, hydro, gas and other more genuine renewables than we did when the reform process began. As we well know, the states have taken different approaches to deregulation and privatisation within the energy market. In Queensland, we have allowed a significant generation capacity to emerge to the extent that now more than 40 per cent of Queensland’s electricity is privately generated. Victoria completely privatised its electricity generators, distributors and retailers lock, stock and barrel, with the result being higher energy prices in that market. Queensland has made a very firm and clear decision not to sell the power generators which we built, to maintain our distribution network and to sell the retailers alone—something which is really necessitated by full retail competition and something which, as I said, this bill facilitates. The most recent survey of household expenditure in Australia conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that, on average, Australians spend only three per cent of household income on domestic electricity use. In the scheme of things, that is a pretty tiny proportion. Although many people argue—really for ideological reasons—against the deregulation and certainly against the privatisation of government owned utilities, as the member for Gladstone did before the lunchbreak, there really should be no doubt that in Australia, if it had not been for the reform process that we have undertaken, we would all now be paying more for power than we are. It is sometimes a shame that the Luddite view of economic policy is simply to be critical of all privatisation all the time, simply for ideological reasons. There is no doubt that these days anything that comes under the label of ‘economic rationalism’ gets a very bad rap, but we need to acknowledge the enormous benefits that this reform process has brought to consumers in a number of ways. We need to acknowledge that, without it, we would simply be paying more for energy now and that we would be continuing to subsidise a great deal of fat in the industry for something which had no particular useful philosophical purpose. We need to be deadset clear that the reform of the Australian energy system over a period of 15 years or so now has brought substantial benefits to consumers. It has also brought a greater degree of energy security in that we are now getting more varied generation capacity coming into the market. We always hear people talking about the rising cost of living. We should note that, in many respects, some of the fundamentals that contribute to the cost of living are going down. The price of food as a proportion of household expenditure is going down. The price of clothing and footwear as a proportion of household expenditure is going down. The price of electricity as a proportion of household expenditure is going down. Although we talk about the high and rising cost of fuel, the price of petrol as a proportion of household expenditure is substantially less than it was throughout the 1970s and the 1980s. Rather, when it comes to the cost of living, our demand for more and more stuff is going up. For instance, the latest analysis of household expenditure by the ABS showed that mobile phone costs had gone up by 183 per cent. So I think we need to recognise that some of the fundamentals are getting cheaper. In the case of electricity, it is getting cheaper as a result of this reform process. 176 Energy Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill 12 Oct 2006

How bizarre is it, then, that the Queensland coalition still cannot work out where it stands on the issue? The Queensland coalition has had a range of positions from up-front, full-on privatisation to, just on a year ago, a rebureaucratisation of the industry. And now, sadly, today Dr Flegg could not tell us where the coalition stood at all. He thought it important that we have a wide-ranging community debate about what assets the state should own and what assets the state should no longer own, but he was not willing to even put his toe in the water of that debate by suggesting where he and the Liberal Party stand. The reason for that is simple: the Liberal Party and the National Party simply do not agree. The Liberal Party is absolutely committed to the full privatisation of electricity assets in Queensland. The National Party thinks that we should go back to fully integrated state owned utilities and never the twain should meet. So it is little wonder that Dr Flegg wanted to take this bizarre position of challenging us to a wide-ranging community debate but not being quite game enough to suggest where it might be that he, as the shadow Treasurer, stands. It is my very firm view that this legislation is a sensible move. It allows the government to sell off these assets, which are no longer a core government service, and to transfer some of the funds raised from that to investment in clean coal technology. What government needs to do changes. We no longer need to retail electricity, but we need to do something about climate change. This sale facilitates us to move from an old core government responsibility to a new one. Mr Rickuss: We are going to solve climate change with this sale? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! The member for Lockyer will cease interjecting. Ms NOLAN: Some of the funds from this sale will be used for investment in clean coal technology, something which the member for Moggill a little more sensibly acknowledged in his speech was an important investment and one that is central to Queensland’s economic and environmental future. That is something the government has to do. Things change over time. It is important that we now spend our money investing in our economic and environmental future through clean coal technology. Sixty-seven per cent of Australians believe that if we do not act now on climate change it will be too late. Of course, those Australians are dead right. As the Australian Greenhouse Office reports, scientific consensus on the matter of climate change has rapidly changed in recent years from the view that climate change is probably happening to a sense that it is happening at an astonishingly rapid rate. The year 2005 was the hottest year on record in Australia—1.09 degrees above the 1961 to 1990 average. That figure of a full degree hotter is all the more significant because it happened outside an El Nino event. What we need to be doing is ceasing the rapid growth in our contribution to carbon emissions and in our contribution to climate change. With the investment in clean coal technology that we are making with the proceeds of this sale, we will very seriously look for ways that coal can be burnt without the same high degree of carbon emissions and, indeed, through geosequestration those carbon emissions can be stored. This is a sensible shift, as I said, from what was an old core government responsibility—that is, retailing electricity—to what will be the fundamental core government responsibility of the future, that is, maintaining as best we can our wonderful standard of living whilst reducing the amount of environmental damage that we are currently doing. There is no doubt that when it comes to climate change we need to do substantially more, but no government in Australia is putting up the kinds of funds that we are. No government in Australia is making anything like our effort. When one puts together the combination of our vegetation management legislation—interestingly enough, something else over which the National Party and the Liberal Party split—and this commitment today to sell this asset and use those funds for clean coal technology, there can be no doubt that there is a substantial policy commitment and a substantial commitment of resources to resolving what is, I think, our generation’s most complex and difficult issue. How incredibly unsurprising then that the member for Moggill was so comprehensively all over the place on the matter given the combination of those two things, that is, how do we deal with climate change and what do we do with the electricity industry. With those few words, I very sincerely commend this bill to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Before calling the Deputy Premier, I acknowledge in the public gallery Indigenous staff from various Aboriginal and Islander councils who are in Brisbane to complete the second block of their administration training, which is being sponsored by the Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (2.42 pm), in reply: I start by thanking members for their contribution to this debate. I also acknowledge the agreement by the opposition to not only support this bill but also support its passage through the parliament this afternoon through all of its stages. That is critical to the sale process being progressed and to us meeting our obligations to bidders once those bids become binding bids. With the caretaker period in between, that could have been put at risk if this bill were not passed this afternoon. So I thank the opposition for its willingness to progress this as quickly as we have. I want to make some comments in relation to some of the contributions. I have to say that I was staggered by the ill-informed claptrap I heard from the newly appointed shadow Treasurer. I do not think 12 Oct 2006 Energy Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill 177

I have ever heard a better rationale for a guillotine motion in my life in the time that I have been here. Let me say a few things in relation to some of the wild and unfounded allegations by the member for Moggill. Firstly, he put the proposition that this sale is proceeding because the government has somehow been forced to sell it to fund infrastructure. Nothing could be further from the truth. This sale is going ahead because full retail contestability, which comes in in July next year, and which was a requirement under the national competition policy—or we were required to consider it, and we did—means that we will have a depreciating asset on our hands. Currently, the retail arm of the energy sector in Queensland is provided by a public monopoly. When one enters into a contestable arrangement there is only one way for the monopoly to go. We currently have 100 per cent of the market. If anybody thinks we are not going to see successful players come and take some of that, then why would we even do retail contestability if we were not going to see competition? That means that while it is a depreciating asset for us, the owner of 100 per cent, it obviously has a value to any of the national players who may well want to get a foothold in Queensland. If you go from zero to 20 per cent, then that is an increase in your share of the market. If you have 100 per cent and it drops by 20 per cent, then your asset has depreciated. On behalf of the citizens of Queensland, who are the shareholders in this asset, we thought that the only responsible course of action to take was to relieve them of a depreciating asset and to invest those funds into much more productive activities. In relation to the suggestion that the Future Growth Fund has been established in some way to prop up the infrastructure requirements of the budget, again, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the future fund has been set up by legislation as a separate fund to consolidated revenue precisely because we do not need it in consolidated revenue and precisely so that we can fund things out of it that otherwise would have had to wait their turn in the normal budget cycle. Clean coal technology is a very good example. I thank the honourable member for his support for that project, but I would say to him, as I have said publicly before, that I think it is a very important part of securing Queensland’s future that may well have been difficult to secure in a budget round when there are so many other competing requirements. So this gives us an opportunity to allocate what will be a windfall in the interests of the long-term prosperity of Queensland, and that is what we intend to do. Far from being a forced sale to prop up the budget, it is in fact a clear indication that this state is being run by a government that is capable of doing a very thorough assessment of its asset base. As you would with any other business, you would constantly ensure that your asset base is structured the best way it can be to ensure future growth within the organisation and, in this case, within government. In relation to the Allgas asset, I was astonished to hear the member for Moggill say that the Beattie government bought Allgas in 1998. This company was in fact bought in 1998, but the contract was signed by the Borbidge government in the caretaker period. It was a scandal at the time and one of the most extraordinary breaches of the caretaker provisions that I am aware of in the Australian political context. The Borbidge government signed a contract to buy a massive gas asset during the caretaker period thereby binding the incoming Beattie government. I assure the member that his wild and unsourced allegations about our stewardship of that asset are false in every respect. At the time of acquisition in 1998 Allgas had some 58,000 retail customers; it currently has 80,000 retail customers. So in fact the asset has increased considerably in size in less than a decade. It has grown by an average of 1,500 to 2,000 a year. The Gold Coast region has contributed very strongly to that growth as gas has expanded into its new residential areas. Similarly, in response to any suggestion that there is some shonky rearrangement of debt, at the time of acquisition in 1998 Allgas had debt of around $27 million—$21 million of that was in the distribution part and $5 million in retail. Currently, Allgas has no statutory debt other than an amount of $13 million owing to Energex for a loan primarily related to capital works that are still in progress. So the debt has more than halved and is completely transparent, up-front and accounted for in the books. I am not sure what crazy sources of information the member has, but on the basis of that I would not be going back to them in a hurry. The regulated value of the Allgas asset was some $307 million. We have sold it for $530 million, with a multiplier of 1.7—a considerable return on the value of the asset for the shareholders, that is, the people of Queensland. So, as I say, they are simply bizarre allegations. I would remind the House that only the distribution network is included in that part of the sale. The customer base will form part of the Sungas and Sun Retail packages. I was again astounded to hear the member for Moggill complain about a lack of gas infrastructure. The project that the member for Warrego is trying to stop is work on a pipeline that will take gas from the new Origin plant at Spring Gully, near Roma, to Braemar and connect it to the grid. So I would suggest that he talk to the National Party about supporting gas infrastructure. Then we had the conclusion that all of this would somehow have been sold differently if we had left it to the member for Moggill. I had to choose in the end between the financial advice of the member for Moggill or Rothschilds, and it was a pretty hard struggle. I battled with it for a while. I do not think the majority view of people would be that I made the second-best decision by going with Rothschilds. Very briefly, in terms of the concerns of some of the other members, I assure members that the interests, rights and terms and conditions of workers are protected. Workers on awards or EBAs will 178 Ministerial Statement 12 Oct 2006 continue to be governed by those awards or EBAs. These are grandfathered under the Commonwealth’s WorkChoices legislation. Workers on contract will be subject to the terms of those contracts. In terms of concerns that I understand were raised in relation to an example of a constituent having to pay some funds for the connection to a property, I invite the member who raised the matter to refer it to my office. I am happy to look into it. Obviously I cannot respond without finding out further details. This is a very important part in the responsible financial management of Queensland and in providing a competitive environment for the consumers of electricity in Queensland. This is, over time, about bringing down the cost of electricity by bringing in more players. We make no apology for that. We think a competitive environment in this part of the industry is very important. We did it as a result of a very long and considered process of considering the entire energy sector. I thank all members for their contributions. I thank the Treasury officers and the sale team who are working pretty much around the clock to make sure that all of this happens. I am very pleased with their work to date. The sale process is very complex, but it is on track and it is a credit to all of the people who are involved in it. With those words, I commend the bill to the House. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to.

Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 75, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to.

Third Reading Question put—That the bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to.

Long Title Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Suncorp Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (2.53 pm), by leave: I think it is important in the context of this debate that we have just had about the appropriate government ownership of government assets for me to put on the record today the congratulations of the Queensland government to Suncorp on its proposal to acquire Promina. Promina is a leading financial services organisation listed on the Australian and New Zealand stock exchanges. Its operations trace back to 1833 in Australia and 1878 in New Zealand. It is one of the top 50 companies in Australia and top 20 in New Zealand by market capitalisation. It is always good when a Queensland institution is broadening its base. This proposal reflects very well on Suncorp, a great Queensland company, and also is another positive indicator for business in general in this state. Suncorp has confirmed today that it has made a conditional proposal to the board of Promina. The board of Promina has indicated to the board of Suncorp that it is favourably disposed to the proposal and proposes to progress to negotiation of transaction documentation and due diligence. Clearly there are legislative requirements in relation to Suncorp and the location of its head office and the directors of the company. I have already indicated today to Suncorp that the government is very happy to talk to it if any changes are needed, where appropriate, and in protecting the interests of the state. At this stage it is far too early for Suncorp to identify that any such approach would need to be made. I conclude by saying well done to John Mulcahy and to his team. I am sure I speak for all members of the House when I say that we will follow this with a great deal of interest. 12 Oct 2006 Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Bill 179

ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (2.55 pm): I move— That government business orders of the day Nos 3 to 9 be postponed. Motion agreed to.

YEPPOON HOSPITAL SITE ACQUISITION BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 11 October (see p. 77). Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (2.55 pm): I rise to speak to the Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Bill 2006. It is important from the outset that we establish that this bill is not about hospitals. This bill is about a forced acquisition of land by this government from a citizen who has successfully appealed against the compulsory acquisition by the department of natural resources under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967. If this were a bill about a new Yeppoon hospital, the coalition would have no hesitation in supporting it. I state that again: we would have absolutely no hesitation in supporting such a bill. However, the Queensland coalition campaigned heavily during the state election campaign to build a new hospital in Yeppoon. Our commitment was to start work on the Yeppoon Hospital in our first term. The Premier stated during the election campaign that the legislation before us today would be put forward to speed up the process of building the Yeppoon Hospital. Our response to the Premier’s statement is the same as it was during the election campaign— ... this is just an excuse for why the Government has not been able to deliver on their promises, and we will not allow it to be an excuse. We will move to resolve it quickly or find another site and do so quickly. That was Mr Seeney speaking on 1 September 2006 on ABC News Online. The position of the Queensland coalition is that the bill is unnecessary for several reasons. Firstly, there are no further powers required by government above and beyond those given through the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 for the compulsory acquisition of land. What are we seeing in this House at this very moment? Secondly, this legislation takes away a property holder’s rights to appeal against the acquisition decision even though he has successfully done so previously. Thirdly, there are alternative sites that are more suitable, that cater for the potential expansion of facilities and that are more cost effective to the taxpayers of Queensland. Fourthly, this type of legislation has historically been used only for major projects that cut through many titles and deliver large economic or cultural benefits and have no alternatives but to introduce a bill such as this. A bill such as this is not used to acquire a mere 2.95 hectares of land in Yeppoon for a public facility where other suitable sites are available. Finally, where does this stop? What sort of precedent is the government setting here in the House today? I would like to hear the minister tell us about that in his speech in reply. Because of the rushed nature of this bill, it has not even been sighted by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. Why do we put committees in place? Why do we all serve on these committees? Here we have an arrogant government which bypasses the very committee put in place to scrutinise this sort of legislation. This legislation is being bulldozed through the parliament today. The role of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee is to report on and uphold the quality of legislation introduced into this House from the point of view of fundamental legislative principles. This bill appears to breach all of those principles contained in the legislative principles act, and the government should be ashamed of the denial of scrutiny of this bill. We have heard in the early days of this parliament about the various infrastructure programs the government has planned for this term. These programs will affect thousands of individual property owners who will object to the imposition of the state government on their land. Amongst these objections, there will no doubt be successful appeals against compulsory acquisitions, but we may as well just throw them out the window. We have such an arrogant government that it will just overrule any appeal it likes anyway. The government is setting a precedent today that is a disgrace to the democracy of Queensland. That is why the National Party is objecting to this. It is an absolute disgrace and goes against why we all sit here. I thought the minister of all people would have done better than this. Will each individual who successfully defends their property against government acquisition have their success overridden by a piece of legislation such as we are debating today? For every hospital that is planned, will due process be thrown out the door because of this arrogant government and because this government believes it is more important than the individual? Does this sound a warning to landholders? Do not worry about objecting because, if you do, the government will legislate to override your successful appeal. 180 Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Bill 12 Oct 2006

This legislation is not required, so the Queensland coalition stands up today for the civil liberties of the individual against a government whose very first action after re-election is to arrogantly remove the rights of the individual to a fair hearing. I am looking forward to listening to the member for Caloundra’s speech because I am sure he will touch on a few of these areas. Let us have a look at the effects of this legislation on the real world case of Stan O’Brien. Stan O’Brien is the forgotten man in this bill. He is a man who has defended his right to exercise his ownership of private property and work together with the Livingstone Shire Council, the department of natural resources and the business owners in the area to resolve this case. Stan O’Brien is a businessman who owns the land affected by this legislation. On 8 September 2005, Stan was approached by the department of natural resources for the acquisition of this site. On 16 September, he received the state’s valuation of the site. On 20 September, Stan refused the offer. It was then that Queensland Health’s request for a compulsory acquisition of the site commenced. Mr O’Brien objected to the acquisition and the department of natural resources heard his objection. From 18 to 21 April 2006, the matter of the whole objection process was evaluated by the minister’s delegate. The culmination of this correspondence was a recognition that Mr O’Brien’s case was valid. I would like to read the letter sent by Mr Peter John Gardiner, manager of the Acquisitions and Tenures Services Unit, who acted as the delegate of the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water in pursuance of the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967. I will table that letter. Tabled paper: Copy of facsimile transmission sheet, dated 24 October 2006, from Bob Hodge, Acquisitions and Tenures Services, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water to Michael Leong, Deacons. Tabled paper: Copy of letter, dated 24 October 2006, from Bob Hodge to Deacons. Tabled paper: Copy of Statement of Reasons, dated 24 April 2006, by Peter John Gardiner, delegate of the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water, in relation to objection by Stanley William O’Brien to taking of land. The letter states— Some time prior to September 2005 Queensland Health began evaluating their Health delivery infrastructure in the Yeppoon area. This process involved the comparison of the existing Yeppoon Hospital site on Anzac Parade with initially four (4) other sites in the Yeppoon area to determine the most appropriate site for a hospital in the area. Queensland Health’s decision-making matrix disclosed during the objection process detailed some 25 criteria over four (4) broader headings used to evaluate each site. During discussions with Mr. O’Brien prior to the issuance of the Notice Of Intention To Resume, Mr. O’Brien proposed a further site and this was also evaluated by Queensland Health but discarded as being inferior to their preferred site, generally referred to as the Hoskyn Drive site. The objection hearing on 27 January 2006, was attended by Mr. O’Brien, his legal advisors Mr. Michael Leong and Ms. Karen Hansen of Deacons Solicitors and by way of a telephone hook-up, Mr. Rod Schlencker, the principal in Schlencker Surveying Pty Ltd, Mr. O’Brien’s surveying and planning consultant. This is the objection meeting I chaired as the Minister’s delegate under the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967. This meeting was also attended by Mr. Robert Hodge, Senior Property Officer of the Acquisitions and Tenures Services Unit of the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water, the case officer attending to the compulsory acquisition process in the Department on behalf of the State. At this meeting Mr. O’Brien abandoned his first alternative site and proposed a new and additional site, generally referred to as the Erskine Court site. This site also forms part of Mr. O’Brien’s land holdings in this area. Mr. Schlencker who is a very experienced and long-standing surveyor in Central Queensland in presenting his case attempted to use the standards set by Queensland Health’s matrix previously referred to, to compare the Erskine Court site in particular to the Queensland Health’s preferred site, Hoskyn Drive site. Mr. O’Brien’s team’s presentation was of such quality that it merited being referred to Queensland Health for evaluation and preferably a joint on-site inspection with Mr. O’Brien’s advisors. I am informed that this joint site inspection took place on 15 February 2006. I have before me now the all the papers from the objection process including the final responses from both parties. METHODOLOGY It is my experience that the site selection process for public access public infrastructure projects e.g., hospitals, schools, police stations and court houses, must consider at least the following, particularly if a compulsory acquisition process is envisioned— • A site central to the “catchment” for the area, • A site on or adjacent to a public transport infrastructure corridor, • A site that by its magnitude caters for the immediate needs of the community in that area and any foreseen expansion of that need, • A site that maximises the States dollar investment in the property, and • Otherwise is in the public interest for the area. Each government agency has "rules of thumb” for the desired or optimum site sizes for particular types of infrastructure. I have attempted to apply my knowledge and experience to the evaluation of the evidence in this case. EVALUATION In essence the evidence in this matter comes down to a comparison and choice between two (2) sites—Queensland Health’s Hoskyn Drive site and Mr. O’Brien’s Erskine Court site. I have not been informed who prepared the decision-making matrix for Queensland Health. I do not know if it was prepared by a consultant or another government agency and adopted by Queensland Health or if it was a consensus document prepared by a committee within Queensland Health. I do know that on behalf of Mr. O’Brien, Mr Rod Schlencker a surveyor and planner of long experience in the area undertook this work. 12 Oct 2006 Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Bill 181

CATCHMENT In terms of location and catchment, both parcels are within 2 kilometres of the centre of Yeppoon and the difference in their location from the Rockhampton-Yeppoon Road by constructed or to be constructed roads would be less than 500 metres. ADJACENCY TO TRANSPORT CORRIDORS In terms of adjacency and access, the Hoskyn Drive site has dedicated access from Hoskyn Drive and I am informed that this would be the access point for the hospital site rather than the Rockhampton-Yeppoon Road. The Erskine Court site does not have legal or dedicated access at this time, but I am informed that in Mr. O’Brien’s further development of the area the road system off Hoskyn Drive and Erskine Court will be extended to give that access. I am also informed that it is Mr. O’Brien’s intention to build a crossing over the watercourse in this area. LAND QUALITY AND TOPOGRAPHY In terms of land quality the Hoskyn Drive site is slightly steeper but higher than the Erskine Court site. Site elevation was not an issue until this last round of responses. I am informed that the Hoskyn Drive site is situated at RL 12.5 m and Erskine Court at 5 m lower at 7.5m. Storm surge inundation at this point is 7.5 m for a 1 in 1000-year event. SITE MAGNITUDE Both sites are undeveloped at the present time thereby allowing for the optimum area to be acquired for the infrastructure required. SITE ACQUISTION AND SITE PREPARATION COSTS Based on information supplied in Queensland Health’s report of the on-site inspection Mr. O’Brien is prepared to make some price concessions in relation to the size of the land acquired by Queensland Health. SUMMATION We are dealing here with the acquisition of land for a public hospital. Utilising a public hospital is by its nature the first and only health care decision a large section of the community can make. So, apart from those rare occasions when emergency access to the site is required other than by ambulance, visibility is not a huge issue. The site in the main is not competing for its viability with other health providers in the area. Therefore in my opinion the location of the site a further 500 metres down the road is not a major issue. Both sites are for all intents and purposes equidistant from the centre of Yeppoon and therefore in the centre of the catchment. Similarly, the variation in distance from a public transport corridor is minimal at 500 metres. The lower evaluation of the Erskine Court site was a concern to me until evidence was produced that it was on or above the 1 in 1000 year event and that a full study was done of the whole of the development site. I am convinced that even in abnormal storm run events the site would not be in jeopardy. The fact that the site is somewhat lower than the Hoskyn Drive site will give it a price advantage in the acquisition process. The lower elevation may of course raise the site preparation costs somewhat. At this point in the evaluation taking into account all the attributes of both parcels I see very little difference in the choice. However when I look to the matter of public interest I do see issues that separate the sites. Mr. O’Brien is the owner of these parcels and has development plans for them. The local planning authority—the Livingstone Shire Council, has already approved some of these plans. I do acknowledge that Mr. O’Brien is a businessman and is not doing this development on a whim but is interested in the profit motive at the end of the project. The profit motive is only a realistic goal if you are supplying what the market and therefore what the public needs or wants. CONCLUSION On balance I can find very little difference ... between the two sites. I do accept Queensland Health’s need in the public interest for a new hospital in the Yeppoon area. I do accept that the Hoskyn Drive site would be a suitable site for the relocation of the Yeppoon Hospital, however, so would the Erskine Court site. I do not believe that for the sake of 500 metres the community interests of the people of Yeppoon should be disadvantaged by the loss of the commercial development of the Hoskyn Drive Site. Commercial premises to be successful need the visibility of locations closer to the main road. Thriving businesses are good for the economy of any area, for the additional employment and services that they provide. It is highly possible that businesses will move into the area that are in fact complementary to the hospital. I therefore uphold Mr. O’Brien’s objection to the taking of the land described in the Notice Of Intention To Resume issued on the 24 October 2005. I recommend that Queensland Health apply for the rescinding of the said Notice Of Intention To Resume issued on 24 October 2005. I also recommend that Queensland Health enter into negotiations with Mr. O’Brien with a view to obtaining a Section 15 agreement in pursuance of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 for however so much of the Erskine Court site that it may require. That was a letter from Peter John Gardiner, manager of the Acquisitions and Tenure Services Unit, delegate of the Minister for Natural Resources and Water in pursuance of the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967. I have tabled that response to Mr O’Brien by Mr John Gardiner, manager of the Acquisitions and Tenure Services Unit of the Department of Natural Resources and Water, just to place on record the agreement of the department with his objection and the agreement with his proposal that the land he had offered in exchange, known as the Erskine Court site, was regarded as suitable and acceptable to the department. The landowner has been reasonable in his negotiations, offering a larger parcel of land at a lower price to the department for use instead. The land is approximately 300 metres away from the proposed block and is six hectares rather than 2.95 hectares. What this correspondence proves is that the objections of Mr O’Brien were justified and that the Department of Natural Resources and Water agreed with him. The umpire within the department agreed that not only did Mr O’Brien have an exceptional case, but also the alternate land in Erskine Court that Mr O’Brien had offered had very little difference to the site that the department originally tried to acquire. 182 Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Bill 12 Oct 2006

The correspondence to Mr O’Brien proves that the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 has worked. Even without this bill the Department of Natural Resources and Water could acquire the suitable land that Mr O’Brien has provided and therefore allow Queensland Health to build the much needed hospital in Yeppoon. What has transpired since this correspondence is that Queensland Health has bullied the Department of Natural Resources and Water into a position where it had to introduce a bill before the House today to usurp the rights of Mr O’Brien who is defending the land from compulsory acquisition. Queensland Health has said to the Department of Natural Resources and Water that its assessment is not good enough and it should proceed with the acquisition anyway. This is simply unacceptable. It is also unacceptable that this legislation seeks to take away the right of appeal from Mr O’Brien. As the letter that I have tabled quite clearly shows, Mr O’Brien has appealed and won. He followed the due process that was put in place by legislation passed in this House. Mr O’Brien did the right thing and what do we see now: the bullyboys moving in. I can smell Schwarten all over this. This bill disregards and makes a joke of the decision by the Acquisitions and Tenure Services Unit of the Department of Natural Resources and Water to make a decision. How would those people feel? They have a process in place that they have to implement. Now it can just be overruled by this arrogant Beattie government. It is very disheartening for those people who worked on this. This bill makes an absolute mockery of the due process. There is a fundamental principle that is being challenged here and that is if one works within the system and if a ruling is upheld—meaning a citizen has won—the government will step in, change the rules, move the goal posts or, as we see here within this bill, legislate to override the government’s own advice and change the umpire’s decision. There is an arrogance about this government. In the very first sitting of the new parliament one of its first acts as a re-elected government is to start taking rights away from Queensland citizens who have beaten them. The government has been beaten by Queensland citizens who have used the process available to them to protect their freehold land from compulsory acquisition and succeeded and now we have bullyboy tactics being used to take their rights away. It is especially arrogant because there are several alternatives to this land acquisition that would have been more acceptable. The first alternative was to accept the ruling of the Department of Natural Resources and Water’s Acquisitions and Tenure Services Unit to purchase the Erskine Court site. The site was deemed to be just as acceptable as the Hoskyn Drive site and work could have been started already. Mr Rickuss: It wasn’t on the highway though, was it? Mr HOPPER: That is exactly right. The government cannot put a big precious Pete sign out the front saying, ‘I’m the infrastructure king of Queensland.’ That is what this is all about—getting to the bottom of it. We smell a rat about Schwarto’s involvement. It is as simple as that. The first sod could have been turned the day after this agreement was made and we could have seen the construction of a brand-new hospital in Yeppoon. What we have at the moment are mere excuses and from these excuses come the heavy-handed tactics of this bill that we see today. Another alternative to this legislation is if the department did not like this land it could buy some other land. There was a perfectly suitable site in Tamby Road made up of two parcels of land comprising four hectares and two hectares which was already earmarked through a masterplan for aged-care facilities and this is the land that we know about. The letter I have tabled mentioned four other parcels of land that were looked at. Surely there was another option that was good enough. This is a desperate last resort of the Department of Natural Resources and Water to placate the bullyboys in the Department of Health and getting the land that it wants and in doing so ignoring the due process. This type of legislation has been used before but to use it in this context is without precedent. A bill such as this one today that overrides the Acquisition of Lands Act 1967 has been used about three times in 15 years. This type of legislation has been used to undertake compulsory acquisition of land where major developments involve large parcels of land and usually many titles. One such act is the Starcke Pastoral Holdings Acquisition Act 1994, which saw the purchase of 224,647 hectares of land as a World Heritage listing in Cape York. The Century Zinc Project Act 1997 was used to acquire a transport infrastructure corridor to build a slurry pipeline. Further, the Transport (Gladstone East End to Harbour Corridor) Act 1996 was used to facilitate the cessation of coral dredging to the Gladstone area. These were all major projects deemed to be vital to the economy of Queensland. What we have are bullyboy tactics. The government is using this act when it does not have to be used at all. It overrules an order that had been put in place by someone using due process. Let us have a bit of a reality check here. The bill we are debating relates to the purchase of 2.95 hectares of land. That is all we are debating here today. The Queensland coalition cannot support this bill. This bill is heavy-handed and unnecessary. Firstly, there are no further powers required by government for the compulsory acquisition of land above and beyond those given through the Acquisition of Land Act 1967. Secondly, the legislation takes away a property holder’s right to appeal against the acquisition decision even though he has 12 Oct 2006 Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Bill 183 successfully appealed previously. Thirdly, there are alternative sites that are more suitable. These sites cater for the potential expansion of facilities and are therefore more cost effective to the taxpayers of Queensland. Fourthly, this type of legislation has historically only been used for major projects that cut through many titles and deliver large economic or cultural benefits, not to acquire a mere 2.95 hectares of land in Yeppoon for a public facility when other sites are available. What is the precedent we are setting by the passing of this bill? Where will this end? This is an arrogant bill. This bill takes away a Queenslander’s right of appeal against a government decision that has previously been upheld. If this bill passes, then no other Queenslander can sleep easily tonight without the threat of a state government department legislating away commonly held rights. We have seen the minister sworn in just recently. He is a brand-new minister whom I was rather excited about and in whom I had a fair bit of faith. In Country Life on 21 September 2006 the minister stated— I am a listener by nature and I will have far more success in doing the right thing by cooperating with people rather than wielding a big stick. The minister should hang his head in shame. When he made that statement the people in the bush, the people of Queensland, the people who read Country Life, honestly believed him. He sits in the House today—and he is a former lawyer—and has had the big stick wielded at him by Schwarto and the health department to overrule his people, overrule the previous decision, bring this legislation in and put fear into the people of Queensland who wish to appeal a case that they have previously won. They may as well not try to appeal while those opposite are in power. Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (3.22 pm): Isn’t ignorance bliss? We have just heard the greatest diatribe and exposition of rubbish we have ever heard. Let the member for Darling Downs draw members a map of where he spoke about. He has a printed map. He does not have the faintest idea what he is talking about. Mr HOPPER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find those comments offensive. I do have a map and I do know what I am talking about. If the member were across his electorate he would know also. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Moorhead): Order! There is no point of order. Mr HOOLIHAN: At some time in the past the member for Rockhampton was heard to say, when the member for Darling Downs was the shadow minister for housing, that he knew as much about public housing as a giraffe knows about ballroom dancing. I have to tell the member that he has not learnt anything more about natural resources. Mr HOPPER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find those comments offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Will the honourable member withdraw the statement? Mr HOOLIHAN: I will withdraw the statement. I also have to say to the minister for natural resources that Martin Luther King had a dream, but I have a strange feeling that he is just about to enter into a three-year nightmare. The land mentioned by the member for Darling Downs was, in fact, dealt with under a notice of intention to resume, but what he conveniently forgot to tell this House is that there were amended notices of intention to resume issued and there have been further delays and intentional delays. In my speech I will deal with the reasons for the delays. When anyone on that side of the House makes allegations about any sort of overbearing actions, they ought to say straight out what hand they had in delaying the acquisition of this land. A Livingstone shire councillor was my opponent at the election. It was very evident from the way the National Party was able to get access to this land, in the twinkling of an eye, that there was some dirty work at the crossroads, but that is probably a matter for another day. This debate is the culmination of a long and sometimes difficult journey. I believe it is a salutary lesson for this House to hear and understand how such a necessary capital structure as a hospital worth $17 million can be made into a political football for the advancement of the ego of one group and one person to the total exclusion of the wishes of the community who seek and need the construction. Mr Hopper interjected. Mr HOOLIHAN: If the member wants to interject, let him have a look at the figures that came out of Keppel after those opposite said they would build their hospital. The people of Keppel did not believe them then and they do not believe them now. Yeppoon Hospital has stood on the beachfront at Yeppoon since the 1920s and during that time has provided a high standard of care to many thousands of residents. The original hospital was brought from Mount Chalmers and erected on its present site. The whole of that site, right up to the mouth of 184 Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Bill 12 Oct 2006

Ross Creek, was originally reserved for health purposes. That hospital stood in various forms until the construction of the present building, which was opened in 1997. During the 1970s and 1980s the southern portion of the reserve was allocated to Livingstone Shire Council for an administrative centre. An aged-care facility was opened in 1990. In 2002 it was determined by the then minister for health, Wendy Edmond, that the rapidly expanding Capricorn Coast needed a new hospital. It was proposed to be a new structure, and health department planners started on the long process of designing the necessary health facilities which would be necessary for the expanding area. I speak only of the structure of the hospital. Every person in the central Queensland area knew of the dedicated work carried out by the caring and capable staff of all hospitals in the area, and particularly the Yeppoon Hospital. With the substantial upgrade of the Rockhampton Hospital, the type of facility needed on the Capricorn Coast also needed reappraisal. In January 2004 the plan for Capricorn reflected certain changes. The proposal was then promised as a new $10 million, 72-bed nursing home and a $5 million redevelopment of the present Yeppoon Hospital. The residents of the Capricorn Coast—and if members have been there they will know exactly what I mean—knew that they had the best recuperative area in Australia when they looked out on Keppel Bay in all its glory. It was the best site on earth, and a large number of the people I came into contact with did not want the hospital to move from that site. The promised redevelopment was to be on the present site, but the rapid and unprecedented growth on the coast and the federal government requirements for aged- care needs by 2008 resulted in a further reassessment of the original proposals to the transfer of the 72 high-care beds to the not-for-profit non-government sector aged-care providers on the coast if the federal government approved the cabinet proposal. In addition to that—and many members here today will remember the budgetary funding—a $13 million newly rebuilt hospital was to be constructed in Yeppoon. That funding was approved for such construction on the current site, and that is when any semblance of common sense went right out the door. As indicated previously, a large majority, including me, believed that the current site was still the best site. A previously identified site on a possible future subdivision which had no infrastructure had been discounted by the minister, who accepted the decision to remain on the present site. It is a pity that the local authority—and it was mentioned by the member for Darling Downs—the Livingstone Shire Council, became involved and one must seriously question its whole motivation. It in fact had approved certain subdivisional areas, including the site that is the subject of this bill, but substantial funding was wasted on glossy brochures and staff were pressed into overtime to attack that decision—an area where the Livingstone Shire Council had absolutely no requirement to go. It is sad that the truth is sometimes distorted in these types of campaigns. The council commenced offering a site, which was also mentioned by the member for Darling Downs, as a four-hectare and a two-hectare site. It was a former quarry. This site was assessed by Queensland Health as having questionable foundations because of blasting and it was further ascertained that asbestos has been dumped at the site. There were claims also made that the present hospital had to be evacuated during Cyclone David in 1976, but they seem somewhat specious when it is considered that the current building was not completed and opened until 1977. The hospital site was assessed in its documents and in fact computer simulations published in the media showed the hospital site metres under water but the adjoining site of the Livingstone shire chambers was high and dry even though they were on the same piece of land. The council centre had also been built and opened in 1982 and quite obviously should not have been constructed on its present site if any danger existed. Even though a majority of people were vehemently opposed to any movement of the hospital, I discussed with senior health department officers and the minister a reappraisal of the site to ascertain whether any suitable alternative may exist which would still be of enduring benefit to the people of the Capricorn Coast. A number of sites were inspected and assessed and the site the subject of the present bill was considered to offer the best option, although there were three blocks of land fronting Hoskyn Drive which were in the original area, and I will deal with that later. It was announced during the regional sittings of parliament in Rockhampton that a suitable site had been found and it was hailed by the many people who would benefit from the new Capricorn Coast hospital as the end of the constant difficulties caused by the local council, and in hindsight probably by some of the current local National Party members of this House. How wrong they were! Many of them did not understand the requirements for acquiring land from a private citizen. It has long been a tenet of law—and every one of us comes into this House and swears to uphold the law—that governments do not acquire land from a private citizen without such acquisition being on just terms. The provision is contained in section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution and was dealt with in Queensland under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967. Various mechanisms are set out to allow negotiation between the government and the owner of property required by the government. These mechanisms take time and can be used to delay any acquisition. In this instance the original notices of intention to resume were issued in October 2005. A decision was made on the original area of land in or 12 Oct 2006 Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Bill 185 about April 2006 and subsequently amended notices of intention to resume were issued which excluded the three blocks of land which the owner of the land wanted to keep on a commercial basis, and they are not the subject of this bill. Therefore, the member for Darling Downs does need to get some further detail before he stands up in this House and misleads the House. I suppose we will hear all of the bleating from the National Party about property rights and the usual rubbish pushing the creed of Property Rights Australia. If one properly considers the present bill, the right of the owner to compensation is not removed and only the ability to continually frustrate and delay this necessary construction has been removed. In case one has not looked closely at a calendar, it is over 12 months since the regional sitting of parliament in Rockhampton, and that is when this block was first mooted as a suitable block. Twelve months—oh how people can frustrate any attempt to acquire land for public use. There was also a comment made by the member for Darling Downs about entering into negotiations. I have to inform this House and him and all of the people who will follow and give us the benefit of their meagre knowledge about the acquisition of land that they did enter into negotiations which were continually frustrated by the absence of the owner. I think it said it all when we heard the words out of the mouth of the member for Darling Downs that the profit motive for the owner was at the end of the project, and the profit motive, it appears, was also the basis for the frustration of negotiation. I have been party to some of the figures, but in terms of commercial reality there are still to be matters dealt with under this bill when it becomes enacted which will require some consideration by a court and I do not want to enter into those details in relation to compensation. As I said, the land had been identified and that land is now the subject of this bill and was also the subject of subdivisional approval by the Livingstone Shire Council. That fact does appear to be relevant to some of the instances of the delay. After the issue of the notice of intention to resume, the real problems started. Applications for extension of time and meeting time frames at the last possible minute caused ongoing delays. Queensland Health staff had undertaken design drawings and the future for the construction seemed bright. As a matter of fact, the drawings, of which I have a copy in my electorate office, were in fact released in March 2006. Owing to my obligations to the people who elected me, I continued to endeavour to expedite the acquisition but the frustrations continued to occur. Many people expressed their worries to me that some behind-the-scenes activities were being undertaken to delay the negotiations with the prospect of using the delay in campaigning at a forthcoming election. It was very curious that some persons on the Livingstone Shire Council seemed to know all about the background difficulties and some media reports actually referred to the chosen land when negotiations were confidential. There was also a photo in the Morning Bulletin with the National Party candidate standing in front of the land. Those concerns caused me real worries that this was intentional frustration. All attempts at expediting the negotiations proved fruitless. The people in the Capricorn Coast section of Keppel had been promised a hospital and, with the increasing population, the need was becoming urgent. Substantial upgrading work was to be undertaken in Rockhampton and, as an adjunct hospital, Yeppoon was becoming part of the larger planning. Other considerations were taken into account and the existing hospital was undersize for the projected increase in population. The existing community health precinct had also reached its absolute limit and the new design co-located those services to the new hospital. The efficiency of our emergency services would also be enhanced because of the proximity of the Yeppoon ambulance to the new facility and the reduction in travelling time for the Emu Park ambulance because of the enhancement of Tanby Road and the Kinka Link Road. Operational services are the work of highly qualified and dedicated staff, but they need decent facilities to provide their excellent care. The ongoing medical services, which were already of a high standard, were being enhanced by the addition of a second doctor and launch of a substantial upgrade in the X-ray capacity with the installation of a major computerised system, and the need for palliative and other advanced medical assistance was increasing. Other services provided by Queensland Health such as dental services were in need of expansion and it was not possible or prudent to invest the substantial funding into the present facility when a new facility had been designed. If other services were being upgraded, why not a new building to cater for those upgraded services? Owing to the necessity of acquisition of the site and the ongoing delay, the current course of action was deemed necessary. I noted in the second reading speech that the minister set out advice on negotiations. He said— Despite an appropriate site being identified, I am advised negotiations with the owner for the purchase of the land have not had a successful outcome. To say that they have not had a successful outcome is really an understatement. If anyone doubts that there has been some undue and unexplained delay, they should consider that for 12 months Queensland Health experienced difficulty in bringing the owner to the completion of negotiations for a variety of reasons, including absences overseas. But during the election campaign the National Party leaders and their candidate could hold a media scrum on this block with a minimum of delay and they could also get agreement for the erection of an unauthorised sign. Perhaps the National Party could explain its part in the delay, or is my request just misplaced cynicism? 186 Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Bill 12 Oct 2006

The work being undertaken by the magnificent staff at Yeppoon is now being hampered by the increasing workload to be carried out in the current facility. The need for action to break the impasse has been recognised by the government. On 10 August the Premier indicated that we would legislate to acquire the land. With a rapidly increasing population, the planning processes need to become a reality. The bill is an unusual step, but it is not prevented by the actions of this parliament. The minister outlined that in his second reading speech. This bill will provide a process that will ensure certainty and allow the Queensland government to start building the promised hospital and medical facility. The owner will still have an entitlement to negotiate and claim compensation as this right is protected in the bill. I firmly believe, from my own knowledge of the matter, that the amount of compensation has been a major stumbling block, but that can now be determined by the Planning and Environment Court if it is not able to be resolved by negotiations. The Acquisition of Land Act still applies in relation to compensation, but the government becomes the owner on the passage of the bill and can commence the construction as soon as all of the other government contract requirements are met. Despite all the delays and other frustrations, I have tried to remain positive during this period and to assist the people I represent who were promised a hospital to get a hospital. I believe that those people kept their faith in me and the government. This course of action is an acknowledgement of that faith. The ability of the staff of the Capricorn Coast hospital to deliver their high-quality service and treatment in conjunction with the expanded and upgraded Rockhampton Base Hospital will be enhanced when this facility is completed. The current services will be able to be delivered in a more effective manner as the staff have had input into the design of the hospital. All details from my constituents have also been provided to the Queensland Health planners for consideration. Accessibility for our citizens and an increase in the utility of all health and related services will result from this common-sense method that has been adopted by the government. It is in the broader public interest and it is also the delivery of a promised service. I commend the Premier and cabinet for considering this course of action. I thank the Minister for Health and the new minister for natural resources for delivering on these promises. Hopefully, my energies can now be directed towards negotiating with the planners for the enhancement of some of the services to be delivered. I hope to have the Minister for Health in Keppel to turn the first sod in the very near future. The many people who live on the Capricorn Coast and the many thousands of tourists and visitors will reap the benefit of this far-sighted decision well into the future. If members want to find out whether or not the people of Keppel accept this decision, they should look at the final results of the vote in Keppel. The National Party vote dropped by over two per cent. I commend the bill to the House. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (3.47 pm): I rise to make a short contribution to the Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Bill. At the outset, I say that not one member of this House does not wish to see the new Yeppoon Hospital built. There is no question about that. The coalition is fully supportive of that. But two major questions need to be answered today. The first is why the government has seen fit to gag debate on an issue that clearly is not urgent. We are back in this House in a matter of 2½ weeks. Under the parliamentary rules, a period of 13 days is required before this legislation can be debated. There is nothing urgent to warrant— Mr SHINE: I rise to a point of order. The debate relating to the urgency of the bill was held this morning. That debate is over. We are now restricted to considering the contents of this bill. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jones): Order! There is no point of order. Mr McARDLE: As I was saying, the issue of the gag of the debate of this bill still looms very large in this House. This bill should not be before this House for debate today. There is absolutely no reason that this parliament should be dragged through a process of 2½ hours to decide a man’s livelihood because this government believes that it can ride roughshod over everybody and anything that it so desires. The second question is: why have this man’s rights been taken away from him by a government that claims on a daily basis to be looking after the individual? The Labor Party claims to be full of civil libertarians and that it stands up for the rights of the underdog, the downtrodden, the worker and the people who need support. We should see many members opposite crossing the floor very soon, because here is an individual who has had his rights taken away by a Labor government—a Labor government that claims it is there to defend the rights of the individual against all and sundry. I bet not one of those members opposite will have the guts to stand up and cross the floor, because they are too scared of what may happen to them in the event that they do. We saw that happen with the member for Noosa. She had the guts to stand up and the Labor government turfed her out. It turfed its own people out. So when the members opposite stand in this House and claim that they are looking after the individual, they had better think again, because it is a pile of rubbish and they know it. This is a chance for the members opposite to stand up and make themselves heard. The new members opposite, when delivering their first speeches, proclaimed that they were going to assist individuals in their electorates. They were going to make certain that their electorates came first. They were going to abide by the needs of the society in which they live. Here is their chance. They should 12 Oct 2006 Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Bill 187 come over to the coalition side of the House and vote against this individual’s rights being removed by a government that is arrogant, tired and pathetic and does not care about the individual at all. I certainly endorse the comments of the member for Darling Downs. He gave a great speech. He outlined very clearly the battle that one man has taken on— Opposition members interjected. Mr McARDLE: That is exactly right. The members opposite should hold up their hands. One man has taken on this battle and the Labor government has taken this matter to parliament to beat him down. We heard the incoherent ramblings of the member for Rockhampton trying to establish the basis upon which this bill should be before the House. I turn to the facts of this matter and the independent decision made by the Acquisitions and Tenures Services Unit of the Department of Natural Resources and Water. The minister’s own department ruled very clearly that this land is no better than the other land owned by Mr O’Brien. Mr O’Brien offered to the state government a larger block of land located about 500 metres away. One has to wonder what is going on in the back rooms. Why are we rushing through this legislation? The conclusion of the decision states— On balance I can find very little difference in the physicality between the two sites. I do accept Queensland Health’s need in the public interest for a new hospital in the Yeppoon area. I do accept that the Hoskyn Drive site would be a suitable site for the relocation of the Yeppoon Hospital, however so would the Erskine Court site. I do not believe that for the sake of 500 metres the community interests of the people of Yeppoon should be disadvantaged by the loss of the commercial development of the Hoskyn Drive Site. Maybe the signs showing the Premier’s face would be 500 metres away if the government took the second site as opposed to the first site on the major highway. What is wrong with the independent determiner coming to that conclusion? Why does the government not accept that individual’s determination? Why does it not take up Mr O’Brien’s offer to purchase the second site because, clearly, the sites are compatible. In fact, the minister in his second reading speech made the following point— This site provides good visual and physical access from the Yeppoon-Rockhampton Road. It is important that a hospital have a prominent location, easily found by the public and visitors. I would ask the minister in his reply to point out to this parliament where Mr Gardiner is wrong. He has gone through an exhaustive process of listening, reading and looking at documentation to come to his determination. So the minister certainly owes Mr O’Brien and this parliament an explanation as to why Mr Gardiner is wrong, and we will be keen to hear that in his reply. It almost seems that when this government does not like the umpire’s decision it changes the rules to suit itself. This is not the first time this has occurred. In fact, when this government feels that things are not going its own way it simply tries to shift the issue to somewhere else or tries to find some other reason it should achieve its own goals by getting the umpire’s decision overturned. Again, this bill before the House is simply one more example of the government’s attempt to usurp the rights of Mr O’Brien. I also ask the minister to address in his reply the fact that Mr O’Brien’s rights are being trampled by the process the minister has put in place by bringing this bill before the House today and then gagging debate. Mr Gardiner states— In terms of location and catchment, both parcels are within 2 kilometres of the centre of Yeppoon and the difference in their location from the Rockhampton-Yeppoon Road by constructed or to be constructed roads would be less than 500 metres. He then says— Therefore in my opinion the location of the site a further 500 metres down the road is not a major issue. Could the minister address that point? Could he explain why, even though Mr Gardiner states that 500 metres is not an issue, he proclaims or believes that it is an issue and again point out where Mr Gardiner is wrong in his determination? I think Mr O’Brien would be acutely keen to hear from the minister why Mr Gardiner is wrong in his determination and also to hear an explanation of where Mr O’Brien is wrong in entering into negotiations with the state government. The minister made the comment that negotiations have been underway for a period of 12 months now. So what? It is an individual’s right to negotiate a fair price for his or her land. There is nothing wrong with that. Would the minister indicate in his reply whether he sees anything wrong with that process? What has Mr O’Brien done wrong except to demand that his rights are protected, demand that his entitlements are adhered to and demand that his right to negotiate is equally paramount to the right of the government to acquire the land? As I said, this issue comes down to one thing: this government is taking away someone’s rights because it does not like the umpire’s determination. It is as simple as that. It is not going to respect the rights of Mr O’Brien. It is not going to adhere to the procedures and processes put in place to deal with this issue. What the government is going to do is take Mr O’Brien by the scruff of the neck and deal with him as though he were a noncitizen. If that is the way this Labor government is going to conduct itself on day 2 of the 52nd Parliament of this state, the people of Queensland are in for one hell of a ride. If this is 188 Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Bill 12 Oct 2006 the start of the process of the ramshackle and, in my opinion, pathetic attempt to protect the rights of individuals, we are in serious trouble in this state. Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Housing) (3.54 pm), in reply: Madam Deputy Speaker Jones, congratulations on your elevation to such an esteemed position. I see my good friend Henry Palaszczuk and the former Miss Holland in the gallery here to see their wonderful daughter this afternoon. It is ironic because had Mr Palaszczuk still been in this parliament he would have been in charge of this bill here today. I am sure his spirit is very much with us in this debate. The interesting thing about this debate is that the shadow minister, the Leader of the Opposition and a whole number of shadow ministers came to the electorate of Keppel during the election campaign and not one of them ever said that they would oppose the bill that the Premier proposed the day parliament was dissolved—not one of them. When we talk about transparency, let us examine the facts. The government said, ‘We must obtain this site. We have to build a hospital, and we are prepared to legislate to do so. If we are elected, within 100 days we will do so.’ It was an election issue. There is no doubt about that. It was out there for everybody to see. What happened? As I said—one, two, three, four—as many shadow ministers as possible who could be pushed into a marginal seat were there and not one of them said, ‘We oppose the government doing this. What about poor old Mr O’Brien?’ No, they never mentioned him once. So let us have enough of this dishonesty, shall we? Let us have enough of this hypocrisy. When they had the opportunity to seek the people’s choice on this, to see who the people support on this, they did not take that option. Had they turned this into a referendum in Keppel then the honourable member for Keppel’s vote would have skyrocketed even further than it did. If those opposite ever want to win the seat of Keppel back, then they are going about it the wrong way. I have been talking to some old tory mates of mine in Rocky today, and they are appalled that the National Party has made them a laughing stock. It has made them a laughing stock because today we saw the National Party want to have its cake and eat it too. The National Party has criticised us year after year and day after day because there is no hospital. Then we came up with a site and over a 12- month period tried to negotiate in good faith with the developer, got driven to the point where we said, ‘There is no more time left to do this,’ and said to Mr O’Brien, ‘You’re still going to get a fair price.’ Is that bloke who was speaking before a lawyer? He is the bloke who touched the accounts of those poor old pensioners. There is no doubt that he is as crooked as a dog’s hind leg. The truth is that that gentleman who suggested, as he did, that this government does not intend to pay a fair price for this land knows nothing about the law. I am not a lawyer and even I know that. The truth is that this bloke’s right to a fair price is still there. What he cannot do, as I said earlier in the debate, is adopt this dog in the manger attitude, the same attitude that the National Party has adopted here today. Those opposite wonder why the people of Queensland so resoundingly rejected them at the last election. It is because they do not stand for anything. They are not standing up for Mr O’Brien’s property rights. I would like to know what relationship Mr O’Brien has with them. It would be very interesting to find out what that relationship might be all about. As for the lecture that we received about what Labor values are about, I have been in the Labor Party for 37 years and let me tell those opposite the philosophy that has always underpinned my views—that is, the greatest good for the greatest number. That is what is being fulfilled here today. They are the Labor principles that I believe in—one very wealthy person cannot stand in the way of all of those poor people who need a public health system in Yeppoon. That is what I believe in. Never mind about the downtrodden Mr O’Brien whom the tories will always support, the silvertail from Sydney with the developer’s white shoes and gold handbag. Never mind about him as far as I am concerned. He can go to hell as far as I am concerned over the way he has acted in this regard. But the law demands that he be treated fairly, and he will be. I just want to say that the member for Keppel knows full well—and I think the shadow minister said—that my hands are all over this. He is dead right because I was the acting minister for health in the first instance when we were compelled to do something about this by Vince Lester, the former member. He demanded that we do something about it and make a statement while I was the acting minister. I checked with the health department, made the announcement and the announcement was that it was going to be rebuilt on that site. Well, we all know what happened to that. The Livingstone Shire Council, of which the candidate for the National Party was a member, deliberately blocked that to make sure that that site was no longer available. The mayor of Livingstone Shire Council stands condemned for this. Bill Ludwig deliberately went out of his way to stand in the road of that development. That hospital would have been rebuilt on that site if I had my way, that is for certain. He deliberately went out of his way to stymie the progress on that, for whatever motive I do not know, but there was a motive there somewhere. The absolutely appalling sites that he offered, where other people would have benefited by the Queensland government putting in infrastructure as part of that development, stands in bold testament to what Mr Ludwig is all about. 12 Oct 2006 Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Bill 189

As the honourable member knows, I have tried as much as I can as the minister for public works to assist this process, even having people from the building division of the department at the time go up there and look at sites. This was the site that they told me over 12 months ago was the best site. Then Mr O’Brien came back, as I understand it, and offered another site. Mr Rickuss: But you don’t own it. Mr SCHWARTEN: That then came back to the health department and they said, ‘That is not a site that suits our needs.’ They should know, for heaven’s sake, with all due respect to the honourable minister’s department. His people may be very good— Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: Look, I am talking to the doctor, not the disease. The fact is that the honourable member’s highly qualified people in his department are not health planners. They can make a decision on the facts as they see them, but at the end of the day it is the health department that knows where to site hospitals. I have no doubt that this is the best site. Guess who else thought it was the best site? The National Party did, because otherwise why did it stand down there in the middle of the campaign? The people who have a lot of answering to do are the people in the National Party who went up there and did not oppose it, and now since the election is over they have suddenly changed their minds. Why? That is the question that I want answered by somebody in the National Party. Why did they not oppose it then? Now they have the opportunity to support us, after giving us so much stick over the last couple of years over this issue. They are being given the chance today to say, ‘The hospital starts tomorrow,’ because that is effectively what it means once it gets through Executive Council next week. We have people on the site ready to go, we have plans ready to go, we have a site and away we go. But, no, we heard the Leader of Opposition Business talk about another 30 days. The people of Keppel are sick of hearing about another 30 days, and we were the ones accused of deliberately holding this process up. I think it is an absolute travesty of justice to this parliament and to the people of Queensland to hear the nonsense that comes from those opposite. How much more transparent could we have been? Talk about sneakiness and arrogance and all of those things. Obviously this is what the people of Queensland voted for, because it was out there in black and white on the web site and in everything that we put out that we would legislate—that we would do what we are doing today. We said we would legislate within 100 days, and we have kept our word. One of the opposition speakers said that this is a sign of things to come. They had better believe it. It is. We intend to keep our word on every promise that we made. That is exactly what we are about. We do not intend to stand in the dark when it comes to these things. We said that we were going to do it. As the member for Keppel said during the election campaign, the people of Keppel want a hospital and they are going to get it. I cannot say it any better than that. In closing, I want to say that I think the Livingstone Shire Council, especially Mayor Ludwig, has a lot to answer for on this subject. Mr Pearce interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: I take the interjection from the member for Fitzroy, because he is a neighbour. He knows all about the antics and problems that we have had from the Livingstone Shire Council, which the National Party candidate was a member of, to deliberately hold this site up, to make it look bad for the member for Keppel— Mr Pearce: That’s what it was all about. Mr SCHWARTEN: That is what it was all about. I take that interjection. We know that was the case. Today we are remedying that. We are fixing that problem once and for all, and yet again we see the National Party coming from behind to try to block the hospital at Yeppoon. While ever I have breath in my lungs I will never allow the National Party to forget this day of shame for the people of Yeppoon. I just wish Vince Lester was sitting in the gallery today to see this happen in the seat that he worked so hard for. He defeated me to win that seat. I know how strongly he is regarded in that area. Let me tell those opposite that not one of them will ever be held in the same regard as he was in that seat, and any candidate they ever put up ever again will be seen in the same light of the dishonest and underhanded way they went about their campaign in Keppel. I support the bill before the House. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (4.05 pm): I have never heard so much drivel in my life—absolute drivel. The minister for public works is trying to say that we are trying to stop the hospital. He has been told by the three previous speakers that we want to see the hospital built. We are not opposed to the hospital. We are opposed to the parcel of land that the government is looking to purchase. That is the issue. The issue is not about the hospital. We want the hospital. Is that quite clear? We want the hospital built. It is a matter of where the site is. That is what the argument is. This government is surprisingly arrogant surprisingly soon after an election win. On the first day of government business we have the guillotine brought out. What an abuse of power. There is no security of tenure. It is the same old thing. Roll out the old Labor guys again. I ask this question—and the 190 Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Bill 12 Oct 2006 minister might be able to answer this—once this bill is passed, say we have 30 days and then we are going to process this acquisition of land, when will the hospital be built? We need to know that. That is very important. The minister is putting this bill through the House to acquire someone’s land because it is important. We were told that 30 days is important. We want to know when the hospital will be built. The government should be able to tell us that, because it is buying the land. It has had the request from Health to do that, so we want to know that. Let me move on. The member for Rockhampton said that the government was negotiating in good faith. That is absolute rubbish. There was no good faith in the whole thing. It wanted to buy that one particular block of land when others were available. It is as simple as that. The member for Keppel said that this is a necessary social structure that we have to have. We absolutely agree that it is necessary. We are not stopping the hospital. The minister in the second reading speech stated— The bill provides for the Queensland government to acquire this parcel of land for hospital purposes and, therefore, allow the government to start the work of building a new hospital. So, the question is: when will it start? When will it finish? I say again that we are okay with the hospital but the land sought to be acquired is the issue. The minister in his second reading speech also stated— ... the bill ... provides certainty to the landholder that he will be fairly compensated for the Queensland government’s acquisition of the land required for the construction of the new hospital. The present Acquisition of Land Act is quite suitable for this purpose. The land in question has already been approved under Livingstone Shire Council’s master plan for 14 commercial allotments. So it is providing a vital piece of infrastructure for that region. There are other good sites within close proximity to build a hospital and at a cheaper price. For heaven’s sake, the government is being offered another piece of land—about six hectares of land—at roughly half the price of what it will pay to acquire this. Why does the government want to pay double the price for the land for the Yeppoon Hospital when it can pay half that price? What is going on here? It is quite strange that it is so desperate to take this particular piece of land that is not necessary for the hospital. The member also stated in his second reading speech— I am advised the site is considered the most suitable site for a new hospital for a number of reasons. That is not so. It was mentioned before, but I would not mind repeating it, that John Gardiner was a delegate. I want to read this whole paragraph again so members hear exactly what he stated— On balance I can find very little difference in the physicality between the two sites. I do accept Queensland Health’s need in the public interest for a new hospital in the Yeppoon area. We all agree with that. The letter continued— I do accept that the Hoskyn Drive site would be a suitable site for the relocation of the Yeppoon Hospital, however so would the Erskine Court site. I do not believe that for the sake of 500 metres the community interests of the people of Yeppoon should be disadvantaged by the loss of the commercial development of the Hoskyn Drive Site. This is 500 metres! The government is going to pay millions extra for a block of land for the sake of 500 metres. Something is not right here. Quite clearly, something is not right and we want to know what it is. Why would the government pay millions more for a block of land that it does not need? Mr Gardiner continued— Commercial premises to be successful need the visibility of locations closer to the main road. Thriving businesses are good for the economy of any area, for the additional employment and services that they provide. It is highly possible that businesses will move into the area that are in fact complementary to the hospital. That is what the independent person who was the delegate of the minister for natural resources said. The minister said in his second reading speech that ‘it is not in a residential neighbourhood’. For heaven’s sake, it is 500 metres away! Most of what the minister said is not truthful; it is simply not truthful. The minister said in his second reading speech— The site is capable of incorporating co-located health facilities. The other site is six hectares; the one the government is buying is 2.95 hectares. A lot more health facilities could be co-located on that larger area. I would have thought the government would be happier with the bigger area at half the price. The minister continued— In addition, this site is unlikely to be isolated by natural disasters such as cyclones and flooding and it is also capable of being used as an emergency centre for disaster recovery. Let us look at what someone who analysed the situation said—not what the political analyst said. We want to know what was said by the surveyors, by the people who actually analysed it. Mr Gardiner said— I am informed that the Hoskyn Drive Site is situated at RL 12.5 m and Erskine Court at 5 m lower at 7.5m. Storm surge inundation at this point is 7.5 m for a 1 in 1000-year event. Let us think about what would happen at the 12.5-metre site. Would that be a one in 1,500 year event? Would it be a one in 2,000 year event? The minister’s second reading speech is not truthful; it is full of lies. It is as simple as that. It is just not true, and it does not add up. Some serious questions need to be asked about why the government is not being truthful. The minister also said— 12 Oct 2006 Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Bill 191

In seeking to shorten the normal process, however, this legislation will not impact on the current owner’s right to fair compensation nor will it impact on their right to have the claim for compensation referred to and heard in the Land Court. This takes away from people the right of appeal against the decision to acquire. It says quite clearly on page 5 of the bill— On the commencement— (a) the objection is taken to have been withdrawn by the person ... The government is taking away from that person the right to actually appeal. Mr O’Brien already appealed and won. He already won hands down. So the government is spending twice as many millions of dollars on a block of land that it does not need. Something is a bit strange. The other issue that I believe is important here is that no third party has been used. Indeed, maybe a fourth party needs to come in and look at this. I hope the minister will concede that this option could solve the issue. We all want the hospital, but it is a matter of whether it is using government money for an appropriate purchase of an appropriate site. We definitely want a hospital and a block of land within the region, but we want to make sure it is done correctly. We do not believe it has been. I believe very strongly that this legislation should be voted out in the name of fairness for this individual, whether it is Mr O’Brien or whoever it is. Someone here in Queensland is being done over badly and it is a shame. It is to the eternal shame of all Queenslanders that this government on its first official day of government business in this House has allowed its arrogance and its numbers to downtrod a fellow Queenslander. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (4.15 pm): The Queensland Acquisition of Land Act has been used and continues to be used for the compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes and should be appropriate to this particular situation. In the briefing that I received from the minister’s office—and I thank him for that—a number of extenuating circumstances were listed as to why a special act of parliament was required. One was to allow for a timely acquisition of the land. I requested from the officers who were briefing me an explanation on which current rights of the owners of the property would be removed. I was told that their judicial review rights would be removed but that they would retain the right for fair compensation through the Land Court, and that is as the act stands. However, a number of issues have been raised today that I seek specific answers for, if time allows. The words of John Gardiner that have been read into the Hansard by members of the opposition are compelling, and I would seek the minister’s response to Mr Gardiner’s statements that there is very little difference in the physicality of both sites. I have heard from members of the government that the second site that was proposed by the developer was a flood plain, yet Mr Gardiner would have been well informed, well across the issue and certainly well across the topography of both sites. It is in stark contrast to the briefing that I received on that second site—the optional site of six hectares—that it would therefore be in a flood plain. The size of the properties too is important, because the larger the property the greater the probability of co-locating medical services. It would be interesting to know the advantages of the 2.95 hectares versus the six hectares. Visibility of a site may be ultimately the best way to go; however, in the majority of cities and towns our hospitals are located because of good signage, and certainly a prominent position in terms of visual location is not an absolute criteria. I am concerned about comments that were made to me that this issue has already gone to the courts—and I was advised of this three times at least—and that the courts upheld the developer’s application. I have since been advised by the minister that it did not go to court and that that court appearance was in fact the decision made by Mr Gardiner. I would seek clarification from the minister about that. We should as a parliament be very cautious in undermining the rights of people. In the past, I voted against bills—I can recall two, in fact—where a person had taken their case to the Supreme Court and had won and this parliament had then moved to trample on the rights that were appropriately, legally and objectively won. If that is the case in this instance, I would have to vote against the bill. Therefore, I seek the minister’s clarification. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (4.20 pm): There has been much debate today in this parliament about what this bill is about. The Leader of the House and the member for Keppel would have us believe that it is about speeding up a process so that the people of the Capricorn Coast can have a new hospital. That is an argument which might find some favour with a few people out there, but it is far deeper than that. One needs to go back and look at some of the history of this particular decision for a new hospital on the Capricorn Coast. It was a decision by this government, in the term before last, that there should be site acquisition for a new hospital for the Capricorn Coast. Following that, the government moved at the speed of a fossilised sloth in treacle. It did not move at all to bring this matter to a particular conclusion. 192 Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Bill 12 Oct 2006

There is an inconsistency in the argument that has been proffered by the health department, put forward by the Minister for Natural Resources and Water, and what has been put forward by the member for Keppel. The member for Keppel has been happy over a period of time to basically run around and suggest that the current hospital at Yeppoon could be upgraded and cater for the needs of the people of the Capricorn Coast, and yet there has been a repudiation of that by the health department and the minister. That intransigence—the opposition of the member for Keppel—has actually been a part of this turgid process, which has seen the people of the Capricorn Coast denied what has been rightfully theirs over a period of time. The Livingstone Shire Council previously offered a site which was five hectares. The site we are debating here today—which is going to be acquired in the most repugnant of ways, without due consideration and without any formal semblance to property rights—is just under three hectares. The developer has offered another site of six hectares. With car parking and future expansion needs, three hectares will not be enough. There is a lot of inconsistency in this government’s approach. As the shadow minister said, this is a typical bovver boy, bullyboy approach from this government. When it cannot get what it wants through due and proper process it squashes the basic, legitimate legal rights of people. That is what the government has done here. If we do not believe in the right of property ownership and the rule of law as enunciated by the courts when we are dealing with the matter of the resumption of private property then what do we believe in? This is absolutely, completely and utterly without precedent. There is no precedent for what the government is doing here today. There have been special acts of parliament which have been put through in the past, such as in the case of Century Zinc and to acquire land from George Quaid and Starcke Holdings. That in itself was a political act, but one can make out some sort of environmental argument in relation to it. There have been extraordinary circumstances which have required special acts of parliament. There has never been an occasion, to my knowledge, when the Acquisition of Land Act, which has stood the government in good stead over many decades, has failed when it has come to legitimately acquiring sites of land from landholders for public infrastructure whether it be hospitals, schools, police stations or ambulance stations. Never once has it failed. We have a situation here where the person who owns this land has properly taken an action to the court, has been favourably received and has had a decision on his behalf handed down by the court. He used the act of parliament in the way it was supposed to be used, to ensure the executive government does not overstep the mark when it comes to the acquisition of land. There needs to be a proper and due process. If there are alternatives then those alternatives can be used. This landholder has been successful in using the properly constructed, legitimately passed and consented to laws of this parliament. That is not good enough for this government. This government now wants to squash those basic legal rights under the Acquisition of Land Act. We have had a number of sites acquired for hospitals, schools and major road and rail corridors under the Acquisition of Land Act. The government has been able to properly demonstrate the fact that it is needed for public infrastructure. Proper and due process has always been followed. In this case this government has not been able to demonstrate that. This landholder has taken their legal right to the court and has had some success. It is completely repugnant and absolutely wrong that this government is going to snuff out that legal right. Honourable members opposite need to consider the precedent they are setting here today. I simply ask again: why has something which has never failed before suddenly failed because it does not suit the government’s needs? That is what is so absolutely wrong. There are alternative sites. There has been absolute political pig-headedness from this government. It has not been prepared to properly consult with the community and to look at the other sites which are available and which have demonstrable good amenity and construction capability. The government has not been prepared to properly consider those. What it is doing here today is something it will regret at some time in the future. I hope it will not be used as a precedent. Anything which departs from the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act when it comes to the acquisition of property is going to be used as a precedent, and that is something which is totally and absolutely repugnant. It is also quite extraordinary that the government says that it is imbued with a greater sense of civil libertarian zeal and understanding of the need to consider the social considerations of issues—the understanding of individuals, as it would have us believe—because of the number of practising lawyers on its side of the parliament. Yet those opposite are prepared to sit there absolutely mute as a fundamental, entrenched legal provision which has acted very well in this state under the Acquisition of Land Act is snuffed out because the government cannot get its own way. Members opposite should hang their heads in shame. All of the nonsense which we have heard here about the need for a new hospital is quite separate from the process which is being debated here. No-one is arguing against the need for a new hospital. The hospital could have been built much sooner than this if it had been properly considered and if the process had been gone through with the local 12 Oct 2006 Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Bill 193 communities. Now it is a political issue. The government is using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. Because of the bumbling and incompetence that we have seen in relation to this decision, the government will now snuff out a person’s basic legal rights. I cannot support an act of parliament which in some way impugns property rights and land ownership rights which have for so long been entrenched in Queensland by this gutting and setting aside of the Acquisition of Land Act. Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. AYES, 48—Attwood, Barry, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Fenlon, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Male, Mickel, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Finn, Nolan NOES, 24—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Langbroek, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson Resolved in the affirmative. Consideration in Detail Clause 1— Mr HORAN (4.38 pm): This clause relates to the short title, which is the Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Act 2006. I particularly want to talk about the site part of the title and a couple of issues raised by the minister in his second reading speech. The reason we are debating this bill and the unfairness of the whole process has been outlined by other speakers. The real reason we are debating this bill today is a political one. The Acquisition of Land Act has enabled land for any number of schools, hospitals, police stations, roads and railways to be acquired over centuries without extreme difficulty. But in this particular case there is a political reason. The government blundered along and did nothing despite making promises about what it would do. We then had the Rockhampton sitting of parliament. The local member, Mr Schwarten, and the local member for Keppel— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Mr HORAN: I am coming to my point about the site description. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! This clause is not about the site description, it is about the title. Mr HORAN: That is right. The title is the Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Act. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I understand that. Mr HORAN: The reason it is being debated is a political one. The government had to make an announcement in Rockhampton to cover-up for the inactivity of the member for Keppel. He suddenly bobbed up in Rockhampton. We had never seen him in parliament before or heard from him. All of a sudden he bobbed up and he had questions on notice. Then the government made the announcement and nothing was ready. Then when it lost the appeal— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Toowoomba South, these points you wish to make I see as being relevant to other clauses. I do not deem them relevant to clause 1. Mr HORAN: I will deal with them under the other clauses. Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2— Mr HORAN (4.40 pm): I refer to the actual parcels of land. I have made the point about why this is a political process. We have trampled all over the due process of law. This is an absolutely appalling event to take place in the first week of this parliament, let alone at all. The minister said in his second reading speech that the existing land at the hospital is unsuitable. He is then going through a process to buy three hectares of land to provide in-patient and outpatient services, dental services, community health services, a nursing home and aged-cared facility and radiology services. Obviously there will have to be car parking facilities, landscaping and so on. It is quite clear to anyone in here that three hectares is not going to be anywhere near what is needed. This area of Keppel will have a substantial population before too long. It will be another Hervey Bay—that is, it will be similar to the way Hervey Bay and Maryborough have developed approximately 50 kilometres or so apart. There is a projection of a 63 per cent increase in population, yet the government is going to buy a block of land of three hectares when it has been offered a block 300 metres to 500 metres away which is twice the size—it is 15 acres or six hectares—and half the price. That is almost as though it is corrupt to have such value and size when land is being bought for a public purpose. 194 Yeppoon Hospital Site Acquisition Bill 12 Oct 2006

Think of all of the millions that could be saved and put into equipment, buildings and facilities for the people of the Keppel coast. I want to hear from the minister in terms of what was the area of the original hospital. He must know that because he said that it was not adequate. What is the projected size that is needed for all of these facilities? In terms of the 63 per cent, what population will that be, because that population will determine the size that we need to buy for. Buying this land for reasons of political expediency only tramples all over the due legal processes and then paying double for a block of land half the size is bordering on being corrupt. It is certainly mismanagement to the greatest degree, and it is mismanagement purely and simply to cover up for a political announcement that was made purely because parliament was sitting at Rockhampton. Mr SHINE: First of all, I acknowledge the former minister for natural resources and water, Mr Palaszczuk, who is in the gallery this afternoon and pay tribute to him for the great work that he did for Queensland and the great news that he gave to Queensland over many years. The short answer—and I will make it a short answer because the time allotted for the clauses, as I understand it, expires at 4.46 pm—to the question raised by the member for Toowoomba South is this: it is a matter for the health department to determine what it wants and what it needs. It is for my department to implement those instructions, and that is what has been done on this occasion. Mr HOBBS: Minister, in this open and accountable process that we are supposed to have here, tell us what price was offered for this land. The numbers are there—lot 12 and also part of lot 525. How much money are we talking about? Mr SHINE: The situation of course is that the rights to compensation have been preserved for Mr O’Brien and matters dealing with compensation are to progress. Offers and counteroffers no doubt will be made. It is appropriate for those discussions to be held in that environment. Mr HOBBS: Minister, I realise what is happening in relation to the future and the price will be whatever it will be. That will be negotiated through the consultation process. But we want to know the amount of money we were talking about under the previous arrangement in relation to when the matter was appealed. How much money are we talking about? We need to know that. Mr SHINE: Of course there was no appeal. There was no court case here. Some members of the opposition have been misleading the parliament and misleading the Independent members of parliament, too, earlier today in relation to this matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! The time for consideration in detail has expired. The question is— That clause 2, as read, be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Clause 2, as read, agreed to. Clauses 3 to 6— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is— That clauses 3 to 6, as read, stand part of the bill. Division: Question put—That clauses 3 to 6, as read, stand part of the bill. AYES, 45—Attwood, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Fenlon, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Finn, Nolan NOES, 24—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Langbroek, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson Resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 3 to 6, as read, agreed to. Division: Question put—That the schedule, as read, stand part of the bill. AYES, 47—Attwood, Beattie, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Fenlon, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Finn, Nolan NOES, 24—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Langbroek, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson Resolved in the affirmative. Schedule, as read, agreed to. 12 Oct 2006 Criminal Code (Drink Spiking) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 195

Third Reading Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Water) (4.57 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a third time— Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a third time. AYES, 49—Attwood, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Fenlon, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Finn, Nolan NOES, 24—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Langbroek, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson Resolved in the affirmative. Long Title Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL CODE (DRINK SPIKING) AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. LD LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Women) (5.02 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Criminal Code, and for other purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Second Reading Hon. LD LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Women) (5.02 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The phenomenon of drink spiking has been an emerging problem for law enforcement agencies in Australia over the last few years. Drink spiking can take many forms, from the more sinister addition of drugs such as GHB and rohypnol to a drink, to the adding of alcohol to alcoholic or non-alcoholic drinks. A national report in 2004 by the Australian Institute of Criminology found that the determination of the exact number of drink-spiking incidents which occur in the community is impossible for a number of reasons. However, it was possible to estimate that for the period 1 July 2002 and 30 June 2003, between 3,000 and 4,000 suspected incidents of drink spiking occurred in Australia. The report found that four out of five victims are female. About half of the victims are aged under 24 years and one-third aged between 25 and 34 years. It found that approximately one-third of drink spiking cases involved an associated sexual assault and between 60 to 70 per cent of reported cases did not result in further victimisation. The act of drink spiking is extremely serious as it can leave the victim vulnerable to further victimisation and raises other health and safety issues. The Criminal Code contains offences that address the very serious conduct of those who administer a stupefying or overpowering drug or thing with the intention of committing an indictable offence or engaging in a sexual act and those who endanger the lives of others through the administration of a noxious thing. However, the further intent element contained in those offences can be difficult to prove when the offender cannot fulfil their plan for some reason. This new offence of drink spiking will ensure that a very strong message is sent that this government will not tolerate those who seek to prey on others through spiking their drinks. Other Australian jurisdictions are considering similar legislation, and an offence of drink spiking has been recently introduced into the parliament of South Australia. However, in treating this problem as a priority this government has also noted the importance of having this offence in place in time for ‘schoolies week’, which commences in Queensland on 18 November 2006. The offence will apply to a person who administers, or attempts to administer, in drink, a substance to another person, without that other person’s knowledge of the presence of the substance—whether at all or in the quantity added—with intent to cause the other person to become stupefied and overpowered. 196 Criminal Code (Drink Spiking) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 12 Oct 2006

It is immaterial whether the substance is capable of having the effect intended and it is immaterial if the victim is a person other than the intended victim. Further, it is immaterial whether the spiked drink is in fact consumed or not. The provision includes a defence for an accused to prove that the substance was administered or attempted to be administered as a playful prank. This defence is only available when the substance in question is not a dangerous drug as defined in the Drugs Misuse Act and where the prank is a trick of a playful nature and not a trick of a malicious nature. The offence accommodates the actions of ‘generous bar staff’ who add extra alcohol to drinks of ‘good customers’. Such staff would only be caught by this offence if, in adding the extra alcohol without the knowledge of the customer, they did so intending the customer to become stupefied and overpowered. The provision expressly excludes lawful acts done in the course of the practice of a health professional, the carrying out of a function under an act or the performance of the responsibilities of a parent or carer. Although at common law ‘stupefies’ includes stupefies by intoxication, this is clarified. The offence will carry a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and will be capable of summary disposition at the election of the defendant. The penalty reflects that this is not a trivial offence but one that this government regards seriously. Given the potential for further victimisation and the physical and mental harm that may flow from falling victim to malicious drink spiking, it is appropriate that we introduce an innovative offence to address this conduct. The bill also amends the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offences) Act 2003 to clarify that the court may order that a released prisoner be electronically monitored as a condition of a supervision order. In Queensland, approximately 500 people are convicted of sexual offences each year, with about two- thirds receiving a custodial sentence. The community expects that these offenders will be effectively supervised upon their release from prison. This government is committed to enhancing community safety through its ‘tough on crime and the causes of crime’ policy agenda. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. In January 2005, the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 commenced, which requires serious offenders, including child sexual offenders, to report their movement and details of their situation to police following release from custody, and to continue to update police as these details change. In 2003 this government introduced the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, which allows for the preventative detention of sex offenders who, in the opinion of the court, pose a serious danger to the community if released at their sentence expiry date. Under that Act the Supreme Court can order that such prisoners be detained indefinitely or released from custody subject to strict conditions on what is known as a supervision order. Through the Corrective Services Act 2006, the government has approved the implementation of a new system of parole where all sexual offenders are required to apply to a parole board for early supervised release. When approving the supervised release of an offender, the Parole Board is able to order electronic monitoring on an offender. Given that released prisoners under the Dangerous Prisoners Act are prisoners that the court has determined pose a serious danger to the community if they are not subject to appropriate levels of supervision, it is proper that the court may order electronic monitoring of these offenders. Electronic monitoring is a reliable technology that has been used in a number of international and Australian jurisdictions as an enhanced surveillance regime for previous offenders. Radio frequency electronic monitoring will be utilised which can be used to restrict the movements of released prisoners at particular times of the day. This system will be particularly useful in enforcing a released prisoner’s compliance with a curfew which may provide, for example, that the prisoner be restricted at home at particular times of the day such as when schoolchildren might be travelling through the area. This amendment will allow for greater surveillance of released prisoners and therefore provide heightened community protection. Finally, the bill amends the Corrective Services Act to restrict the granting of leave of absence from custody for sex offenders to compassionate or health and medical reasons. In August 2006, the Corrective Services Act 2006 retrospectively abolished remission and introduced parole granted by a Parole Board as the only form of early release for sex offenders. In addition, this government tightened the eligibility criteria for offenders to be transferred to work camps. A new schedule was inserted into the Act preventing sex offenders from being transferred to work camps to perform community service. Further, the Act restricted the ability for prisoners to access resettlement leave of absence. Pursuant to section 72 of the Corrective Services Act 2006, leave of absence encompasses: community service leave; compassionate leave; educational leave; health leave; reintegration leave and resettlement leave and some sex offenders remained eligible to be granted a leave of absence of this type. This government believes that sex offenders should no longer have access to these types of leave of absences and this bill will remove this option for sex offenders. Section 82 of the Corrective Services Act restricts leave of absence for certain categories of prisoners to compassionate leave and health leave. Amongst others, the section applies to prisoner’s detained on remand and sex offenders detained under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945, otherwise referred to as Queen’s pleasure detainees. The bill amends section 82 to include offenders convicted of a sex offence contained in schedule one of the Act. Schedule 1 is comprehensive and includes all child sex offences and other serious sex offences such as rape, sodomy and sexual assault. The amendment will mean that sex offenders will only be able to be granted leave of absence for compassionate or health and medical reasons and will add to the protection of the community. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned. 12 Oct 2006 Address-In-Reply 197

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY Resumed from 11 October (see p. 130). Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Before calling the honourable member for Kawana, I remind honourable members that this is the member’s first speech and should be listened to with the courtesies reserved for such occasions. Mr DICKSON (Kawana—Lib) (5.08 pm): First, I offer my congratulations to the new Speaker on his appointment. I also congratulate all members of parliament on their election and re-election. My great desire is that we work together in harmony to make the people of Queensland proud. None of us would be here if it were not for the support of our families and our community. I offer my heartfelt thanks to all those who campaigned on my behalf and, in particular, my campaign team. In the weeks leading up to the election this group of people from varied backgrounds worked in harmony— no disagreements, no raised voices; in fact, the perfect accord. I feel confident that this atmosphere of cooperation and teamwork is a benchmark that we can expect for my electorate of Kawana. I also give my heartfelt thanks to the people of Kawana for their support and confidence in choosing me as their representative. I will not let you down. My door will always be open. My experience in local government has taught me well. If a resident comes to me with a matter or an issue I know is important to them, then most often it is also important to the entire community. My electorate of Kawana on the Sunshine Coast is under siege. New residents are coming over the border at a rate of 8,000 per year. This is expected to increase to 9,500 in the next decade. The lifestyle and beauty of the Sunshine Coast is based on a series of small coastal villages, but we run the risk of losing what matters most. If we are not diligent, if we do not work to save our coastal lifestyle, it will end up like the Gold Coast—a concrete jungle. We should all take heed and remember that the Gold Coast was also a series of sleepy coastal villages not less than one generation ago. It is an unbroken line of high rise from the Tweed to Paradise Point. I support the people of Kawana and the Sunshine Coast who do not want to see the beaches shaded by high-rise apartments. I support the people of Kawana who do not want to see the natural beachfront environment become a paved car park and fast-food centres, but sadly we face more problems than being turned into a tower of cement. With the constant influx of new residents, we are battling to maintain even the most basic resources. Our highway is one of the most dangerous in the state. The train is nonexistent; the rail line from Brisbane to Nambour veers north, bypassing the entire coastal strip. The latest statistics show that 90 per cent of people arriving are under 50 years of age. They are all mostly workers and they have families to support. They need to work. For this, we need to plan for even more commercial and industrial land. We need to improve transport services for both goods and people. We already run a serious risk of becoming a satellite suburb of Brisbane. People live here for the lifestyle but have to work in Brisbane to survive. We must retain the lifestyle which is famous. We must retain a coastal village integrity and atmosphere. At the same time, we need to provide employment opportunities for new families who are moving to Kawana. We must ensure that we are a community, not a strip extension of Brisbane. I will be calling on the members of this House to support the wishes of the Kawana community and save what is one of the most beautiful and liveable places in this great country. I put this House on notice that I will be ensuring the Premier implements all election promises made during the election campaign. I table a list of election promises made to the people of Kawana for the information of the House. These include the promises to give us some confidence in our health system, to improve our roads and the transport network, and to ensure a constant water and power supply, to name just a few. While I congratulate the Premier and those ministers who have been retained in government, I am mindful of the fact that it is very easy to make promises and it is even easier to mean what you say. But a leader and a politician has to do more than say, ‘It will be fixed.’ This time it has to be fixed. To me, this state is running like my much-loved childhood go-cart: made of odds and ends, tied together with No. 8 fencing wire, rattling along and patched up for many years until it finally fell apart and was beyond repair. Tabled paper: Document headed ‘Kawana electorate promises’. Take our health system, for example. It is not just a simple matter of installing more beds; it is creating an environment that attracts trained medical professionals. A small day surgery and medical clinic opened recently in Kawana. Before the building was finished, 20 medical professionals had signed up. The Lake Kawana Private Hospital is now fully operational with day surgery facilities and attending specialists including orthopaedic surgeons, plastic surgeons and gynaecologists. We have world-class doctors and nurses in Queensland but too many find it difficult, if not impossible, to work under the Queensland Health regime. There are a number of aspects where health was rarely mentioned during the recent hospital crisis, and that is the care and treatment of mental health patients. In south-east Queensland care for these sufferers is virtually nonexistent. A person suffering mental trauma should not be the responsibility 198 Address-In-Reply 12 Oct 2006 of overworked police officers. The Sunshine Coast community is in desperate need of mental health emergency wards and supporting rehabilitation facilities. The idea of putting sufferers of mental health conditions back into the community sounded admirable 20 years ago. So did the notion of closing down inefficient and badly-run mental institutions. But the assurance that adequate funding would follow those patients and assist them out of the community obviously did not happen. We can no longer ignore the fact that one in four people suffer some sort of mental disorder, and it is fair to say that every one of the people we represent is connected directly or indirectly to a person needing professional mental health treatment. Alarmingly, one in 1,000 suffer from the acute mental condition schizophrenia alone. This means that there are literally hundreds of people in the south-east corner of Queensland in dire need of help—help that just is not available. I do not need to remind this House that our health system is a basket case. What I do need to remind all of us of is that the condition of diabetes, particularly in children, is now on the verge of becoming a health epidemic. My father was a diabetic and it killed him at the age of 59. That young children are now being diagnosed with the same deadly condition is alarming. It is not just the health of our children that concerns so many of my constituents; it is the fact that the system established to care for these children is failing them. It is failing us all. It is stomach-turning to read newspaper reports on the number of children injured or killed who have been brought to the notice of the Department of Child Safety, and one can only imagine the heartache and frustration officers from the department go through, stretched to the limit and underresourced as they obviously are. Time and time again we see children returned to their homes straight back into the hands of their abusers. The alarming increase in deaths of children from abuse must end. If we cannot protect our children, we cannot protect our community and therefore our society at large. No-one wants to see abused and neglected children placed into institutions, but we can no longer pretend our overburdened social workers can make it right. As leaders appointed by a community to make decisions, I believe we must now face the fact that the foster system is collapsing. I do not presume to have the answers, but there are obviously voices suggesting we consider establishing some small-medium residential housing where professional carers could supervise these children and keep them safe. My community is aware of the fact that for the past six years I have been a board member of Aquagen and the Caloundra-Maroochy water board. Despite the current four-year drought we do not have a problem on the Sunshine Coast. We do not have to consider water restrictions. This is due to the forward planning of those local government state leaders of the eighties who assessed population growth, prepared for drought, bought up land and built the Baroon Pocket Dam. So why are the residents of Kawana faced with increased water charges to pay for a hastily cobbled together pipeline grid? The pipeline to serve Brisbane from our dams alone is already priced at $400 million. That is petty cash compared to the $2.7 billion—yes, that is billion—that this government has stated is the estimated cost of stage 2 of Traveston Dam. This does not include increased property prices or unexpected blow- outs. The Traveston Dam decision was engineered for an election. The cost to the community after much thought—if that; afterthought—means 900 families will be thrown out of their homes in the Mary Valley. This is a bandaid political campaign to the wider problem. This government’s own report on future dam sites declared the Traveston site unsuitable. The valley is a sandpit and it will leak. Engineers have declared the site too wide and said that the dam will be too shallow. Without bedrock, engineers have been tearing their hair out trying to determine where the dam wall should go. The list of environmental damages is on par with the social fallout, and let us not forget that it was this government’s own department of natural resources which advised the Mary Valley landowners not to build dams in some areas because of the dangerous arsenic residue from cattle dips. For our future water needs we need to look further ahead—not just for the next drought, not just in south-east Queensland. We need to look at the future water needs of Queensland from the gulf to Tweed Heads. We need to plan further ahead than the next five to 10 years. We must prepare for a future using only clean energy to eliminate global warming and the possibility of a massive increase in population from neighbouring nations. We should not have to warn residents of expected power blackouts. Instead we must improve our power supply. We need to spend resources on investigating clean power. We need to investigate all options for renewable energy that do not require the use of fossil fuel. The job of political leaders is to prepare for the future. The drought we are experiencing is not a one-off. Dramatic displays of nature, such as the tsunami in South-East Asia, will happen again and again. Global warming is not a scare campaign by the Greens. It is a reality. Greenhouse gas induced climate change is now widely accepted, and it is only a matter of time before the global economy becomes carbon constrained. Queensland is particularly vulnerable— environmentally, socially and economically. Our high per capita emissions of greenhouse gases put us in the public spotlight both at home and overseas. Our export earnings are heavily dependent on products with high emission intensity. Our domestic energy servicing is largely dependent on fossil 12 Oct 2006 Address-In-Reply 199 fuels—namely, coal. Our tourism and agricultural industries are likely to be adversely affected by climate change. Even our unique Great Barrier Reef is under threat. We need to work closely with the federal government, our Asian neighbours and our South Pacific neighbours. We need to take heed of advice from scientists and environmental authorities. We need to face the challenge of dramatic climate changes that will, without any doubt, have major and lasting impacts on our lifestyle. Good government needs good opposition. I am part of a coalition team with enthusiasm and a powerful will to be diligent in our efforts for our constituents. On closing, the most important people in the world to me are my wife, Debbie, and our two sons, Christian and Zeik. I owe a great debt to them and I am truly blessed. My parents gave me a powerful and loving sense of family and a good education, for which I am eternally grateful. The community of Kawana which I represent in this parliament is a family, and I will work to ensure that like my immediate family I give them the best I can offer. In my family and my work life, I have been blessed and for this I thank God. My belief in Jesus Christ and God the Father sustains me. Today, I stand in this House of democracy and I declare my thanks and respect to the Lord for the love and understanding he shows us all. God bless you, and I look forward to working with you all. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Darling): Order! Before calling the honourable member for Inala, I remind honourable members that this is the member’s first speech and should be listened to with the courtesies reserved for such occasions. I call the honourable member for Inala. Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (5.25 pm): It is a great honour to be elected to this parliament as the state member for Inala. The Inala electorate covers the Brisbane suburbs of Inala, Durack, Oxley, Darra, Wacol, Carole Park and parts of Forest Lake and it stretches as far west as the Ipswich suburbs of Gailes and Camira. I would like to thank the people in the Inala electorate for their support at the recent state election. I am proud to be elected as the first female representative for the area. In fact, I am pleased that there are four other new female representatives from the Labor Party here today—the member for Ashgrove, the member for Mount Isa, the member for Sandgate and the member for Redcliffe. But I cannot see a single new female member in this House from either the Liberal Party or the National Party. Inala has always had a fine tradition of strong and vocal local members. I intend to continue that tradition. One of my earliest childhood memories was of a very tall, large white-haired man coming to our house for meetings with my father. At the time, I was four years old and my father had a rather large poster of Gough Whitlam on his wall. In that poster, Gough Whitlam was standing tall with a suit jacket draped over his shoulder. With the arrival of this large man at our front door, I would proudly announce to my father that he had better hurry up—and remember I was only four years old at the time—because Mr Whitlam was here. It was not in fact Gough Whitlam but the larger than life state member for Archerfield, Kev Hooper. I pay tribute to the work that Kev did in the electorate before his sudden death in 1984, which led to a by-election. I also want to pay tribute to the former member for Inala, a man who was a distinguished minister in this Beattie Labor government. Henry Palaszczuk was sworn in as the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries on 29 June 1998. During the next eight years, he introduced wide-ranging improvements to fisheries management, reformed the sugar industry, introduced the world’s most advanced animal welfare laws, introduced the plan to tackle the red imported fire ant and ensured a better deal for Queensland dairy farmers in the wake of national dairy industry deregulation. He was known affectionately to all members of this House as ‘the farmer’s friend’. As the member for Archerfield and Inala, he worked hard to ensure the needs and aspirations of the community were heard and acted upon by government. The government’s investment in the electorate—particularly through community and urban renewal programs—has produced a bustling, community orientated region. It certainly has given the local area a new beginning. Henry served 22 years in public life. Over the years, Henry changed not only the map of Inala but the public perception of the area. When Henry was elected to this House, Labor was in opposition and infrastructure was lacking, especially in funding to state schools. It was virtually nonexistent. The investment that Labor governments have spent in the electorate has gone into improving education facilities, building new roads, the new TAFE centre, community renewal and new pensioner and housing developments. Inala of the 1970s and 1980s is no more. We are now a vibrant, bustling community with a strong ethnic diversity. Some parts of the electorate can boast distant city views, and many people would be unaware that Richlands is home to the Queensland Roar. One of the key issues facing the government now and into the future is the capacity to deal with mass migration to the south-east corner. The South East Queensland Regional Plan provides a blueprint for the development of our region over the next 20 years. As a progressive Labor government, we are already laying the foundations. Infrastructure and planning are at the forefront of our minds as 200 Address-In-Reply 12 Oct 2006 we face a future full of growth and economic development. We must match this infrastructure with community facilities providing education, affordable housing, water and reliable transport. Economic and social responsibility must be intertwined. Our area is fast becoming a vital link between Brisbane and the new development out at Springfield. Indeed, 300,000 extra new residents are predicted to move to this western corridor over the next 20 years. This growth can already be evidenced with the development of the corridor from Wacol and Forest Lake to Camira and Springfield. But with this growth comes new challenges. Water is a big challenge and one that our government has faced head on with the development of the south-east corner water plan. I am proud to say that the electorate of Inala is playing its vital role in developing the infrastructure for the water grid. Local Carole Park company Tyco Water is building the pipes that will become the arteries, carrying the water from one part of south-east Queensland to another. I thank the Premier and the Deputy Premier for visiting this company and its workers in my electorate shortly after the election. I would also like to express my appreciation for their strong election campaign and leadership. Reliable, accessible transport options are vital for a growing community. The Darra to Springfield passenger rail will involve a new 13-kilometre track. Consultation with the community will ultimately determine where the final locations of the railway stations will be, but already Richlands, Ellen Grove and Camira are firming up to be popular sites. It is expected that early works will commence in 2007, with a total capital cost of $320 million. The new Westgate proposal out at Wacol preserves large areas of bushland for future generations. The Wacol station will be upgraded, and there will be more affordable housing. The new $450 million police academy will continue to be located in the electorate of Inala and housed out at Wacol, replacing the now outdated Oxley Police Academy. Heritage buildings will be preserved and the new police academy will be a world-class training facility. The Beattie government has a proud record of delivering on jobs. On Monday, I attended the launch of a new proposal, Metroplex, at Westgate that would bring about 15,000 jobs in the outer western suburbs. If approved by the Brisbane City Council, it will provide jobs that can be sourced locally, jobs that are needed locally. This company prides itself on social responsibility and envisages integrating libraries, community centres and child-care centres on its grounds and retaining areas of bushland that would be equivalent to the size of the Brisbane Botanical Gardens. The proposal is still in the early stages, but the benefits that this project could deliver to the electorate in terms of jobs is good news for the region and good news for families. The twin hands of corporate and social responsibility are working as one. This development will complement already good work being done in neighbouring Springfield. At the opening of parliament Her Excellency the Governor of Queensland said— Enhancing the welfare and prosperity of the people and the State of Queensland is at the core of my Government’s program. The Beattie government has a proud tradition of delivering services to families in Queensland. A government should not be judged merely on how many roads, bridges and electricity towers that are built, nor the number of skyscrapers that adorn the city skyline. These projects are vital to a vibrant, strong economy, but a true Labor government must deliver on social justice. It is our obligation to improve the lives of people who, often through no fault of their own, fall between the cracks and need help to get their lives back on track. Infrastructure is the key for development, but people are what make a community. That is why social responsibility must be at the forefront of a government’s agenda. We need to afford our children the best start in life. Unfortunately, not all children have the same opportunity. Many parents in my electorate are doing it tough trying to make ends meet. Families go through tough ordeals. Sometimes it is separation and divorce. In some cases it is domestic violence. Some parents struggle to meet the basic costs of uniforms, books, food and clothing. The people in my electorate are proud people and many feel embarrassed to ask for help. I would like to pay tribute to those organisations and volunteers in the electorate who day in, day out help people in need: the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, Mission Australia, Community House, the HUB Neighbourhood Centre, Gailes Community House and the Camira Neighbourhood Centre. Schools should provide a learning environment but so, too, must a community. I am proud to say that one of the most innovative programs in Queensland is operating in Inala called Pathways to Prevention by Mission Australia and Griffith University. Studying at the London School of Economics in 1996 and 1997 opened my eyes to a different world. My fellow students were passionate about changing the world and we challenged each other every day on the economy, social policy, Indigenous rights, US policy and current affairs. Perhaps we were too idealistic back then, but without ideas and visions we become lost and unchallenged. The years of British conservatism were drawing to a close and Tony Blair, as leader of the opposition, announced his ‘New Britain’. I embraced his social policy platform of education, better integrated housing models and better working conditions built on a solid base of Christian values. I visited underprivileged areas that for years had been neglected under conservative rule with no money, no investment, no housing and no infrastructure—complete and utter neglect. These sentiments hark back 12 Oct 2006 Address-In-Reply 201 to the years when Kev Hooper, the former member for Archerfield, in his maiden speech in 1972 in this House said— As I move about the community and note how gloriously attractive are the preschool centres in the wealthier suburbs of Brisbane and contrast them with the inferior standard and more often than not the total absence of preschool centres of acceptable standards in the poorer areas I realise that today there is as much cause as ever to struggle against the social and economic disadvantages that deprive so many of our young folk of an adequate opportunity in life. Kev Hooper was talking about the neglect that the then National Party government showed to the electorate: no funding, no infrastructure and little opportunity. Today Inala is a different place. The money that the Beattie Labor government has put into the area now affords every child an opportunity. It is Labor that has delivered for Inala. Community renewal has been delivered in Inala which has improved housing values and reinvigorated our community. I am proud to report that community renewal is being rolled out to Carole Park. The amount of $100,000 has just been allocated to upgrade local parks in the area to make them more appealing, safe and suitable for local residents to use. Young unemployed will learn new skills as they embark on this community jobs program. I would now like to address an issue that is confronting many people in my electorate—housing. The most important thing to a family is to have a roof over their head, but a house does not solve all of the problems. I would like to pay tribute to the minister for housing for his commitment to the One Social Housing Project. The Department of Housing is working alongside community organisations to provide families with ongoing support. The funding that has gone into Inala has been greatly appreciated, and I will be lobbying the minister for even more funding. In addition, I am proud to be supporting a redevelopment of the old Richlands TAFE site that will now be the site for 59 new affordable housing units alongside a community centre, recreational facilities, support agencies and child-care centres. Construction is due to commence by the end of this month when some of the old buildings are demolished on-site. With a Queensland unemployment rate of 4.5 per cent, the lowest in three decades, the Beattie government has delivered on jobs. However, I must take this opportunity to comment on an issue that is affecting many people in my electorate who work for James Hardie at Carole Park. I am advised that since 1994 these workers have not had a single wage increase. At the same time that James Hardie directors are lining their pockets with hefty salary increases, they are slashing their workers’ wages and conditions under individual contracts. These workers have families. What James Hardie is doing is un- Australian and I urge the company to fix this situation. I would like to thank the Hon. John Mickel, the minister for industrial relations, and Bill Shorten and Garry Ryan from the Australian Workers Union for bringing this issue to national prominence last week at Carole Park. This is a fight that I will not back away from, and I will continue to support the Australian Workers Union in its fight to ensure better pay and conditions for the workers at James Hardie. The Inala electorate is multicultural, home to many refugees who have escaped war-torn Europe and, more recently, Vietnamese. The Vietnamese community has contributed greatly to our community, and many people from all over Brisbane now go to Darra to enjoy a Vietnamese meal. In the future I would like to see the dreams of the Vietnamese community realised for the establishment of a retirement village and community centre. It would be remiss of me not to mention the Full Moon children’s festival held at Freeman Road in Inala that was celebrated on Saturday night by more than 4,000 people. Closer to home where I live, Muslim women meet in the cool of the evenings as the sun sets whilst their children play on nearby swings, Vietnamese men gather in the mornings at the Inala Town Centre for coffee, the Portugese community meet at Carole Park and Samoan families gather at church meetings on Sunday. These are all people living side by side. There is no racial tension; there is just a strong sense of community. My grandfather was a Polish migrant who fled Europe following the Second World War to start a better life here in Australia. He arrived first at Wacol migrant camp, later settling in Inala with his family, and he remained there until the end of his life three years ago. He was not a doctor nor a lawyer but a boilermaker who told me it was good work and paid the bills. At night he would read encyclopaedias to find out as much as he could about the world. He did not have any opportunities for education when during his early adult years he was in a German slave labour camp. He installed in my father a strong sense of education. My father became a schoolteacher before entering this House. He then passed those values on to me. Education is about opportunity. It is not just about going to university; not all people want to do that. It is about giving children the skills necessary in life to pursue a job they want to do or to learn about the world, giving the young boy from Camira or Gailes the opportunity to become a carpenter or a scientist, or the young girl from Inala or Forest Lake to become a nurse, an office manager or a doctor. It is about enabling a child to have a choice in life just the same as any other child. I would like to thank my mother for encouraging me year in, year out with my legal education. My mother made sacrifices, putting her children’s education ahead of her own. My appreciation goes to the 202 Address-In-Reply 12 Oct 2006 hardworking volunteers of the Inala electorate, to organisations such as the Ambulance Committee, the South West Progress Association and the Inala Day Respite Centre, the Inala PCYC, the many pensioner and senior citizen groups, St Vincent de Paul and Neighbourhood Watch. I pay my respects to the Inala Indigenous elders, Auntie Vi, Uncle Kevin and Uncle Albert. The local historian Gert Riley in her book History of Our Inala and Suburbs comments that Inala is an Indigenous name meaning ‘good camping place’. Inala has been a good place to live for many people who have come from different countries seeking a better life. I would like to thank all the people who have highlighted to me that social justice is not just a Labor value; it is what it means to be a member of the Australian Labor Party. Only social justice can bring about real change for families. It is only a Labor government that can deliver on social justice. To that end, I pay tribute to the great work of ACRODD, QCOSS and the Historical Abuse Network. I would like to pay tribute to all the ministers and ministerial staff who often work late nights and weekends because of their commitment to this government. I would like to thank my campaign director, local councillor for the Richlands ward, Les Bryant, for his guidance and support and his wife, Margaret, my electorate officers, Charles Strunk and Kathy Tofoni, campaign organiser Anthony Chisholm and Linda Paton, a genuine community representative for Forest Lake. A special thanks to Lindsay Hill for doorknocking with me during the campaign in parts of Forest Lake, Oxley, Darra and Camira and to Jim Horsfall, the president of the Inala branch, and all of the Inala branch members. Jim was sacked during the SEQEB strike back in the Joh-Bjelke Peterson days. He has instilled in me to always stand up for what you believe in and always protect workers rights, To Geoff Hunt, president of the Forest Lake branch, and the members of that branch I thank you for your support. I thank Barry McIntosh, Johnno Johnston and Greg Hooper for the support of the Blue Fin Fishing Club—yes, we do have the largest fishing club in south-east Queensland. To Irene, Sam and Peter Every and Sue Lannen, thanks for running the campaign office. I would like to extend my appreciation to Bill Ludwig and Garry Ryan. It would be remiss of me not to mention my mentor for admission as a solicitor over the past nine months, Brian Kilmartin, and Senator Joe Ludwig for encouraging me to complete the course even though it meant studying after work from 9 pm until 1 am. My thanks also go to Associate Professor Paul Reynolds for encouraging me to apply for a scholarship to study overseas. I make special mention of two teachers from St Mary’s, Charles Costello and Rhonda Nolan. I grew up in Durack and in year 10 worked for Wallace Bishop at Inala Plaza. I would like to thank David Beddall who took a chance on a kid from Durack who had just finished university and gave her a job at Inala Plaza as a research officer. He took another punt on a kid three years later—that was on Milton Dick, who is now the state secretary of the ALP. Milton, I will never forget those federal election campaigns. To the member for Murrumba, Dean Wells, your vision of ethanol and a cleaner greener environment is coming to fruition. To Minister John Mickel, a long-term family friend, thank you for your mentoring since I was at high school and thank you to Minister Paul Lucas, who helped out on Henry’s by-election. To my parliamentary colleagues the member for Stafford and the member for Thurwingowa, thank you. To Warren Pitt, you are more than a role model to me. You are a friend who I deeply respect. I admire your courage and commitment and dedication to social justice. I wish to make a very special mention of my university friends Mark Bucknall, Paul Marytn, Helen Byrom, David Bowles, Jacinta Healy, John Cherry, Cameron Dick, Tim Grau and Milton Dick. My thanks also go to all my other friends including Maureen Palmer, Anne Purcell, Carmen Meshios, Stella Rey, Jacqui Argent, Michelle Wellington, Sharyn Durston, Garry Sharman, Margie Ireland, Kirby Anderson, my family and my grandmother Beryl Erskine for always being there for me no matter what, my sisters Cathy, Nadia and Julia and, most importantly, my husband, Simon, for his love and commitment. You challenge me and you inspire me each and every day. We share the same values and commitment to the Australian Labor Party. Over the years, I have not lost my drive nor my passion. I have put my values into practise each and every day, arguing a point that I believe has merit, putting forward a solution to an issue that may not be popular. It is an honour to be elected as the member for Inala. I will stand up for the people in my electorate. I will work hard and continue to lobby ministers to improve the lives of all members of the community. I am humbled to represent them here in the Legislative Assembly of Queensland. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Before calling the honourable member for Stafford, I remind members that this is the member’s first speech and he should be listened to with the courtesies reserved for such occasions. I call the member for Stafford. Mr HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (5.44 pm): Rising in this place allows me to explore and serve my passions. Setting aside the obvious love for my own family, there are three ideas that I am truly passionate about: my local community, the Australian Labor Party and our democracy. Joining the 52nd 12 Oct 2006 Address-In-Reply 203

Parliament as the Labor member for Stafford permits me the opportunity to serve those three passions and I sincerely thank the electors of Stafford for affording me this great privilege. Mr Deputy Speaker, please extend my congratulations to the Speaker on being elected to his high and honoured office. As the 33rd Speaker, he will undoubtedly add a new chapter to the 146-year story of this House. My original training and my great personal interest in history provides me with what I regard as an extraordinary tool. History engenders an understanding that change is the normal state of affairs. The Stafford electorate is at the heart of Brisbane’s north side. Based on the suburbs of Stafford, Chermside and Kedron, it also includes Gordon Park, Stafford Heights and parts of West Chermside, Wavell Heights, Lutwyche, Wooloowin and Albion. Living in this part of the north side since I was four, I have come to appreciate that its history is one of continuing change drawn together by some fundamental elements of continuity. Gympie Road has been the primary artery for the north side since its beginnings as the route for miners heading to the Gympie goldfields. Tram lines to Lutwyche, then later to Chermside and Stafford created commuter communities. Gympie Road’s future is as a corridor where public transport has regained a primacy lost since the tram tracks were torn up. The Beattie government’s northern busway and the TransLink system are a great start. Local retailers originally focused on provisioning Gympie miners and local farmers. The emergence of local suburbia led to the development of Australia’s first American style shopping mall. Allan and Stark’s Chermside drive-in was opened by then Premier Vince Gair in 1957. Its future is already growing with an expanding Westfield Chermside. The Beattie government’s South East Queensland Regional Plan recognises this commercial core as the north side’s principal activity centre. Most early employment in the Stafford electorate was in noxious industries dotted around the district. This era ended with the closure of Gibson’s Tannery and the redevelopment of that site as Stafford City Shopping Centre as late as 1982. A former member for Stafford and former lord mayor of Brisbane, Roy Harvey worked at the tannery. As those honourable members who knew him would confirm, the late Roy Harvey epitomised the work ethic and solidarity of a proud local working-class community. The ongoing future challenge is to promote local employment which will sustain such a community and culture. The Beattie government’s nation-leading record on job creation and economic management sets the platform. The postwar boom in local housing was underwritten by government. In the late 1940s, the Queensland Housing Commission began developing a large number of quality family homes in Stafford, Kedron and Chermside. Across the whole north side, many families achieved security and stability as public housing tenants. Many more were able to purchase their own homes through the Housing Commission loan scheme. Indeed, my parents-in-law, Bill and Shirley Clarke, were able to obtain a home at Chermside and raise five fine children there. Population pressures on the whole of south-east Queensland raise acute concerns for maintaining housing affordability on the north side. While not the only player in affordable housing, the Queensland government remains an important contributor through the Department of Housing’s provision of a range of housing options; not just the traditional postwar family homes but also high-quality townhouses and units. The Beattie government’s community renewal program in Stafford has indeed been particularly successful and I congratulate my predecessor and the honourable minister for housing on this program. Since that housing boom of the 1950s, a number of institutions have arisen to meet the needs of the local community. Some have been government institutions enjoying significant community support such as the Prince Charles Hospital and the local state schools. Others have arisen from the community itself. During this current year, Kedron State High and the popular Franciscan colleges of Padua and Mount Alvernia have celebrated 50 years of schooling. Chermside Guides have also passed this milestone in 2006, with credit owed to Peggy Campbell and her team of leaders at Bradbury Park. Next year, in 2007, we will celebrate 50 years since the opening of Wavell State High School. At this point, I would like to pay tribute to the contribution of Cec Anstey, the first principal of Wavell High, whose home is still next door to the school. Cec has quietly made a significant mark on education and sport on the north side and throughout Queensland via various professional and volunteer roles. The Prince Charles Hospital began in 1954 as the Chermside Chest Hospital. Today it is an internationally renowned beacon of modern medicine. It is a tertiary public hospital which, thanks to the Beattie Labor government’s $9.7 billion Health Action Plan, will next year begin to provide the full range of general hospital services to the north side community. As one of many hundreds who have contributed to this important institution, I acknowledge Professor Col Brennan, who not only began his medical training at the old Chest Hospital in 1954 but today continues to serve on the Prince Charles Hospital Foundation. Of course, the Kedron-Wavell RSL Sub-Branch was established with a large number of returned men and women settling locally after the Second World War. Today the subbranch’s associated services club—established in 1968—has a membership of over 25,000 and truly acts as a central hub for the local community. Significant credit is owed to Fraser Allom and Ken Mogg as drivers of this success. 204 Address-In-Reply 12 Oct 2006

Similarly, over 1,500 members of the Burnie Brae Senior Citizens Centre access an array of services and activities thanks to a terrific band of workers and volunteers led by President Al Fielding. My own involvement in local organisations has given me the chance to work with genuine community contributors too numerous to name here but including Beverley Isdale, the Chermside and Districts Historical Society archivist, and Jack Pool, Chair of the Stafford Community Forum and President of the Stafford Meals On Wheels. Many of the local success stories where government has played a key role can be directly attributed to my predecessor as the member for Stafford. Terry Sullivan contributed to the north side fully as an advisor and advocate for local community groups and institutions. After 15 years service to this parliament and to his constituents, there is much for him to be proud of. I will highlight three achievements. Firstly, the new Stafford Police Station, along with its new policing district, is a much- needed modern, responsive facility. Secondly, the redevelopment of the Prince Charles Hospital as a general hospital was something that Terry advocated doggedly for for over 10 years. Thirdly, Terry’s commitment to supporting and promoting public housing has resulted in better housing outcomes for local northsiders. For all of these things, on behalf of the community, I thank him. However, I also need to thank Terry Sullivan for his efforts as my campaign director at the recent state election. As honourable members will understand, his tenacity and organisation provided terrific leadership to a campaign team which enjoyed a mixture of experience and enthusiasm. Drawing on the wonderful commitment of hundreds of members in five supportive local ALP branches, our team produced a faultless campaign. I extend my specific thanks to Judith Morgan-Dudley, Dave Mortleman, Mark Hopsick, Jane Fischer, Megan Dixon, Eileen Wood, Jim Sullivan, Melissa Thomas, Tom Houston and Ken Storey. I thank these supporters and the many others who assisted the Stafford campaign with the express aim of retaining a Labor member and re-electing a Labor government. Over 17 years of my Labor Party membership, there are a number of people who have been tremendously encouraging and supportive. I want to place on record my appreciation for that support. I also want to reassure them that rising here today will be but a beginning in a continued effort to live up to their example, expectations and exaltations. In no particular order, I thank Paul Martyn, Wayne Swan, Mike Kaiser, Chris Simpson, Michael Wales, Cameron Milner, Joan Budd, Terry Hampson, Con Sciacca, Jim Soorley, Ray Hollis, Warren Pitt, Stacia Palaszczuk, Ken Macpherson, Jim Elder, Milton Dick, Victoria Newton, the late Bernie Green, Paul Lucas, Maureen Hayes, John Hogg, John Mickel, Faith Hopkins, Anthony Chisholm, Rosemary Hume, Mark Wellard, Bonny Barry, Gavin Brady, Anna Bligh, Peter Beattie and Bill Ludwig variously for their counsel, confidence and often comradeship. It is no coincidence that all of these people were associated with me through the Labor Party. My passion for the Labor movement and the great Australian Labor Party is the link between my own community and the lofty abstract of democracy. Fundamentally, Labor is about protecting and improving the life, conditions and opportunities for Queenslanders. Put plainly, that is good jobs, excellent education and support for families. The Australian Labor Party itself is an outstanding institution which has contributed greatly to our nation and our state. I see it as part of my task to contribute to it remaining ever so. I will bring my community and corporate experience to bear on this important task. At the Property Council of Australia and more recently as an independent analyst I worked alongside leaders in the private sector facing the commercial and social challenges of south-east Queensland’s booming population. As the Beattie government’s South East Queensland Regional Plan recognises, there is an ongoing need to ensure our infrastructure and governance arrangements meet the demands of our dynamic economy and community. Before working in the private sector, I enjoyed extensive opportunities through serving Labor administrations at three levels of government. In these roles I was involved in three programs which were very successful because they truly engaged their target community. The unifying feature of these programs was that they were deeply rooted in history, especially social history. While a previous member for Stafford, Dr Denis Murphy, was an eminent historian, the only superlative that I could claim is ‘enthusiastic’. But my experience as an enthusiastic historian shaped my involvement in these significant projects. With the Commonwealth government I worked on the ‘Australia Remembers’ program commemorating the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. With the Brisbane City Council I managed a program to acknowledge the pain and dislocation of the stolen generation of Indigenous Australians under the title ‘The Journey Home’. While working for this parliament in the Speaker’s office I assisted in the planning and management of the historic first regional sitting of the parliament in north Queensland. In the 21st century our understanding of democracy is challenged by a rapidly changing economy and cultural setting. Indeed, our whole polity appears to be undermined by shifting sands. Globalisation, or as writer Thomas Friedman calls it ‘the flattening of the world’, is affecting every aspect of our society. There is no time to stand back and shake our heads in dismay. We need to be involved in this process of globalisation and harness it—harness it for civic responsibility and community building. One of the hallmarks of globalisation is an open exchange of ideas. Doomsayers will tell you that we are flat-footed and unprepared for this world. I would contend the opposite. We are in fact well tooled with political 12 Oct 2006 Address-In-Reply 205 institutions that have stood the test of time. Our style of parliament where freedom of speech is paramount but responsibility enjoys an equal place with rights is the unsurpassed model. In the 1990s Francis Fukuyama wrote that history is over. He was referring to the end of the Cold War and the supposed victory of liberal democracy. Unfortunately, no-one told the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Fundamentalism of any brand is anathema to our pluralist democracy. We need to continue this historic debate and establish within our own community the success of our democracy. We need to remind our constituents and fellow citizens that our society’s success is based on the willingness to entertain and explore new ideas. To this end, government needs to recommit to genuine engagement with its citizenry: genuine engagement, not consultation where citizens are asked their opinion only to see decision makers plough on with their long-held plans; genuine engagement, where citizens are invited to understand the depth of the challenges and creatively collaborate on solutions. To sustain a successful democracy, we need to promote a skilled and knowledgeable workforce to engage in the world economy. The Smart State Strategy is the necessary road. The Howard government record of undervaluing and underfunding education and training and then steering us down the road of lower wages and conditions fails our future. These are issues and ideas which we will all need to address, and I look forward to discussing and indeed debating these concepts in this House. I had the tremendous fortune to be born into an excellent family. It is our first order here in this parliament to do whatever is needed to create, encourage and support better families. My parents, Bruce and Janice, have instilled in me the value of hands-on community service, an appreciation of thrift and a healthy disdain for impractical ideas. They also instinctively provided for their sons. My brothers Craig, eight years my senior, and Russell, six years older, were both in their respective ways my idols as a child. I was drawn up by their example, their capability and their strength. The pain of Russell’s sudden death five years ago will never fade for my family. However, Russell is with us wherever we go and he is most certainly with me now. It would be remiss of me at this point not to mention the person who most inspired me to stand here as a member of this House. My maternal grandmother, Alice Reddy, was a very ordinary Queenslander. Yet, like so many others of her generation, she achieved extraordinary things upon which our state is built. Grandma contributed as a mother of nine children. While her husband worked for Queensland Railways, she managed a bustling home for the family, including caring for my Uncle Cliff, who lives with Down syndrome, right up until her death. Grandma also contributed as a community volunteer through the trinity of Rockhampton organisations that she attended and baked for: the Mothers’ Union, the CWA and the Women’s Branch of the ALP. But first and foremost, she was a loving, resourceful and giving matriarch. Grandma contributed as grandparent to 28 kids and as surrogate grandma to hundreds more. Her home was a combination of holiday base camp and canteen for footballers and netballers. Alice Reddy did not think of herself as important or special; however, she remains special to many and her views on life have influenced me greatly, especially on the role of government to assist and promote working families. As honourable members would understand, friends are important. I want to acknowledge a couple of longstanding friends, Matthew Low and Graeme Currie, who, despite distance and other distractions, have always been supportive and consistent. To paraphrase Groucho Marx: Matt and Cuz may talk like idiots and may look like idiots, but don’t let that fool you: they really are idiots. Of course, my best friend and my wisest political and personal counsellor is my wife, Megan. There are no words capable of encapsulating her achievements in life. I am just thankful to share it. As part of that life, we share three delightful children. Even at their tender ages, Jack, Tom and May are bright and intelligent, providing me with many ideas and a mountain of inspiration to build a sustainable and sustaining future for our state. Before my family, before my new colleagues and before all Queenslanders, I want to reaffirm the commitment that I made to my local community before the election. I promise to work hard for my community. I promise to work hard for continued economic prosperity. I promise to work hard for everyone to enjoy a fair share of that prosperity. I promise to work hard for opportunities for everyone, young and old, to better their lives and the lives of their families. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Before calling the honourable member for Redcliffe, I remind members that this is the member’s first speech and she should be listened to with the courtesies reserved for such occasions. Ms van LITSENBURG (Redcliffe—ALP) (6.03 pm): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I congratulate you on your appointment to that high office. Would you please pass on my congratulations to the Speaker. You have my support in upholding the time-honoured democratic traditions of this House. I would also like to extend my congratulations to the Premier and all the other honourable members of this House on their election and re-election. I am proud to be part of this fourth-term Labor government. Despite many challenges during the last term, this Labor team went to the election with a vision for a better Queensland, backed by plans and promises to implement that vision. The people of Queensland have expressed their confidence in 206 Address-In-Reply 12 Oct 2006 our ability to realise that vision and they trust us to deliver the Queensland that they are proud of and that they want to live in. Now that the people of Redcliffe have passed the baton on to me, I want to be part of delivering that vision. I welcome all the roles I will have to enable me to do that. This is a team task, and I look forward to working with my government and parliamentary colleagues to deliver the result that Queenslanders are looking for. Previously, as part of the Murrumba electorate, Redcliffe elected the Hon. Jim Houghton as its first member in 1959. Interestingly, there must be something in the water, because there has been a high percentage of Speakers from Redcliffe. The first was Sir David Nicholson, although he was the member for Murrumba, which later became part of the electorate of Redcliffe. Jim Houghton was the next member for Redcliffe who became Speaker and latterly Ray Hollis. The only first that I can claim is that I am the first woman to be the member for Redcliffe, and I am glad to say that that was not an issue during the campaign. I was accepted for the issues that I stood for. It is pleasing that gender is no longer an issue in standing for public office. In this regard, Redcliffe can be proud of its recent history. Currently, half of the city councillors, including the deputy mayor, are women. I stand here very humbled by the decisive support that was shown for me by the people of Redcliffe on election day. They have shown their faith in me, and I will work hard to do all I can to ensure that their faith is justified. My pledge to the people of Redcliffe is that I will do everything in my power to advocate for them and represent them irrespective of who they are, their vote or their issue. I pledge to work with community groups and towards developing the resources and improving the quality of life for the residents of the Redcliffe electorate. I also pledge to work to ensure that Redcliffe gains the entire infrastructure and environmental safeguards that it requires as it develops into a modern tourist town with a population that needs good access around the peninsula, to Brisbane and to the surrounding areas on a daily basis. I have been very blessed by the support I have had from the Labor Party right from the time of the by-election, including the support of the state secretary, Milton Dick, Labor Party organiser Anthony Chisholm and many of my parliamentary colleagues, including the Premier, Peter Beattie, and Dr Heather Beattie; the Deputy Premier, Anna Bligh; honourable members John Mickel, Warren Pitt, Paul Lucas, Dean Wells and Bonny Barry; and also Wayne Swan, John Hogg and Victoria Newton. I can never thank all of them enough, because I am here today through their support. I am also grateful for support from the Australian Workers Union and the Queensland Teachers Union. I am very proud to be a member of the Australian Labor Party. As an immigrant to Australia, I was motivated to join the Labor Party when the GST was proposed and I fought it. New Zealand’s GST was introduced at the same time as IR laws similar to the Howard government’s were introduced. That was a fight we lost, but it began my passion for Labor and for what the Labor Party stands for. The social justice issues that I have always held dear to my heart are the most striking thing that sets us apart from the conservative parties. Once I joined the party, I was accepted into the Labor family. The then member for Redcliffe and Speaker of the House, Ray Hollis, became my mentor and encouraged me to run for the Redcliffe City Council. Council gave me a good foundation in representing and working with people and community groups to solve issues and develop plans for long-term community wellbeing. In learning all the technical issues of roads, drains, sewerage and town planning, the mayor, council colleagues and directors of departments were very helpful. I learned the nuts and bolts of developing policy in conjunction with community groups. But my learning time was soon over, and within two years of being elected to council I found myself contesting last year’s by-election. Since the dark days after the by-election I have had steadfast support from a number of Redcliffe Labor Party branch members, including Brad Heilbronn, Rosemary Hume, Stella Rey, Daniel Cheverton, Jackie Columb, Mark Whittaker, Anne Draper, Dorothy and Neville Lines, Kendal Rolley, Troy Fenandez, Dylan Adams, Edith Yanieri, Shirley and John Antonio, Sybil and Rod Kirkman, Munroe Cuttmore, Yvette D’Ath, Myra and Alan Robertson, Tony Brennan and Gavin Brady. These were the people who were out with me every Saturday and Sunday from before Easter doing stalls, doorknocking, organising branch meetings and barbecues, and all of the things that needed to be done to keep the branches ticking over and to get amongst the people. It was vital that we began to talk with constituents and understand their concerns and issues well before the election was called. It is lonely after you have lost an election and these people know how much they gave me strength and helped me gain the courage and energy to win the state election. I am grateful for their friendship and loyalty to me and to the Labor movement in Redcliffe. During the election campaign I was blessed to have a group of loyal supporters who worked long days from the moment the election was called. These included Keith Franklin, Bill Kelly, Mark Newlands, Linda Collins, Bill Winchester, Carl Winchester, Elenoa Winchester, Pat Roche, Brett Armstrong, Ernie Faulkner, John and Margaret Carr, Jenny Sams, Jeanette and Murray Ryan, and Liz and Steve Baker. There were also many others who helped during the campaign and on election day. I am very grateful for all their hard work. Although I have no close family in Queensland, my sisters, Lia Martin, Yolanda Attrill and Jackie van Litsenburg, my nephew Luke Herbert, my niece Danielle Martin and Monica Schulze sent daily 12 Oct 2006 Address-In-Reply 207 emails and cards supporting me. My close friends, who are my adopted Queensland family, Ros French and John Krammer, Linda Holman and Bruce Harkness, Di and James Houghton, Annetta and Will Moses, Angela Draycott and Collin Williams, and Helane Ayres were invaluable in their emotional and practical support. The Redcliffe electorate is located on a peninsula with Moreton Bay on three sides and Moreton Island on the far side of the bay. No matter where you go on the peninsula you are never far from our beautiful beaches which have won clean beach and friendliest beach awards and tidy town awards as well as environmental awards. I was responsible for some of these as part of my role as a Redcliffe city councillor. Redcliffe has a wide variety of wildlife from koalas and kangaroos to the migrating bird life in the Ramsar site at Hayes Inlet, the iconic pelicans on the lights across the Houghton Highway and the turtles, dugong, whales and other ocean wildlife in Moreton Bay. Historically, Redcliffe is known as the place of first European settlement in Queensland. John Oxley arrived in 1824 to establish a penal colony. After such an auspicious beginning, Redcliffe became a holiday destination when the main settlement was moved to the Brisbane River. It grew into a small town where generations have brought up their families. Because of its relative isolation, people relied on local businesses and services for all their needs. It is now one of the most densely populated areas in Queensland. It now enjoys a vital and vibrant community with a colourful mix of people from all walks of life, many nationalities and with one of the highest ratios of retired people in Queensland. It is a unique social mix of people that has resulted in a collective pride in their town. Consequently, they are very involved in the community and demand a voice in all local issues. In fact, Redcliffe has more volunteers per head of population than anywhere else in Queensland and we are proud of the contribution each person makes in the community. There are a myriad of clubs, sporting bodies, community groups and volunteer organisations in Redcliffe to give people the scope to be involved in and add value to the community. These include the Redcliffe Arts Society, the Redcliffe Peninsula Surf Life Saving Club, the Mousetrap Theatre, the Kippa Ring Lions Club and two other Lions clubs, the Redcliffe Leagues Club, the Moreton Bay Boat Club, the Redcliffe Neighbourhood Centre, Redcliffe and District Wildlife Rescue, the Special Needs Toy Library, the Redcliffe Pottery Group, the Redcliffe Multicultural Liaison Group, the Redcliffe Dugongs, the RSL, the Redcliffe and District Woodcraft Society, Sunshine Place, ROPE, the Peninsula Environment Group, the Henzell Street Quilters, Zonta International Club of Redcliffe, Rotary, the Tuesday Club and a full range of children’s and adults’ sporting teams, including the Dolphins, who have just won the Queensland Cup. Redcliffe is well known for its schools and the quality students they produce—Humpybong schools on the seafront, Clontarf Beach schools, Woody Point Special, Redcliffe Special School, Scarborough schools, Kippa-Ring State School, Clontarf and Redcliffe high schools and the Southern Cross Catholic College and Grace Lutheran private schools. We have a range of groups including the Redcliffe Hospital Foundation, the Redcliffe and District Cardiac Support Group, the Diabetes Foundation, Cart Mill, Meals on Wheels and U3A, who perform a service or raise money for worthwhile causes within the community. The Redcliffe and Bayside Herald is a regular sponsor of community causes. The conversation I want to have in this parliament is about the future of Redcliffe. This is the issue dearest to my heart. I want a Redcliffe that has retained its unique village character but has developed a robust and expanding economy able to sustain growing employment needs. I want a Redcliffe that has the social infrastructure to ensure the health and wellbeing of all its citizens. I want a Redcliffe that has effective physical infrastructure ensuring security and free movement for all citizens around Redcliffe and when travelling to surrounding areas. I believe steps have begun towards realising these goals but a lot more work is needed before this vision becomes reality. These are the things I am committed to working for. Central to many issues in Redcliffe is the economy. I am committed to working with the Combined Chambers of Commerce and other groups to develop strategies to ensure businesses attain greater profitability and further the town’s tourist strategy. Hand in hand with a robust economy is the ability to provide employment to the local population. This includes young people entering the workforce for the first time and mature people returning to employment. This requires that young people are adequately prepared for the workforce and that postsecondary training is easily accessible to them. This has traditionally been a difficult area, but state government grants for work readiness programs have helped many people access employment and further training. With the recent escalation in the cost of housing, it is vital that a long-term strategy is put in place to ensure our elderly do not have to leave the peninsula when they need special home modifications to stay independent. Young people on low incomes also need affordable housing. Because of Redcliffe’s location outside the centre of Brisbane, it is vital that we have an effective transport system. I am proud to say that the duplication of the Houghton Highway is due to begin next year. It will improve the flow of traffic by ensuring there are two lanes travelling each way at all times and a bus lane, ensuring that buses have a swift passage to link with trains at Sandgate. The upgrade of the 208 Address-In-Reply 12 Oct 2006

Gateway, although not within the Redcliffe electorate, will enable many Redcliffe commuters to have fast and more trouble-free daily trips. The TransLink system has heralded an effective change in public transport, with the proportion of people using buses greatly increasing. The new smart card, currently being trialled in Redcliffe, promises to make entry on to buses quicker. The added benefit is that journeys are able to be tracked, so that if a number of people making journeys requiring two stages is recorded then a route straight to that destination could be added to the system. The T2 lane being added to Anzac Avenue will help the congestion in the mornings and after school. These lanes can be drop-off lanes while through traffic use the other lanes. Buses will be off the road while they drop passengers off, retaining an even flow of traffic. I am committed to the continued improvement of transport within the Redcliffe electorate. Redcliffe Hospital has worked hard to deliver the best-quality services to the community. As part of the government’s health plan, the hospital will receive a new emergency department and 10 new surgical beds to lower the waiting lists along with the long list of improvements since the by-election. Due to our location, environmental and conservation issues are important to ensure we retain the health and balance of our many ecosystems. There is a huge task ahead to realise my goals for Redcliffe and to implement the commitments of the fourth Beattie Labor government. This is my agenda for my first term in parliament. With the continued backing of those who have supported me over the last year and honest engagement with the community, I believe we can achieve the fantastic commitments laid out. I believe we can achieve a better lifestyle for the people of Redcliffe through improving our social and physical infrastructure and igniting our economy, and I believe this government can come through with its commitments and achieve a better Queensland. Sitting suspended from 6.24 pm to 7.30 pm. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (7.30 pm): Mr Deputy Speaker Hinchliffe, I ask you to extend my congratulations to the Speaker on his appointment to the chair of this 52nd Parliament. The role of Speaker is central to the conduct and business of parliament and is an integral part of our Westminster system. As such, I look forward to his presiding over the healthy and often robust debate in this House. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate all re-elected members and especially welcome those newly elected. It can be a steep learning curve, but the satisfaction members will get from being able to help their constituents and shape Queensland’s future makes it worth while. I look forward to working with all members over the term of this new parliament. I am sure that I speak for everyone here when I say that the chance to represent our electorate and work for our constituents is a great honour and one that is worth any sacrifices we have to make in terms of our personal and family lives. I will echo the sentiments of many members here today in sincerely thanking my wonderful family for their support, their understanding and their encouragement during the last parliament, throughout the election and as I take my seat in this new parliament. We all know the effect being a member has on our family, and I truly appreciate their tolerance and understanding. I thank my wonderful husband, Ray, our sons, daughter and daughters-in-law and also my beautiful parents, Harold and Val Fox, whom I thank God are still in good health and who regularly listen to parliamentary proceedings on their home computer. I would also like to express my thanks to the constituents in the Burdekin electorate for their vote of confidence in deciding to again choose me as their representative in parliament. It is no small honour, and I intend to give the best possible service and representation possible. I would like to assure Burdekin electorate residents that I have noted and will be looking to address those issues that they have identified as needing closer attention. I intend to represent all who live in the electorate equally and without favour. In such a diverse region, there will always be competing interests and ideologies, but I will be as fair as humanly possible and deal with each and every issue on its merits and look at how the issues affect those who live within the electorate boundaries. Although it is certainly not the largest electorate in Queensland, Burdekin is one of its more diverse. It covers more than 18,000 square kilometres and is home to over 34,000 people. It runs from the northern suburbs of Bowen, out to the proud coalmining town of Collinsville, up to the twin towns of Home Hill and Ayr and includes in its northern region most of Townsville’s southern suburbs and the Lavarack army barracks. It was designated for many years as mainly rural, particularly in the past, but Burdekin is increasingly being seen as a major contributor to the state’s growing mining and export sectors. Abbot Point, north of Bowen, is already one of the state’s largest export ports, with future expansion already underway and plans for it to become a major industrial processing and export hub. We also look for the continuation and the completion of the missing link railway line that will complete the further extensions to Abbot Point. Currently, zinc and copper refineries as well as a meat processing plant are established in the Stuart industrial area just south of Townsville. While I maintain my strong opposition to any further heavy or extractive industry that may be noxious or noisy in the area, Stuart is ideally sited for the expansion of medium and lighter manufacturing and other similar 12 Oct 2006 Address-In-Reply 209 businesses that can be more acceptably located near residential areas. This is a particularly important residential area and it is growing enormously. Aquaculture has become an increasingly important contributor to the Burdekin economy. While there are ongoing environmental concerns that need addressing, these ventures will play an increasing role in how the region can diversify and make the most of opportunity. Agriculture and horticulture are still major contributors to employment and growth in the central area of the Burdekin electorate and, despite recent downturns, continue to be the mainstay. Sugarcane is coming out of a period of severely diminished returns which had a major effect on the towns servicing the industry. This downturn, as severe as it was, still had the benefit of stimulating the search for alternative crops and for the development of by-products, as well as driving the technological change that the industry is already famous for. More work has been done on ethanol production, on cogeneration, on feedstock supplements for livestock and on other by-products in recent years. Much more work in recent years has been done in these areas than in any preceding period, and all Queenslanders will benefit from this work in the future. I do note the government’s promise to mandate for five per cent ethanol, and I will certainly be looking to see the government implement this in the very near future. Horticulture continues to play its part in the economy, as we can proudly boast of being one of the premier fruit and vegetable producing areas in Australia. Apart from the huge boost to Burdekin’s wealth from the value of produce sold, it is a major employer of labour evidenced by the influx of workers from other areas of Australia and overseas during the season. Indeed, such is the effect of this annual migration that many small towns have found their decline reversed as they now house, feed, clothe and entertain their expanded populations. The backpacker market especially has contributed to the health and wealth of the Burdekin, as it has become a major stopover for those travellers looking to make some money before continuing on. Fortunately, this has not affected local people from gaining employment, as there is an ongoing shortage of labour across all sectors. The backpacker market is an enormous area and it is actually becoming a real market opportunity for so many people. I am proud to say that through innovation, hard work and forward thinking the Burdekin electorate is enhancing its reputation as one of the finest in the state, but that is not to say that this progress has been easy. Seasonal conditions and commodity returns of course play a large part in determining an economy’s growth, but for the most part these are out of our control. What we are able to do, however, is ensure that the infrastructure and services are in place so that this growth can be facilitated and supported. This is the role of the government and, by extension, our role as members. It is our duty to our constituents to see that they have access to the necessary road, rail and port facilities to be able to transport goods and services across the state and across the world; to provide them with the services and facilities to establish businesses to meet future demand; to build, maintain and efficiently run the schools; to run the hospitals; and to run the emergency department and the police services that every citizen has a right to expect. Our constituents demand that their future needs are anticipated and met with the supply of water and power and that they are not totally dependent on the vagaries of weather or season. Drought is an historical fact of life in Queensland and it is no excuse for failing to supply even basic water needs. In this modern world, electricity is as vital as food and drink, and planning to meet future demand and the replacement and upgrading of existing infrastructure cannot be determined by a political whim or need. It is the responsibility of government. The responsibility of government is to ensure that all residents share equally and that essential needs are met, regardless of geographical location, political affiliation or demographics. I look forward to the role of shadow minister for environment and multiculturalism. Management of our environment is extremely important and there are many issues across Queensland and also within my electorate that I will be addressing. The area of Ayr and Home Hill, where I live, is a wonderfully multicultural area and it is actually that tapestry of the many cultures in the Burdekin that has made it what it is. A possibly unique situation that occurs in the shire of Burdekin is that the three levels of government are all represented by women. As shadow minister for women I am particularly proud to work with the federal member for Dawson, De-Anne Kelly, and Councillor Lyn McLachlan, mayor of the Burdekin. I add that all three of us have also been involved in the sugar industry at some stage in our lives. An election always brings a rash of promises from both sides of the political fence and this election was no different in this regard. What was different was that many of the promises made by the government were not about new policies and initiatives to drive the state, but instead they were about fixing some very fundamental problems that already exist. Very serious problems still exist in our health and hospital system and they will continue to exist for years to come despite the promises made. Child safety and education are also areas causing deep concern in the community and need urgent attention. Child safety is one of our very serious community problems. It is not one that wins elections. It does not win votes. Children are our heritage and until we can address the very, very 210 Address-In-Reply 12 Oct 2006 serious malfunctions that are occurring here and address attitudes across the community—and it is not just a government problem; it is an all-of-community problem—we have a long, long way to go. At the start of this new parliament I am hopeful that these issues will be addressed and ultimately resolved for the good of Queensland. It is unfortunate that it seemingly took an election to get action on the many problems facing us. As a member of the opposition I will be closely monitoring how the government honours its election commitments. Both sides of the House have lessons to learn from the results of the election, but the government can be in no doubt that it is now on notice. It has had a reprieve but now has to prove that it has the plans and the policies to fix the myriad problems we face. It has to prove that it has the will to acknowledge the endemic culture of bullying that has surfaced in many departments and it has to have the resolve to wipe this out. For too long the government has failed to plan for the future. For too long our infrastructure requirements and future needs have been ignored in favour of non-essential projects and initiatives. We have had footbridges instead of dams and stadiums instead of hospital beds. But the past has caught up. We are now subject to severe water restrictions in the south-east because of a failure to understand that droughts are an inevitable fact of life in Queensland. We are suffering from a shocking lack of beds for patients and overlong delays for treatment because of a lack of qualified staff, and we are losing more health professionals because of an antagonistic culture within the department. I sincerely hope that in this new term the government does not again ignore the advice of those best qualified to give it. I expect it will not seek to politicise the issues and instead get on with the job it has been elected to do. The deplorable state of our departments calls for policies, not politics. I can reassure honourable members that the opposition is ready and willing to get the best for Queensland. For the Burdekin electorate in particular I will be asking questions—questions about the $8 million shortfall in funding for the Cerito Road project that was supposed to give sealed road access to Bowen Basin coalfields for Collinsville residents. Instead of the promised $25 million, Bowen Shire Council has been informed that only $17 million will be made available, resulting in a very expensive and very inadequate gravel-only road. I will be asking why, after several years and many excuses, the new Ayr Ambulance Station, funding for which was promised in the 2004 state budget, has still not been built. I will be querying just what commitment the government has made to the Water for Bowen project and whether it really intends to build it now that it has been re-elected. This scheme is desperately needed by Bowen farmers facing reduced water allocations and salt intrusion. It is desperately needed to support the expansion of the Abbot Point port, which is needed to allow the Bowen area to expand and grow. It is needed by irrigators from Home Hill to grow their crops and it is still in limbo. It was an election commitment by the government to finally fund the stage 2 environmental impact study, but a curious allocation of $45 million to a $120 million scheme means nothing unless it gives a firm commitment to actually build the channel. Townsville’s Port Access road will again be high on my agenda as I seek to give residents in Townsville’s southern suburbs relief from increasing heavy vehicle and traffic congestion. With the announcement of the cruise ship terminal for the Townsville port, which curiously did not seem to need an environmental impact study before it got approval, the situation can only get worse for these householders. Those householders who live in the Wulguru area along Stuart Drive experience some very dangerous traffic situations. During the last parliament I raised the continuing problem of the chronic shortage of beds and staff at the Townsville Hospital and the inordinate delay for cancer patients needing radiation treatment. I also revealed that up to 25 emergency patients were queuing every morning on trolleys in hallways waiting for admittance to a ward. This situation has not changed. This prompted the Premier to promise an additional 100 beds during his campaign, and I certainly mean to hold him to that promise. I will continue to push for a baseload power station in the north, for better roads, for more teacher aide hours and resources for prep school, for light and medium industry only at Stuart and for the north to share in this state’s bounty. For far too long north Queensland has missed out. I will keep track of the government’s progress on all the promises and commitments made during the campaign to make sure they are honoured. This term the Queensland opposition will be intent on making the government accountable. We will be agitating for this government to actually do something rather than express surprise at events and ask for forgiveness for its failures. Failure is simply not acceptable anymore. Queensland needs action and plans for the future and we need them now. The government is on notice to perform, or else. There are no more excuses. I thank sincerely and say how very much I appreciate my campaign committee members, the many people who worked for me, the National Party and Liberal Party members and wonderful friends who worked so hard during the campaign. I wish I could name them all, but I would particularly like to acknowledge Don Pickard, Jim Gist, Jan and Tom Callow and Terry Williams. A special mention must go to Robyn Darwen in Bowen. This wonderful lady has motivated and enthused the many new members and supporters in the Bowen area. 12 Oct 2006 Address-In-Reply 211

It is the level of support from so many magnificent people that really gives me the strength and the courage to keep fighting for north Queensland. I again ask my family to accept my absences and tolerate the disruption to their lives. I reiterate how much I value and appreciate the sacrifices they make that will allow me to represent the Burdekin electorate as effectively as I can in this 52nd Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hinchliffe): Before calling the honourable member for Barron River, I remind honourable members that this is the member’s first speech and it should be listened to with the courtesies reserved for such occasions. Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (7.48 pm): Let me start by acknowledging the traditional owners and elders of the lands on which this parliament sits and of the lands included in the electorate of Barron River. It is a great honour to be elected to the Queensland parliament by the people of Barron River in far-north Queensland. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to convey my congratulations to the Speaker on his election to that high office. Among the many people it is my pleasure to acknowledge today, my family is foremost. Firstly, my heartfelt thanks to my wife, Amanda Shircore. Formerly a practising lawyer, Mandy lectures in law full- time at the Cairns campus of James Cook University, which is in the electorate of Barron River. She also undertakes postgraduate studies. Finding the time, energy and patience in her demanding schedule to run our household and support my candidature is testament to her selfless attitude and her remarkable capabilities. I also thank our children Daniel Louis Wettenhall and Gabriella Wettenhall who have so far cheerfully forgone family time to the demands of political life. I am very proud of them and I miss them very much when I am away. I would also like to thank my mother, Esther Wettenhall, who at 83 and battling frailty and ill health is very disappointed, as I am, that she could not be with me this week. Her love, sharpness of mind, courage, creativity and inner strength have never deserted her in the face of many hurdles and hardships. Her core values of loyalty and devotion to family, compassion, respect for others and cherishing our natural environment are an outstanding example to me. Like many people who have moved to far-north Queensland from other places, our children’s grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins live far away. Our friends are like our extended family. To all of them I extend my appreciation for their support in such a variety of ways. I want to acknowledge all of the people who supported the Australian Labor Party’s successful election campaign in Barron River. I acknowledge the members of the Marlin Coast and Trinity branches in my electorate, my colleagues the members for Cook, Cairns and Mulgrave and the party members in their electorates who collaborated to ensure each of the far northern electorates were retained by Labor. I acknowledge the members and officials of the Rail, Tram and Bus Union, the Construction and General Division and the Mining and Energy Division of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the Electrical Trades Union, the Queensland Nurses Union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the Maritime Union of Australia, the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union and the Queensland Teachers Union. I acknowledge all of the members of the Barron River state electoral council and the campaign committee. I acknowledge my friends and supporters who sacrificed their annual leave and much more to assist in the campaign and Sean Purcell and Carmel Ybarlucea, who is in the gallery tonight. I acknowledge our valued postal vote coordinator Sue Toms. I acknowledge my colleagues in the legal profession and, in particular, Mr Rowan Silva with whom I have worked for the last 10 years. Another colleague of mine Mr Jim Gibney is in the gallery tonight. I acknowledge my parliamentary colleagues the Hon. Premier, the Hon. Deputy Premier, the Hon. Linda Lavarch, the Hon. Margaret Keech, the Hon. Geoff Wilson, the Hon. John Mickel, Mr Simon Finn, the Hon. Rob Hulls, Mr Brendan O’Connor, Senator Jan McLucas and Mr Alan Griffin. I acknowledge all the members, officials and staff of the Queensland branch of the Australian Labor Party, especially Mr Milton Dick, Ms Linda Holliday, Mr Chris Forrester and Mr Terry Wood. I acknowledge everyone else who contributed to the campaign to retain Barron River for the Labor Party and my electoral staff who I am delighted have decided to continue on in the electorate office of Barron River, Ms Cathy Lovern and Alana Davison. Of this honour roll my biggest thank you is extended to my campaign director, the former member for Barron River, Dr Lesley Clark. Lesley was first elected in 1989 and served five terms as the member for Barron River and before that was a member of the Mulgrave Shire Council. After 20 years service to the people of the far north there was no-one better qualified to direct our campaign. She is, of course, very well known and respected for her dedication, hard work and many achievements. Locally, she was instrumental in the development of the Trinity Inlet management plan and the creation of the Smithfield Conservation Park. She was a great friend of the local schools and the Cairns campus of the James Cook University. She was also a strong advocate for women in the parliament and in the Labor Party. She was a parliamentary secretary to the Premier, member and chair of the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review and chair of the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee. I endorse the recommendations of the most recent report of that committee which are aimed at encouraging young people to take a more active role 212 Address-In-Reply 12 Oct 2006 in our democratic processes and traditions. As a new member of that committee I look forward to contributing to its important work. On behalf of all of the people of far-north Queensland and on behalf of the Labor Party and her former parliamentary colleagues I take this opportunity to acknowledge her contribution to this state, to the Goss and Beattie Labor governments and to the parliament. I wish her and her husband, Ross, every success in their life after politics. I also acknowledge the role of my late father Peter Wettenhall in developing my interest in politics. He was an avid follower of current affairs and politics and would rarely willingly miss an ABC news bulletin or current affairs show, usually heard with the volume turned well up. He even subscribed to Hansard. It was impossible to grow up without sharing his interest in what was happening in our world. I know he would be proud that I stand in this parliament today to continue a family heritage of public service that started in Victoria 123 years ago and now spans four generations. My great grandfather, Holford Wettenhall, first rose to speak in the Victorian Legislative Council in 1883. He moved the address-in-reply. Referring to the favourable economic conditions of the time he lauded the construction of great public works of the colony. He could have been talking about Queensland today. Ironically, amongst the business of the new parliament was a bill about water conservation. In 1920 my grandfather, Marcus Wettenhall, delivered his first speech as the member for Lowan in the Victorian Legislative Assembly. He argued for the development of regional infrastructure and advocated more and better equipped schools in country areas to encourage people to settle and remain there. Like each of my forefathers I represent a non-metropolitan constituency and it is my job just as it was theirs to make sure that equity in the provision of government infrastructure and services is maintained across our decentralised state. I am very proud of Labor’s modern, rural and regional policies such as the Blueprint for the Bush. I look forward to taking part in the regional ministerial forums that will have an important role in their implementation. People in the Barron River electorate live in the rapidly growing newer communities in Redlynch valley and along the northern beach communities of Cairns know as the Marlin Coast. They live in and around the sugar cane farms on the coastal plain, in older suburbs like Stratford, Edge Hill and Freshwater and up the range into the World Heritage rainforests around Kuranda where I lived for 12 years. We come from many cultures and work in a variety of occupations. Both the university and the airport are located in the electorate. Tourism, primary industries, aviation and services are the main stays of the local economy. Although many young families like my own are proud to call Barron River our home, our population is also ageing. Both old and young will benefit from the government’s commitment to fund a new neighbourhood centre on the Marlin Coast, and a new neighbourhood centre at Kuranda is under construction. Both these projects have my total support as they demonstrate Labor’s unswerving commitment to those in our community with special needs. It is well known that this Labor government is passionate about education. There are many projects in Barron River as a result. For example, under construction is the new primary school campus at the high school site in Kuranda, stage 1 of a new high school campus adjacent to the primary school at Redlynch and new learning areas at Freshwater State School, including designated areas for music practice and tuition, which is a personal passion of mine. But education is much more than facilities. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of teachers in both the public and private schools in Barron River and around this state. I do not agree with recent commentary that our students are brainwashed by left-wing propaganda masquerading as curriculum in our schools. On the contrary, in studies of society and environment taught between years 1 and 10 in the state of Queensland I am glad that my children will be taught to appreciate the different perspectives people have of values and how cultural and other differences can influence these perspectives. I want them to learn about the democratic process, social justice, ecological and economic sustainability and peace. And I certainly do not want my children made subject to a ‘one size fits all’ national curriculum imposed by Canberra. The electorate we now call Barron River encompasses the traditional homelands of many diverse Aboriginal groups and languages. Aboriginal people comprise a significant population in Barron River, especially in the township of Kuranda and in the nearby communities of Korowra and Mantaka. I will work with Indigenous people in a joint effort to find solutions to unemployment and a range of legal, health and housing problems that stubbornly persist. I hope the experience I have gained over 14 years providing legal assistance to Indigenous people not only in Cairns and the Atherton Tablelands but throughout Cape York Peninsula, the Torres Strait and the Gulf of Carpentaria will be helpful in this new challenge. Because of the success of Murri courts in Queensland and similar jurisdictions in other states, I would be very pleased to advocate for the introduction of a Cairns based Murri court should that be a project that finds support in the local community. 12 Oct 2006 Address-In-Reply 213

The electorate of Barron River has an estimated population of 48,000 and is situated in the local government area of the Cairns City Council. The combined population of the surrounding local government areas of Atherton, Cairns, Cardwell, Douglas, Eacham, Johnstone, Herberton and Mareeba is predicted to grow by around 30 per cent over the next 20 years. Growth of that magnitude in an area of such environmental sensitivity must be carefully managed. Accordingly, I am particularly pleased that the government made an election commitment to develop a statutory regional plan for far-north Queensland to be modelled on the south-east Queensland plan. Over 8,000 individuals enthusiastically took up the opportunity to take part in the development of the south-east Queensland plan in one of the largest community consultations ever undertaken in this state, and I expect similar enthusiasm for this process to be demonstrated in the far north. There is no doubt that the people of Barron River are very concerned about their environment. Consistently high votes for Greens candidates prove it. In the 2006 election Greens party candidate Denis Walls standing for Barron River for the fourth time achieved 14 per cent of the primary vote. A high proportion of Greens voters preferred the Labor Party to the alternatives. Therefore, I consider I am obliged by my constituents to advocate sound environmental policy. Far North Queensland 2025, the statutory plan, offers the best opportunity yet for our community to realise a shared vision for a just and sustainable future for far-north Queensland, and I look forward to taking part in that exciting process. Managing growth in our regions is also about building and improving our schools, our health services, roads and public transport infrastructure. Providing incentives for people to use public transport such as the government’s 35 per cent fare reduction are very worthwhile policies. As the population grows, it will be necessary to adjust and extend our existing bus routes and make provision for future express busways and even possibly light rail options. The issue of climate change from global warming is of worldwide importance, but it is of special significance in the Wet Tropics of far-north Queensland and the electorate of Barron River. Arguably, nowhere in Australia will the impacts of climate change be more dramatic. It is now urgent that we reduce greenhouse gas emissions and take steps to adapt to the impacts of climate change on our community in the north. Rising sea levels coupled with increased cyclone intensity pose a significant threat to the Barron River electorate, particularly to the major settlements that are located on a thin band of low-lying coastal plain that are vulnerable to flooding and wind damage, particularly when heavy and sustained rainfall combines with high tides and cyclonic storm surges. Climate change is also likely to cause more frequent and intense heatwave conditions and longer dry seasons in the Wet Tropics. Each degree of extra temperature lifts the cloud layer by at least 150 metres, leaving ecosystems like cloud forests on the many peaks of the Wet Tropics World Heritage area high and dry. Not only will this threaten many species with extinction; it will reduce stream flows in the dry season when water for human use is needed most. A one degree increase in temperature which is considered a certainty is predicted to shrink the range of animals and plants found only in the Wet Tropics by 40 per cent. A mid-range prediction of a 3½ degree temperature increase would wipe out half of these species that exist nowhere else in the world. Already we are witnessing the effects of climate change in our region. Following extended dry spells, fires are burning in areas in my electorate not seen before. Queensland has recently experienced its hottest years on record and Cyclone Larry was one of the most devastating cyclones ever to cross the coast of Queensland. Climate change is likely to have a major effect on community safety and wellbeing, water supply and the biodiversity of our region. If any of these scenarios are coupled with high sea temperatures that cause coral bleaching events, the twin pillars of the region’s tourism economy—the reef and rainforest—look increasingly fragile. It is therefore vital that every opportunity is seized to learn as much as we can about climate change and prepare wisely for a very uncertain future. The good news is that the world-leading science needed to inform our progress comes from my electorate, and I congratulate all of the scientists who are engaged in this most essential effort, particularly those who are at work at the James Cook University and the Australian Tropical Forest Institute, the establishment of which the government has supported with funding of $6 million. The Labor government is making many important advances on climate change, none more significant than the historic introduction of the Vegetation Management Act. I also welcome the government’s commitment to establish a Climate Change Centre of Excellence which will build on the Queensland Greenhouse Strategy and the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan. It is a great shame that the federal Howard government rejected the Beattie Labor government’s proposal to establish a national centre, and it is equally shameful that the federal government still refuses to sign the Kyoto protocol and condemns Australia alone with the United States to the status of an international outlaw on this most pressing issue of our time. But it is not only government that can have an impact on climate change. There are many ways individuals can take action too. I have decided to offset the greenhouse emissions from my air travel on parliamentary business by purchasing carbon credits which invest in Australian clean energy developments. In this way, polluting activities like air travel can become carbon neutral. I also welcome the government’s new cyclone strategy, part of which will involve convening a cyclone summit to examine and analyse the response to Cyclone Larry and what may be learnt to improve our preparedness for the 2007 season 214 Address-In-Reply 12 Oct 2006 and our ability to respond to disasters of that kind in the future. I renew my invitation to the Premier to hold that summit in Cairns, which is a place that, because of its topography and settlement patterns, is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of cyclones. In conclusion, I congratulate all members on their election to the 52nd Queensland Parliament and thank them for hearing me. I thank all of the staff of the Parliamentary Service for their kind and helpful welcome and I commit myself to the peace, order and good government of this state and to the welfare of the people whom I am privileged to represent. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms van Litsenburg): Order! Before calling the honourable member for Ipswich West, I remind honourable members that this is the member’s first speech and should be listened to with the courtesies reserved for such occasions. Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (8.09 pm): I rise for the first time in this House and, in so doing, I pay a special tribute to the voters of the electorate of Ipswich West who have chosen me to represent them in this place for the next three years. Madam Deputy Speaker, I begin by asking you to pass on my congratulations to the Speaker on his election to the chair of this House. I also take this opportunity to offer my congratulations to the government on its re-election. In addition, I would also like to acknowledge the traditional owners of this place where we now stand. Although my journey in this place has just begun, I look forward to serving my time as a member of the 52nd Queensland Parliament and the fourth Beattie Labor government following such a resounding and historic result. I also think that at this time it would be appropriate for me to recognise the efforts of the government’s senior ministerial team and the outstanding contributions of Mr Milton Dick, Terry Wood and their workers during the recent campaign period. I take this opportunity of a maiden speech seriously and I recognise its fine traditions. As a result, I will endeavour to be constructive, positive but certainly not provocative. With this in mind, I must say that I am extremely humbled and proud to have been chosen by the electors of the Ipswich region to represent them in this place. It should be recognised that such a large mandate surely signifies the trust that the Queensland people have placed in the Beattie government to continue delivering democracy, honesty and fair play to all Queenslanders. I would also like to go on record as stating that I firmly believe that the election of 28 women within this chamber, 23 of whom are members of the Labor Party, represents a significant contribution to making this parliament more representative. I believe that the large number of women representatives in this government will help to strengthen Labor’s foundation principles that dictate that the greatest attention should be devoted to those with the greatest need. I am sure that everyone in this House will attest to the fact that you do not get here by yourself and, as such, when addressing this House for the first time I would like to put on record my appreciation to certain individuals who have contributed significantly to my election as a member of this parliament. I should state up-front that I do not intend to mention all of those who contributed, because there is no doubt that I would inadvertently forget someone and, as a result, my oversight might be construed as not appreciating their great efforts. Rather, I will take this opportunity to mention my admiration for the tight-knit team of family, friends and party members who believed in and supported me during the recent campaign. In the first place, I must go on record as expressing my love and deep appreciation for the one who above all others believed that I was the right one to step up to this plate on this occasion. I speak of my wife, Dianne, who never doubted my abilities or credentials, even when on occasions I held grave doubts about myself. This woman managed to support me during a difficult election period while overseeing a large and successful postal vote and prepoll campaign and at the same time ensuring that our house ran smoothly, that the animals were fed, that the children still got to school on time, that they attended all of their sporting events and, last but not least, that to their dismay their homework was done on time. I know that many of us here can appreciate that in the majority of cases our partners have made sacrifices and put their lives on hold to support our endeavours to be in this place. It is for that reason that I give a special thankyou to all the spouses and partners of the members here today, for without their support I would imagine that the Queensland parliament would not run as efficiently or effectively as it does. In their own ways, my two children, Katie and Michael, have also proved towers of strength to me in recent times. When things did not seem to be going well or I had a particularly difficult day, they would quickly bring me back to the realisation that there were more important things to be considered than an election, such as my son asking me, ‘Dad, do you think the Broncos are gone for the season?’ following that disastrous semifinal result against St George, or my 13-year-old daughter asking me, ‘Dad, does this dress look all right to wear to the St Eddie’s school dance on Friday night?’ Of course, I did not think it was, but I had no choice other than to say, ‘It looks great, darling.’ In their own way, my children provided me with that sanity and certainty that was so important, because I knew that to them it did not matter whether or not I won the election, because whatever happened, they would still be there because I was their dad. 12 Oct 2006 Address-In-Reply 215

As my surname would suggest, I am of German ancestry—like many in this chamber. A recent review into the family tree has revealed that I am a descendant of two German brothers who travelled to this country over 100 years ago and settled to the west of Ipswich. These immigrants would, too, become farmers and only survive due to their belief in their new country and their will to see democracy strengthen and grow. Townships such as Marburg, Lowood, Glamorganvale and Rosewood soon became thriving communities built on hard work and a strong work ethic. Although farming was the main industry, the region soon developed to become the hub of the expanding rail, coal and wool industries. It is for this reason that I want to give a special mention to these industries, which provided much of the support for this state in its early days. I was also fortunate to have spent many years working in the railways at the Ipswich Railway Workshops. I look back fondly on those days. In addition, many of my family have also worked in the coal and wool industries. As such, it saddens me somewhat to learn that the last coal operations in the Ipswich area are soon to close. In view of that, it therefore probably comes as no surprise that this proud tradition of hard work was also instilled into me by my parents, Earl and Pat. Like most parents I am sure, these two people have been the foundation of my family and, in so doing, have taught my sisters and I that the only way to achieve anything is through sheer hard bloody work. They have never asked for a handout and are fiercely supportive of my family. They supported me immensely during the campaign period and I know that they are proud of my achievements. Their selfless actions and unreserved love are great models of what parents should be. If I can achieve half in my lifetime of what they have achieved, then I will be happy. I also need to make special mention of the other members of my immediate family: my two sisters, Michelle and Shannon, and their husbands, Robert and James. These people provided their support during the campaign and without it things would have been much more difficult. The campaign team that supported me through the recent election period also deserves a special mention. As members will know, my campaign director was that well-known Ipswich Labor identity and recent life member, Mr John Staines. John and his wife, Marlene, are what we on this side call true believers. They are living examples of what the Labor party is all about. However, I also need to acknowledge the many other party members who went above and beyond what might be called reasonable to support and encourage me in my campaign. Without their advice, guidance, support and, in some cases, sacrifice, the outcome might well have been very different. I began this speech by mentioning my appreciation of those voters who elected me for the first time to this parliament. What makes this particularly special is the fact that for a large number of them this was the first time that they had ever voted Labor. Their actions resulted in an increased margin for the seat, which I feel deserves great acknowledgement, and, consequently, I feel particularly charged with a deep responsibility to justify their belief in my ability to achieve results for the Ipswich West electorate. However, we need to ensure that we put our new-found position into perspective. I must say that the very first constituent who walked through my door on that first Monday morning was a dear old elderly lady who I led into the office and offered a chair. This sweet old lady sat opposite me and then proceeded to stick her finger across the desk and say, ‘I didn’t vote for you but I want you to fix this, this and this.’ She rattled off a list of about six things that she was interested in. I suppose I have used this example because, even though I was taken aback, I knew that it was my job to do my best to try to resolve this lady’s problems. Who knows? In three years time she may decide to vote for me. I would now like to take the opportunity to set out some of the things that I will endeavour to work on during my time in this House. Having had an extensive competitive and social background in sports and recreational activities, I have been disturbed to discover that, according to the National Health Survey conducted in February 2006, approximately 62 per cent of men and 45 per cent of women are reported as being overweight or obese. We all recognise that obesity is now a major health issue in Queensland and, as such, it was wonderful to see the Premier bring together a range of experts and stakeholders earlier in the year to identify new ways in which to promote and achieve healthier and more active lifestyles. I intend to work more closely with the minister and the Department of Local Government, Planning and Sport, who are playing a leading role, along with other Queensland government agencies, to combat obesity and develop policies and programs that will help more Queenslanders to achieve and maintain an active and healthy lifestyle. Because our children are our future, I believe that the current programs that the department has in place that are aimed at getting more children and young people physically active are essential. They are designed to provide practical and easy-to-use resources and education programs for parents, carers, schools and clubs. The encouragement they provide to children and young people will help them to change and improve their lifestyle patterns for the future. I am also aware that a cross-government initiative by a number of departments is currently promoting the message that a healthy weight in children and young people can be achieved through good nutrition and regular physical activity. I would also like to work more closely with my local authorities to improve the quality and quantity of public open spaces, recreation and play areas. In addition, I hope I can assist with providing additional funding for community sport and active recreation facilities and programs as well as to 216 Address-In-Reply 12 Oct 2006 support leading-edge programs such as the Just Walk It program, which is aimed at getting more older Queenslanders active. On the issue of public housing, I must say that I think all Queenslanders should be extremely grateful for the fact that in recent years the Beattie government’s housing department has been under the diligent and compassionate stewardship of Minister Robert Schwarten. Through his department, Mr Schwarten has supported the delivery of community and local government managed housing through statewide funding initiatives and regional infrastructure over a number of years to not-for-profit organisations, churches and local governments throughout Queensland. Recently, I have had a number of firsthand opportunities to inspect the public housing provided within the Ipswich region. I must say that the tenants to whom I have spoken are extremely grateful and conscious of what this government is doing for them. I am aware that in the past the Ipswich region has been a beneficiary of the minister’s efforts to assist those in the community who through no fault of their own find themselves in difficult situations. As such I take this opportunity to express my appreciation and my desire to continue to work with the minister and his department for the betterment of my constituents. As pointed out previously, I am a proud resident of the Ipswich region. As all members would be aware, this region is quickly becoming one of the major success stories not only in Queensland but also across Australia. Approximately 1,500 people are arriving in the Smart State each week, and many of them are choosing to relocate into the western corridor and beyond. This investment in domestic, commercial and industrial property across the region is phenomenal, from the Springfield development through to the recent opening of the Rosewood Heights estate. Although the forward planning of the Beattie government has resulted in many opportunities for the Ipswich region, it would be remiss of me not to mention the outstanding contribution of the Ipswich City Council. I consider that the current Ipswich City Council deserves an enormous pat on the back from the whole region. Led by their enthusiastic mayor, Councillor Paul Pisasale, this team has achieved results which are putting Ipswich on the map not only nationally but also internationally. Councillors Victor Attwood, Cheryl Bromage, Andrew Antoniolli, Charlie Pisasale, Paul Tully and David Pahlke have shown what a dedicated and hardworking group of people can achieve if they work together for the betterment of their constituents. I would not be forgiven within my electorate if I did not also take this opportunity to mention the notorious Ipswich Motorway. Although this road is widely acknowledged as one of the most dangerous and congested in Australia, this need not be the case. I know that our state Minister for Transport and Main Roads has lobbied long and hard to obtain the necessary funding and support from the federal government over a long period. Although some funding has been committed it is widely regarded that the only way the road can be fixed is via a total upgrade from Ipswich to Brisbane. This will necessarily involve the widening of the road to a minimum of six lanes and the addition of appropriate service roads. If during the next three years I am able to assist in facilitating this project, I know that many residents of my electorate will be eternally grateful. I am aware of many exciting developments within my electorate of Ipswich West, not least of which is the Workshops Rail Museum at North Ipswich. This award-winning museum is a credit to the initiative of the Beattie government, and I look forward to being involved in the many future developments on this site. I recently had the opportunity to tour the museum, which is not only an inspirational acknowledgement of the history of rail in Queensland but also a wonderfully interactive educational resource for all young people. This allows them to have fun while at the same time take in some of the amazing achievements of our rail pioneers. I know this is a very popular venue for school students, and I would thoroughly recommend it to any adults wanting to appreciate the history of the rail experience. In fact, I would like to go on record and invite all members from this place and their families to the museum should they get the opportunity. As many members would be aware, there is huge potential for the future in Ipswich West in terms of employment opportunities. The Riverlink development that is currently being undertaken by the Leda Group, and situated adjacent to the Ipswich CBD and not far from the Workshops Rail Museum, is scheduled to open in 2007. This facility will be a critical job generator for residents within my electorate, and I look forward to seeing this centre operating as a bustling hub of community activity, bringing new life to the city centre in conjunction with the River Heart project currently being undertaken through joint funding from the state government and the Ipswich City Council. Another example of the Smart State’s ability to attract leading-edge technology exists at the Amberley Air Force Base. This base is located within my electorate, and it is anticipated that a number of major additional aircraft and military units will be relocated there over the next five to seven years. The proposed Amberley Aerospace Park, to be located on 170 hectares of land adjacent to the RAAF base, will see some of Queensland’s most high-tech firms moving into the precinct in the near future. This will create a host of new opportunities for commercial firms with experience in aircraft, engine and avionics maintenance, repair, modification and manufacture, as well as hardware and software engineering specialists. 12 Oct 2006 Address-In-Reply 217

A number of firms including Boeing, Raytheon, Qantas and Tasman Aviation Enterprises are currently involved in the outsourcing of F111 contracts on the base, and there is the potential that further maintenance contracts will be outsourced to the aerospace industry. This will mean that the aerospace park could increase the number of workers from the current 3,500 to more than 8,500 over the next decade. Projects such as the new air-to-air refuelling fleet will be coming to Amberley in 2009, and the F35 Joint Strike Fighters will be coming on line in 2010 to replace the F111s already stationed there. As everyone knows, Ipswich is famous for its many historical homes and buildings including the heritage listed courthouse on the corner of East and Roderick streets in Ipswich. While many of these buildings have great charm and appeal, this is not necessarily what we would be looking for in a police precinct. The old courthouse building is no longer used for judicial purposes, but it was with great joy that I learned it had been announced in the recent budget that money has been allocated for a new Ipswich courthouse precinct. This building will incorporate a new police station, watchhouse and courthouse on the former TAFE site in Ellenborough Street, Ipswich. While not located in my electorate, this new precinct will service the needs of the whole Ipswich region and will be an opportunity for the police and judicial officers to work in very close proximity to each other and, as such, in a much safer and more efficient manner. To conclude, I am sure that it would come as no surprise to many of you here that I would also like to acknowledge the previous member for Ipswich West, Mr Don Livingstone. Don played a key role in convincing me that I could be a compassionate and effective advocate for the people and that I could play a pivotal role in ensuring that the residents of Ipswich West continued to receive the highest level of representation within this government. Without Don’s assistance I would not have been able to meet a large number of constituents and familiarise myself with many of the issues that are of importance to people within the electorate. Don has given me many pieces of advice which I am sure many members here can attest to. However, the one that I think particularly all new members should be aware of is: if the opposition doesn’t get you, the cholesterol will. I know that Don and his wife, Cheryl, are preparing for a long and happy retirement surrounded by their loving family, and I feel that if I can contribute to this parliament in the same way that Don has then I will be judged well. I take this opportunity to recognise a few of the people who have supported my family and me in recent times. These include Robert Schwarten, my electoral neighbour Rachel Nolan, Pat Purcell, Tim Mulherin and a good mate of mine, Chris Cummins, who is not with us this time. Finally, my electorate officers, Bev and Denise, deserve all the praise I can give them. I do not know what I would do without them, but I thank them for their advice, courtesy and understanding. I know from the looks on their faces sometimes that it must not be easy trying to train a new member. I am aware that I am indeed fortunate to have been chosen as a new member of parliament just a couple of weeks ago. However, I would also like to take this opportunity to recognise the fact that there were 18 other new members elected to this chamber at the same time. Over the last couple of weeks I have indeed been fortunate to chat and joke with all of these people, and I feel that I can report that every member of the class of 2006 is charged with energy and pride, and has a passion to make their electorates proud of their achievements. I trust that the camaraderie and goodwill that I have experienced with these members will indeed flow into this chamber and allow all of us to perform our duties in a robust but compassionate manner for years to come. Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (8.27 pm): Firstly, I congratulate Mr Speaker on his election to the important office of Speaker of this House. Many times over the past 5½ years I have spoken of the economic and social pressures on people living in Southport. I spoke of their concern with the cost of living generally, the cost and difficulty of accessing health care, the need for their children to get a good education, the importance of training, job security and the creation of new jobs, the effectiveness of community policing, the protection of our environment and the lack of public housing. These concerns still exercise the minds of Southport residents which is not surprising given the rapid growth of the area. Since I spoke in the last address-in- reply debate those concerns have been exacerbated by rising petrol prices, rising interest rates and concerns about job security due to the federal government’s industrial relations legislation. Again, I thank the people of Southport for choosing me to represent them in this parliament for a further three years. Despite vocal and sometimes unfair opposition from several groups who claim to be concerned about environmental issues, the primary and two-party preferred vote decreased by only 0.8 per cent. I offer commiserations to my opponents, Bob Bennett and Ms Brandon. Having been beaten three times before being successful in 2001, I know just how they feel. As with previous elections, this was not a victory for me but for the branch members, family, staff, community members and groups who worked so hard for success. Again, I extend my particular thanks to my daughters, Ali and Jane, for their moral support and phone calls from London and Dublin respectively at all times of the day and night with advice and encouragement. My son, Phillip, and his girlfriend, Paula, also worked hard to keep my spirits up and to ensure my re-election, with many hours 218 Address-In-Reply 12 Oct 2006 spent arranging direct mail, handing out how-to-vote cards and generally doing whatever was necessary. Thanks also to my dad, Jim, my brothers Brian and Gerard, and staff members Sharyn Masters and Kane Perkinson, who worked so effectively under, at times, stressful conditions. Thanks to my campaign manager, Terry Callaghan, branch members, particularly Don Townsend, and also the many friends especially Jeff and Judy Brown and John and Meg Coonan, who always come up from Canberra to work on election day and also to help me celebrate the next day. They are not actually party members but they know how to party. Lindesay Jones was my party organiser. However, he is more than just an organiser. He is a good friend and, importantly, he was one of the few people who considered Southport was winnable for the ALP as far back as 1992. Mr Schwarten: And he’s with you! Mr LAWLOR: Are you with me? Mr Schwarten: He’s with you. Mr LAWLOR: He is with me. In many ways this was the most disappointing election campaign that I have been involved in, and it has left a fairly bitter taste in my mouth. It was disappointing from the point of view of the outright lies told about the Labor government and particularly in respect of the proposed Spit development—lies that were not, I hasten to add, attributable to my main opponent, Bob Bennett. However, of course, he would have certainly been the beneficiary if they had been believed. Fortunately the people of Southport have a fair bit of common sense and good judgement—also in Broadwater I might add—and they ignored the lies and exaggerations. We had one National Party candidate saying that it was the Labor Party policy to allow high-rise development on The Spit—a complete invention. The Save our Spit Alliance told anyone who cared to listen that if the cruise ship terminal went ahead surfers would be prevented from paddling to South Stradbroke, and people would be unable to walk their dogs on The Spit—all complete rubbish—and this despite the numerous statements by me, Peta-Kaye Croft, the Premier and the Deputy Premier that if the project did not stack up from an environmental, economic and engineering point of view then it would not go ahead. But how do you please these people? Even when the Deputy Premier, the responsible minister, announced on 18 August that the proposal for a cruise ship terminal had been scrapped because according to the draft findings of the environmental impact study the project did not stack up, they still were not happy. They saw the announcement as part of a conspiracy. When the elections are over, they said, the cruise ship terminal will be back on the agenda. I was told many months ago that the Save our Spit organisation was nothing more than a front organisation for the National Party, effectively a branch office. I did not believe that and I met with their representatives. I showed them courtesy and respect, and I relayed their concerns to the government, as did Peta-Kaye Croft. What did we get in return for this from this hypocritical organisation and its treacherous supporters and supporting organisations such as Gecko, the Main Beach Progress Association, the Nerang Community Association, the Surfriders Foundation and many more? On election day they assisted the National Party by handing out their how-to-vote cards and supplying them with material and advising voters not to vote Labor. They abused me and some of my booth workers, and at most booths they had people yelling and screaming and wailing like banshees to save The Spit. In one case at Broadwater they had megaphones saying, ‘Save our Spit: vote National’. These bad- mannered supporters of these organisations squandered any credibility they had as environmental defenders by supporting a party that has an appalling environmental record— Mr Gibson interjected. Mr LAWLOR: Where are you from? Mr Gibson: Gympie. Mr LAWLOR: I think you got in the gene pool when the lifeguard wasn’t looking. Mr GIBSON: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Direct your reflections through the chair. Mr LAWLOR: They supported a party that opposed tree clearing and wild rivers legislation— Mr GIBSON: I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take offence at that remark and I request that it be withdrawn. Mr LAWLOR: I will withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member has withdrawn. Mr LAWLOR: Organisations such as Gecko are now trying to distance themselves from the Save our Spit Alliance and supporting the National Party, but what did they say prior to the election? Nothing. There was absolute silence. They were happy to let the campaign roll along in the hope that a National Party representative would be elected in Southport—and, indeed, a Liberal Party representative in Broadwater. Now they want to congratulate me on my election. What a bunch of hypocrites! The Save 12 Oct 2006 Address-In-Reply 219 our Spit Alliance invited Mr Springborg and Mr Seeney to a rally on The Spit shortly before the election and allowed Mr Springborg’s statement that ‘the Nationals have protected The Spit from development for 40 years’ to go unchallenged. They lapped up the lies. They—including supporters in organisations such as Gecko—were too gutless to point out that the Nationals allowed development of The Spit, beginning with Sea World in about 1965, and then presided over many other developments such as the Sheraton, Marina Mirage, Mariners Cove and Sea World Nara. Mr Springborg himself was a member of a coalition government which approved a horizon tank on The Spit. That is the tank they use for making movies like Titanic and so on. This would have looked like an oil refinery, and this is the party that the Save our Spit organisation, Gecko, chose to support. This is truly one of the most shameful episodes in politics on the Gold Coast. Managing the economy effectively, delivering on the Health Action Plan and securing water during the worst drought in 100 years have been the main priorities of the Beattie government. With unemployment at a 30-year low of 4.5 per cent and the Queensland economy outperforming the Australian economy for the 10th year in a row, Southport residents can feel confident, as can the rest of the state, with the Beattie government and be assured that the economy is in safe hands. On the local scene we have seen the commencement of the first stage of the Frank Street widening including the duplication of the Loders Creek bridge at a cost of $20 million. Certainly the member for Broadwater has played a significant part in that project. We have seen commencement of the upgrade of Smith Street with transit lanes, including the replacement of the roundabout at High Street with traffic signals. That is going to cost about $11 million. We have seen the construction of a new police station at Southport at a cost of $5.7 million—a police station that the local councillor said would never eventuate. All bar one asbestos roof in schools at Southport have been replaced. The establishment of a neighbourhood police beat by purchase of a property at Arundel has been commenced. The $9.7 billion Health Action Plan is the Beattie government’s plan to tackle problems in the health system head-on. The plan has already started delivering more doctors, nurses and allied health personnel and more hospital beds including at our local Gold Coast Hospital. By 2016 the Gold Coast is expected to have a population of 640,000 people plus a significant tourist and transient population. The demand for health services will also be led by a large ageing population in the south-east region. This re-elected Beattie government will almost double the number of hospital beds on the Gold Coast. The commitment to provide 1,114 beds—there are presently 611—will cost about $1.46 billion, and this includes the 750-bed Gold Coast university hospital that will be built on the Griffith University campus, which will be operating by the end of 2012. The plan is to add new beds every year to the Gold Coast hospitals until at least 2012. Other current and planned improvements to existing health facilities on the Gold Coast include the emergency department of the Gold Coast Hospital being upgraded at a cost of $2.3 million. The Robina Hospital is receiving a new emergency department at a cost of $40.11 million. The upgrade of the Robina Hospital includes an intensive care unit which will provide closer access to intensive care for residents at the southern end of the Gold Coast. An additional 32-bed medical ward has opened at Robina Hospital. Six doctors and the equivalent of 20 full-time nurses have been recruited to treat additional patients. The third floor administration area at the Gold Coast Hospital later this year will be transformed into a new ward for approximately 30 beds. Renal services are being provided at Robina in a $4.7 million project and enhanced at the Gold Coast Hospital with a $1.1 million building. The Gold Coast Hospital is also expanding its bed numbers through the refurbishment of existing space and investment of $3.2 million. This will provide a 20-bed cardiac ward. The Queensland government has also commissioned Griffith University to provide additional dental services for eligible patients at its School of Dentistry clinic, Southport. Queensland Health will pay Griffith University on a fee-for-service basis. It is estimated that funding for the School of Dentistry service will be $800,000 in 2006-07, rising to approximately $1.9 million in 2009-10. In addition, the Queensland government is spending $60 million to fund 235 additional medical student places at Griffith University over five years. The Beattie Labor government is also working to ensure that Queensland has water for the future. Some of these initiatives include the WaterWise rebates to help households save water, two new dams for south-east Queensland, increasing the capacity of the Hinze Dam and a water recycling pipeline for industrial use. I would like to congratulate all members but particularly the new members of this parliament. It is also appropriate at this time that we remember several good friends who did not make it back. I refer particularly to Chris Cummins and Liddy Clark. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (8.39 pm): Mr Deputy Speaker English, I congratulate you on your promotion in this parliament and I ask you to pass on my congratulations to the Speaker for his elevation as well. Before I begin, may I express my disappointment that Parliament House precinct staff were not invited to the garden party on Tuesday. I understand this is the first time in about 20 years 220 Address-In-Reply 12 Oct 2006 that these staff members were not invited. For all the work these staff members do to make our lives easier in this place, I feel this is a small reward for them and the invitation should be reconsidered. I intend to speak tonight on the portfolio of Health that I have recently been made responsible for as shadow minister and then move to an analysis of the election campaign that led to 9 September. I would like to thank my Queensland coalition colleagues for having appointed me to be shadow minister for health. I intend to highlight the systemic problems with the health system in the coming term, including keeping a watchful eye on the related portfolios of mental health with the member for Currumbin and Emergency Services with the member for Mirani. My daughter’s soccer team experienced the dire need for better resourcing of our emergency services during the recent election, which prompted me to suggest that an investigation of ambulance response times on the Gold Coast may be appropriate. A 15-year-old girl, a team mate of my daughter, broke her leg in a match and had to wait 1½ hours for an ambulance to arrive on a Monday night. I note the media reported a similar case not two weeks ago when a woman with a brain aneurism waited 80 minutes for an ambulance to arrive at Bellbowrie. The young team mate of my daughter was screaming and in excruciating pain on what was a cold August night. It is frightening to think about what is going to happen on the Gold Coast when the heat is on in summer and the higher demand from locals for ambulance services is matched by tourist calls. Then there is the follow-up question about whether the Gold Coast Hospital can cope when ambulance officers do get there. I understand that this is an Emergency Services portfolio responsibility but one intimately connected with the Health portfolio, as the new mental health portfolio is. I would like to put on the record that I have reservations about the decision of the Beattie Labor government to create a stand-alone mental health portfolio. To ensure that that comment is not taken out of context, let me make it resoundingly clear that mental health is worthy of serious attention in this House. There is a crisis in mental health in Queensland and we need to address it, but I think I have been in this place long enough now to know the reason behind the Beattie government’s tactic to separate mental health from Health. It is a strategy—for when mental health continues to suffer under this government the minister can stand up in this place and say, ‘Mental health is a priority of the Beattie Labor government, so much so we made it a dedicated portfolio.’ But I note that in all other states and territories the responsibility of mental health is part of the general Health portfolio, and I found no evidence that any jurisdiction has experimented with a separate portfolio. Of note are the arrangements in New South Wales and South Australia, where there is a minister responsible for the area of mental health assisting the minister for health. Is that what we have now in Queensland or is it something different? In February at COAG there was a recommendation that Australian health ministers recognise mental health as a designated ministerial responsibility in state departments of health but there was nothing on separate portfolios. Clarification from the Beattie government is necessary here, because confusion about who is doing what is only going to be detrimental for our mental health workers and patients in the system. Confusion may lead to our health workers not knowing who to lobby, take instructions from or make complaints to, which will inevitably add to the demand of their already demanding work. What about the potential for the fragmentation of patient care? Mental health services are provided in hospitals and hospitals fall under the Health portfolio, but mental health now has a dedicated portfolio. How are these added levels of Beattie bureaucracy going to interact? Are they just overlapping and duplicating each other’s responsibilities? Will patient records, patient histories et cetera be kept by one department or by both? What I am trying to illustrate here with all these questions is how the separation of mental health from Health has the potential, without proper explanation, to compromise the continuity of care. This is the last thing the mental health crisis in Queensland needs and the reason I believe no other state has been game enough to experiment on its mental health patients by having a separate mental health portfolio. I look forward to hearing from the health minister and the new mental health minister about these concerns, and I hope to hear a clarification of the two portfolios that quashes these concerns. The latest mental health review raises questions as well relating to the balance between patients’ rights and the safety of the community. This is a balance that the opposition believes has been in favour of patients’ rights and not properly balanced with the rights of crime victims and their families—not to mention the rights of health workers. As shadow minister for health, I will make a concerted effort to target the government and not the health professionals themselves about the health crisis in this state. Queenslanders have a right to be upset about health, but we must remember and respect that it is not the fault of the wonderful people who are the health professionals in this state. The continuing crisis in health is the fault of the Beattie Labor government. The Beattie Labor government has invested much time, energy and money in buck-passing the health crisis off to someone else. The Beattie Labor government has told the Queensland people its hands are tied until the federal government allocates more medical places. But it is not the fault of the federal government. Despite the fact the federal 12 Oct 2006 Address-In-Reply 221 government has now allocated more medical places, the Beattie government flounders in planning for when those students graduate. Queensland Health has stated that it has the capacity for a total of 386 intern positions from 2008, but according to the AMA 625 medical students are expected to graduate in Queensland in 2009. There is an issue that the Beattie Labor government does not care to acknowledge—and it is the pipeline effect of what is going to happen when we have all these medical graduates but no ability to absorb them into the system to train them. That is a responsibility of the Beattie Labor government, not the federal government. Then there is the issue with entering speciality training. Currently, around 60 per cent specialise and 40 per cent become GPs. If this trend continues, there will be no scope for many of these doctors to enter proper speciality training. There is a health workforce crisis in this state and the Beattie government needs to accept that it has a responsibility to address it. The minister has often pointed to the Premier’s much-hyped UK recruitment drive as a strategy to deal with the health workforce crisis. However, comments from the minister yesterday were evasive to say the least. The minister said that, to date, 257 health staff recruited from the UK had started work or accepted jobs in Queensland. But how many of those 257 have accepted but not yet started was not revealed by the minister. Questions about why these health professionals have not yet started need to be asked. I would like the minister to advise how many health service districts have been directed to not proceed with appointments of health professionals from the UK because they do not have the funds available despite desperately needing the staff. I would like to know whether Queensland has doctors and other health professionals ready to serve the Queensland people but who cannot because the Beattie Labor government has not provided the necessary funds to pay them. I am pleased to see the government conducting stringent background screening of overseas professionals being recruited, but we cannot forget that Queensland would not have to be sourcing overseas professionals if 800 doctors per year were not leaving because of the strain put on them by the Beattie Labor government. On the matter of screening health professionals, I would like to see attention paid to the need to ensure appropriate inquiries are made of potential practitioners’ employers and nominated referees. It may be appropriate to develop laws relating to negligent misrepresentation of a potential doctor’s qualifications by a hospital or referee, as has occurred in the US, but that is a discussion for another day. To properly deal with the health workplace crisis in Queensland, Queensland needs to have better strategies to encourage people to become health professionals. We need to be looking at enticing visiting medical officers into the public sector with fair pay, particularly in country areas. We need to look at improving morale and working conditions by allowing some autonomy and peeling back the bureaucratic layers. The Beattie government has to cut the bureaucracy in Queensland Health. Only last month we heard the chair of the federal House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing stating he suspected in Queensland only 20c in the hospital dollar was actually getting through to patients, with the rest being spent on bureaucracy. I have suggested that improving work conditions will assist the health workforce crisis. I would like to offer a specific example with respect to improving the safety of our health staff. Recent incidents of reported assaults at the mental health unit in Townsville and in busy emergency departments have put serious question marks over the level of security afforded to our health workers. Emergency departments are stressful environments. When the system is under strain, as it is in Queensland, they are even more stressful. Health workers in our emergency departments do the best they can with the resources and manpower they have, but the safety of these workers is affected by the stress of emergency. Things are going to happen when sick people have to wait for assistance. They are in pain, they want to be seen to and they are often in the dark about how long it will take to be seen. They get stressed and frustrated. On Friday and Saturday nights, many in the emergency departments are intoxicated. They get mad and on the odd occasion get violent. The safety of our health workers is being compromised in our emergency departments, making it harder for staff to deal with the demand of the environment. The idea of police in emergency departments should not be ignored. If it is good enough for football spectators it is good enough for our health workers. I understand that the PA Hospital has a police beat liaison office for the mental health unit but not in emergency. In recognition of the increased stress the Labor government has placed on these places there is a strong argument in my mind that the Beattie Labor government is obliged to trial new safety measures in our emergency departments. Trialling police officers in the larger departments on the busy Friday and Saturday nights is something I would like to see happen. Certainly a review of the security levels at our mental health units is required. 222 Address-In-Reply 12 Oct 2006

I realise more than most just how much an increased police presence can assist in the keeping of order in adrenaline-high environments. It may seem bizarre to draw parallels between Indy and an emergency department but when Surfers Paradise is allocated more police during Indy problems are kept well in check as a result. More police during Indy ensures the safety of patrons and that undesirable behaviour and displays of violence or drunkenness are dealt with quickly. If it is good enough for Indy it is good enough for our health workers on Friday and Saturday nights. Health services belong to the community, albeit provided and managed by the government. Consequently, the community should be fully informed about their health service. The government does make daily status reports of emergency department bypasses but these status reports are made available at 10 am each weekday morning, conveniently missing the busy night hours, the weekends and the demanding Friday and Saturday nights. If the health minister is as serious as he claims about being transparent with the communities that health services belong to this should be looked at. Furthermore, I would like to see the minister have each health service and/or hospital provide a detailed annual report for the community record. Such a move would be a recognition that health services belong to the community. These reports should include activity statistics such as waiting lists, budgets, new initiatives, staffing issues and others. On another matter of transparency, from what I can gather health districts have not had their budgets handed down yet so they do not know what they have to spend, but I understand that draft budgets would be available now. I think the real reason for calling the election early may be uncovered in the budgets of health districts in the coming months. I suspect health budgets may indicate that the plan that the Beattie government was telling Queensland it had in place for dealing with health before the state budget was handed down and before the election was called is in need of serious revision. I have been reading a lot since being given this role and to date this quote from the AMA president has resonated the most with me— A health system without the necessary requirement of beds and the funding provision for service outside of salary allocation will not produce quality patient care, nor will it make way for good training for junior staff and students, be they doctors, nurses or allied health professionals, and it will not be an environment that fosters research. I would like to conclude this section on the Health portfolio with a headline in the October edition of the Doctor Q magazine—‘Making health promises—that’s the easy part, now the Labor Government has to deliver’. Turning back to the election campaign on the Gold Coast, first and foremost I would like to thank the people of the Surfers Paradise electorate for returning me to this House to represent them. It is very humbling to retain the confidence of the community that first elected me in 2004 and with a 12 per cent increase in the primary vote. Thanks must also go to my fantastic campaign team and volunteers, led by John Lander, Sonja and Les Howson, as well as my office staff, Josie Stinson, Cathy Ermer and Michael Zissis. I also want to thank Liberal Party members, booth captains, my friends and neighbours, my wife, Stacey, and my children. I want to thank them for their support, encouragement and loyalty throughout this campaign. The people of Surfers Paradise have made it resoundingly clear that they want a Queensland coalition voice in this parliament representing their priorities. Change does not phase the people of the Gold Coast. We are an ever-changing, dynamic community. We are used to change and know the benefits change can bring. The people of Surfers Paradise are not afraid of change. In fact, they were seeking a change of government this year because the people of the Gold Coast have suffered at the hands of this Beattie Labor government for too long now and we have had enough. The people of Surfers Paradise, like the rest of Queensland, watch and wait. The people of Surfers Paradise have watched Brisbane receive a 17-point safety action plan for the Brisbane CBD to cut down on street violence, including more police resources and late-night public transport services. The people of Surfers Paradise wait for its CBD to get the same treatment, treatment it should already have when one accepts that it has the highest concentration of night venues in the country. We watch and we wait. The people of Surfers Paradise have watched and continue to watch the Gold Coast Hospital being put on bypass week after week and we have watched ambulances queuing in the emergency department’s driveway. The people of Surfers Paradise watched the Labor government condemn the coalition’s plan to redevelop the Southport Hospital to accommodate 200 new beds and open new patient services and condemn the coalition’s plan for a hospital in the Coomera region. The people of Surfers Paradise wait for a day when the Gold Coast Hospital can in fact handle the health needs of our city. I will be watching two plans very carefully—The First 100 Days and Investing in the Future of the Gold Coast. I will watch and I will wait and I will be jumping up and down if those opposite do not follow through. 12 Oct 2006 Special Adjournment 223

The Gold Coast was slapped in the face when Premier Beattie announced his new-look cabinet— one minister out of 18 and not one of the 11 new parliamentary secretaries. That means that one out of the 29 cabinet and parliamentary secretary positions in the Beattie Labor government is held by a Gold Coast Labor MP. In the days after the election result the Premier defiantly said that the Gold Coast would get its fair share of representation. After the announcement of the cabinet the Premier said— The Gold Coast has been favoured again. The Gold Coast has been given priority. The Premier obviously thinks that giving the Gold Coast priority treatment comes in the form of granting one ministry. It is frightening to contemplate what priority treatment with regard to health, policing and infrastructure the Gold Coast has to look forward to in this Labor term. The statement that the Gold Coast is adequately represented in the Labor government’s cabinet is as ill-conceived as the decision to no longer have an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy minister, a move that I was surprised at and I will tell you why. The Queensland Labor Party should be congratulated on choosing an Indigenous candidate for the seat of Surfers Paradise, Guy Jones. But I can only imagine that Mr Jones would have been appalled at the deletion of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy ministry from the Beattie cabinet. Only this year the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee released a paper regarding the need for increased participation by Indigenous people in all levels of government and the various processes which feed into those levels. The report’s recommendations included acknowledgement that strategies and a plan were needed to encourage political parties to support Indigenous people in various aspects of party processes. If there is anything this government loves it is a plan. I sometimes feel like I am in an episode of Get Smart with the Premier playing Maxwell Smart telling the Chief—the people of Queensland—‘It’s ok, Chief, I have a plan.’ Despite this and the review committee’s report, it seems the recommendations have been disregarded by the Beattie government, just as the Premier disregarded a meeting with Indigenous elder Sam Watson after he led a protest on the steps of parliament after Labor dumped the Indigenous affairs portfolio. That same day Sam Watson praised former ATSI ministers but totally omitted John Mickel, who will have to live with the stain of a community betrayed by his carriage of the portfolio and just how vigorously he prioritised Indigenous issues in Beattie government cabinet meetings. I would like to return to the campaign in Surfers Paradise for a moment. Whilst for the most part the campaign was conducted in good spirits whenever I met Guy Jones, I have to express my disappointment at the Labor candidate’s lack of vigour in the electorate and his attempts to slyly attack the man, not the issues. There was no mention of the health crisis, no mention of the water crisis, no mention of the transport crisis, or indeed the credibility crisis of this Beattie Labor government. This was just another smokescreen tactic employed by a Labor candidate, an attempt to send up a smokescreen to mask the fact that ward 14 of the Gold Coast Hospital remains closed and a convenient place for storage, an attempt to send up a smokescreen to mask the fact that today approximately 800 patients of the Gold Coast Hospital are expected to wait 10 weeks for diagnostic scans—double the waiting time of 12 months ago. A more sinister smokescreen tactic in the election was the misuse of the pecuniary interests’ register. This became a stick to beat politicians over the head with during the campaign. Mr Speaker, I hope that you advised the Clerk to tell all new parliamentary members at future inductions to divest themselves of their shares, because nobody told me that I should. But during the campaign, the Premier, in an attempt to keep this political diversion working, said politicians should only own shares in managed funds. Who died and made him God? The Code of Ethical Standards for this place says nothing of managed funds or advises anything similar. I think we need to look at this register issue. We need to examine whether the information contained within the register is used appropriately. I was dumbfounded by the smokescreens, which I saw as ludicrous and offensive to the electorate but were so appealing to the media. I will be watching and waiting for the people of Surfers Paradise this term. I will be watching and waiting on whether the delivery of health promises is followed through by those opposite and whether the crisis is any less as a result. I look forward to a very observant term in this place. Debate, on motion of Mr Langbroek, adjourned.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (8.59 pm): I move— That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until 9.30 am on Tuesday, 31 October 2006. Motion agreed to. 224 Adjournment 12 Oct 2006

ADJOURNMENT Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (9.00 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Stock Dips Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (8.59 pm): I would like to address the issue of dip yards at Coolabunia, Kingaroy and Murgon. This issue was brought to my attention on Tuesday, 3 October, after the event, but I am asking the minister to review it and talk with the mayors involved in an effort to resolve what is a disastrous outcome for those two shires that are heavily reliant on cattle. Although I met with the minister this afternoon—and I thank him most sincerely for that meeting—I believe members should know the impact of decisions made by departments of which ministers may not be aware. I have often spoken in the House about the South Burnett and the benefits of the tick line. Tick eradication has been practised by cattle producers in the area who proclaim the benefits of tick-free cattle. Over the years members would have heard of instances whereby tick-free areas became ‘lit up’ when the tick-free line was breached by infested stock. When this occurs the loss of tick-free stock to a condition commonly known as red water is considerable. In an endeavour to prevent these losses, DPIF dips were installed to treat stock with ticks bought in the area or passed through to other areas. When travelling through the South Burnett people will see very large signs stating the area’s tick-free status and that it is compulsory for stock to be dipped at the nearest indicated dip yard. As members would imagine, the loss of these dips would be catastrophic to areas such as the South Burnett which are heavily reliant on beef and dairy cattle. On 8 March 2005 the department of primary industries sought council interest in assuming stock- clearing responsibilities on DPIF’s behalf. Council declined and private tenders were invited. To cut a long saga short, a lot of discussion, legal and otherwise, ensued in an endeavour by Murgon and Kingaroy shires to iron out difficulties with DPIF Queensland. The only outstanding issue remaining was one of indemnity which appeared to be somewhat in a deadlock. A letter I received from Murgon Shire Council—and I gave the minister a copy of this today—states— At no time has the department foreshadowed its intentions or considerations that it would cease to offer tick clearance services for the saleyards. Therefore it came as quite a shock that not only has the department made this decision without consultation with (councils) but has in fact communicated this decision to the wider community. Stock agents and primary producers were informed that the stock-clearing services were to cease from the Coolabunia, Kingaroy, and the Murgon saleyards from Monday, 4 September 2006. Councils have invested heavily in these saleyard facilities. Without tick clearance facilities cattle producers will take their cattle and other stock elsewhere to sell, adding the cost to other users and diminishing the local market and ultimately the viability of the saleyards themselves. The continual cost-shifting by the state government must be reviewed. As one shire council stated, these councils have no financial capacity left to take on more programs. That does not mean that they want to move away from their responsibilities in areas that can best serve the community interests. However, with more responsibility being imposed on them by the state government they should, at the very least, be assisted to do this without jeopardising their facilities such as the saleyards. That means that the government must give them the funds that go with the responsibility. Chronic Disease Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (9.03 pm): I have good news and bad news for all members. The good news is that we are all living longer. In 1901 the average life expectancy of a newborn boy was 55 years. It is now pleasing to say that my son, Alex, is part of a generation that is expected to live to 77. Likewise, the average life expectancy of a newborn girl has increased from 59 to 82 years. Tragically, life expectancy for Indigenous people in this country and in this state is about 20 years less than the average for non-Indigenous Australians. Despite the improved life expectancy, chronic heart, stroke and vascular diseases kill more Australians than any other disease group, accounting for about 37.6 per cent of all deaths in 2002. Diabetes is also sending far too many good people to an early grave. Today was the inaugural Heart Foundation breakfast at Parliament House. I want to commend the Heart Foundation for all the good work it does in relation to community education, its public awareness work, across the state and throughout Australia. The Heart Foundation revealed a great deal of bad news that all of us should take heed of. Firstly, around 4.67 million Australians are affected by heart, stroke and vascular diseases. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples compared badly with other Australians. They are nearly three times more likely to die from heart, stroke and vascular diseases and 19 times more likely to die from acute rheumatic and chronic rheumatic heart disease. 12 Oct 2006 Adjournment 225

The bad news continues. Some 60 per cent of us are overweight, 51 per cent of us have high cholesterol, 30 per cent of us have high blood pressure, 20 per cent of us smoke daily, 10 per cent of us drink at levels considered harmful to our health—that is over 1½ million Australians—and eight per cent of us suffer from diabetes. I know that the health minister, Stephen Robertson, is determined to deal with what he is calling a tsunami or tidal wave of chronic disease that is heading our way. He has been leading the Queensland strategy for chronic disease. It gives us a great plan of action, gives all Queenslanders a wake-up call and provides an opportunity for the state to better integrate prevention and treatment services. On a personal note, I want to say that I am very disappointed to yet again hear the member for Surfers Paradise irresponsibly and quite unfairly continue with the scaremongering in respect of the health system. I have had direct experience this week of the Gold Coast Hospital intensive care unit and ward 8B. I want to pay tribute tonight to the staff in the ICU and ward 8B. They have done a great job in looking after my mum. She has some complications from her diabetes—a very serious neurological complication. She is doing well. She is being well cared for. We have a long way to go in implementing the Health Action Plan, but we are on track. We take our issues seriously and responsibly. I urge the members opposite to do the same. Time expired. Heart Foundation Breakfast; Friends of Federation Walk Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (9.06 pm): This morning I also attended the parliamentary special interest group function, along with the member for Algester and other members of the House, on cardiovascular health disease coordinated by the National Heart Foundation of Australia. I wish the honourable member for Algester’s mother all the best as she recuperates. This morning’s function was the inaugural meeting, with the meetings now to occur about four times a year. The meetings will act as a forum for those in attendance to receive updates on the latest in cardiovascular research and health information in an informal setting. Congratulations to the Heart Foundation and Chief Executive Officer Cameron Prout for a wonderfully well-organised and informative morning. And congratulations, too, for a fantastic initiative. Cardiovascular disease, as the member for Algester mentioned, affects two in three Australian families and remains Australia’s largest killer, accounting for 37 per cent of all deaths in our country. Cardiovascular disease costs the government and the community. Direct health system costs of the disease amounted to more than $7.6 billion in 2004, equating to 11 per cent of total health spending and greater than any other disease group. The inaugural topic from this morning’s breakfast was ‘Making healthy choices the easy choices’. The overall theme was simple. Much of the burden of the disease is avoidable. High cholesterol levels, physical inactivity, obesity and diabetes all contribute to the prevalence of cardiovascular disease in Australia. We need to eat better, stop smoking and walk. Walking is what we need to do. Along with Cameron Prout, we heard from Professor Neville Owen from the Cancer Prevention Research Centre of the University of Queensland. Both gentlemen told the meeting how environments can shape the health choices of the community and how, indeed, healthy choices can be made the easy choice. Governments, both local and state, developers and volunteers can ensure our communities are walker friendly by giving some thought to their neighbours. On the Gold Coast, in my electorate, the Friends of Federation Walk group do voluntary planting on the eastern side of The Spit to ensure the area is maintained and a usable area for families and walkers alike. The friends were promised $100,000 a year from the state government to assist them with their volunteer work, funds that were not conditional upon the cruise ship terminal going through. To date the group has received a pittance from the government. These are the sorts of groups, volunteers looking out for their neighbours, that the Heart Foundation’s Walk for Life program is dependant on and that deserve the support of local and state governments. The benefit to the quality of life of Queenslanders is undeniable and the effects on the Health budget’s bottom line could also improve. That is something this Beattie Labor government cannot ignore. Breast Cancer Awareness Month Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (9.09 pm): It is indeed great to rise for the first time in this parliament as the returning member for Aspley. I will, of course, acknowledge in some detail my thanks to the people of Aspley in my address-in-reply speech, but let me say this at my first rising this term: thank you to the electorate of Aspley for giving me the chance to once again represent you in this place. It seems that everyone is talking about health. As just about the whole world knows, I was diagnosed last year with breast cancer and finished three out of my four treatment protocols in June of this year and then quickly had an election campaign. The last treatment, which is medication, will be something that I take for the next few years. So to all honourable members may I say that none of you 226 Adjournment 12 Oct 2006 are out of the woods in relation to listening to me complain heartily about the various ailments and side effects that I continue to have and I thank you in advance for your patience. I did at the time of my diagnosis make a bit of a personal vow not to become the honourable member for breast cancer rather than the member for Aspley. I do think that I was seriously a little afraid of being overshadowed in the work that I wanted to do in this place and how I wished not to be remembered by the very public nature of my diagnosis, treatment and occupation. However, it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that I have a real responsibility and a desire to spread the message about early detection and continuing care for women who have had breast cancer. Coupled with the incredible support that I have received from so many people, not least of all my friends, my comrades and my colleagues in this place and in the community, I feel compelled to return that support when I can. So can I bring to the House’s attention that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. This month organisations across the state who support, serve and treat people with breast cancer seek to educate women about early detection programs and to raise awareness about the long-term treatments of breast cancer. One such organisation is of course BreastScreen Queensland. It is an arm of Queensland Health that screens hundreds of thousands of women each year and detects over 1,115— Mr Lawlor: They do an amazing job. Ms BARRY: It does do an amazing job. It detects over 1,115 breast cancers a year, many of them early and curable. In fact, BreastScreen Queensland detects nine out of 10 breast cancers present at the time of screening. It is not perfect, but it is incredibly close to it. BreastScreen Queensland recently held a Girls Night In charity event that I emceed. The night raised valuable funds for the Queensland Cancer Fund with the attendance of over 300 women at that night. It was a fantastic night and I would like to congratulate the organisers of the event for such a great turnout. I also wish to reinforce my support for BreastScreen Queensland in both the quality and commitment of the work it does every day. Simply put, the message behind Breast Cancer Awareness Month is that the dual strategy of breast self-examination and regular mammograms—essential for women over the age of 50 and desirable for women over the age of 40—is by far the greatest weapon in the war against women dying from breast cancer. Women and the men who love and care for them should take time this month to stop and reflect on what they need to do and the time that they need to take in order to ensure that they are keeping up their breast self-examinations every single month and are having regular mammograms. It takes but a few minutes.

Townsville Hospital, Mental Health Unit Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (9.12 pm): I am very concerned about the closure of the secure mental health unit at the Townsville Hospital. This is the only high-security mental health unit north of Brisbane and to have this closed indefinitely will be another huge blow to north Queensland. Word tonight is that this may be a temporary situation, but it is still not good enough. I call on the minister to ensure that Townsville is given the resources to keep this desperately needed facility open. According to Queensland Health this closure is due to staff shortages. But unfortunately for the existing staff, they were the last to know their fate. Word of this did not come from the health department but from desperately concerned whistleblowers. Again we see secrecy and cover-ups from the health department. I understand that some patients have been transferred to Brisbane and others are now in the medium-security facility. According to newspaper reports, risk assessments were carried out prior to these transfers. What is unknown is whether these arrangements have been undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Mental Health Act 2000 or in accordance with the National Mental Health Strategy. The provisions in the Mental Health Act are quite specific and quite prescriptive. Patients can only be transferred from one authorised mental health service to another on the written order of the director of mental health and the Mental Health Review Tribunal must be given written notice of the transfer within seven days. And what of the patients’ families? Did they have a say in where their respective family members were transferred to? But of most concern to me is the wellbeing of those patients who are hospitalised in the medium-security unit. Those patients are now going to be coaccommodated with patients who were previously considered to be so mentally ill that they needed to be accommodated in a high-security unit. Now these patients are going to be accommodated with less security. The medium-security unit must also be suffering with staff shortages, so can Queensland Health give an unequivocal guarantee that there will be enough staff on roster every day to ensure that those patients in the medium-security unit are given the best care and treatment in the safest environment to ensure their recovery? Can the health department also guarantee the safety of its staff? And where in this are the three Labor members for Townsville? We listened to the member for Thuringowa loudly lauding his achievements last night, but there was a deathly silence about the mental health facility at Townsville Hospital. 12 Oct 2006 Adjournment 227

Mr WALLACE: I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr WALLACE: If you want to interject you get back to your seat! Get back to your seat! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Order! Mr WALLACE: I rise to a point of order. I find the member’s comments offensive and ask for them to be withdrawn. Mrs MENKENS: I withdraw. This unit was opened in 2002 but has been understaffed and underresourced ever since. Mr Hopper: You’re an imbecile! Mr WALLACE: Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mrs MENKENS: That the government has chosen mental health— Mr WALLACE: I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is unparliamentary. You will withdraw. Mr HOPPER: I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mrs MENKENS: That the government has chosen Mental Health Week to axe this unit is a slap in the face for patients and their families and demonstrates a callous disregard for mental health workers in Townsville. Mr WALLACE: I rise to a point of order. If the member for Darling Downs wishes to make eyes at me, I wish he would go to his seat so he could do it properly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Resume your seat. Time expired.

Special Olympics Australia VIII National Games Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (9.15 pm): In March of this year I spoke in this House about the launch of the Special Olympics Australia VIII National Games to be held on the Gold Coast and of my support for this amazing organisation. Last week the games arrived. The opening ceremony was held at the Gold Coast Convention Centre and it was a very moving experience. The introduction by three athletes, each of whom had an intellectual disability, the arrival of the torch and the lighting of the cauldron and the presentation of the Olympic flag—it was enough to soften the hardest heart. When Lee Kernighan took the stage it was the cue for the athletes to let their hair down, and party they did! The games are held every four years. Teams from every state in Australia and a team from New Zealand were warmly welcomed by the audience, but when the sole participant from the Northern Territory was introduced a huge cheer went up. The youngest athlete was nine years of age and the oldest 52. I attended both sessions of the gymnastics and was overwhelmed by the experience. Wondering how athletes with varying levels in disability were graded for each level of participation, I asked a coach. He informed me with great pride that athletes were graded on their level of ability, not disability. More than 1,000 athletes, each with an intellectual disability, competed in a range of 10 different sports including basketball, golf, bocce, swimming, soccer and athletics. They were all strongly focused on their abilities and their enthusiasm and support of each other was infectious. The Special Olympics is an international organisation which is dedicated to empowering individuals with an intellectual disability to become physically fit, productive and respected members of their community through sports training and competition. It provides an international program of sports training and athletic competition in a variety of Olympic-type sports. Today in Australia there are 3,000 athletes competing in 10 national sports with a focus on participation and achieving their personal best. Athletes can compete at the local, state, national and international level. A number of Australian athletes will compete at the World Games in Shanghai in October 2007. In 2006 Special Olympics Australia celebrates its 30th anniversary. At the awards dinner a number of special guests were recognised for their contribution. I would like to add my congratulations to Anna-Louise Kassulke, Marian York, Carolyn Robinson and Lenore Wilson for their dedication to the Special Olympics. This was my first exposure to the Special Olympics. The athletes were inspirational and had such a wonderful time. They understood that participation is the name of the game. Winning a medal is a bonus. The athletes’ oath is, ‘Let me win, but if I cannot win let me be brave in the attempt.’ Their attitude and this spirit are a lesson for us all. 228 Adjournment 12 Oct 2006

Mooloolah River, Dredging Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (9.18 pm): The Mooloolaba Spit and the Mooloolah River are special parts of the Sunshine Coast. I have called on the minister for transport to rule out dumping spoils from dredging, which has to be carried out, on the public open space at the end of Mooloolaba Spit or anywhere on the Mooloolaba Spit. This is a beautiful area and heavily vegetated. I have written to the minister advising that I believe it would be totally inappropriate to dump dredging spoils in this area. The river is a vital part of our lives not only for those who rely upon it for their commercial operations, particularly in the fishing industry, but all of those who value its great environmental beauty. It is something that we are very proud of. The river is something that we are very proud of. It needs appropriate dredging to maintain a safe harbour—a safe navigable passage—but for spoils to be dumped in this area, even in a so-called temporary way on the spit, would be extremely destructive. To date, there has been silence from the transport minister about the plans. Yet the rumours are strong. If, in fact, those rumours are false, let the transport minister deny them, because we believe very strongly that we cannot afford a decision to be foisted upon us by a Brisbane based bureaucracy. In the past decisions have been made with regard to the spit with no consultation. That is why our concerns are so great. We have also seen a Mooloolaba Spit master plan, which was not released before the election. It is a land based plan. It ignores a number of water issues that we also believe must be addressed, such as water quality, live-aboards and the ongoing concern about the illegal dumping of sewage in the river and the lack of monitoring. I challenge the Premier to maintain the Mooloolaba Spit for the people. The coalition has a policy of no more high-rise on the spit. I would be delighted if this state Labor government matched that policy and also opposed any moves to sell off any crown land in this area. This public open space and those other areas that are under crown control are too vital to be sold off. Certainly, any higher density in this area would be inappropriate. It is a fragile area and higher-density development must be rejected. The area is too congested now, but more high-rise in the spit would be totally unacceptable. We need to see more areas repatriated to the people, to ensure that there is a respect for the environment in this area and that mistakes are not made in terms of locking up this land for future development when it should be in public ownership and available for all generations in the future. As I said, I would be delighted if the government matched our policies in this area. Indooroopilly Electorate, Bus Services Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (9.21 pm): I have wonderful news not only for the good people of Indooroopilly but also for the other people of Brisbane’s western suburbs. This wonderful state Labor government has not only refurbished the Indooroopilly Bus Station, which I will be opening in the next couple of weeks, and funded a railway station upgrade for Indooroopilly Railway Station but also—I am delighted to announce in this House—the government is going to fund an excellent new bus service for my electorate. Bus routes 440 and 441 from the city to my electorate and also beyond will become high- frequency 444 BUZ services between 6 am and 11.30 pm seven days per week. That means more flexibility not only for the residents of Indooroopilly, Taringa and Toowong but also for the residents of Chapel Hill, Moggill, Pullenvale and Pinjarra Hills. This service is part of a $1.98 million bus service boost funded by this Labor government for Brisbane’s west. This means a BUZ service every eight to 10 minutes in peak times and every 15 minutes in off-peak times. It also means that there will be four times as many night-time and weekend services in my local community. I think that it is worth asking: where were the Liberals during the time that I was lobbying to deliver this wonderful public transport upgrade for my electorate? Let me tell members where the Liberals were. The first thing they did during the recent state election campaign was advertise a transport forum in Indooroopilly with two very special guests: Dr Flegg, the member for Moggill and the Liberal leader, and also Mr Caltabiano. I remember the day well. It was a Sunday afternoon. The local residents were there in anticipation of the discussions that they would have with Dr Flegg and Mr Caltabiano, who would be seen together in the one room for the first time. What do members think happened at 2 pm? Where do members think Dr Flegg and Mr Caltabiano were? Neither of them were at Indooroopilly. Dr Flegg was on the Gold Coast and I think we all know where Mr Caltabiano spent most of his time during the election campaign. Neither of them attended. They advertised that they would be there and they simply did not show up. That sums up exactly where the Liberals are on issues of public transport. They just do not show up. Dr Flegg thought that he would make a public transport announcement the following week for Indooroopilly— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Please refer to the member by his title. Mr LEE: The member for Moggill made an announcement. Later in that week he came to my electorate and announced that he would not just do some works at the Indooroopilly Railway Station; he would delay the works that I had already announced by a further six months. The member would put on hold the services that I had delivered—that the state government was going to deliver—for a further six months. What an absolutely stupid policy! 12 Oct 2006 Adjournment 229

Pinkenba Community Association

Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—Lib) (9.24 pm): Tonight I want to talk about the plight of the residents of Pinkenba, which is located in the eastern end of my electorate. The people of Pinkenba are characterised by their community spirit and willingness to fight anyone any time, anywhere to protect their amenity and their lifestyle. That was epitomised by the fight that the residents had against attempts by governments in the past to impose disastrous developments on their area. Nothing emphasised that more than the disastrous decision by the Goss Labor government in the mid-nineties to establish a toxic waste dump at Pinkenba. I might say that that proposal was supported by the ever-careless Soorley Labor administration. It was a decision that led the locals to form their local group, BRATS—Bayside Residents Against Toxic Sites. That group was headed by the chairman of the local ALP branch down there, so disgusted was he by the efforts of the Labor Party to impose a toxic site and so disgusted were the community by the comments made by a former Lord Mayor who said, ‘You people will not be here in 10 years.’ They are still there and he has gone, as has the Goss government. The coalition government scrapped that disastrous plan and protected the amenity and the lifestyle of those people who live in Pinkenba. The people of Pinkenba were successful in fighting that toxic waste dump and they ended up keeping BRATS alive. The name of that organisation was changed to the Pinkenba Community Association. It is just as well they did that, because they have another fight on their hands now. In passing, I would like to congratulate Mr Darryl Bertwistle on his election last night as president of the Pinkenba Community Association. What are the people of Pinkenba fighting against now? They are fighting against the decision by this government and its department, Queensland Rail, to develop the Pinkenba waste transfer station— a waste transfer station that sees enormous amounts of dust lying in residents’ homes, causing them health problems and causing their lifestyle to deteriorate rapidly. So these people are fighting on against the decisions of this government to put commercial profit ahead of community interest—decisions that have characterised this government over at least the past eight years. This state government continues to ignore the rights of those residents. It continues to woefully underfund the EPA to bring a stop to this problem. It continues to allow the quality of life of the people of Pinkenba to deteriorate. I would like to acknowledge the efforts made by the members of the Pinkenba Community Association. I will be working with them to make sure that this government upholds its responsibilities and looks after the rights of even such a small community as Pinkenba.

National Police Remembrance Day

Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (9.27 pm): On 14 September the ambulance in central Queensland held a commemoration day for their deceased members. This week the firies held a similar commemorative day for their deceased members or members who have died in service. But I believe that 29 September was the most important date for the people of Queensland—to my own electorate firstly but also to the other people of Queensland—and also to the people of Australia because that day was National Police Remembrance Day. On that day in Rockhampton I attended the remembrance service for those police who had died in service and who had served their own community. The major point that all of us should take from that day was that on that day the National Police Memorial was dedicated in Canberra. Police from every state in Australia attended that memorial at Canberra. The memorial recognised those police who had died both in Australia and overseas in service on behalf of the people of Australia and other people in the free world. Every one of us will hear complaints about the police and some people will make comments about the police. Mr Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge that you have served with the Queensland Police Service. People make such complaints, but they always seem to overlook that when something goes wrong or when the community needs a shoulder to cry on. When the community needs someone to go out there and front up to something that has gone wrong, the first people they call on are the members of our Police Service. Recently in the Sunday Mail I read an article by Terry Sweetman in which he called for people to recognise that there was a lessening of respect for police. I would like to commend to this House and to all of the people of Queensland our great Police Service. I would like to acknowledge personally my own dealings with the Police Service. I think that every one of us should acknowledge that the Queensland Police Service today is our front line against crime, it is our front line against disaster and it is our front line against those people who would go out and do silly things that really do not benefit the community and do not benefit themselves. I would like to commend to this House everything that the Queensland Police Service stands for and to acknowledge their great service to Queensland. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 9.29 pm. 230 Attendance 12 Oct 2006

ATTENDANCE Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Copeland, Cripps, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, Dempsey, Dickson, Elmes, English, Fenlon, Finn, Flegg, Foley, Fraser, Gibson, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Hopper, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Knuth, Langbroek, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee Long, Lee, Lingard, Lucas, McArdle, McNamara, Male, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Pratt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, Rickuss, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson

GOVERNMENT PRINTER, QUEENSLAND—2006