30 Oct 2002 Legislative Assembly 4183

WEDNESDAY, 30 OCTOBER 2002

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. R. K. Hollis, Redcliffe) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 a.m.

PETITION Food Irradiation Mr Wells from 1716 petitioners requesting the House to: prohibit the establishment of a nuclear irradiation facility or X-Ray or Electron beam facility at any location in Queensland; ban the import, export and sale of irradiated food in Queensland; call on the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council (ANZFSC) and the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) to amend Standards A-17 and 1.5.3—Irradiation of Foods in the Food Standards Code to ban food irradiation outright in Australia and New Zealand.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Overseas Visit Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.31 a.m.), by leave: I am pleased to report to the parliament on my recent official visit to the United Kingdom, Belgium and the Federal Republic of Germany from 7 to 17 October 2002. My original intention was to also visit Ireland for the signing of an important memorandum of understanding with the government of Ireland and to undertake a range of other business meetings. However, with the terrible tragedy of the terrorist bombing in Bali and the great loss of lives of young Australians, including Queenslanders, I determined to return to Queensland at the end of the German leg of my trip, and the Director-General of the Department of State Development, Mr Paul Fennelly, undertook most of my engagements in Ireland. I can report, however, that the remainder of the visit was very successful from Queensland's point of view and led to a range of new initiatives, many of which have already been announced publicly. I had not been to Europe since June 2000, as Minister for Trade, so therefore I was particularly keen to meet key business leaders whose organisations have strong involvement in Queensland, not only to receive an update on their activities and plans but also to encourage further investment in the state. These included two of the most important mining entrepreneurs in the world, Leigh Clifford, Chief Executive of Rio Tinto, and Brian Gilbertson, Chief Executive of BHP Billiton, as well as Sir Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines, Dr Jurgen Stadelhofer, the global Chief Executive Officer of RAG, Kevin Beeston of Serco, and Olivier Lippens, the Managing Director of Finasucre in Brussels. I found universally a strong recognition of Queensland as a safe, secure and enterprising place for smart investment and business and a willingness to consider new investment opportunities in this state. Whilst in Germany I encountered concerns about the current state of its economy, and clearly this is a major factor in decisions to invest. Nevertheless, there are big opportunities, especially in coal and biotechnology. I was accompanied by a large business delegation and also headed a separate Commerce Queensland delegation to the UK, which included acting Chief Executive Officer Joe Barnewell. A list of the people who accompanied me is set out in the report. I am greatly heartened by the number of Queenslanders and Queensland companies doing strong business overseas. They have the highest reputations in their respective fields. This includes HOK Sport, which has major contracts for new stadiums—Wimbledon Stadium, Islington Station and Royal Ascot—as well as Sam's Seafood and Capilano Honey. Among other highlights of my visit were— 1. the strong endorsement by Sir Richard Branson encouraging Britain and British investors to invest in Queensland as a great place to do business; 2. an agreement between my department and the United Kingdom Cabinet Office to undertake a three-month senior officer exchange. Queensland will send an officer to the UK later this year for three months to work in its Cabinet Office. One of its staff will come to Queensland 4184 Ministerial Statement 30 Oct 2002

next year. This will be an invaluable sharing of information on policy formulation, evaluation and management between the United Kingdom and Queensland; 3. our reputation built over the past few years in biotechnology continues to grow, and there will be some exciting prospects ahead following my meeting in Munich with Professor Dr Horst Domdey, Managing Director of BioM. I was pleased that Professor John Mattick, who has played a trail-blazing role in Queensland in biotechnology, joined me in that meeting and will continue to liaise with Professor Domdey and the Bavarian government, with plans arising from my meeting for a major biotech delegation to visit Queensland in the next two months; 4. extremely successful meetings with two ministers from the state of Bavaria, which led not only to an agreement to pursue joint interests in biotechnology but, unexpectedly, to a very pleasing broader agreement to cooperate on a range of areas of mutual interest, with a working party set up in two states. There are also excellent outcomes in relation to the tourism industry, the Rugby World Cup and also the movie industry. I have highlighted before that we had an indigenous art exhibition in Berlin. There was an MOU signed in Britain between EDEXCEL and USQ. There were fruitful discussions with Rhine Westphalia in Germany and there were a number of things we pursued with the European Union. In light of time, I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. There are exploitable synergies between Bavaria and Queensland, with both states working hard to broaden their economic bases from traditional primary industries. 5. Excellent work by our tourism agencies, with some good prospects for increasing the flow of German tourists to Queensland. Germans have six weeks annual holiday and are great travellers. I feel certain that the new marketing campaign I launched in Munich will produce considerable benefits. 6. The growing excitement for the Rugby World Cup, which will feature many games in Queensland, next year, which should yield large numbers of European visitors, including key business leaders. 7. My Government has put a high priority on improving the economic situation of our indigenous population. One area which I personally believe can prove very successful in achieving that aim of indigenous art, and I was pleased to open a major exhibition of aboriginal art and sculpture in Berlin, which will herald a greater push in 2003 in Europe. 8. The Pacific Film and Television Commission arranged a reception to encourage German film makers to consider co-productions with Queensland. Again we found great interest, and I have been advised that two German film companies have already arranged meetings to discuss projects. 9. The signing of a significant MOU between the University of Southern Queensland and EDEXCEL, in London, was another job-creating initiative in Queensland's continuing success in exporting education. 10. Fruitful discussions in Rhine Westphalia in Germany on the possibility for increased Queensland coal exports to Germany, and for cooperation on clean coal technology, including a meeting with the Minister for Economics, Ernst Schwenhold. 11. A very helpful briefing on developments with the European Union, and their likely impact on Queensland, from the European Union Secretary-General. Mr BEATTIE: I table now for the information of the House the details of my report with attached material, including media releases that came out of the visit as well as a number of annexures which were put on the table in a very large box. I never want it to be said that I have never been fully accountable to this parliament in terms of my overseas trips. I have reported fully and appropriately and in an accountable way.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Wine Industry Promotion Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.36 a.m.), by leave: One of the things I have also done on these trade visits is to take advantage of the public occasions we have to promote Queensland produce. Ministerial trade and investment missions are important not just for the major Smart State projects which can create hundreds of jobs in Queensland; they are also an ideal opportunity to spread the word about some of the state's many winners. They include our wine industry. At all of the functions we held—London, Berlin, Munich and elsewhere—we served Queensland wines, such as 1998 Ballandean Cabernet Malbec Merlot and the 1997 Ballandean Sauvignon Blanc Semillon. We also promoted the Ten Tenors, local artists, novelists, including Venero Armanno—all of those people—to highlight how important this state is in terms of the arts. I want to highlight this because of its importance to the state. 30 Oct 2002 Ministerial Statement 4185

An honourable member interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation. Mr BEATTIE: I seek leave to incorporate the rest of that ministerial statement so that everyone is informed about how we promote this state. Leave granted. Ministerial trade and investment missions are important not just for the major Smart State projects which can create hundreds of jobs to Queensland. They are also an ideal opportunity to spread the word about some of the State's many winners. On a trade and investment mission to the United States I opened the door for Queensland wines by serving them at functions and they are now being sold there. And again on my recent trade and investment mission to Europe I took Queensland wines with me. The European Community ranks as the second largest economy in the world and comprises nearly 25 per cent of global gross domestic product and offers us a massive opportunity. The wines used at the functions were: the 1998 Ballandean Cabernet Malbec Merlot and the 1997 Ballandean Sauvignon Blanc Semillon. I also gave many of the leading government and business leaders gifts of CDs featuring Queensland performers, including the Ten Tenors—who were touring Germany this month—and Darren Hayes—who was touring the UK this month—George and Christine Anu. I also took the opportunity of giving people copies of Venero Armanno's book Volcano, which won the Queensland Premier's Literary Award for fiction. But back to the wines—Angelo Puglisi and Ian Henderson of Ballandean Wines have alerted me that they are next month to officially launch their wines in the United States at South Carolina. These are the ones that I spoke of earlier. But the success is not just there—Ballandean Wines have just returned from a successful visit to Taiwan. Where—as a result of Police Minister Tony McGrady's insistence that Queensland wines being served—Ballandean have now have picked up another opportunity to sell their fine wines internationally. By such a simple Smart policy we are opening the door for our exporters and creating more and more opportunities. We will not miss any opportunity to do our bit for this ever-improving, job-creating industry. Well done Tony! This simple promotional effort—is best summed up by a comment from Ian Henderson ‘Ballandean Estate is proof that your policy of using local wines is directly creating export revenue‘ Thanks Ian. Mr Speaker while recently in Europe I did raise an issue of concern for our wine industry. I am concerned that the European Commission is hijacking terms such as vintage, reserve, superior, chardonnay and Verdelho. I raised these concerns in a meeting I had with Commission Secretary-General David O'Sullivan. The European Commission has adopted new rules which stipulate what information can be included on labels for bottles of wine being sold in Commission countries from January 1 next year. The new regulations are complex and unclear—but Australian producers are very worried about restrictions on the use of words such as vintage, reserve, superior, chardonnay and verdelho. Queensland's wine industry has boomed in recent years and as Trade Minister I have encouraged our wine makers to increase their exports so that we create new jobs for Queenslanders. But these new regulations could provide a serious barrier to our exports. Australia's exports of wine to the European Commission in 2001 were worth more than a billion dollars. The new regulations were not adopted until after the 2002 Australian harvest had been substantially completed, many wines made and labels printed. I can understand why the Commission wants to restrict the use of names such as champagne to wines coming from Champagne. But how can the Commission seek to restrict the use of common words such as vintage, reserve and superior? And although Chardonnay and Verdelho are the names of places, they are also the names of common varieties of grapes. The Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation also warns that Lambrusco and Hermitage may be phased out at relatively short notice under the terms of the EU Wine Agreement. The Corporation has held preliminary meetings with the Commission but the interpretation of the regulations is still not clear. I have also written to Federal Government Trade Minister Mark Vaile to seek his help in clarifying the situation.

4186 Ministerial Statement 30 Oct 2002

Ballandean Estate Wines P.O. Box 5 Ballandean Qld., 4382

The Honourable Mr Peter Beattie MLA Premier of Queensland PO Box 185 Brisbane Albert Street Queensland 4002 Monday, 28 October 2002 Mr Premier, South Carolina Visit—November 6-16, 2002 Angelo Puglisi and myself will be visiting LA and South Carolina this month as the official launch of our wines in the United States. We will be spending 8 days in South Carolina during which time we will be travelling widely throughout the state promoting our Queensland wine to local retailers in partnership with our South Carolina based importer/distributor. Governor Hodges office is aware of our upcoming visit and is planning to schedule a meeting with Angelo and I depending on the Governors post election commitments. If there is anything that Angelo and I can do to assist you or the state of Queensland during this visit please advise as we would be happy to assist in any way. Bob Gibbs is assisting us greatly with the West Coast launch of our wines on November 7 in LA and I thank him enormously for all of his assistance to date. Recent Taiwan visit—October 2002. I just recently returned from a successful trade visit to Taiwan. I am pleased to say that the initial opportunity to sell wine in Taiwan came from the insistence of Minister McGrady that Queensland wine be used on his recent trade delegation to Taiwan and the Philippines. Our Queensland trade office in Taiwan, especially Commissioner Huang and Assistant Commissioner Lily Liang were incredibly helpful in making my mission successful. Ballandean Estate is proof that your policy of using local wines is directly creating export revenue. I will continue to keep you, and Minister McGrady updated on the exciting developments of our wine in the Taiwan market. Kindest regards Ian Henderson Export Manager, Winemaker Ballandean Estate Wines

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Biotechnology; Mining Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.37 a.m.), by leave: In terms of the development of the Smart State, our strategies are resulting in a growing number of scientists being attracted to Queensland. In Queensland we have more than 60 research institutes, university research facilities and cooperative research centres led by— the Institute for Molecular Bioscience, which will move into a new state-of-the-art research complex next year with more than 800 research staff; the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, which will be the largest medical research institute in the Southern Hemisphere with more than 800 scientists; and the Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences, which has a staff of more than 1,500. Many other research centres are creating international reputations. Griffith University's Centre for Biomolecular Science and Drug Discovery is only one year old, but it has been flooded with expressions of interest from scientists nationally and internationally who all want to be part of its carbohydrate research program. That is great news for the Smart State. It means that our brain drain is being turned into a brain gain. But it also means that the centre needs a bigger home. That is why last week I launched a $5 million campaign to allow the centre to physically expand. That is on top of the $13 million start-up cost of the centre to which my government contributed $8 million. Griffith University has a 10-year plan to turn the centre into a research institute. By the end of November the centre, led by director Professor Mark von Itzstein, will have on site 40 of the 50 staff it originally targeted. Professor Mark von Itzstein will be instrumental in encouraging biotechnology out of Bavaria and partnerships with Queensland. The 10-year plan is to eventually have 150 staff. No other centre in Australia has the same focus on the role of carbohydrates in biology and disease. Internationally, the centre is one of only six centres working in this area. Glycochemistry, glycobiology and structural biology are all under one roof at the centre, with the aim of providing a drug discovery mechanism which produces fast results. 30 Oct 2002 Ministerial Statement 4187

The centre's mission statement is to seek to improve quality of life through understanding of the role carbohydrates play in biology and disease. More specifically, the centre's aim is to act as a research pipeline from science discovery through to commercialisation—and more jobs. This is research that potentially offers direct health benefits to the community. It is hoped that drugs and treatments will be developed to— counter bacterial diseases such as croup and other upper respiratory tract infections; inhibit cancers such as testicular cancer, colon cancer and skin cancer; and treat inflammatory diseases such as arthritis and multiple sclerosis. While we are talking about research, I want to highlight to the House that this morning I opened the Mining 2002 Resources Convention at the Crest Hotel. This has been sponsored, in part, by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines and the Department of State Development, and I thank both ministers for that. Obviously in my address I talked about the mining industry and the number of opportunities that we have overseas, particularly coal into the German market. I impressed two things on the conference that I think we need to do. Firstly, I think there needs to be national cooperation between the federal government and those interested state governments in developing the technology for clean coal. The reason for that national collaboration is that as our clean energy strategy comes into place on 1 January 2005—which will inject 13 per cent of natural gas into our generation systems and two per cent renewables—what we need to do is ensure that as we export coal to the world it has a clean reputation. Technologies in coals have radically changed in recent times. What we need to do is look at some of the gasification processes which will produce clean coal technology. Queensland coal is generally low in sulfur and ash which means that it is, in environmental terms, comparatively very acceptable to the world. But we need to undertake more research. I know from my talks in Europe that considerations are being put to more research, and the same is occurring in Japan. Unless we advance our clean coal technologies, in another 10 years there will be debates about our exports of coal. We need to have a vision for the future. In the national interest we need to have funds put aside for research by the federal government to ensure that we develop clean coal technologies. I want to table the program and my speech notes for the information of the House. The second thing that I said at the conference today was that the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines is examining our current native title laws. I signalled very clearly that the current laws do not benefit either the mining industry or indigenous people in terms of outcomes. We need to ensure that the best likely outcomes are negotiated outcomes under the right to negotiate system instituted by the federal government. What we need to do is look at the current laws—which we are—and we are prepared to enhance our system by working closely with the federal government, perhaps as a hybrid between what the federal government's laws provide and what remains of our laws here. The changes that were made in the Senate watered down what we sought to do and we are re-examining that.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT FBI Conference, Gold Coast Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 a.m.), by leave: I want to highlight an announcement which was made yesterday by the Minister for Police, Tony McGrady, the Police Commissioner, the senior FBI representative in Australia and me. As I have said on a number of occasions, this government is very conscious of its duty to do what it can to safeguard the lives of all Queenslanders. Our policy of being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime has resulted in the crime rate for many offences being reduced. The Queensland Police Service has been instrumental in arranging a major international antiterrorism conference for the Gold Coast in May next year. Hundreds of FBI graduates from across the Asia-Pacific region will attend a five-day retraining conference to focus on the impact of global terrorism on law enforcement agencies. Securing the seventh retraining session of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the FBI National Academy Associates is a coup which will produce two positive results for Queensland. Firstly, the Queensland Police Service's vision in instigating this conference places it at the forefront of law enforcement agencies in the Asia-Pacific region in tackling terrorism. We live in an unsafe world. We have to do everything we can to be prepared. In light of the time, I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my statement in Hansard. Leave granted. 4188 Ministerial Statement 30 Oct 2002

And with hundreds of partners likely to accompany the delegates, the tourism industry, with its 150,000 jobs, will receive a significant boost. Our police gained important experience and training when they prepared for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and for the Goodwill Games. Now this conference, which will focus on the prevention of terrorism, the immediate reaction to a terrorist incident and how to manage the results of an incident, will add to that experience. The recent tragedy in Bali and current global instability has brought home the need for the region's law enforcement agencies to work together and be prepared for any eventuality. There is a clear need for us to recognise and maintain comprehensive strategies to counter terrorism, within Australia, across the region and globally. This is a golden opportunity to develop links and the necessary skills to combat terrorism on a cooperative level with law enforcement agencies right across the region. The U.S. Embassy's Legal Attache, FBI Special Agent Lou Caprino, thanked the Queensland Government and the Queensland Police Service on behalf of the US Ambassador to Australia, Tom Schieffer, Director Mueller and all of the FBI, saying they were truly indebted to us. He said that over the past four years, he had developed some very, very strong professional and personal relationships with members of the Queensland Police Service. He said he was aware of the security protocol for CHOGM and the security architecture that was implemented during what he called 'that very impressive and important meeting'. And Special Agent Caprino said that in his personal opinion, that should be or could be used as a model for all governments anywhere. It was superb, he said. He said the conference should draw attendees from the entire Asia-Pacific region, including places like Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. Asked if there was any cause for concern that the meeting itself could become a terrorist target, he said he didn't have any fear at all, given the performance and the expertise of the Queensland Police Service. Special Agent Caprino said his judgment about the expertise of our police service was based on more than just CHOGM. He said he was familiar with the security put in place for the Olympic Games when the American swimmers were practising in Queensland and when a few events were held up here. For all these reasons, he is fully confident that all the attendees will be in very good hands. The conference will be from May 18 to 22, 2003, at the Conrad Hotel, Gold Coast. While I am talking about terrorism, I sent a letter to the Mayor of New York on September 9, on behalf of all Queenslanders, expressing our well wishes as New Yorkers prepared for the anniversary of the attack on America. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has written to thank us for our sympathy and humanity and to extend the best wishes of New Yorkers to the people of Queensland. I table copies of the two letters.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ICT Grants Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (9.44 a.m.), by leave: Queensland state schools have this week received a share in more than $18 million delivering more computers and cabling into schools and boosting the Information Communication Technology skills of teachers and students. The funds were distributed to schools from last Friday as the first instalment of the ICTs for Learning initiative—a key element of the government's Queensland the Smart State—Education and Training Reforms for the Future. The ICTs for Learning package is a significant new commitment by the government recognising that ICTs are fundamental learning tools for schools in the 21st century. Schools can use their grant to purchase equipment such as computers and hand-held ICT devices, software and networking infrastructure, ICT support and professional development and training. The funds for this initiative were announced in the 2002-03 state budget. In 2002-03 the state government will spend $23 million in new funding on ICTs in schools. This is in addition to $36.4 million in existing funds. This first instalment of grants is an important first step in the state government's plans to provide state schools with 3,000 new computers, replace 19,400 old computers, connect an extra 1,600 classrooms to the Internet and local area networks and to provide ICT training to teachers. Another $12 million in new funding will be distributed to state schools in February. This second ICTs for Learning instalment includes funds for improved technology for distance education. 30 Oct 2002 Ministerial Statement 4189

The grants mark a new flexibility in the way schools can spend their ICT funding. Previously, ICT funding was earmarked for information technology support and computer maintenance. This grant can be used by schools to help them achieve the state government's targets for ICT hardware in schools and the integration of ICTs into the curriculum. The targets include one computer to every five students by 2005, 60 per cent of computers having Internet access and that ICTs are delivering learning outcomes in 40 per cent of subject areas. The flexibility built into the ICTs for Learning grant enables schools to spend their funds on priority areas. Schools that need extra assistance to reach a base standard for ICTs will receive funds later this year under the Priority Schools Program. State schools were sent an information kit earlier this year and asked to audit their performance in ICTs. The data is currently being analysed to determine which schools require extra assistance so that funds under the Priority Schools Program can be distributed in December. This ICTs for Learning initiative is about ensuring this state's young people are equipped to succeed in the information age.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT World Shakespeare Congress, October 2006 Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts) (9.46 a.m.), by leave: The reputation of Queensland, the Smart State, is gathering momentum on the world cultural stage. This is borne out by the fact that academics from the University of Queensland have secured the prestigious World Shakespeare Congress for Brisbane in 2006. The congress, which attracts up to 1,000 delegates from around the world, is held only once every five years and alternates between Europe and another part of the world. This is a significant achievement for Brisbane and Australia—a literary achievement of global proportions and a major academic coup. It will also cast the world spotlight on Queensland's performing arts institutions and companies. I recently met with Associate Professors Richard Fotheringham and Lloyd Davis who made the successful bid, and Shakespearian scholars from the United Kingdom, Japan and the United States who were in Brisbane to make an initial site visit in preparation for the 2006 congress. Mr Wells: Mr Foley, do you think that their winter of discontent has been turned to glorious summer by the sun of Queensland? Mr FOLEY: Indeed it has. I thank the Minister for the Environment for his apposite interjection. It will indeed be glorious summer. The flow-on benefits from this prestigious win for Queensland are enormous. For instance, the organisers are proposing to stage a Pacific Shakespeare Festival in conjunction with the world congress. Invitations will be extended to major companies and Shakespeare festivals in countries such as Japan, China, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Canada, the United States, Mexico, Chile, Peru and New Zealand. Also being explored is the possibility of staging a major subscription season of selected plays in Brisbane and the state's regional centres. Such a comprehensive and widespread program would have significant educational and cultural benefits for the state. Locally developed Shakespearian productions by the likes of Grin and Tonic, the Queensland Theatre Company, the Queensland Shakespeare Ensemble, Frank Theatre, Zen Zen Zo and La Boite Theatre could feature strongly in the festival. In the last 20 years most of the major innovations and excitement in Shakespearian performances have occurred outside the United Kingdom and many of these have taken place in countries around the Pacific rim. It is now widely recognised that Shakespeare has become the 'world author'. It is possible to go anywhere in the world and Shakespeare's story lines and characters are well known and quoted. His themes are equally relevant in Roma, Queensland or Roma, Italy; in Texas, Queensland or Texas, USA. The World Shakespeare Congress 2006 will foster spirited literary debate with people from around the world and the Pacific Shakespeare Festival will add layers of educational and employment benefits. It will be a showcase of the artistic strength of Queensland and the region. Shakespeare once wrote, 'All the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players'. It is great to see Queensland at the centre of that stage. 4190 Ministerial Statement 30 Oct 2002

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT FBI Conference, Gold Coast Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (9.49 a.m.), by leave: I want to add to comments made a few moments ago by the Premier regarding next year's FBI conference being held on the Gold Coast. This is a great coup for the Queensland Police Service and recognises its role as a leader in law enforcement in our region. I congratulate the police for their hard work in securing this very important and vital conference. The FBI has 530 graduates from the Asia-Pacific region who have trained at the US academy in Virginia. Some 93 of these graduates are Australians, with 18 from the Queensland Police Service including our own Police Commissioner. A retraining program addressing current FBI policing and intelligence issues is normally held in each region every two years. The theme of the conference will be the impact of global terrorism on law enforcement agencies focusing on the prevention of terrorism, immediate reaction to a terrorist incident and subsequent consequence management. I believe that the undisputed success of CHOGM and our role in the 2000 Olympics and Goodwill Games showcased the Queensland Police Service's capacity as a professional law enforcement body. This conference will further enhance the skills of our police and those across the region which will no doubt help lead to greater regional safety. Recent events including the tragedy in Bali have shown that terrorism knows no borders and that a cooperative approach across our region and across the world is essential. This conference will bring together representatives from police organisations and government agencies in the Asia- Pacific region to exchange information and intelligence related to terrorism's impact on their areas of responsibility. I understand that about 800 to 900 invitations will be issued for the retraining conference to all police and law enforcement jurisdictions in Australia and indeed the South Pacific. While numbers are still being finalised, it is clear that this conference will bring the secondary benefit of a significant boost to tourism on the Gold Coast. A social program for partners is being planned for the conference so delegates can bring their partners and also enjoy a holiday here in Queensland. The retraining session will provide invaluable training and experience for Queensland Police Service officers and law enforcement professionals right across the Asia- Pacific region.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Environmental Protection Agency, Wildlife Management Review Discussion Paper Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (9.52 a.m.), by leave: I table the wildlife management review discussion paper. To continue a theme from Minister Foley, I come to bury red tape, not to praise it. After two years of intensive work with the community and interest groups— Mr Schwarten interjected. Mr WELLS: I thank the Minister for Public Works. After two years of intensive work with the community and interest groups, the Environmental Protection Agency has released the wildlife management review discussion paper for public comment. It is about cutting red tape and reducing fees for those who keep animals which require a licence. It is about giving pet owners a wider choice of pets and giving wildlife carer groups a bigger say. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr WELLS: I thank the Minister for Primary Industries. I stand corrected. The Beattie government made an election commitment in 2001 to review the regulations relating to wildlife management in Queensland. The purpose was to make the licensing system and regulation system more user friendly and effective. While the conservation principles in the act remain as valid today as they did when it was commenced in the early 1990s, the regulation now needs to better reflect the values of the community with regard to Queensland's wildlife. Over 1,000 submissions were received. I will send copies of this review to the electorate offices of all honourable members. If any honourable member wishes to have a copy now, I will make it available to them. My department's aim is to continue to provide effective wildlife conservation while streamlining administrative practices— 30 Oct 2002 Ministerial Statement 4191

Mr Lucas interjected. Mr WELLS: No, it is not. It is about modernisation and the cutting of red tape. It is about preserving our heritage without being too burdened by it. It is about streamlining administration, reducing government red tape and introducing more self-regulation. The proposals will create a system just as stringent but with more attention given to conservation issues. In some cases it is proposed that the regulations be tightened to address emerging wildlife conservation concerns. The reforms include significant benefits for people who keep birds recreationally, including introducing a five-year licence at a similar cost to that paid now for a one-year licence and removing the need for annual renewal. Honourable members would be pleased to know that introducing a five-year licence instead of five one-year licences and charging the same for the five-year licence as is charged for the one-year licence actually saves the government money as well as the people who pay the licence fees. More species of birds such as captive-bred cockatoos and galahs will be able to be kept without a licence, reflecting their now wide availability through licensed pet shops. Pet shops that are accredited to do so will be able to sell a limited number of commonly kept reptiles to licensed enthusiasts. For instance, it is proposed to revise the record-keeping requirements for non- commercial licence types to reduce administrative burdens, abolishing returns of operations for these licence types. Movement permits which are currently required for wildlife trade will be replaced by self-administered movement advices for all transactions within Queensland. This is a considerable reduction in administration for licensed trade activities. It is a balanced package that has taken into account an extraordinarily wide range of comments and interests, but it is underpinned by sound principles of protecting and conserving our native species in the wild. This is a paper for discussion. The views of honourable members would be extremely welcome, but it is aimed to achieve a better system of regulation that involves less regulation but involves more freedom for people and a better deal for our wildlife and sounder principles of conservation. I commend the paper to honourable members.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Respite and Family Support Services Hon. J. C. SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Families and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and Minister for Disability Services and Minister for Seniors) (9.57 a.m.), by leave: I am delighted to announce today that we have finalised funding and details on 10 new and enhanced respite and family support services throughout the state. These services will support Queenslanders with disabilities and their families and carers. The Beattie government is delivering on another election commitment, with the advertisements for these services running last week and applications due in six weeks. More than $5 million in operational and capital funding will benefit families and carers in Brisbane, Caboolture, Beenleigh, the Gold Coast, Boonah, Kingaroy, Bundaberg, Rockhampton, Charters Towers and Mareeba. These new and enhanced services will be tailored to suit local conditions and requirements and innovative new models will provide much-needed support to up to 400 Queensland families. I am also pleased to inform the House that the Beattie government is also fulfilling another election commitment to develop a carer recognition policy to progress our commitment to recognise carers' needs and concerns as well as their role in service delivery. Carers are a diverse group and include those caring for the aged, people living with medical conditions, people with disabilities and children caring for parents with a disability or medical condition. A carer policy will facilitate a shared understanding and commitment within government and the community to the issues facing carers in Queensland. Issues raised by carers include the need for formal recognition, access to information, support services and employment opportunities, and opportunities to share experiences. The government's ongoing commitment to carer issues is demonstrated through a number of initiatives, including Queensland's framework for ageing, the Families First policy and the formation of the ministerial portfolio for seniors. The development of a carer policy will facilitate the integration of carers' issues within government service delivery, provide an opportunity to raise the awareness of the needs of carers throughout government and allow for the consolidation of government responses. Consultation on the carer policy will continue from March to June 2003 to enable a number of issues to be identified as being appropriate for inclusion in any subsequent legislation. 4192 Ministerial Statement 30 Oct 2002

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Fishing Reforms Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities) (9.59 a.m.), by leave: In recent months the government has detailed wide-ranging reforms in fisheries management in Queensland. These reforms are contained in three regulatory impact statements that have been released for public comment. Public comment has now closed for the general marine and freshwater fishing reforms, while submissions to the draft management arrangements for coral reef fin fishery are due by 16 December. The government intends to have the freshwater and general marine reforms in place by Christmas. The Queensland Fisheries Service is currently analysing the almost 2,000 submissions to both of these regulatory impact statements. In terms of the proposed coral reef fin fishery changes, the government is currently holding a series of information meetings. Sessions have been already held in Townsville, Ingham, Innisfail, Cairns, Ayr and Bowen. A meeting will be held in Mackay today and in Airlie Beach tomorrow. Further meetings will be held in Rockhampton, Gladstone, Bundaberg, and Hervey Bay early next month. As a government we are committed to consultation and getting the balance in fisheries management right. Our aim is the future sustainability of our fisheries, and this must be the shared commitment of all stakeholders and the wider community. We must ensure that the one that gets away is due to bad luck and not bad management. While I am discussing fisheries management, I would like to remind all fishers that the closed season for barramundi starts on Friday. Under the existing regulation, anglers are not permitted to take barramundi along the east coast for the next three months from midday 1 November under a closed season for spawning of this most prized fish. The closure applies to all commercial and recreational fishers, and any person found taking barramundi during the closed season faces a fine. The east coast closure for barramundi ends at noon on 1 February. The only exceptions along the east coast from the annual closure are Lake Tinaroo on the Atherton Tableland and Awoonga Dam at Gladstone.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Consumer Rights Hon. M. ROSE (Currumbin—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading) (10.02 a.m.), by leave: Regional students have taken seven of the 10 major prizes, including the two top awards, in a statewide schools competition judged recently. More than 400 students from all over Queensland submitted individual and group entries in the Office of Fair Trading's Buy Smart in the Smart State competition. The standard of entry was impressive, but students in regional and rural areas certainly stole the limelight. It is encouraging to see so many young people taking an interest in consumer matters. The consumer rights lessons they learnt will be invaluable as they approach their adult lives. The two first prize winners came from Yeppoon and Nerimbera in the Rockhampton region. Yeppoon State High School student Grace Purton-Long won the high school category, and a group entry from Nerimbera State School took first prize in the primary schools category. My good colleague the Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing, the member for Rockhampton, Robert Schwarten, will be going along to the primary school on Friday to present their award. I thank him very much for that. Other winners came from Winton, Cairns, Kuluin, Kia-Ora, Burleigh Waters, Carina and Kenmore. The innovative Buy Smart competition aimed to improve students' awareness and understanding of their consumer rights. Students were asked to research a fair trading issue and present their findings to their classmates in a creative manner. Entries were judged on creativity and quality, ability to communicate a consumer message, and suitability and effectiveness for classmates. Key topics addressed included Internet shopping, refunds, choosing an Internet service provider, mobile phone contracts and purchasing commodities such as clothes, CDs and entertainment. The competition also has provided the Office of Fair Trading with valuable insight into the issues that concern young Queenslanders. Students have become regular consumers of goods and services in the marketplace, even at the primary school level. It is important that we ensure our education and awareness programs are tailored to address their needs, as well as those of older consumers. 30 Oct 2002 Ministerial Statement 4193

Of the entries received, 131 came from secondary schools and 122 from primary schools; 137 were individual entries and 116 were group entries; and 143 entries came from students and schools in regional areas. Cash prizes totalling $11,400 will be presented to student and school winners in coming weeks. There were prizes for winning primary and secondary students and schools, for primary students and schools, second prizes in each category and encouragement awards. Brisbane Consumers Association representative and competition judge Fiona Guthrie said that the judging panel was very impressed by the use of different presentation methods such as video, web pages, PowerPoint presentations and animation. Ms Guthrie said entrants demonstrated an exceptional understanding of their consumer rights and responsibilities and a strong grasp of new technologies. Queensland really is the Smart State if the quality and creativity of the Buy Smart entries are anything to go by.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Water Resources, Cairns Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (10.05 a.m.), by leave: As Australia weathers its toughest drought for some time, water has become a common topic of debate. Far-north Queensland, normally protected by its monsoonal climate from the effects of a big dry, is also feeling the pinch. There has been much public debate in Cairns recently about water resource planning to meet current and future needs. Much of this debate has, unfortunately, been clouded by exaggeration and ill-informed commentary. In fact, the water supply outlook for Cairns and other parts of the far north, both short-term and long-term, is good. While the current water restrictions being experienced in Cairns are regrettable, they are not as extreme as some reports would have us believe. Cairns City Council has enough water reserves in Copperlode Dam to meet its needs well into the future. Cairns residents can rest assured that the water restrictions now affecting them are not the thin end of the wedge. They are necessary, not because Copperlode Dam is running out of water but because flows in Behana Creek, which normally supplies a quarter of the city's water, have receded. Behana Creek water also helps pressurise Cairns pipelines, and the loss of this pressure in the southern suburbs of the city, such as Edmonton and Gordonvale, is being used by some media commentators, and regrettably local mayors, to alarm the community into thinking that the city's water supplies are on the point of collapse. Nothing could be further from the truth. These are the facts. Copperlode Dam is about three-quarters full, holding enough water to meet the city's needs for the next 12 months. In the absence of the Behana Creek contribution, the city council's distribution network, not its reserves in Copperlode Dam, is unable to meet the demand caused by the current dry spell. Cairns City Council agreed to install additional pumps by the end of October to boost pressure in the affected Gordonvale-Edmonton area, which will also relieve its current reliance on Behana Creek. My department has given permission to the Cairns City Council to take extra water from the current low flows in Behana Creek to assist its current supply difficulties. Cairns' short-term water needs are adequately catered for through the 42,000 megalitres of annual entitlement it now holds. Even at the current rate of use, the city's existing entitlement will meet population growth for up to 20 years. If the city council reaches its own usage target of 350 litres per person per day, its current entitlement could well last until 2040. In August 2000 the Department of Natural Resources and Mines issued licences for Cairns City Council to pump some 15,000 megalitres of ground water from the Mulgrave aquifer. When the council installs the necessary bores, these supplies will provide a further vital backup for Behana Creek. The Barron draft water resource plan offers several alternatives for additional water to be sourced for Cairns in the longer term, even though the city council itself acknowledges that this will not be needed until 2010 at the earliest. Even then, its additional requirements will be small and could be easily met without the need to build a new dam to supply Cairns. The Queensland government will continue to work closely with Cairns City Council to make sure that its water needs, for both the present and the future, are addressed in a timely and cost- effective fashion. At a community level, the people of the Cairns area can be confident that, through careful planning, the Beattie government will ensure that the water resources that 4194 Ministerial Statement 30 Oct 2002 underpin the area's prosperity, lifestyle and rich natural environment will be effectively managed to protect the interests of all.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Local Government Funding Hon. N. I. CUNNINGHAM (Bundaberg—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Planning) (10.09 a.m.), by leave: It is ironic that a review is being conducted by the federal government into cost shifting between state and local governments when one of the federal government's own reports shows how well Queensland compares with other states in the funding of councils. The Commonwealth report on the operation of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act shows that the Beattie Labor government provides substantially more state funding to local government than any other state or territory. Figures show that in the financial year 2000-2001, Queensland provided $671 million to local government against $259 million in New South Wales and $80 million in Victoria. According to the Commonwealth report, Queensland contributed $465 million to housing and community amenities; New South Wales, $118 million; and Victoria, $312 million while eastern Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory made no contribution at all. Furthermore, the Local Government Association of Queensland's initial submission to the Commonwealth inquiry into local government and cost shifting also shows that Queensland government funding to local government has increased and in real per capita terms is now about double what it was in the mid-1980s. I was impressed when I recently visited some remote Queensland shires, such as Boulia, Aramac, Julia Creek, Richmond and Cloncurry, to see the good work that councils are doing with the money that they receive from the Beattie government. Vital improvements to water and sewerage schemes, which we subsidise, are under way and during that visit I could also announce funding for some of the smaller projects like skate parks and the provision of picnic and barbecue facilities. These are assets that many shires could not afford without our assistance because of their low rate base. But they are adding considerably to community pride and quality of life in those communities and are helping to stem the exodus of young people to the cities.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Skin Penetrating Injuries Audit Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.11 a.m.), by leave: Protecting workers from the dangers of discarded needles and syringes is not just an issue for the health care industry. Workers in many key industries in Queensland are exposed every day to the risks of sharps—by which they are commonly known—which, left unmanaged, can expose workers to the risk of hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV. This government is keen to ensure that all industries have proper training, risk management processes and reporting mechanisms in place for their workers. That is why inspectors in my department have just completed an audit of 296 workplaces around Queensland. The audit was carried out in the three months from July to September of this year and covered workplaces such as licensed hotels, clubs, accommodation venues and contract cleaning services. It found that staff at almost half—49 per cent—had reported finding discarded needles and syringes at their workplace, and some workplaces uncovered up to 60 discarded needles a week. These used needles had been found behind toilet cisterns, in bedsheets, in and around sanitary disposal units, and even in an urn used for tea making. Despite this, however, 153 improvement notices had to be issued to more than half the workplaces audited because they failed to have in place a proper system to minimise the risk of injury from these objects. Specifically, the problem in the majority of cases was that there was a failure to conduct and record a risk assessment; there were no preventative work procedures to minimise skin penetrating injury risks; there were no procedures for the handling and disposing of sharps found; there was a lack of training for workers; and there were a lack of procedures for managing skin penetrating injuries. It is important that employers and employees realise that the proper management of sharps such as needles and syringes is not just a problem for health related industries. Workers in a wide range of industries, as this audit has shown, can be at risk of skin penetrating injuries and employers have an obligation to identify and minimise that risk. 30 Oct 2002 Ministerial Statement 4195

This government has been in consultation with industry and local councils and has several strategies in place to reduce the number of unsafely disposed of syringes in our communities. In fact, all injecting equipment supplied by Queensland Health is supplied with disposable containers, such as this one. I have said before in this parliament that this government is not just about improved compliance with the law, it strongly encourages greater education among employers and employees to ensure that workplaces are safe. So today I am encouraging all employers to take part in the 22 statewide workshops that my department will now be holding from the Gold Coast to Mount Isa during November and December on this very important issue. The seminars will start Monday week, on 11 November. They will run over three hours and feature panel discussions with members drawn from the Queensland Hotels Association; the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union; the Brisbane City Council, Queensland Health's Public Health Unit; and the Alcohol and Drug Information Service. These seminars will spell out the findings of this audit, how the Workplace Health and Safety Act applies to workplaces in regard to managing sharps, and the five-step process to minimise the risks that these devices pose to both employees and employers. Anyone wishing to attend should contact the Division of Workplace Health and Safety for advice.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Young Achievement Australia State Awards Hon. P. T. LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Innovation and Information Economy) (10.15 a.m.): by leave: We all know in the Smart State that we have a lot of smart young people with clever ideas out there. On Saturday night the spotlight was well and truly on these smart young people at the Young Achievement Australia state awards. These awards recognise and honour the business skills of our outstanding young Queenslanders in schools. These awards put students through their paces in a 24-week business skills program during which time they form real companies, develop organisational structures, raise capital, market and sell their products, and finally liquidate their companies. This is real business experience, which is critical to commercial success. Two hundred and seventy students took part in this program from across the state—from Thursday Island, to Mount Isa, to Gladstone, to Toowoomba. I handed out the awards on Saturday night to these inspirational young students. I was proud of each of their schools, but I did not care what school in particular they went to. I was proud for their parents, but I did not care what their parents did for a living or how much they earned. I was delighted with the students' personal achievements, but I did not care how well they did in class or whether they won the award or they were runners-up, or just competed. What mattered on Saturday night was that these students were achievers. These students are doing their bit to grow and develop their business skills for a chance to represent Queensland in the national awards. Some of the winners included Gladstone State High School, which took out the Company of the Year Award for its tourist information CD to central Queensland. I think that it was mentioned in that area's local newspaper today. Nanango State High School—and the member for Nanango is very supportive of this school—took out two wins. One was for product innovation for this gadget that they have called the Uzit, which is a slide-on wooden clip or peg to help you wind up your toothpaste tube. As I said, these awards are about giving students business skills so that they can apply them when they go out in the big, bad world. Mr Seeney: How does it work? Mr LUCAS: You roll up the end of the toothpaste tube and then you do not have to squeeze it all over your bathroom. Toowoomba State High School won the e-commerce award for designing web sites for small businesses. This morning, members would have noticed the article in the Courier-Mail that said that the Anglican Church Grammar School also did very well with its numberplate border design business. When you see the terrible catastrophes that confront the world at the moment—Bali, September 11—we only need to walk into one of our high schools in this state to be inspired by the wonderful work of these inspirational students in government and non-government schools. These awards demonstrate that there is no shortage of smart young Queenslanders with innovative ideas here in the Smart State. These awards also show how our young, bright minds 4196 Private Members' Statements 30 Oct 2002 have the support of this government to get business skills and real-world experience, which are critical elements for their future success. I might also add that in the Courier-Mail there is reference to a Local Government Association survey that refers to, among other things, the Bohemian index. Apparently, Queensland does not rate too well when it comes to the Bohemian index. There were a number of criticisms of our western and north-western zones of this state in terms of how they fared in the Bohemian index. The fact is that, in those areas of Queensland, that is often where the great productive might and wealth of this state lies. The north-west minerals province is going to pay a lot more towards the future of Australia's economic development than a so-called Bohemian index for the caffelatte drinkers in Lygon Street, Carlton. When we look at the figures that are fair dinkum about science and penetration, we see that Queensland leads the country, with 70 per cent of households having computers, compared to 67 per cent of households in the rest of the nation. Fifty-five per cent of Queensland homes have Internet access, compared to 53 per cent internationally. Let us also look at what is in our regions. In Toowoomba, where the Leader of the Opposition lives, the fibre composite centre is world class. That will create real jobs for Queensland. There is the Australian Tropical Forest Institute in Cairns. The fact is that Queensland does exist outside the capital city. The fact is the Commonwealth government can spend a little more time and effort when it comes to supporting regional Australia.

SITTING HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (10.20 a.m.), by leave, without notice I move— That notwithstanding anything contained in the standing and sessional orders for this day's sitting, the House can continue to meet past 7.30 p.m. Private members' motions will be debated between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. The House can then break for dinner and resume its sitting at 8.30 p.m. The order of business shall then be general business followed by a 30-minute adjournment debate. Motion agreed to.

ADDITIONAL SITTING DAY Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (10.20 a.m.): I wish to advise members that, in addition to the proposed sitting days for December, the House will also meet on Friday, 6 December 2002.

CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMITTEE Report Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (10.20 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House the parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee's annual report for the financial year 2001-02. Under the Crime and Misconduct Act, the principal functions of the committee are to monitor and review the discharge of the functions of the Crime and Misconduct Commission and to report to parliament. The committee's annual report outlines how it has discharged those functions during the last financial year. As chairman of the committee, I wish to acknowledge the dedicated and valuable contribution made by the members of the committee and by the committee's staff throughout the year. I commend the committee's annual report to the House.

NOTICE OF MOTION Service Delivery, Beattie Government Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.21 a.m.): I give notice that I will move— That this parliament condemns the Beattie Labor government for the serious decline in service delivery to the people of Queensland as a result of its four-year history of financial mismanagement and maladministration.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Commissioner for Electrical Safety, Appointment Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.21 a.m.): Jim Soorley might have stepped off it for now, but the Labor gravy train rolls on, picking up new passengers all the time. The Beattie government announced in August that it would appoint a new commissioner for electrical safety to provide independent advice, a five-year appointment with 30 Oct 2002 Private Members' Statements 4197 generous remuneration and allowances. Given the requirements of the job, we would expect the government to have sought the very best candidate from the biggest and best possible pool of applicants. Imagine my surprise when two weeks ago the Industrial Relations Minister quietly listed the appointment in the Gazette. The position was not advertised, no nominations were called and the appointment was made without any of the usual fanfare we have come to expect from this PR obsessed government. Who was appointed to be the expert independent adviser on electrical safety? None other than Labor and union hack Jack Camp, a member of the ALP since 1965 and former Queensland vice-president, a former organiser with the old Electrical Trades Union and the CEPU, a man described by political commentators as a factional warlord with the Premier's old Labor Unity faction and as such a man who protected the disgraced former member for Woodridge, Bill D'Arcy, against preselection challenge year after year, a man who as recently as June was still doing factional deals with Simon Crean over the farcical 60-40 rule. He could not roll Simon but, in proof that the union ties remain strong, all Jack Camp's years of loyal service to the ALP have paid off with this taxpayer-funded appointment. The Beattie government has made handing out jobs for the boys an ugly art form, displaying its total arrogance and contempt for the people of Queensland. But this rails-run appointment for a perpetual union and party hack ranks right up there with Don Brown's appointment to the Industrial Relations Commission. Jack Camp's appointment is a joke on the electrical industry and it makes a mockery of the Beattie government's so-called electrical safety reforms.

Townsville Basketball Ms PHILLIPS (Thuringowa—ALP) (10.25 a.m.): This House is already aware of my strong public support for young women in my electorate. I am delighted now to bring the news that 15- year-old Rebecca Vanderjagt has just been awarded a highly prized basketball scholarship to train at the AIS in Canberra. Rebecca, a talented year 11 student at Townsville High School, is part of their McDonald's North Queensland Basketball Academy sponsored by George and Lorraine Colbran and managed so well by Steve Buttsworth. Rebecca's family is new to Townsville. Her parents, Jennifer and Ron, told me that they chose to move up north from New South Wales because of the excellent basketball opportunities we provide. Their three children are all potential basketball stars. Greg is already at the AIS and David is a keen player. Rebecca is a real all-rounder. As well as being an excellent athlete, she is good academically, and her great personality and leadership skills helped her to win the AIS scholarship. I want to record my congratulations to her and best wishes for her future sporting career. Rebecca is a good example of the spin-off we predicted when the Townsville Fire was established as Queensland's women's National Basketball League team last year. I stated then that this would be an excellent motivator for young women in our regional community who do not have ready access to the role models available in the capital cities. I am proud to say that Townsville Fire is going great guns this year, with three wins from four games. On Sunday I was part of a very enthusiastic sellout crowd that watched as the Fire upset last season's runners up, the Sydney Flames, with a final score of 75 to 71. The whole team was outstanding, especially captain Natalie Porter; the MVP, Jodie Datson in her 100th WNBL game; and Canadian Claudia Brassard, whose daughter Maya celebrated her first birthday on Sunday. Our community is really feeling the benefits of having this team in our region. It has brought international players and their families to live and play in our twin cities and it is proving to be an inspiration to young female sportspeople such as Rebecca Vanderjagt. Congratulations to them all.

Housing Industry Trade Training Scheme Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (10.27 a.m.): A significant level of concern has been expressed by group schemes at proposals to reduce or cease all together the Housing Industry Trade Training Scheme. In my electorate, Gladstone Area Group Apprentice Limited general manager Dave Burns said that without the HITT scheme GAGAL could not afford to employ any more carpentry apprentices. Under the HITT scheme, training providers receive a financial component within public housing projects to train apprentices. He said that GAGAL employed 45 apprentice carpenters, with the HITT program providing a guarantee of ongoing work and assurance that the apprentices would complete their indentures. He said that apprentice 4198 Questions Without Notice 30 Oct 2002 carpenters currently employed by GAGAL will complete their indentures and that that was guaranteed, but no new carpentry apprentices would start with the group until the government decides on the future of the HITT program. He went on to say that the government's decision was hard to fathom because without group training the current skill shortage would become chronic. In the Gladstone district, of the 53 apprentice carpenters indentured, 45 are employed by the group, an indication of the role played by group training. I acknowledge the minister's comments that it will cease because of a reduction in the federal funding. However, from the group training association's perspective, it was indicated that $3 million was specifically identified for the training of apprentices from tobacco tax in 1992. The role of the department was to provide the work opportunities through the public housing program. They have found it very difficult to understand why the HITT program also has to be reduced or cancelled. I would support the minister in his calls to the federal government to re-establish the funding, but I also call on the state government to support training for apprentices in this state in a time of skills shortages.

Breast Cancer Day Dr LESLEY CLARK (Barron River—ALP) (10.28 a.m.): Monday, 28 October was Australian Breast Cancer Day. I join with the member for Albert in bringing this important event to the attention of the House. In Cairns, our local breast screen advisory committee, ably headed by Councillor Deidre Ford, organises a breakfast with guest speakers every year to recognise this important day. This year we heard from local Cairns service providers, including Dr Rae Garrett, the cytology scientist with Queensland Health Pathology who is also the coordinator of the multidisciplinary breast cancer group in Cairns, consisting of breast physicians, surgeons, pathologists, radiologists, oncologists, scientists, nurses and counsellors. This group meets weekly to ensure a coordinated approach to the treatment of each patient, and Dr Garrett described the benefits that flow from this improved communication and cooperation among specialists, including an Australia-first procedure that minimises the need for repeated surgery to remove cancerous breast tissue. Eileen Bedford, the Health Promotion Officer with Breastscreen Queensland Cairns service, entertained us with a look at the lighter side of life on the road with the mobile breast screen unit that covers a vast area from Cardwell to the Torres Strait and west to the Gulf of Carpentaria. Sadly, every day 22 women are still diagnosed with breast cancer and 11 women die. Being in the at-risk over 50 age group myself, I am due next month for my regular screening mammogram. Yes, it may be a little uncomfortable but it is worthwhile for my peace of mind when I get the all clear, which I hope will continue to be the case. I urge all members to actively promote this service to their constituents because it is the single most important thing that women can do to increase their chances of surviving breast cancer. In conclusion, may I thank all those wonderful professionals and volunteers in Cairns, including our newly appointed breast care nurse, Sandy Gregg, for their commitment and dedication to the women in far-north Queensland. The strengthening support for Women with Breast Cancer in Rural and Remote Areas program is really working and is helping to save lives, confirming the message that cancer does not have to be a death sentence, no matter where we live. Mr SPEAKER: The time for private members' statements has expired. I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from the Forest Lake College in the electorate of Algester.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Smart State Mr HORAN (10.30 a.m.): The Premier has seen the Australian Local Government Association's annual State of the regions report showing that Queensland does not figure anywhere in the top 10 creative regions. I ask the Premier: does this not show that what should have been a good policy—Smart State—is just being used by him for publicity and propaganda and that he is not delivering the planning, substance or results for Queensland? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for his question, which I anticipated. According to one of the theories used by this ALGA report, the bohemian index is a very strong predictor of high-tech industry concentrations. The bohemian index takes in amenities such as the local music scene, vibrant street culture, small art galleries and cafes. It is also a measure of artistically creative people, such as composers, sculptors and dancers—all of whom are very important, let me make that clear. 30 Oct 2002 Questions Without Notice 4199

This is one of the main ways in which the ALGA report measures on whether or not we have smart regions. I would hardly think that is an index that would be universally accepted in this House as a determinant of biotechnology, IT, science, research or any of those indicators. But let me go on. Would members believe that on this measure the Queensland pastoral region—our south-west—comes bottom of the league table? What a surprise! I must say that I have not found too many composers, sculptors and dancers living in Birdsville and Cunnamulla. More is the pity, but I have not. Mr Foley: A few bush poets. Mr BEATTIE: Yes, a few bush poets. But a survey released earlier this month shows that Queenslanders now lead the country, with almost 70 per cent of households with computer access compared with 67 per cent nationally and more than 55 per cent with Internet connection compared with 53 per cent nationally. That is the test. That is the one we want for a Smart State. That is a great result. But honourable members should just listen to this. Honourable members would be interested in this. The report says that a leading indicator of a metropolitan area's high-technology success is a large same-sex household population. That is what it says. I will repeat that. This is what the Leader of the Opposition is advocating. The report says that a leading indicator of a metropolitan area's high-technology success is a large same-sex household population. There is nothing wrong with that. But that is one of the indicators. It says that these findings support the view that encouraging diversity and lowering barriers to entry can help to attract creative capital and generate technology based growth. On this measure, five of the bottom 10 regions, including the Gold Coast with its thriving high-tech industry, are in Queensland. Using the logic of this report and the Leader of the Opposition's criticism, we should be encouraging people to set up same-sex households if we want to accelerate our Smart State credentials. That is what it means. The Leader of the Opposition did not read the report. Let me table chapter 6. This is a nonsense and a joke. The Leader of the Opposition should read what he asks about and not walk where angels fear to tread.

Smart State Mr HORAN: I refer the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy to the fact that we now know from Australian Local Government Association figures that many Queensland regions are on— Mr BEATTIE: I have to say that I am delighted to see the Leader of the Opposition in here supporting same-sex couples. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. Mr HORAN: We now know from Australian Local Government Association figures that many of Queensland's regions are coming last in terms of creative industries due to the neglect and failure of the Labor government. I refer to the latest Bureau of Statistics figures—and I table them—that show Queensland has the lowest expenditure in mainland Australia on the very industries the government claims Smart State is all about. These figures show that Queensland spends less than the other mainland states on physical sciences, law, justice and law enforcement, and information, computing and communications science. I ask the minister: is that not the reason he is failing to deliver Smart State results? Like the Premier, he is all propaganda and no results. I table the ABS figures. There is nothing about same-sex couples in there. Mr LUCAS: I am delighted to get my first question from the Leader of the Opposition in 18 months as a minister in this parliament. I am the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy, not the minister for sex. I will leave that to the Leader of the Opposition to theorise on a little bit more. The Premier indicated very strongly that what we are interested in in Queensland, when it comes to commercialising in the Smart State, is creating jobs for the future. The Leader of the Opposition ought to know very well, as a member from Toowoomba, that this government puts many millions of dollars into the Fibre Composites Institute and that we want to create commercialised opportunities for the future. We do not, frankly, care what is of interest to people in Lygon Street, Carlton. We care about the statistics that show how Queensland is going. Mr Horan interjected. 4200 Questions Without Notice 30 Oct 2002

Mr LUCAS: I will give the Leader of the Opposition some statistics. The Office of Economic and Statistical Research—the Queensland Government Statistician—indicates that 70 per cent of households in Queensland have access to computers compared with 67 per cent nationally, and 55 per cent of Queensland homes have Internet connections compared with 53 per cent nationally. We need to get past the time when all we export overseas is dirt and instead export our scientists' great ideas. Not once in 18 months have I heard the Leader of the Opposition make even an attempt to talk about an alternative commercialisation or technology policy. Not once have I heard the Leader of the Opposition say, 'This is how we are going to exploit our natural biodiversity.' We are one of the 12 countries in the world that is megabiodiverse. We are the only developed nation like that. There are more tree species in North America than there are in Europe. There are more tree species in one hectare of rainforest in the Daintree. That is why we are funding the Australian Tropical Forest Institute in Cairns. That is why we are about commercialising these opportunities. The Leader of the Opposition can run down western and regional Queensland, but the fact is that the Queensland government spends more per capita on research and development than any other state. The Commonwealth government spends much less than Queensland—$73 per head nationally. The Leader of the Opposition should get on to Ian Macfarlane—he also represents Toowoomba—and tell him why he puts up with a situation where the Commonwealth government spends $73 per head nationally and $33 per head in Queensland. The fact is that we will keep on working, but we do not want to have the Argentina-style policies of the Leader of the Opposition. Argentina is going in the same direction it was in the 1890s—backwards. We want to position Queensland for the future. We want to create jobs. That is why earlier I was talking about working in our schools to create an environment where school students value business and innovation. The Leader of the Opposition wants to write them off. The fact is that this state has an enormous future, but we have to work hard. It would work a lot better if we had an opposition prepared to look at how we can commercialise and capitalise on our great successes in this Smart State.

Epilepsy Ms MALE: I understand the government recently increased support for a very important group of Queenslanders—people with epilepsy—and I ask the Premier: can he please inform the House of the extent of that support and the reasons for giving further assistance to Epilepsy Queensland? Mr BEATTIE: Before I answer this question, based on the question by the Leader of the Opposition earlier all we have to do on this bohemian index is offer cheap housing to same-sex couples in most of our rural and remote Queensland areas to increase the Smart State credentials under this nonsense of an index. This is an absolute joke. Mr HORAN: I rise to a point of order. Mr BEATTIE: You don't like it, do you? Mr HORAN: The Premier is just turning this parliament into a farce. He cannot answer a proper question. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr BEATTIE: More to the point, the Leader of the Opposition asked us a question about a survey that was based on rubbish. He came in here and he has made an absolute goose of himself because he relied on a survey that he did not read, and he also relied on a newspaper report. If he has made a goose of himself that is his fault; he should not come in here and blame anyone else. Let me come back to this very important question. I want to answer this question in relation to epilepsy because it is a very important question. Epilepsy is an unfortunate part of everyday life for thousands of Australians. People of all ages and from all walks of life, including many prominent and highly successful Australians, have epilepsy. In fact one in 50 Queenslanders will develop epilepsy at some time during their life. In Queensland today there are approximately 70,000 Queenslanders living with epilepsy. Epilepsy Queensland's key activity is to provide support services, advice and assistance to people with epilepsy and their families. Ironically, Epilepsy Queensland says it is now a victim of its own success. Because it provides excellent service to its client group—a fact that has been 30 Oct 2002 Questions Without Notice 4201 acknowledged internationally through a range of prize-winning activities—Epilepsy Queensland has now successfully brought many of those with epilepsy out of the shadows. In years past, people were reluctant to own up to a condition that can too often attract discrimination in the workplace and in the community. Increased government support four years ago, a range of successful Epilepsy Queensland education campaigns and an international prize- winning web site for children have meant that more Queenslanders have turned to Epilepsy Queensland for help. Well done! Epilepsy Queensland is now struggling to meet the greater demands of its increased clientele. I am therefore proud to inform the House that the state government has extended $90,000 to ensure Epilepsy Queensland's short to medium term future. The support is coming from three portfolios: $30,000 from Disability Services Queensland, $30,000 from Education Queensland and $30,000 from Queensland Health. I thank the three Ministers, Anna Bligh, Wendy Edmond and Judy Spence, and their departments for their kind and appropriate support. This government's increased funding also means support in regional areas is assured. This one-off assistance is separate from the annual $170,000 from Disability Services Queensland and Queensland Health. These are tough times for charitable organisations, and from time to time the government feels compelled to dig deep and top up its contributions to worthy causes. I thank the honourable member for Glass House for pursuing this issue. I know she has concerns about it, as do we. We will do everything we possibly can to assist. In conclusion, let me come back to this report that has been referred to because I think it is important that we have our full response to it on record. I seek to incorporate in Hansard our response to this nonsense report because I am not going to have Queensland's Smart State reputation damaged by some bohemian survey that makes little sense and which would encourage the spread of same-sex couples in regional and provincial Queensland simply to meet their criteria. I seek leave to incorporate that. Leave granted. According to one of the theories used by the ALGA report, the Bohemian Index is a very strong predictor of high- tech industry concentrations. The Bohemian Index takes in amenities such as the local music scene, vibrant street culture, small art galleries and cafes. It is also a measure of artistically creative people such as composers, sculptors and dancers. This is one of the main ways in which the ALGA report measures if we have Smart regions. Would you believe that on this measure, the Queensland Pastoral region (our south-west) comes bottom of the league table. What a surprise. I must say I haven't found too many composers, sculptors and dancers living in Birdsville and Cunnamulla. But a survey released earlier this month shows Queenslanders now lead the country with almost 70% of households with computer access compared to 67% nationally, and more than 55% with Internet connection compared to 53% nationally. The report says that a leading indicator of a metropolitan area's high-technology success is a large same-sex household population. And it says that these findings support the view that encouraging diversity and lowering barriers to entry can help to attract creative capital and generate technology-based growth. On this measure five of the bottom 10 regions, including the Gold Coast with its thriving high-tech industry, are in Queensland. Using the logic of this report, we should be encouraging people to set up same-sex households if we want to accelerate our Smart State credentials. All we have to do is offer cheap housing to same sex couples in most of rural and remote Queensland, the Fitzroy region and the Gold Coast, and we'll be well on the way to increasing our Smart State reputation. I have to say that we will continue to concentrate on more direct methods such as providing an improved education system, skilling the workforce and encouraging research and development. According to the ALGA report, another measure of how smart a region is in terms of the ‘new economy’ is how many of a community's population belong to the ‘super creative core’ such as poets and novelists, artists, entertainers and actors, think-tank researchers and media occupations. On this measure, the ACT comes top of the table, with Hobart and Darwin ninth and tenth. Brisbane does not even figure in the ALGA's top 10. This is obviously nonsense when it comes to judging a region's high-tech performance. I have to tell the ALGA that three of our many research facilities, Queensland Institute of Medical Research, the Institute for Molecular Bioscience and the Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences, will shortly house more than 2,300 scientists and each will be the biggest facility of its kind in the country. 4202 Questions Without Notice 30 Oct 2002

And the Reef Network, an $85 million high-speed cable, now spans the 1800 kilometres between Brisbane and Cairns. Among many other initiatives, the State Government has also launched: The Australian Institute of Commercialisation to help speed discoveries, concepts and inventions from the test tube and drawing board to the cash register; A $100M Queensland BioCapital Fund to boost venture capital investment in emerging technology; The $60 million Australian Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology designed to put Queensland at the forefront of molecular science; The $40 million Food for Life Centre of Excellence to provide Queensland with a world-class research centre dealing with food science and technology; A $15 million Queensland Biodiscovery Fund to help exploit unique products from the reef and rainforest and to attract foreign and inter-state organisations to conduct product development in Queensland. None of these feature in the ALGA report.

Yabulu Nickel, Government Assistance to BHP Billiton Mr JOHNSON: My question is directed to the Minister for State Development. I refer to the Beattie government's decision to provide $10 million of taxpayers' money to BHP Billiton to expand the Yabulu nickel refinery in Townsville and the Premier's recent decision to enter into more secret incentive deals with Richard Branson's Virgin Blue. I now ask: why has the Beattie government offered the $10 million incentive deal to BHP Billiton given the fickle nature of world nickel prices and the fact that BHP Billiton made a before-tax loss in the six months to 31 December last year of US$13 billion? Why does the Beattie government continue to hand out favours to Mr Branson given that the ABS figures, which I table, show the percentage of the Queensland labour force employed in the air transport industry continues to decline? Mr BARTON: The opposition continues to attack in a most inappropriate way the efforts of this government to ensure that it gets contestable jobs into this state. Mr Bredhauer interjected. Mr BARTON: I take the interjection that was just made by the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Main Roads that those opposite should go to Cairns at this point in time and complain about this whole concept of incentives and see what the people of Cairns do to them after the first flights have just started to arrive of the new Australia Airlines that is being hubbed out of Cairns. We will have 320 direct jobs and 350,000 additional tourists in the first year as well as probably thousands of extra jobs in the rest of the tourist industry and development areas. That is the best and most recent example of a success story of what these incentive attractions do. Quite frankly, BHP Billiton has been in negotiation with the Queensland government for quite some time. Initial indications were given to BHP Billiton of the nature of the package that could be offered to it for the expansion of the Yabulu nickel treatment plant if it does extend the plant. We were in negotiations with that company prior to my becoming the minister and those negotiations have continued subsequent to that. Certainly the Premier met with BHP Billiton while he was on his recent overseas trade and investment attraction mission. At this time BHP Billiton's international board is looking at all the competing proposals for expansions right across the BHP Billiton group worldwide. It is not just in competition with other companies and, in our case, other countries and other states; when it comes to these major corporations there is intense internal competition from the various divisions to get their projects up. They have to prove to their international boards that this will be a substantial contributor to the wealth of the company and will be profitable. It has been made very clear to us that this is a project that depends also on expansion of one of their nickel mines in Western Australia where the ore body would receive some primary processing and then be transported to Yabulu. If we are not able to offer incentives of the order that have been foreshadowed that we are negotiating with BHP Billiton, it is very clear from both the negotiations that the Premier had with the company's chief executives in London and the negotiations that I have been having with the Australian management and the management of Queensland Nickel itself that we simply will not be considered for that project. Perhaps we could talk briefly about Virgin. The announcement that has been made about Virgin—and we are finalising that—will see in excess of an additional 350 high quality aviation maintenance jobs being provided in this state, including the provision of flight simulators which will have immense impact on the aviation sector in this state. 30 Oct 2002 Questions Without Notice 4203

East Timor Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: My question is directed to the Honourable the Premier. We often take for granted service and communication issues associated with our state's vast distances. The people of East Timor face many similar issues. However, our neighbour, the world's newest nation, is struggling. Are there any tangible ways in which we as a state can support the people of East Timor as they strive to create communication systems that will improve their education and health services? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Stafford for his question. I know that last year he visited East Timor with the Minister for Education. I know that he has a strong interest in this. I also know that a number of churches and schools, particularly in the Catholic system, are very supportive of the links with East Timor, which has a very strong Catholic base. Today I am delighted to detail the support this government is offering to assist the Connect East Timor campaign. Connect East Timor is a most worthy group seeking to establish a basic communications system for the fledgling nation's villages. There are over 470 towns and villages in East Timor, accommodating almost half the population. When I visited East Timor some time ago I was surprised at the lack of links that existed and the need for better communications. There are no telecommunications services to these locations and there are a limited number of doctors, most of whom are located in the capital, Dili. In a medical emergency it can take hours or days to send a request for assistance. East Timor, and the Connect East Timor campaign, is aiming to raise funds for a basic telecommunications system using low-cost, proven and robust radio technology linking all villages and towns. That would be the most acceptable technology for East Timor. The system will function similarly to the Royal Flying Doctor Service and the School of the Air. Improved health outcomes will be the primary benefit but there is potential for gains in education, government and community. Therefore, today I am delighted to announce that we will offer a cash donation of $40,000. As well, through the various arms of government we are offering support of more than $150,000 in in-kind support. There is $18,000 of office space being made available from the Department of Innovation and Information Economy. The Main Roads Department is offering $96,000 in the repair, servicing and supply of radio equipment. Queensland Rail is offering surplus radio equipment to the value of $65,000. This includes 30 VHF radios, one base station and associated equipment. The radios will be refurbished, have frequencies changed, and all transport costs for the radios will be met by QR. Ergon and Energex are offering radio equipment as well. Other departments are also looking to assist. This level of support is consistent with the state government's ongoing commitment to the development of our emerging new neighbour, and I gave commitments when I visited East Timor that we would be following these matters up and we have. I urge all businesses and organisations across the state with the ability to assist this group to contact East Timor Connect through Peter de Haas on level 8 at 111 George Street. I have to say that a safe region needs secure and stable neighbours. A secure and stable East Timor helps in the security of our region, helps in the security of Australia and helps in the security of Queensland. This is not just doing the right thing; this is in the long-term interests of Australia.

Smart State Dr WATSON: I refer the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy to disturbing revelations in the Local Government Association's State of the regions report which confirms that for all the Smart State rhetoric Queensland does not even appear as a blip on the high-tech, info- tech, bio-tech radar screen. In the light of this report, I ask: is it true that IBM recently made a decision to locate its Asia-Pacific regional software solutions centre with 300 skilled jobs in Victoria? Given that executives of the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Lab in Boston recently met with Australian representatives to establish a similar facility in New South Wales, can the minister outline to what extent Queensland has been involved in these discussions and the reason why we have not been able to attract either of these facilities to the so-called Smart State? Mr LUCAS: In relation to the MIT software facility, the member would have to speak with my ministerial colleague the Minister for State Development. But I am delighted to expand further as to what we are doing in the Smart State to ensure that we take the maximum advantage of our tremendous natural— 4204 Questions Without Notice 30 Oct 2002

Dr Watson interjected. Mr LUCAS: The honourable member obviously is not aware of the significant investment that IBM has on the Gold Coast with respect to its Tivoli e-security laboratories. Dr Watson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr LUCAS: We are a very much sought after destination when it comes to information technology companies, and in Queensland we build on our strengths. Some 80 per cent of the world's technology in mining comes from Australia. It is no secret therefore that the largest IT company in the world dealing with software for the mining industry is Mincom, which is based in Brisbane. The largest Australian owned publicly listed software company is Technology One, which is also a company based in Brisbane. Oracle has one of its three world software development centres based in Brisbane. There were no incentives, but it is based in Brisbane because of the level of innovation and science being done here. We in Queensland realise that we need to work on our strengths. One of the key areas of competency is e-security. That is why my department has established an e-security cluster to work further on our strengths in relation to e-security. We will continue to work on it. In relation to biotechnology, let me talk about the $60 million investment in the Queensland Institute of Medical Research. When that is finished, it will be the largest medical research institute in the Southern Hemisphere. Dr Watson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Moggill! That is my final warning. Mr LUCAS: Some $20 million of that $60 million was devoted by the Queensland government. When one looks at the figures of, for example, the Ernst and Young biotechnology report—we chose the same survey that the Commonwealth used for the sake of consistency—last year 815 new bio-tech jobs were created since 1999, a 67 per cent overall growth rate in the industry. We are funding programs such as the Queensland University of Technology's Bachelor of Biotechnology Innovation, which aims to make scientists better businesspeople while at the same time making businesspeople better scientists. We have to work hard. I note that the member for Moggill was a former university professor, but I have not heard him get up here and give an alternative policy when it comes to the economic technological development of this state. He is like the Leader of the Opposition in that respect—a policy-free zone. I would not mind if we had a debate on the relevant merits of the policies that he has when it comes to commercialising. But do members know what the really sad thing is? It will be the farmers who will get it in the neck when those opposite do not look at technology in the future for this state.

Sugar Industry Assistance Mr RODGERS: I refer the Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities to the government's sugarcane crop scheme to assist canegrowers to replant and re-establish their crops, and I ask: can the minister advise of any further incentives for growers to borrow under this scheme? Mr PALASZCZUK: I thank the member for the question and also thank him and other members of the Rural Queensland Council for their input into the government's $30 million package announced by our Premier just recently. I also want to reaffirm the comments made by the Minister for State Development that the cooperation between the federal government and the state government is on track. Both governments are working cooperatively towards the future sustainability of our sugar industry. Yesterday's announcement by the federal minister is particularly good news for prospective borrowers under our government's $20 million crop replanting scheme, which of course is in addition to the $150 million scheme that has been put together by both the state and federal governments. I can announce today that canegrowers borrowing under our government's concessional loans for replanting and fertilising their cane crop are now eligible for interest rate subsidies of 50 per cent. The federal government announced that the subsidy on loans of up to $50,000 would be available for loans under our scheme and also under the commercial loans system. Our sugarcane crop scheme is administered by the Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority. This scheme offers a low-cost loan of up to $100,000 per farming enterprise to cover the costs of planting and fertilising the 2003 crop. This scheme is of real benefit for our canegrowers, and I 30 Oct 2002 Questions Without Notice 4205 appreciate that the federal government has acknowledged this by ensuring the loans are eligible for the interest rate subsidy. With an interest rate subsidy on top of the concessional interest rate of 6.07 per cent fixed for seven years, the provision for interest only repayments for the first two years, no means test on farm assets and up to $206,500 of non-farm assets, this certainly makes this scheme very attractive to our canegrowers. The maximum advance under this scheme is at a rate of $250 per hectare towards the costs of planting and fertiliser. Applications for this scheme are available from QRAA and also from the Canegrowers organisation. The sugar industry has faced a run of very difficult seasons and a poor world price. Industry projections, however, are that cane production has improved considerably during this season, and of course this is welcome. The latest projection for cane production of more than 34 million tonnes of cane this season is certainly an improvement on the results of the disastrous 2000 year and last year as well. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Darling Downs, I welcome a second group of students from Forest Lake College in the electorate of Algester.

Tick and Plant Inspection Charges Mr HOPPER: I refer the Minister for Primary Industries to the devastating drought and the extreme financial hardships being experienced by our primary producers. On 1 August 2002 with no consultation the minister introduced excessive new tick and plant inspection charges. Primary producers are already hurting from the effects of a devastating drought, and these new charges are just rubbing salt into their wounds. I ask: will the minister drop his new charges imposed on producers until their shires are no longer drought declared? I ask the minister to please provide a simple yes or no answer to this question. Mr PALASZCZUK: I can recall a question of a similar nature asked of me last Thursday. Now that the question has been asked in a more sensible manner, I might respond to the honourable member. At the outset, let me say this: irrespective of what the climatic conditions are, our government's main priority is biosecurity. We want to ensure that our cattle herds and all other animal herds are protected from FMD and BSE. To ensure that happens, our government has introduced a raft of measures including quite a deal of new money. Some of the subsidies provided to our cattle producers in relation to tick fees and charges have been reallocated to a far more important area, that is, biosecurity. We certainly are facing very tough conditions. Members should try to imagine what would happen if we had an outbreak of any sort of exotic disease in Queensland right now. That would cause enormous problems to our primary producers. Therefore, the government has realigned the subsidies on tick fees to the far greater priority area of biosecurity. Our government will stick by that. Our government is the only government in Australia that has maintained its drought relief assistance scheme, which has served us well since the early 1990s. We have not changed that. Indeed, this Friday I will be meeting with industry representatives from a raft of different industries to have a closer look at our drought relief scheme for the main purpose of trying to improve it and make it more accessible to industries other than the industries eligible to claim under our Drought Relief Assistance Scheme. I believe that we as a government have done more for our primary producers than the mob opposite has ever done. The proof of the pudding is that we are getting acknowledgment from our primary industries sector, irrespective of whether it is the cattle industry, the grain industry, the horticulture industry or the amenity horticulture industry. Those industries are behind our government.

Police Service, Capital Works Mr HAYWARD: Will the Minister for Police and Corrective Services inform the parliament about the latest achievements in the Beattie government's ongoing capital works program to provide better policing infrastructure for the community? Mr McGRADY: I thank the member for his interest in these matters. In fact, his electorate has been one of the beneficiaries of the capital works program. At the last election we gave a commitment to build 10 police beats and 10 shopfronts over a three-year period. In terms of police beats we are actually building on our election commitments. Last financial year we funded seven police beats in one year—for the Holloways Beach, Crestmead-Marsden, Oxley, Tullawong, North Ipswich, Rochedale South and Goodna communities. This year we have committed to 4206 Questions Without Notice 30 Oct 2002 establishing a further five, to be located at Manoora, Redbank Plains, Narangba, Mango Hill and Beachmere. Last year we also built new shopfronts at Cannon Hill, Morayfield and Thuringowa. Four more new shopfronts are being funded this year, at Coolangatta, Springfield, Milton- Paddington and Deception Bay. However, the police beats and shopfronts program is only one part of our overall capital works program. I recently went to Agnes Water with Trevor Strong to officially open an $850,000 police station and residence. The people out there were celebrating that. They were jubilant. They had a big celebration at the opening of the local police station. Mr Terry Sullivan: The local member is working there, too. Mr McGRADY: The local member is working extremely hard. Next month I will be opening a new station for the Calamvale community worth almost $2.5 million. Police capital works projects are already proving an important economic stimulant in regional areas such as Toowoomba, the site of Queensland's largest current police capital works project. This big-ticket capital works project is progressing well, with stage 1 of the Toowoomba police station, worth almost $10 million, due for completion in December. Of course, this partly answers the question the member for Cunningham placed on notice yesterday. There is also an $11 million police station being built at Mount Isa. This is not just a police station; it is also a watch-house and a district headquarters. This will be completed by January of next year. This builds on a number of major capital works projects which were completed during 2001. These projects included the construction of new police stations at North Rockhampton, worth $2.3 million, Kowanyama, Marlborough, South Kolan, the completion of stage 2 of the Yamanto police district headquarters and the replacement of the Roma district headquarters, the opening of which the member opposite attended.

Aerial Firefighting Mrs PRATT: My question is directed to the Minister for Emergency Services. After considerable pushing to get the department to recognise the benefits of using agricultural aircraft to fight fires, the minister stated yesterday that he employed aerial agricultural operators to aid in fighting the recent bushfires in Toowoomba, Tara and other districts. I recognise this change, and the people who fight the fires and property owners appreciate the minister's willingness to finally utilise these available resources to protect them. I acknowledge that the minister engaged a St George operator, but I ask: why were South Australian aircraft brought into Queensland when offers from two equally qualified aerial operators, located at Dalby and situated much closer to the fire site, with the same aircraft and capacity were available and had in fact written to the minister's office last year offering their time and labour free as a community service if Queensland Emergency Services paid for only the fuel? Why were these two Dalby operators not approached? Will the minister engage Queenslanders in future firefighting activities as this was the first time these aircraft—I use the minister's own words: 'cost-effective aircraft'—were used? What was the total cost to Queensland of the air tractor aircraft component of the firefighting in the exercise? Mr REYNOLDS: I thank the member for that multifaceted question. Let me first take away some of the mythology that seems to be developing on the opposition benches and with the Independent member for Nanango. As I have stated in this House on many occasions, Queensland has an air firefighting strategy. Indeed, we are working with the six states, the two territories and the federal government— Mrs Pratt: That was not my question. Mr REYNOLDS: I am coming to the member's question. We have had that strategy as a state strategy—the former Minister for Emergency Services indicates that as well—all the time: to bring in helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft if the Fire Commissioner and the district disaster coordinator actually involved in that firefighting strategy deem it necessary. In Toowoomba and in Tara it was deemed necessary. The air tractors came in and did a very good job. Unlike the member for Toowoomba South, I give a great deal of credit to the urban and rural firefighters. Rather than making a slur on those firefighters by saying that the only time the fires started to be managed was when these miraculous— Mr HORAN: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find that remark totally offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn. 30 Oct 2002 Questions Without Notice 4207

Mr REYNOLDS: If the member finds it offensive, I will withdraw it. Mr Seeney: That's qualified. Mr REYNOLDS: I will withdraw the statement. I refer people to today's Toowoomba Chronicle to see what the Leader of the Opposition said. I indicate to the member for Nanango that we are developing a national strategy with the other states. I have been very critical of the federal government. I have not even received a letter from the responsible minister, Wilson Tuckey. But I can assure the member that if fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters are required, or even if Elvis is required in a particular area, we will look at bringing in whichever firefighting planes are necessary. In terms of the questions the member asks about Dalby, I will answer those questions when I receive the information from the Fire Commissioner. I will get back to the member in regard to the costs and also the hiring.

School Bus Replacement Program Mrs REILLY: I refer the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads to the school safety initiatives announced in the state budget, something that is very much of interest to the residents of the baby belt of Mudgeeraba, and I ask: can the minister please advise the House about the status of the bus replacement program? Mr BREDHAUER: I thank the honourable member for her question and I particularly acknowledge her interest in safety for children travelling to and from school. We are very serious about trying to improve safety for children travelling to and from school. Last week, I announced the 12 routes where there will be a trial of seatbelts on school buses. Earlier this year during the budget we announced that we would spend $3 million a year helping bus operators to upgrade the school bus fleet. We would subsidise the cost of buying new buses or buses that were under five years old that met stringent roll-over standards. We have had a great deal of interest from bus operators in that program and I am happy to advise the House today that we have approved funding for the first eight of those school buses. Up to $100,000, or 40 per cent of the cost of the bus, will be subsidised by the state government as we try to update the bus fleet. The first eight of those buses are actually among the 12 buses that we are having the seatbelt trials on next year. We want to make sure that the seatbelt trial has the best possible chance of success. So, we are subsidising bus operations on the Yarrabah to Gordonvale service, the Cardwell to Ingham service, the Boulia to Monto service, the Peachester to Beerwah service, the Mount Glorious to Mount Nebo service, the Gatton to Toowoomba service, the Alexander Bay to Mossman service, and the Blue Mountain to Sarina service. Most of those buses are new buses, but in two cases we have been asked to subsidise buses that are less than five years old. We also have at present an additional 100 applications from school bus operators around the state looking for the government to assist with subsidisation. We have made a very long-term commitment to this program. We have indicated that we will continue to subsidise buses for many years into the future. Those eight buses are the first eight to have been approved by the state government and 100 additional applications are under consideration. I would like to assure bus operators, members of this House and members of the community that if operators are not successful in the first round this year, it is anticipated that this program will go for 25 years into the future as we assist bus operators to continually upgrade their school bus fleet so that we have the best and safest possible buses for school students travelling to and from school on our school buses.

Reedy Creek State School Mr LINGARD: I direct a question to the Minister for Education. The minister told parliament yesterday that she is the one who will make the decision about the location of a Reedy Creek state school on the Gold Coast. I now table an advertisement from the Gold Coast Bulletin of 31 August 2002 and read from that document. It states— I, ANNA BLIGH ... give notice that ... propose to make a Ministerial designation— and that this designation will allow for the project to be completed for the commencement of the 2003 school year. The minister has indicated that she proposes to make a decision that ignores the normal democratic processes in place for infrastructure development. I ask: why is the minister disregarding council opposition and public opposition by proposing a ministerial designation to build a new school in the electorate of Mudgeeraba? 4208 Questions Without Notice 30 Oct 2002

Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question, because it gives me a further opportunity. I assumed in my answer yesterday that the member for Beaudesert understood the process of ministerial designation, but he has subsequently revealed that he does not have a clue how it works. There is provision under the Integrated Planning Act for a minister, who is considering a ministerial designation, to make a public notice indicating that intention. Here is the public notice—and it is no secret—done in August this year. The purpose of this notice is to allow local people—individuals, councils and any other interested party—to lodge an objection or make a submission. This is how the process works. When the submissions are received, the minister then looks at those submissions and makes a final decision about the designation. Currently, we are in the middle of that process. Submissions closed at the end of September. I understand that there were more than 100 submissions received. So I would expect that the member for Beaudesert would understand that I have an obligation, as the designated decision maker, to consider those submissions, which I will do. I will then make a decision. As I said, given that I am the decision maker, it would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt in any way the final decision until I have had the benefit of the submissions and the objections. If the member is still in doubt about how the process works, I refer him to the Integrated Planning Act. It happens on a regular basis across a range of portfolios. Most members on this side of the House, if not all of them, understand exactly how it works. I suggest to the honourable member opposite that he does his homework so that he understands how the legislation that was, in fact, put in place under his government works. Mr SPEAKER: Order! In the gallery we have student leaders from the Banksia Beach State School and the Bribie Island State Primary School in the electorate of Pumicestone. I now call the member for Pumicestone.

Torres Strait, Retail Outlets Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN: I welcome those students as well. I refer the Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing to the whole-of-government commitment to improving facilitates in the Torres Strait, including the construction of new retail outlets. I ask the minister to explain how the Department of Public Works has been involved. Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the honourable member for the question. She is a very appropriate member to ask the question, having spent some of her early life as a teacher on Thursday Island. She is well acquainted with the Torres Strait islands and, no doubt, with the issue I am about to raise. I think that one of the best kept secrets, yet most successful programs that this government has embarked upon, is what has developed as a cooperative arrangement between the Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Policy and me in terms of developing the IBIS stores in the Torres Strait. The reality is that the minister is responsible for getting $12 million for this very worthy project which will ensure that fresh fruit and vegetables are made available on a daily basis in the far-flung parts of this state. To put this into context, I am talking about an area of Queensland that is further away from us than New Zealand. Through Project Services and Q-Build, our job has been to construct these stores. There have been many challenges associated with them, because every shovel of concrete, every piece of material that goes into them—whether it is the stainless steel bolts, the stainless steel nails, the roofing iron or the steel trusses that had to be redeveloped along the way—has to be carted on to those islands. That is no mean feat. That actually teaches proper project management skills, because people cannot go to the hardware shop down the road and buy three or four bolts if they run out. People cannot reorder four or five bags of cement when half the project is built, because it takes three or four days for the cement to get to those islands. I am delighted with the progress of this project. It is a showcase of what Q-Build and Project Services are about. I might point out that one of the architects who worked on this project was, in fact, Pippa Colclaugh, who was one of the women Project Services employed in Cairns. She has now left the department to make her way in private enterprise, as many of our architects do. The reality is that this project highlights the competence that we have in doing projects such as this. I believe that we can export our understanding of managing such projects and, indeed, our capacity to deliver them. 30 Oct 2002 Questions Without Notice 4209

All over the state Q-Build is checking on projects and making sure that government assets are best protected. The member for Callide might be interested to know that only a couple of weeks ago, right in the middle of his electorate, I approved a project that came to my attention through Q-Build. So when the Tories opposite belt Q-Build, they ought to remember that they are out in their electorates doing their jobs for them. I am delighted to say that the project at the Monto State High School, which was approved by me, came to my attention through Q-Build and has been attended to.

Bushfires Mr FLYNN: My question is directed to the Minister for Emergency Services. I refer to the recent devastating fires in the Lockyer and Toowoomba areas and acknowledge the sterling work carried out under dangerous conditions by members of the emergency services and the general community, together with the significant financial aid package since provided. Despite the best efforts of Mr Michael Browning on behalf of the Department of Families Recovery Unit and Inspector Gary Wells, the QPS Toowoomba District Disaster Coordinator, access to information regarding damaged property was hard to get. Is the minister aware that as late as two days past the height of the danger not one single agency was able to provide comprehensive information about the number and location of affected properties, requiring further contact with four other main agencies and three police stations? Will the minister undertake to address this issue in any re-examination of procedures in counterdisaster plans? Mr REYNOLDS: I acknowledge the fact that the member is thanking all the people who worked. In terms of this period of fire which started about 11 or 12 days ago, many of our fire services, both urban and rural, were in the field for about nine or 10 days. There was a great deal of exhaustion out there. That is why we have brought some of our management people from as far away as Cairns, Townsville and Mackay to be part of the incident management team. The work that they did was absolutely sterling. The member has asked me some questions today that really relate to my ministerial colleague, the Minister for Families, in regard to the payment of grants available under the natural disaster relief arrangements. I am sure that if the member has any questions in regard to those— Mr Flynn: It is the flow of information I am talking about. Mr REYNOLDS: This has been a very traumatic time for the people of Stanthorpe, Ballandean, Maryvale, Warwick, Gatton, Esk, Toowoomba, Tara—and I could keep on going. Our people have been fully extended in the work that they have been doing. The member's question comes slightly as a surprise. After about two to three days of the work that we are doing, we will assess if there is a responsibility to the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service— A government member interjected. Mr REYNOLDS: I know that. Basically, we are doing all that we possibly can up there. A lot of our team of people are exhausted. I can say that because I visited Toowoomba twice. At the same time I also visited Stanthorpe and Ballandean. People were just about asleep on their feet. We need to be fair to the people involved here. If the member has any particular concern in regard to the time lines now, I point out that our firefighters have been too busy fighting fires. They have done an extraordinary job. The same applies to the police. We have had an excellent turnout for police, emergency services, fire, ambulance, our counterdisaster people and the Department of Families. In all those areas the local authorities have also done well. I noted the member's comments in yesterday's paper where he reflected on the government and said that some people should not have been asked to leave their homes. I say to the member for Lockyer that those comments were very irresponsible. As a local member, I would have been out there saying to people that if there was any danger whatsoever they should be leaving their homes. The member is giving people false hope. That is the professional advice and it is the advice given by our professionals as well.

Older People, Media Image Mrs DESLEY SCOTT: Could the Minister for Seniors inform the House of any support the Beattie government is providing to improve the image of older people in the media? Ms SPENCE: It is important to improve the image of older people because recent research conducted over a 20-year period has revealed that people who have positive perceptions of ageing live for seven and a half years longer. It is important that we think positively about ageing— 4210 Questions Without Notice 30 Oct 2002

Mr Terry Sullivan: Sounds like all women. Ms SPENCE: In fact, that positive perception is more important than gender, socioeconomic status or even health status. It is important to feel good about ageing. Obviously— Mr Terry Sullivan: I feel good. Ms SPENCE: We don't want to go there. The media are very important in influencing people's perceptions of ageing, which is why I and the government are very pleased to support a group called Older People Speak Out—OPSO. Last Thursday night it held the statewide and national media awards for ageing. These are very esteemed awards. People travelled from Adelaide, Western Australia, Tasmania and the whole of Australia to accept these awards. There were some very interesting awards. We heard stories about scooter driving seniors, about sex and older people, about— Government members interjected. Ms SPENCE: It's happening. We heard stories about old runners and old revellers. We heard about the dancing Glenroy grannies and why George rules the dance floor. The winning ad was for Sleepmaker, which showed a cheerleading granny. The judges said that this ad recognised the advantage of growing old—you can do what you like and you do not have to care what other people think. It is a pity the father of the House is not here, because he might be able to advise us whether that is true. I particularly congratulate OPSO for conducting these awards for 10 years. It was a really proud moment for Queensland to host these national awards for the first time. It is a terrific organisation led by Val French and her band of volunteers. I also congratulate the QUT students who were part of putting on this award presentation. It is important that the image of ageing is an accurate one. The facts are that most aged people are out there, active, fit, healthy and participating fully— Mr Schwarten: I had my 81-year-old father here last night. Ms SPENCE: Is he looking good? Government members interjected. Ms SPENCE: Finally, I congratulate all those media organisations and professionals around this country on promoting those positive attitudes about ageing.

Dr C. Wong Miss SIMPSON: I refer the Minister for Health to the deregistration of a Brisbane doctor on 11 October 2002. Christina Wong was suspended by the medical board following reports she had prescribed inappropriate drugs and dosages and was unable to close an incision she made for a minor procedure. Considering that Dr Wong was a regulated patient under the Mental Health Act, why was she allowed to continue to practise during this period? What management procedures are in place to prevent this from happening again? Mrs EDMOND: I do not know about all of the cases handled by the medical board. I will seek advice from it.

Credit Help Line Mr SHINE: My question is directed to the Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading. Bankruptcy is often the inevitable result of people allowing their access to credit to get out of hand. Unfortunately, the worst cases may involve people on lower income levels, and often good advice may have saved them from bankruptcy or the debt spiral. What steps has the government taken to help vulnerable Queenslanders make the right decision when it comes to credit? Ms ROSE: A brand new credit help line now in operation is helping Queenslanders avoid the credit trap. The line was established last month by the Office of Fair Trading. Callers can seek financial counselling, advice and information on how to use credit wisely and avoid the credit trap, all for the cost of a local call. More and more Queenslanders are being tempted by easy credit but then find themselves caught in the debt spiral and plunging into the debt trap. Some 6,520 Queenslanders were declared bankrupt in the year to 30 June 2001. Unemployment and excessive use of credit are major reasons for this. The new help line is an avenue for consumers to obtain independent advice and information about how to use credit wisely and to avoid getting into debt distress. It will provide limited financial counselling to those most vulnerable 30 Oct 2002 Racing Bill 4211

Queenslanders who may already be attempting to deal with a debt crisis and cannot afford commercial counselling or financial advice. The credit help line will be operated by Financial Counselling Services Queensland Inc. for the Office of Fair Trading until 30 June 2003. Lines are open Mondays and Wednesdays from 7.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. and Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays from 8.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. The number is 1300 887400. A communication campaign to provide information and advice to Queenslanders on how to use credit wisely will commence soon and support the credit help line. As members of parliament, we have all heard the heart-rending stories of constituents facing hardship because they have overspent. Many of these people would not have been in such a bind if they had access to advice. I will be sending to each electorate office supplies of this credit help line card. The card contains the credit line phone number and hours of operation, and members will receive them within days. Since its inception, about 163 people have contacted the line for advice about general debt, 69 callers; contract disputes, 20; debt recovery, 18; the cost of credit, 11; and bankruptcy advice, 10. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired.

RACING BILL Second Reading Resumed from 29 October (see p. 4174). Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (11.30 a.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Racing Bill 2002. Unfortunately, for too many years Queensland racing has been subject to the political influence of a small section of the industry. As a result, it has stagnated and has had to be dragged, some would suggest, kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Peter Gleeson in yesterday's Gold Coast Bulletin stated— Mrs Rose has launched a blitzkrieg on the crusty old clique which had for many years controlled Queensland racing. I think that just about sums it up. Since privatisation of the TAB, government policy has been to remove government from the day-to-day operations of the racing industry and place greater emphasis on its role in matters impacting upon the probity and integrity of racing and the need to protect the public interest. Other developments include amendments to the Racing and Betting Act 1980 dealing with regulation of bookmakers from the government to the control bodies, and government responsibility for conducting probity checks on applicants and on racing bookmakers. Also, to align asset ownership and commercial operations of TAB producing race clubs, local deed of grant in trust trustees have agreed to transfer ownership of racecourses to clubs. Since the year 2000, racecourses that have been transferred to the clubs include Toowoomba, Dalby and Mackay. Also, the Deagon racecourse and the Queensland Racing Industry Training Centre were transferred to the industry and cabinet also approved in 2002 the transfer of Albion Park Raceway to the Greyhound Racing Authority and the Queensland Harness Racing Board. The Racing Bill 2002 will further remove government from the day-to-day operations of the racing industry, demanding accountability and transparency in the industry in matters impacting upon the probity and integrity and protection of the public interest in relation to racing. The government currently has no role in making or influencing the thoroughbred code to make decisions not related to probity and integrity matters. The allocation of race dates, prize money and field sizes are decisions that are currently the legislative responsibility of the control bodies and will remain as such under the proposed act. It is also important to note—the member for Callide should pay attention to this—that the Australian Rules of Racing specifically prohibit any government appointee to a control body for the express purpose of preventing government involvement in day-to-day racing decisions. That is what the Australian Rules of Racing have to say about interference, as the member is suggesting should occur, in the day-to-day running of racing. One of the purposes of the Racing Bill is to replace the Racing and Betting Act with a modern legislative framework for the management and regulation of the Queensland racing industry. A key objective of the proposed act is to ensure that the racing of animals on which betting is lawful is conducted to the highest standards of integrity by all persons involved in racing or betting and that the welfare of the animals involved is protected. The proposed act has no 4212 Racing Bill 30 Oct 2002 application for animal racing if there is no betting or wagering on the outcome. Under the proposed act, control bodies are unambiguously given responsibility for managing their code of racing. Bob Bentley and his board have the experience, expertise and courage to make some decisions that at times will be fairly unpopular but, unfortunately, which are required to revitalise the racing industry. They will develop a commercially viable business model that will take the industry forward and improve the quality of horses racing in Queensland by increasing prize money and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of management of the industry. Some of the other key initiatives include the review of the racing program for both TAB and non-TAB racing, the master planning process for metropolitan racing, a review of industry management and the review and reform of the Queensland Thoroughbred Investment Scheme. That review commenced in August this year and has already resulted in an injection of an additional $600,000 in stakes to the racing industry. This scheme is designed to improve the quality of the state's racing and breeding stock. In his speech, the member for Warrego quoted from several letters to support his negative comments. Of course, he offered no solution to the problems associated with the industry. I will refer to only one of the letters. He has a bad record in relation to letters, as we know. He has got a previous conviction for quoting from a bodgie and fraudulent letter from the QPC to the Toowoomba Turf Club. Mr HOBBS: I rise to a point of order. I find the member's words offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. He knows that is not correct. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): Order! The member will withdraw. Mr LAWLOR: I withdraw. But, in any event, we would think the club would be near and dear to his heart. Obviously, there is some doubt about that. The letter that was purported to be signed by Sandy Bredhauer was neither signed nor authorised by Sandy Bredhauer, and he told me that personally. Mr Hobbs: I am happy with that. That is fine. Mr LAWLOR: You're the one that gave it currency. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member will direct his comments through the chair. Mr LAWLOR: It was neither authorised nor signed by Sandy Bredhauer. Mr Hobbs interjected. A government member: You were caught out. Mr LAWLOR: That is right; the member was caught. Mr Hobbs: I wasn't caught out at all. Mr LAWLOR: You were. Mr Hobbs: You are trying to beat this up. Mr LAWLOR: No, the beat-up came from you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego! Mr LAWLOR: The letter obviously suited his short-term purposes of bashing the Toowoomba Turf Club. He did not check on its authenticity with the person who purportedly signed it. Now he quotes from a letter from a Mr Wayne Waltisbuhl. A government member: Is this one signed? Mr LAWLOR: Apparently it was. That is a first. Amongst other things, Mr Waltisbuhl apparently says that he has 'lost complete confidence in the Harness Racing Industry in this State'. He further states— Having been involved in trotting for over 30 years, I have had enough of the blatant inconsistencies and ineptness of the stewards and management of this sport. That was quoted by the member for Warrego. The point is that in the last five years Mr Waltisbuhl has come to the adverse attention of the stewards no less than 56 times. I have not gone back for the whole 30 years; I thought 56 times in five years was enough. Twenty-nine of those occasions resulted in reprimands or cautions, 20 resulted in fines, five resulted in suspensions and two resulted in disqualifications—one for behaviour detrimental to the industry and the other for presenting a horse to race which was not free of a prohibited substance—in other words, a drug charge. This person— 30 Oct 2002 Racing Bill 4213

Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Warrego. In future the member for Southport should speak through the chair. Mr LAWLOR: This person who the member for Warrego relies on is a one-man industry. He has virtually required his own steward for the past five years. I did not go back, as I said, over his 30 years in the industry. I know there was at least one disqualification. A government member: Perhaps he is a member of the National Party. Mr LAWLOR: Possibly he is a member of the National Party. This is the member for Warrego's authority for the proposition that the industry is ruined. If it is, this person may be at least partly responsible. I advise the member for Warrego to check his sources in future because fraudulent letters and letters from disgruntled and discredited trainers and drivers add nothing and only destroy the credibility of the argument. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr LAWLOR: But the honourable member is relying on him as a person of credit. I am suggesting that he is not. He says he has had a gutful of the industry. I would say that the stewards have had a gutful of him and the sooner he gets out the better. A government member: He could be the Santo of the racing industry. Mr LAWLOR: He could possibly be the Santo of the racing industry. The member for Warrego also conveniently ignores the fact that he was a member of the government that gave away the right to manage gaming machines and their income, which forms such a large proportion of the prize money in Victoria. That has a lot to do with it. Mrs Sheldon: That is a load of rubbish. Mr LAWLOR: It has a lot to do with it. Mrs SHELDON: I rise to a point of order. That is misleading information. The proceeds from the Community Gaming Benefit Fund never went to the racing industry in this state. That is a furphy that the honourable member and others are spreading. It is incorrect. Mr LAWLOR: That income is forever lost to the industry, and that is part of the problem that is faced by the industry, courtesy of the coalition. In the financial year 2000-01, $104 million in prize money was distributed in Victoria and 23 per cent of that came from gaming machines—$24 million. Of course, Queensland now does not have access to that income. The $61 million that is distributed in prize money in Queensland comes from wagering only. We probably have a similar number of machines, so we could say that at least $20 million per annum has been lost to the industry, courtesy of the coalition. The member for Warrego is strong on criticism but very short on solutions. This bill will assist in bringing the racing industry into the 21st century. I commend the minister and her ministerial and departmental staff on the extensive and dedicated work that they put into this bill. I commend the bill to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): Before I call the member for Caloundra I welcome to the gallery students and teachers from year 7 at the Forest Lake School in the electorate of Algester, which is represented by Karen Struthers. Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Lib) (11.43 a.m.): Before I debate this bill I would like to correct something said by the member for Southport. It needs to be put on the record because this furphy has been spread and it is incorrect. In Queensland the racing industry never received any funds from the Community Gaming Benefit Fund. When Tabcorp was set up in New South Wales it was a different situation. That was not the situation in this state. It was not the situation under Wayne Goss when Gibbs was the Racing Minister. A government member interjected. Mrs SHELDON: No, I did not give anything away because there was nothing to give away. It was not part of the structure and it was not part of the discussions and the debate that went on. What the Labor Party gave away when we lost government in 1998 was this. Gibbs came back into the situation and decided that he was going to destroy the very good proposition that the coalition government had worked out with the racing industry. It was something that the racing industry agreed with and which would have really benefited the industry. The tax reductions and the share of profits the industry would have received would have helped it over the hurdle of this totally new administration. However, it was not signed off before the election. Come the election, 4214 Racing Bill 30 Oct 2002

Gibbs tore that up. He went back to the racing industry and said, 'If you think you are going to get what you thought you were going to get, you are not.' We had absolutely nothing happening in this state for nearly the next 12 months under Mr Gibbs. The racing industry knows that for a fact. The industry is in such a mess today because of that delay. The final decision that was taken and the agreement that was reached were never as good as the one that was reached between the coalition government and the racing industry. A racing task force was put together by the coalition and, as Treasurer, I was on it. I know exactly what went on. I met with Mr Seymour on a number of occasions. I suggest that the member for Southport speaks out of ignorance. What I have just said is the reality. The money the government took from the machine gaming industry never went into the racing industry and it was never proposed that it should do so. The money that went into the racing industry was controlled by the TAB. Part of the proceeds from the gaming machine industry were split into funds for the benefit of sport and recreation, welfare and community benefits. I made sure that the percentages that the three major funds received from the tax that came into consolidated revenue from racing were good percentages. Let us not have this rot that is being perpetrated by the likes of the member for Southport about what the coalition government did with the racing industry because it is wrong, wrong, wrong. I have spoken to my own racing club, the Sunshine Coast Turf Club at Corbould Park, and it is supportive of what the minister is introducing in this bill. I am very interested in that racing club. I supported it for many years. I had money promised before the 1998 election so that the club would be able to buy its own freehold land. The land is currently held in some complicated trust that Mr Corbould made with the Caloundra City Council. We had the money in the TAB reserves to do that. At that stage I think it was about $1.64 million for Corbould Park. It was agreed that the rest of the money left in the reserve fund was to go to Doomben. That was part of an agreement which had been reached with the industry. Again Mr Gibbs came in and, with total and complete vitriol, decided that because this money was going to Caloundra he would pull it out. It had nothing to do with the fact that it would benefit the industry and that the club had wanted it for years and years. The club wanted the right to extend and expand its own course into more training facilities and stables. This would allow the racing industry, which is very important in Caloundra, to expand. With his own vitriolic mean spiritedness—because I was the local member—Gibbs pulled that money out; he would not give it to the club. I hear the member for Southport telling us how great is the Labor Party to the racing industry. Let us get those few facts on the record. The racing industry in Caloundra would be much better off now if what the coalition had put in place had happened. This bill is repealing the Racing and Betting Act 1980 and it provides a legislative framework for the management and regulation of the Queensland racing industry. It implements recommendations of the national competition policy review of the Racing and Betting Act 1980 and it provides an opportunity for new codes of racing to be approved. I think that is quite a good idea. It also removes the prohibition on proprietary racing and removes advertising restrictions on racing bookmakers. It also contemplates that in the future it will be possible for the control body to register a race club that conducts race meetings for the purposes of making a return to shareholders. I think that is fair as well. To ensure the integrity of races conducted by not-for-profit clubs, all races conducted by a proprietary race club must be regulated by the control body with a code of racing. These control bodies will also receive annual accounts from proprietary race clubs which must specify particular information as set out in the bill. I think all those things are worthy and should be followed. There is a very good club in my electorate which has had very good committees over the years. I will speak about the current committee in a moment, but as I have done before in this House I place on record the vast contribution that Mr Des Scanlan made to the Sunshine Coast Turf Club by his total and personal commitment. He spent many hours there and campaigned very hard for money in order to attract decent race meetings. Let us face it: the Corbould Park Racecourse—or Sunshine Coast Turf Club as it is now called—is really just an hour and a half up the road from Brisbane. It attracts a great number of tourists. Mr Reeves: A great day. Mrs SHELDON: It is a great day. In fact, the Speaker of this House, Ray Hollis, and his wife and her mother were there not all that long ago and I was pleased to have lunch with them. I know how interested they are in racing and it was good to see him there. 30 Oct 2002 Racing Bill 4215

The tradition of commitment to the turf club which Des Scanlan put in place and which the various committees have had over the years has been carried on by the current committee, the chairman of which is Les Geeves. I will mention the other members of the committee, and I will mention the ladies first of all. I want to particularly mention Mrs Jan McMillan, who is a racehorse owner of considerable standing. She also spells and breeds horses. She has a great and passionate love for horses and for racing. She has contributed considerable funds towards prize money for major races at Corbould Park. Any time I am there—and I am there quite often really—Jan is there helping to entertain people in the committee room and making people feel welcome. Mary Henzell is the other woman on the committee. Mary is well known in real estate circles in Caloundra. She has made a personal contribution, as has her family, to Corbould Park and contributes her time as the treasurer. There are a number of people who have been on the committee for some considerable time and who still contribute. I particularly mention Neil Mansell and Tom Blacklaw. They are both in the earthmoving and construction industries and have contributed much of their own time, let alone in-kind support, to undertake works at the club which the club could not otherwise afford. As such, they have contributed their time and machinery voluntarily to do work for the club. Mick Mair is another member of the committee. Of course, Mick is a horse trainer. He was actually the trainer of a horse that I had a small though not very successful interest in. Mr Schwarten interjected. Mrs SHELDON: I have decided that I will not make any fortune at all being in racing syndicates, so I pulled out of them. In fact, the only time that that horse ever won we did not have a bet on it. Don Moffatt is also a member of the committee. Don is well known on the Sunshine Coast and has done a great deal for the tourism industry. Indeed, he was the chairman of Tourism Sunshine Coast. He of course contributes to the turf club. As I just said, many tourists go to our turf club. It is a major attraction in the list of tourist attractions. We should thank him for doing that. Bill Wendt is another member of the committee and is the CEO of CADET, which is one of the most—if not the most-successful of our training institutions on the coast. It runs a very good training program for apprentices and trainees. Indeed, many people on the Sunshine Coast have been trained by it. It fulfils its programs and follows up on jobs for the young people who have finished their course. Lorraine, Bill's wife, has been with the turf club for many years and does an excellent administrative and PR job and makes everyone feel welcome. The most recent member of the committee is Dr Bernie Spilsbury, who comes from the hinterland of the Sunshine Coast and, indeed, Jan McMillan comes from Noosa. So the committee does have regional representation. Something very good happened this year at the club—that is, the turf club hosted a major stand-alone Saturday race day with the Caloundra Cup. Queensland Racing has retained that stand-alone Saturday race day, and I congratulate it for that. It is only our fair share; the Gold Coast has had its race days for ages. I would like to think that our own day can be extended to at least two race days with full TAB coverage. Even though some of the Brisbane clubs were against that, I say to them that fair is fair because they get most of these race days. This was one day which we had every right to have and I hope we have more of them. Finally, we need to look at racing as not just something that people like to do occasionally on a Saturday or Sunday but as a major industry. There are those people who own the horses, train the horses, feed the horses, groom them, strappers, jockeys, apprentice jockeys, the groundsmen at the racecourse—and our racecourse is beautifully maintained, as I am sure all members will agree—and those people right across the spectrum who contribute to racing. It is a big industry that puts a lot of dollars into the economy of this state and Corbould Park puts a lot of dollars into the pockets of people in the Caloundra region because of the spin-off effects for those who sell chaff or feed, et cetera the area also trains many very good and able jockeys. While we need good jockeys, it is a perilous industry at times. Unfortunately, a young jockey recently lost his life. I am sure we all grieve for him. In short, I support the bill. I hope it creates better things for the racing industry in this state. Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (11.56 a.m.): After listening to the contribution to this debate of the member for Caloundra, I must say that my favourite racetrack in Queensland is definitely Corbould Park. I really enjoy it. About this time last year— Mr Mulherin interjected. 4216 Racing Bill 30 Oct 2002

Mr REEVES: No, I actually went to Eagle Farm for that one. This time last year we were talking about a racing bill and I made mention of how enjoyable the Boxing Day races at Corbould Park were. Mrs Sheldon interjected. Mr REEVES: Well, the day after I made my speech I received a phone call from the Sunshine Coast Turf Club. I thought, 'This is good. I'm going to get a few free passes,' because I said that I would bring all my friends to Corbould Park. However, I was informed that there were no races there on Boxing Day. I must say that that was a very big disappointment, because last year at Caloundra on Boxing Day it was about 41 degrees. It was very hot. I have to say that the Kings Beach Tavern's airconditioner, which is a great place to go, did not work. Everybody, including Alfie Langer, in the TAB bar having a bet had really hoped that the Corbould Park races were on, but unfortunately they were not. I do not know what the plans are this year, but hopefully the Boxing Day races are rekindled because they are always a highlight. We ended up going there on New Year's Day, but it was not as successful. Our heads might not have been as wise to pick winners on New Year's Day as they would have been on Boxing Day. I commend the minister for bringing the Racing Bill to the House and want to put on record some racing facts. First I think I should explain the meaning of the word to the member for Warrego. 'Fact' is knowledge or information based on real occurrences. 'Fact' is something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed, a real occurrence, something believed to be true or real. There has been very little factual content in the ramblings of the opposition racing spokesperson over the past several months. He seems to have taken great delight in playing Hanrahan. He has declared, 'We'll be roon'd,' to anyone who will listen. He wailed that more than 40 race clubs will be shut down by racing authorities. Then he amended it, saying that only half that number will be shut down. The fact is that there will be no shutdowns— Mr Hobbs: Forty plus! Mr REEVES: Now the member is saying 40 plus. The fact is that no shutdowns are planned by racing authorities and never have been. He plucked the figures from nowhere; he has just plucked out another figure. He just said that 40 plus will shut down. He has plucked another figure from nowhere. Queensland Racing instead is planning for the future—the sustainability of the industry, something the member would support wholeheartedly if he knew anything about racing and had the best interests of the industry at heart. Instead he has engaged in scaremongering about the industry. Any positive contribution by him would be his first. I cannot let him get off the hook after some of the statements he has made. He has also claimed that the deal handed to the racing industry by Labor following the privatisation of the TAB was a dud. The member for Caloundra just sang that same tune. The fact is that the industry received millions of dollars more under the Labor deal than it would have received under the deal brokered by the previous coalition government of which the member was a very poor performing minister. Mr HOBBS: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The member does not know what he is talking about. That is not true. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): There is no point of order. Mr HOBBS: The deal they have got under Labor is worse than what it would be under the coalition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Mr REEVES: Despite the bleatings of the member for Caloundra, if the member for Warrego wants to blame anyone he should point the finger at the member for Moggill and the member for Caloundra. The statement by the member for Caloundra that they were never part of the gaming fund is a furphy. Every other state sold off their gaming machine monitoring businesses. If these had been incorporated with TAB privatisation, it would have been far more profitable for the industry. Instead of getting the four lots of $250,000, we could have got a lot more for the TABs. As a result, we could have got a lot more for the racing industry. Despite what the member for Moggill and the member for Caloundra say, their statements are wrong. For the facts we need only to look at Victoria. Mrs Sheldon interjected. Mr REEVES: He has previously spoken about the same issue. Mr Hobbs interjected. 30 Oct 2002 Racing Bill 4217

Mr REEVES: If I were the member for Caloundra, I would have taken personal offence at that comment. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Warrego, the warning stands. The next interjection will be dealt with under standing order 123A. Mr Schwarten interjected. Mr REEVES: I think that is a disgraceful personal attack on the member for Caloundra, and I will not be a part of it. Following the minister's review of governance structures in the industry last year, the industry and government agreed that the only role for government was to put in place the governance structure with legislation requiring industry probity and accountability. This is exactly what this government has done. The industry now has the flexibility to deal with the commercial environment of a highly competitive entertainment industry market in an open and accountable way. But it seems that the member for Warrego longs for the days of the late Russ Hinze, when pork-barrelling and doing favours for mates was par for the course. Mr HOBBS: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I take offence at the member's comments and ask that they be withdrawn. Mr REEVES: I withdraw the comments. I thought Russ Hinze was the shining light of the National Party—they thought he was terrific back then—but obviously the member for Warrego does not think so. Those days left the racing industry with a string of white elephants and debt of $72 million. We only have to drive up the Bruce Highway to see one of them. The industry is now debt free, thanks to a $34 million gift from the Labor government, which forgave the debt balance. Queensland's racing industry is at a crossroads—there is no doubt about it—but going back is not an option. It is too important an industry, with turnover of more than $700 million a year, to be playing politics like the member for Warrego continues to do. There are two options: retain the status quo and fall further behind the more competitive industries in New South Wales and Victoria, or jump in the saddle with Queensland Racing and be part of a much brighter future. As Minister Rose said just last week, if the knockers cannot decide to move forward they should get out of the industry. The member for Warrego should seriously consider his position. The QRI has long been shackled with legislation that has been described as out of date. Some may argue that some of the so-called identities are also out of date—way out of date. This bill modernises the legislative framework the industry will operate under. It has been a long time in development and I congratulate the minister on bringing this legislation before the House. This bill removes provisions in the Racing and Betting Act that restrict competition. Competition is the key to the success of any industry. It drives efficiencies and causes operations to be focused on commercial outcomes. The restrictions on competition that have been removed include restrictions on entry of new codes of racing, restrictions on conduct of proprietary racing and restrictions on advertising by racing bookmakers. I would like to expand a little on the issue of proprietary racing, particularly in the light of the ill-informed comments of Mr Bill Carter published in the Courier-Mail on 29 October. This bill does not promote proprietary racing. It simply removes the old-fashioned, non-justifiable restriction on competition and ensures the probity and integrity of the racing product. While businesses Australiawide have been singing the praises of a globalised economy that provides opportunities, the systems of the racing industry are more in line with the protected agriculture industries of the 1930s. Perhaps Mr Carter is happy with this situation, but he would be in the minority. Bill Carter harps on about proprietary racing, but what is it? Proprietary racing occurs where the race meeting organisers retain a share of the profits from the race meeting. This practice was prohibited in 1932 when private providers, particularly John Wren, were accused of manipulating race outcomes to maximise their own profits, and I do not doubt they did. But the world has changed. The environment in which racing operates today is vastly different from that of 70 years ago. It is no longer 1932, and Bill Carter needs to realise this. Racing faces competition, and the removal of an outdated and non-justifiable restriction provides a possible opportunity for the racing industry and clubs to deal with competition from Australian Rules Football, Rugby League and casinos, to name but a few. Regardless of how much Bill Carter wants to return to the past, this is not going to happen. 4218 Racing Bill 30 Oct 2002

The traditional view of proprietary racing centres around an individual conducting racing events for their personal profit. However, should a wider definition of propriety racing be applied to include the conduct of any type of for-profit racing, it is assessed that opportunities exist for the existing control bodies and race clubs to maximise commercial opportunities and returns by becoming involved in commercial activities with either cornerstone investors, joint partners and/or other investors. If existing control bodies or race clubs wish to become involved in proprietary racing activities, the associated arrangements would be far more complex than the relatively simple sponsorship arrangements they currently entertain. Under these types of arrangements, the industry and clubs would be able to enter into strategic alliances and formal commercial agreements with investors for the benefit of the entire industry. At the end of the day, this is a question for control bodies and clubs, not for the government. This bill allows for these types of issues to be explored within a framework of probity and integrity. Under the current act they cannot even be discussed. I would have thought Bill Carter would welcome this type of innovation, particularly as he has been so critical of prize money levels. Proprietary racing could provide an opportunity for the QRI to maximise the return generated by the conduct of race meetings while providing increased business and employment opportunities for the wider community. It may also allow consumers a wider choice of racing products and allow the QRI to effectively compete with other forms of for-profit sporting activities. In this day and age, other gambling activities such as casinos are monitored and regulated effectively and any criminal activity is effectively dealt with. If we take Mr Carter at his word, he probably is against casinos as well. Mr Carter spends a lot of time singing the praises of QTC, a club that cannot even provide decent toilet facilities for its members, even though it has over $8 million in the bank. Like many colleagues, I will probably go to Eagle Farm on Tuesday for Melbourne Cup Day, but the facilities at Eagle Farm leave a lot to be desired. Many of the tracks I have mentioned have better facilities than Eagle Farm. One only has to look at some of the major tracks in Sydney and compare them with Eagle Farm to see that they are like chalk and cheese. Proprietary racing is not banned in every other jurisdiction, as Mr Carter states. In fact, it is not prohibited under South Australian or Australian Capital Territory legislation. It also operates successfully in the US and the UK. This bill does not promote proprietary racing; it simply removes a non-justifiable restriction, and I congratulate the minister on that. The racing industry needs vision and innovation, not the 'henny penny, sky is falling in' approach of Mr Carter and Mr Hobbs. The legislation also sets out obligations and responsibilities for a control body of a code of racing to have policies and rules that are transparent, equitable and non-discriminatory. The bill is also cutting-edge legislation for Australia that meets NCP requirements. It opens up opportunities for new developments, such as allowing for new codes of racing and more investment from the private sector and partnerships with the traditional, not-for-profit and voluntary sector of the industry. The three existing control bodies—namely, the Queensland Thoroughbred Racing Board, or Queensland Racing as it is now known, the Queensland Harness Racing Board and the Greyhound Racing Authority—will continue as statutory authorities for a period of up to three years from the commencement of this legislation. The member for Warrego in his speech criticised the name Queensland Racing. I ask the member for Warrego to have a look in the phone book and see the modern names given to sports, such as Queensland Netball. They do not— Mr HOBBS: I rise to a point of order. I find those words offensive and I ask the member to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mickel): Order! The member finds what you said offensive. Mr REEVES: I will withdraw. I know that the member for Cunningham cannot believe that objection. All I was saying is that, from the speech by the member for Warrego— Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr REEVES: The member was criticising— Mr Hobbs: I was not criticising. Mr REEVES: The member was criticising. He should look at Hansard. He criticised them changing the name to Queensland Racing. 30 Oct 2002 Racing Bill 4219

Mr Hobbs: No. You cannot even read. Mr REEVES: I can hear. I was sitting in here listening to the member's speech. In line with other modern names for sport, it is now Queensland Racing rather than the Queensland Thoroughbred Racing Board. The name, the Queensland Thoroughbred Racing Board, might mean a lot to people who have been around for a long time, but the young punters would not have a clue what that means. That is why the names of sports have changed, such as Queensland Netball, Queensland Cricket, and now Queensland Racing—so that people know what they are about. That says it in one. Obviously, the member for Warrego is back in the Dark Ages, as is Mr Carter. These control bodies will be required to take the necessary steps to meet the criteria to be a control body, including the requirement to establish a company under the Corporations Act 2001. Either a corporation formed by an existing control body or another corporation may apply for a control body approval for an existing code of racing one year after the commencement of the legislation. To allow for proposals for new codes of racing, an open and transparent system for the licensing of control bodies of the codes of racing in Queensland has been established. A corporation wishing to be a control body for a code of racing that meets specified criteria can apply to the Minister for Racing for a control body approval. Only a corporation established under the Corporations Act can apply for a control body approval. The chief executive of the Department of Tourism, Racing and Fair Trading has important responsibilities under the proposed legislation, such as being responsible for conducting probity checks, including obtaining criminal histories and the fingerprints of directors, executive officers, and businesses and executive associates of corporations that apply for a control body approval to ensure that only persons of the highest integrity are associated with the management of a control body; assessing applications for a control body approval and reporting with recommendations to the minister on applicants' suitability for a control body approval; and appointing authorised officers responsible for monitoring and auditing a control body's compliance with its responsibilities under the conditions of its approval and the legislation. The proposed legislation will increase the standard of accountability and transparency in control bodies' decision-making processes by requiring them to make policies and rules publicly available and to undertake consultation, when relevant, with affected stakeholders. That will encourage integrated decision making and leadership in the industry. A control body is to have policies for the management and regulation of its code of racing, including policies about the way in which a control body develops its policies, including the consultation that it may undertake; its licensing scheme for licensing persons, animals, clubs and venues for the code; education and training for persons participating in the code; testing or training licensed animals for the code; lawful betting on races under the control of the control body; its web site and the information to be accessible through the web site; first-level appeals, if the control body is to have appeals from the decisions of stewards to an appeal committee established by the control body; clubs to be licensed by the control body; the licensing of venues; handicapping; drug control; animal welfare and disease management; spending by non- proprietary clubs; and the disposal of assets by non-proprietary clubs. A control body will be required to have both internal controls that separate its commercial operations from its regular operations for the code of racing; a racing calendar, which is a program of information about race meetings and races to be conducted for the code; a program to audit licensed participants and venues; an agreement with an accredited facility for the provision of drug control and scientific services; and rules of racing that comply with its policies and have regard to the rights and liberties of individuals as mentioned in section 4(3) of the Legislative Standards Act 1992. I think that it is entirely appropriate that we are debating this legislation the week before one of the major events on the racing calendar in Australia takes place—the Melbourne Cup. Even people who do not like racing usually have a flutter on the Melbourne Cup. This legislation shows that this government is prepared to back the racing industry and say that the racing industry is big enough—and I probably will not use that other word— Mr Schwarten: Tough enough. Mr REEVES: Big enough and tough enough to look after themselves. The racing industry has people involved in it who are innovative—people who do not live in the past but think about the future. It is very appropriate that this legislation will probably be passed in the week prior to the holding of the Melbourne Cup, which places a major focus on the racing industry. But we want the 4220 Racing Bill 30 Oct 2002 focus to be on Queensland racing, not on racing in the southern states. I think that, by passing this legislation, we will further entrench that change process. I look forward to innovative racing. I commend the bill to the House. Time expired. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mickel): Before I call the honourable member for Ipswich, I would like to acknowledge in the public gallery today the students and teachers and parents from the Riverview State School in the electorate of Bundamba. Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (12.16 p.m.): Before I start, I also want to acknowledge Jennifer Howard and welcome her to the gallery. I rise to speak briefly today about the Racing Bill and to perhaps put an alternative view to much that has been said during this debate. For months now, we have heard an almost incessant whine from the opposition about the potential impact that this bill and other changes to the racing industry will have on country racing clubs. The whine is only paused for the grubby rumour mongering that the members opposite have otherwise engaged in. The shadow minister has not for a moment paused to apologise for the corrupt and unsustainable administration of the racing industry by the previous National Party government and by Russ Hinze in particular. Mr HOBBS: I rise to a point of order. I find the member's words offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mickel): Order! The member finds the words offensive. I am at a loss as to whether he is personally offended. Ms NOLAN: I am sure he does. I withdraw. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is personally offended. Ms NOLAN: The members opposite have also failed to put up an alternative policy. For all the whingeing, for all the whining and for all the rumour mongering, the members opposite have never, ever come up with a better idea for the racing industry. There is a reason why they have not done that. The bottom line is that reform of the racing industry, and in particular this legislation that is before us today, is absolutely essential for the future of racing in Queensland. Racing is not at all what it used to be. Racing is no longer a mass-attendance sport, and numbers at the weekly meetings are way down on what they once were. Racing relies not on attendance but on offcourse betting through TAB shops, the telephone and the Internet, and racing revenue comes not from gate takings but from the TAB and, to some extent, other revenue sources such as Sky Channel. Queensland racetracks compete for revenue with other forms of gaming and with more efficient industries interstate and, to some extent, overseas. If the industry is to avoid disappearing into its own navel, it must be transparently reformed. This bill is a significant part of that process. The reform of the racing industry is having a significant impact on the Ipswich community. The Bundamba race track is in my electorate, and many of my constituents are employed in the industry or involved in the turf club. The Ipswich Turf Club is one of the real successes of Queensland racing. For many years it has been professionally managed as a business—not as a vehicle for grumpy old men's nostalgia. Unlike many clubs, it has returned an operating profit for the last 10 or 11 years and turns over about $50 million a year. The club employs 12 permanent staff and 32 casuals, most of whom work on race days. The member for Clayfield spoke strongly yesterday of the successes of the QTC and the BTC. She should also be aware that the biggest race day in Queensland this year was Ipswich Cup Day. There were 22,500 people at Bundamba on Ipswich Cup Day, more than the attendance at Doomben for the whole winter racing carnival. The Ipswich Cup and the Bundamba race track are successes because they engage the community and because the community gets well and truly behind them. At present, Ipswich holds 40 race meetings a year, although the club would like to hold around 55 and certainly has the capacity to do so. It is the committee's preference to specialise in holding the major metropolitan meet on Wednesday. The existing Wednesday meetings in Ipswich are a proven success and the club certainly has the capacity to hold more. The Ipswich Turf Club is in a strong position to make the most of changes in the industry, because it has been well run by committee members like Ray Leschke and chairman Wayne Patch for many years. The club has been run with professionalism and probity by a group of people smart enough to look forward and not backward. There are some really nice people involved in racing in Ipswich. Jo-Ann Miller's uncle, George Kitching, is very much one of them. 30 Oct 2002 Racing Bill 4221

And those good people who support racing in Ipswich are very well led by the Ipswich Turf Club committee. The most important issue in this process of reform is that Queensland Racing continues to consult well and broadly with the stakeholders in the industry. To this point, that is happening. The Ipswich Turf Club is satisfied that it has a good relationship with Queensland Racing, and I am sure that that will continue. I am pleased that the Ipswich Turf Club is fully supportive of racing industry reform. I commend this bill to the House. Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (12.22 p.m.): I have participated in a number of debates relating to the racing industry since I was elected last year. That illustrates the importance of the racing industry to my electorate of Cunningham. I have spoken before about the large number of breeding facilities and breeders in and very close to my electorate. It really is a major breeding centre for the racing industry in Queensland. In the last few years, the numbers and quality of breeders up there has really gone through the roof. There has been a real honing of the quality of brood stock in terms of the brood mares and the stallions available. We see the development of what has been a long established stud industry on the Downs and one that will continue to develop, with breeders selling to international markets. That is a good sign, but it also indicates that the market for horses within Australia certainly has some way to go. I shall mention a couple of issues during my contribution. At the outset, there has been a lot of turmoil within the industry regarding the changes introduced to parliament over the past 12 to 18 months. There is still a lot of uncertainty within the industry. It will take a lot to overcome that uncertainty. While the industry has divisions amongst it on a range of issues, there was general agreement that an independent board be put in place. Unfortunately, the process as seen by the public and the racing industry did not bring together everyone so that they could have confidence in the process that saw the QTRB established. It is fair to say that to a certain extent the divisions have in fact been exacerbated—not healed. Really, it represented a lost opportunity. There was a feeling within the industry that an independent board had to be put in place, but in retrospect the way that it happened has not engendered the sort of unity and faith that we would like to see both in the industry and the QTRB. It will be difficult for the QTRB to overcome some of those problems. I refer to two race clubs that really do affect my electorate of Cunningham, namely, Clifford Park racecourse run by the Toowoomba Turf Club, located in the electorate of Toowoomba South and the Leader of the Opposition's electorate, which obviously affects everyone in Toowoomba and in the surrounding districts; and the Clifton Turf Club based at Clifton. They are two very different clubs. One is a large regional club and one is a small country club. The issues that they face are quite different. It still is fair to say that both of those clubs face uncertainty about how the future will treat them. I know that the minister has been a regular visitor to the Toowoomba Turf Club at Clifford Park. I have been to a number of race meetings, both large and small, that the minister has attended, but I do not know whether the minister has yet been to the Clifton Race Club. That can be one for the calendar. The Toowoomba Turf Club at Clifford Park, like all race clubs, has seen a decline in numbers. I regularly attend Clifford Park. On any given Saturday— Mr Reeves interjected. Mr COPELAND: I take the tip that the only way you will win is to keep your money in your pocket. I love a day out, enjoy following the horses and am a regular follower, but I am not a big punter. Like all clubs, that turf club has experienced a downturn in the number of people attending. But it does have a very successful venture—a very large marquee and a couple of smaller areas that charities and community groups can hire for a Saturday. Every Saturday race day, the marquee is absolutely jam-packed with different people, quite often people who are not racegoers but who are there to support the charity or the community group of their choice and to enjoy a great day out. The Toowoomba Turf Club has pioneered twilight racing, a very successful move. It was a big gamble when it took it on some years ago, but it really has been a success. Having been at a few pub TABs—and I am sure that the member for Mansfield will agree—when all the other races have stopped and we still want to punt, the 'get out' stakes at Toowoomba gives us a couple of opportunities later in the evening. It is a great afternoon out at the Toowoomba Turf Club. Very large crowds do attend those charity days. I attended the St Vincent's Race Day a couple of weeks ago at which were over 450 people in the marquee. That builds a nice base of the number of people coming through the gate week in and week out. Of course, there are other facilities available for those groups to hire. Then, there are the normal, regular punters who come every week and are serviced by the fantastic facilities at Clifford Park. 4222 Racing Bill 30 Oct 2002

I will be going to Clifford Park on Tuesday to support the University of Southern Queensland's charity day. I will also be enjoying the fact that it is a great day out in that everyone in Australia can follow what is probably the biggest race in the world, I think. Mr Reeves: It should be a national public holiday. Mr COPELAND: It has been suggested that perhaps the Queen's Birthday holiday should be replaced. I would not be one to support that publicly, but Labour Day might be another that could be replaced. It is an interesting suggestion and one that would have a lot of support because a lot of people do enjoy watching the races, but there are a lot of people who cannot do that because they have to work. The two big days apart from Melbourne Cup Day are the Weetwood Cup and the Toowoomba Cup. Weetwood Cup Day is a huge day, and for anyone who wants to see a big day out in Toowoomba it is on the show holiday. It is a very busy week in Toowoomba when there is the Toowoomba Royal Show and also the Weetwood carnival. It is a really fantastic week to be in Toowoomba as there a lot of people there and it is a really quality race day as well. It is a major race day on the Queensland calendar that is very worth while attending. The other club I would like to mention is the Clifton Turf Club. Clifton is a much smaller club. It is only a small country town, but it has a fantastic club with great amenities. It held its major race meeting for the year on the Saturday just gone, which was the Clifton Cup day. It was a big day in Clifton, because they had the Clifton Cup and also the Farmhand concert crossed live to Clifton on Saturday night. It was a busy day. Those small country clubs—and Clifton is no exception—are very concerned about what the future holds for small country clubs and Queensland country racing. Concern has been expressed from members on both sides of the House about what the future will hold. Uncertainty is going through the industry at all levels, not only the large metropolitan and regional clubs but also the very small clubs that provide a very important service in small country towns. A lot of people went to the races on Saturday. Unfortunately, I was not able to get there until the concert late in the evening. People who have grown up in Clifton or have visited Clifton or who have friends in Clifton come back specifically to go to that race day because it is a great social day out. It is a social focal point for the town. If that goes, it will have dramatic consequences on that town, let alone the consequences it will have on a region affected as much by the thoroughbred industry as the Darling Downs. We all know the stories of champion jockeys and trainers who have started out in the small country towns and worked their way up to be champions on the Australian scene. We should never forget that it is an important breeding ground for both people, talent and horses. We should recognise also that it provides a real base in the industry for the purchasing of horses that do not make the grade in the major metropolitan or regional centres. The country centres provide a base market for those horses to be sold. They might get only a couple of thousand dollars per horse, but if those clubs are taken out of existence that market will also cease. The market that exists for those horses that might not quite make the grade should not be underestimated when these sorts of decisions are being made. Concern has been expressed to me that we will see a two-tiered system of racing in Queensland where we have a professional racing circuit based on the major metropolitan regional clubs and then a second tier of smaller regional and rural areas which are not really given the focus and assistance that they require. Even in the worst case, some of those that have operated successfully might even be reduced to a picnic race-type meeting. That would really be doing an injustice to places like Clifton. Volunteers have performed a huge amount of work over many years to keep them going. They are debt free and they have great facilities. The track was in an incredible condition on Saturday considering how dry it has been on the Darling Downs. The fact that they crossed to Clifton during the Farmhand concert indicates just how dry it is. That is due largely to the combined efforts of president Ron Bell and track curator Vic Fraser. They are two volunteers who have been able to keep it going. We do not want to see that sort of two-tiered system where we see only a small group of quality race meetings with the rest being reduced to picnic race-type meetings. There has been some mention about confidence within the other industries—the harness racing and greyhound industries. I have spoken before about the trials and tribulations that the Darling Downs Harness Racing Club has been through. The club has money in the bank, yet it had to go to court to keep its race dates. That is a shame. It has been able to retain its meets but on a much smaller scale than previously. It is still concerned about its future. There is real concern 30 Oct 2002 Racing Bill 4223 within the harness industry about the direction it is taking. Notwithstanding the member for Southport trying to dismiss those concerns, I think they are very real. Again, in the greyhound industry we have seen facilities being closed down and a focus on the south-east corner. Decisions have been made at the expense of rural and regional clubs to prop up clubs that have also been struggling but which just happen to be in the south-east corner. Those other two industries are looking at a just as uncertain future and have just as many concerns as the thoroughbred industry. I wish to address a further issue before concluding—an issue that has dramatic implications for the racing industry but which has not been touched on and is probably something that most people outside the breeding industry have not heard of. I refer to the lawsuit taken out against the Eureka Stud and Colin and Scott McAlpine—the Brave Warrior case. This is a very concerning development. It is one that everyone should be cognisant of. The whole industry should be watching with interest and mounting a strong defence. The case involves some former business associates of the McAlpine's who held three joint shares in Brave Warrior, which was a stallion standing at stud at the Eureka Stud, which is just outside my electorate. This could have ramifications not only for the thoroughbred and wider horse industry but the whole livestock industry. The whole industry should be coming together and mounting a defence. If they do not, the floodgates will be opened that will see dramatic changes forced on the industry—and not for the better. I have been to the Eureka Stud. They run a good operation. They have been in business for over 50 years. They are very experienced, well respected and successful people. The sorts of facilities they have at their stud are replicated on studs right across my electorate and some of the ones outside my electorate. As someone who has handled animals and dealt with animals, to have something like this that really is an act of God—and accident— Ms Rose: A freak accident. Mr COPELAND: The minister is quite correct. For this now to be taken to court is something that should be of concern to everyone involved in the livestock— Mr Hayward: You can't believe it's going to court, can you? Mr COPELAND: That is right; you cannot believe it is going to get to court. Mr Hayward: It hasn't gone to court yet. Mr COPELAND: It hasn't gone to court yet. I wish to quote from an article in the Courier-Mail from 14 September, which stated— The insurance on Brave Warrior, sold to stud for about $400,000, was about the same as the purchase price and all three part owners were paid out after the death, a source said. So not only has a lawsuit been launched; it is a lawsuit that has been launched after insurance has been paid on the death of the horse, according to this article. All of us should be worried about the implications of that. There have been a couple of articles in the Courier-Mail. In my electorate there is a lot of concern about this. Heather Brown was quoted an article in the Chronicle. She has done a fair bit of work on this. She is in a different area of the horse industry, the breeding of stock horses. David Finch, whom I know well, is very respected for his work with performance horses and is a very capable horseman. He is quoted in the same article, and also recognises the significance of this case. Professor David Pascoe, of the Oakey vet hospital, is a world-renowned horse vet. The service is the pre-eminent horse veterinary service in our area. They also acknowledge this issue. I thought it important to raise this issue in the House so that people are aware of what is happening and the possible ramifications. Hopefully, there will be a successful outcome. On a personal note, I hope that the McAlpines—Colin, Scott and Scott's wife, Grania, are able to successfully defend this and hope that they can continue to run their excellent stud for many years to come. Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (12.38 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Racing Bill 2002. This bill will replace the Racing and Betting Act 1980 and will provide contemporary legislation which will modernise the management and regulation of the Queensland racing industry. An overhaul of this legislation was the result of a national competition policy review which recommended the repeal of the Racing and Betting Act, the continuance of a regulatory regime and to allow proprietary racing and bookmaker advertising. The member for Mansfield spoke at length on the virtues of proprietary racing. I also wish to comment on the subject and in particular the recent article in the Courier-Mail by Mr Bill Carter. 4224 Racing Bill 30 Oct 2002

Mr Carter commented that this provision was taking Queensland racing back to the 1920s. This is really a poor analogy as there was practically no regulatory framework in the 1920s and it was Rafferty's rules in those days. If one wants to find out what went on in the 1920s, one only has to read Frank Hardy's great book Power without Glory, which details the dubious activities of John Wren, or in the book John West, who at the time owned Doomben race track and Albion Park race track. The situation is radically different today, with strict probity and integrity tests and professional regulation of the industry. As governments of all persuasions pursue public-private partnerships, I believe proprietary racing opens up another avenue for improvements to racing facilities with existing clubs. Ministerial governance reviews of the three codes of racing were also undertaken during 2001. These reviews resulted in several proposals, including that control bodies of racing should be structured as companies under the Corporations Act 2001, with the directors being answerable to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. It was also proposed that the restructuring of thoroughbred racing be implemented in a two-stage process. The first stage would be the establishment of the Queensland Thoroughbred Racing Board to be headed by five independent non-executive directors. The second stage includes the creation of a company model to be considered by government before October 2003. It was proposed that the Queensland Harness Racing Board and the Greyhound Racing Authority would be structured in a similar manner. In December 2001, the restructuring began with the announcement that the Queensland Principal Club would be replaced by the Queensland Thoroughbred Racing Board as the control body for Queensland racing, with a board of five members duly appointed. In October this year, the board's chairman, Mr Bob Bentley, announced that the board would now be renamed Queensland Racing. Mr Bentley promised the introduction of initiatives that would promote change and improve efficiency and effectiveness of the racing industry. This included a review of the racing program for both TABQ and non-TABQ racing, and a review of industry management. In addition, he proposed to review and restructure the recently formed Queensland Thoroughbred Investment Scheme to inject more funds into added stakes each year, aiming to improve the quality of racing and breeding stock. It was recently announced that the number of race meetings to be conducted in Cairns would be halved and other clubs in north Queensland, including Mackay, have expressed concern. Mr Bentley has said that the cuts to the number of race meetings across the state were necessary reforms to ensure the viability of the industry. The Mackay racing fraternity have expressed their grave concerns over what these cuts will mean to the industry at a local level in Mackay if decisions about programming are made based on comparisons with other regional centres. The Mackay track at Ooralea is one of the most picturesque racing tracks in Queensland with excellent facilities for patrons, owners and trainers. The complex includes a thoroughbred racing track and a harness racing track. It also has stabling facilities, bars, eateries, an all-weather betting ring and members' facilities in a landscaped and cool environment. The Mackay Turf Club owns and operates these facilities and has arrangements in place with the Mackay Diggers Turf Club and the Mackay Amateur Turf Club for the staging of their race meetings. The Mackay Turf Club also has a commercial arrangement with the Mackay Harness Racing Club for the use of the club's facilities. The greyhound club operates from facilities at the Mackay showgrounds. Racing in Mackay has been around since the early 1880s, not long after European settlement commenced in the area. It is interesting to note that small localities such as Sarina, which is 40 kilometres to the south; Nebo, which is 100 kilometres to the south-west; Finch Hatton, which is probably about 80 kilometres up the valley; and Eungella, which is on top of the range, all have race tracks. They have their annual days hosting the Sarina Cup, the Eton Cup and the like. I can remember the Nebo race meetings. I went there as a kid with my father. It was a two-day event and everyone camped out. The RSL, through the diggers association, organised the diggers Eungella Cup at Eungella. There was a great deal of racing, but over time that has changed. Mackay has produced some great names in racing. George Moore, the famous jockey, was born and bred in Mackay. In fact, George Moore used to knock around with a bloke by the name of Ronnie Shepherd. Ronnie passed away earlier this year. My great uncle—my grandmother's brother-in-law—was a wharfie and he had a stable at the back of his place called Bethlehem Stables. George Moore and Ronnie Shepherd used to hang around the stables and ride the horses from Peel Street to the showgrounds. A government member: Did they give you a ride? 30 Oct 2002 Racing Bill 4225

Mr MULHERIN: I was not even thought of at that stage. George was always destined to be a jockey. Another relation of mine, Mick O'Connor, had Balmore Dairy. His claim to fame was that he imported the first American trotting horse into Australia. Uncle Mick O'Connor arranged Georgie's apprenticeship. People like Dickie Roden, who was born in Mackay, trained Macdougal to win the Melbourne Cup in 1959. More recently, Merv Caldwell and his partners had success with Calaway Gal to win the Golden Slipper. We have had some great bookmakers in Mackay, namely Lloydie Palmer for one. Well before the introduction of quadrellas and trifectas, you could get on with Lloydie and have an all- up/all-up bet anywhere in Australia. It could be an improvers at Rockhampton followed up by a group 1 race in Brisbane, with something going around at Grafton and something going around at Perth. They were halcyon days, but things have changed and people's habits have changed. They were great days. The Mackay club fears that it will no longer be granted TABQ meetings. These TAB meetings usually provide a better class of starters due to the increased prize money offered. The club believes that without TAB meetings and with a reduction in the number of normal race meetings there will be a detrimental effect on racing and that owners and trainers may transfer their operations to larger centres where the prize money is greater. Regardless of whether the club races weekly or fortnightly, the club faces fixed costs each week and any significant reductions in race meetings will also create financial burdens which may lead to the eventual closure of the Mackay track. Race programming is a major issue, and while the racing industry representatives in Mackay recognise that the industry must be put on a sound footing, they believe that determinations about Mackay must be made with more consideration, especially due to the fact that Mackay is a growing regional centre and that in the past the Mackay Turf Club, as a newcomer to TAB racing, took on dates rejected by other clubs as being poor for turnover, such as the Friday before Melbourne Cup day and the Tuesday after Easter. In addition, there has been a lack of continuity in race dates to gain the confidence of racegoers, owners and trainers due to the current negotiations between Queensland Racing and Sky Channel over broadcasting rights and fees for TAB meetings. The club believes that in light of restrictions to its operations in comparison with other north Queensland clubs it has performed very well. For instance, Mackay is not competitive with Townsville and Rockhampton clubs in relation to prize money distribution, and Mackay also receives minimum QRIS bonuses compared to those clubs. Despite this, the industry in Mackay has had its successes and has the potential to be an even stronger operation. The Mackay Turf Club, which owns and operates the Ooralea facilities, has 37 race meetings per year and has been returning sufficient profits and attracting more owners to work their horses at the Mackay track. The club believes that Mackay is an important hub for racing in central and north Queensland because of its distance between Rockhampton and Townsville. The major racing centres of Rockhampton and Townsville are four hours either side of Mackay and horses from all centres race at each other's clubs, including smaller clubs like Moranbah, Clermont, Burdekin and Bowen. Recently my wife and I and our three children attended the Bowen Cup meeting at Ben Bolt Park. Mr Hayward: Gee, I bet the bookies panicked when you arrived. Mr Shine: Especially with the kids! Mr MULHERIN: Especially when Declan, Liam and Rory arrived, yes; the member for Toowoomba North is right. I congratulate the Bowen Turf Club for putting on a great carnival. As the member for Cunningham said, country race meetings have the community behind them and promote the sport. They did an excellent job. Horses from Mackay raced there. In fact, nearly 30 per cent of the horses trained in Mackay also race in Townsville and Rockhampton. The industry needs to build on that strength. Mackay is one of the major growth areas in this state. There is a genuine concern that cuts to the racing program will weaken the industry in the region rather than strengthen the industry. I have met on a number of occasions with the President of Mackay Turf Club, Mr Lou Kinsey, the secretary, Mr Joe Hynes, and trainers and owners including Mr Wayne Pomfrett, Mr Snow Woodman and Mr Ray Walsh to listen to their concerns about the future of racing in Mackay. These owners and trainers have significant investments in racing and these investments have a flow-on effect which provide employment opportunities across the sector for vets, feed and supplement suppliers, blacksmiths, strappers and bar staff. Of course, on the day of a carnival 4226 Racing Bill 30 Oct 2002 event the men's and women's fashion boutiques do a pretty good trade. That lists just a few of the flow-on benefits from people's indulgence in racing. During my meeting with the club and owners and trainers the proposition was put to me that I ask the Minister for Racing and the Premier to intervene on their behalf to prevent any major changes to the present situation of how the industry is operated in Mackay. I indicated to those in attendance at the meeting that, whilst I was sympathetic to their genuine concerns, the industry of which they are a part wanted reforms, including the privatisation of the TAB and no political interference in the administration and day-to-day operation of racing. I explained that neither the Premier nor the Racing Minister could intervene in the industry, and this has been clearly spelt out again in this bill. Clause 45 of the bill provides that the minister has the authority to give a ministerial direction to a control body if such a direction is necessary to ensure public confidence in the racing industry; ensure that management is in the interests of the code of racing concerned; ensure the welfare of licensed animals; ensure that the control body is accountable and its decision-making processes are transparent; and ensure that the control body's rules have sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals. These directions will only be given if they directly impact on the probity and integrity of the industry. The responsibility for making the hard decisions—for example, the number of races in a code—lies with the control bodies and the racing communities, not with government. I gave the Mackay Turf Club an undertaking that I would meet with the chair of Queensland Racing and on Friday, 4 October I met with Mr Bentley and his management team. I raised the concerns of the Mackay Turf Club and discussed the issues that it raised with me in relation to no TAB meetings, a reduction in the number of normal race meetings and issues relating to the negotiation over the Sky Channel Racing contract. Mr Bentley reiterated that for the industry to be viable in the longer term there needed to be cuts to the number of race meetings, which would help raise prize money and the standard of racing throughout Queensland. I indicated to Mr Bentley that the Mackay Turf Club and trainers realised that there must be reforms but that any cuts must be equitable so that important racing hubs like Mackay would survive and prosper and, in turn, help strengthen racing in major provincial centres such as Townsville, Rockhampton and Cairns. I believe I received a fair hearing with Mr Bentley and that he has the interests of the racing industry at heart. I am sure that Queensland Racing will consider the submissions that the Mackay club has already made and the points I have raised with Queensland Racing— Mr Reeves: Good representation on your behalf. You'd think the member for Callide would follow the lead. Mr MULHERIN: I thank the member for Mansfield. I am sure it will consider those submissions before making a final decision on the number of race meetings. Mr Bentley said the Mackay Turf Club could contact him at any time and he would be more than willing to continue discussing its issues. It is clear that for racing to prosper in Mackay the community needs to get behind the Mackay Turf Club. The community needs to support the turf club and the other codes and the community must also get behind the club in its promotions. There is evidence that this is happening in Mackay. There are many challenging issues that confront the industry across all codes. There are many tough decisions yet to be made to ensure there is a future for racing in the face of strong competition from other forms of gambling. Racing clubs in particular across the codes have to attract new patrons. If one goes to any track in Queensland or, for that matter, any track in Australia on a normal race day and not during the local carnival meeting such as the Melbourne Cup, Caulfield Cup or local cup meetings, the same old faces are there. Mr Hayward: Only older? Mr MULHERIN: Yes, only older and in declining numbers. Noticeably, these regular attendees are generally in the older age bracket. The younger punter is more likely to be at the pub or club TAB or at home watching the races on pay TV using a phone betting account. The question is: how do race clubs entice a new generation of regular punters onto the track other than at carnival time? The answer is promotion of the sport and industry. As I said earlier, I believe that the Mackay club is pursuing this avenue and showing very promising signs of bringing new patrons to the track. Last weekend McGuires Hotel sponsored a race day with its regular patrons turning up to the track and it was a big day. These are the sorts of initiatives that the 30 Oct 2002 Racing Bill 4227

Mackay Turf Club is pursuing. If patrons enjoy such social outings they could be encouraged to invest in local racing syndicates, which will only strengthen the future of racing at a local level. I believe that this legislation provides the industry with the framework to meet the challenges that lie ahead. It has been a tough time for the Racing Minister, who has faced attacks from sectional interests. It is clear that the minister has acted in the best interests of the industry and it is clear that these decisions have not been made lightly. I commend the minister, her staff and her department for their work on this bill. I want to reassure the racing fraternity that the government is committed to ensuring the long-term future of the racing industry, and the Racing Bill 2002 provides the means for this important industry to both survive and flourish. I commend the bill to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mickel): Order! I recognise and acknowledge in the public gallery the principal, captains, vice-captains and student council of Banyo State High School in the electorate of Nudgee. Banyo State High School will soon be known as Earnshaw State College. Sitting suspended from 12.58 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (2.30 p.m.): It is a pleasure to speak on the Racing Bill because of its significance to one of the most important industries in our state, the racing industry. At the outset, I would like to congratulate the minister for her work and that of her department. I also congratulate her for the forbearance and courage she has shown over a lengthy period of time, despite frequent unjustifiable and unfair attacks. I think she shows immense fortitude and courage. She is a great asset to the state of Queensland as well as to the government. I congratulate her for those efforts. I convey to her my support, that of her colleagues here and that of many, many people in the racing industry. Although I am not an avid racegoer these days, from what I understand in my local area of the Darling Downs, in particular Toowoomba, she is very greatly supported—almost universally—in that quarter. The bill itself seeks to make far-reaching reforms of the racing industry. The process to arrive at this point has taken some time. It has taken some time for good and proper reasons in the sense that wide consultation was felt to be necessary and was undertaken. The purpose of the bill is to repeal the existing legislation, the Racing and Betting Act 1980, and replace it with 21st century legislation. The process leading up to these changes began in 1999 under this government when the Queensland racing industry conducted an extensive strategic planning exercise. The key outcome of that was that reform of the industry governance, club and asset management, licensing, and integrity processes was needed to make the whole industry itself more commercially flexible. Even non-racegoers or infrequent racegoers are aware that from time to time the racing industry, racing clubs and so on, have had their troubles. Clearly it was necessary to take a good, hard look at this industry because of its importance to the state. In 1999 that extensive strategic planning exercise was undertaken. That was followed in 2000 by an NCP report, which was released in November of that year. The key recommendations of that report were: to repeal the outdated act and replace it with modern legislation; to maintain a Queensland racing industry regulatory regime, as has been the case, and, backed by legislation, to ensure and enhance probity, integrity and public confidence in the racing industry; and to remove anticompetitive restrictions on the entry of new codes, the conduct of proprietary racing, which is an innovation, and racing bookmakers' advertising practices. The process entered into a further stage in 2001 when the minister undertook a major consultative exercise in the form of ministerial governance reviews of the three codes of racing. I stress that the review dealt with the three codes of racing, not just galloping. The outcomes of that review were as follows. Firstly, control bodies should be structured as companies under the Corporations Act 2001, as are other companies. The directors and office-bearers would be subject to Commonwealth laws and the laws of the state that apply to companies generally. They would also come under the scrutiny of ASIC. Secondly, a two-stage process was to be implemented. The first stage was the establishment of a board of five independent non-executive directors—the Queensland Thoroughbred Racing Board. This has been achieved. The second stage, which is yet to be achieved, is that that board is required to design a company model that is to be reported for government consideration by 5 October next year. I presume that that model will be the model adopted by racing clubs and entities throughout the state if need be. Thirdly, the Queensland Harness Racing Board and the Greyhound Racing Authority have been charged with the similar responsibility to report on company corporate governance structures by October next year. 4228 Racing Bill 30 Oct 2002

The proposed act implements the outcomes of three years of detailed consultation with the racing industry and places an emphasis on the role of government in relation to matters impacting on the probity and integrity of racing. I congratulate the minister for undertaking that very valuable and needed process. I will say a few words in relation to the racing club in my home city of Toowoomba, the Toowoomba Turf Club. Mr Fenlon: Obviously the opposition is very interested in this. Mr SHINE: The member for Greenslopes is referring to the absence of any opposition member, including the shadow minister. It is good to see the shadow minister returning. He has returned just in time for me to inform him of some developments with the Toowoomba Turf Club. I need to do this because what I notice from my infrequent visits to the Toowoomba Turf Club is that the shadow minister for racing is not a visitor there when I am there. In fact, I would hazard a guess that he has not been there for some years. Mr Hobbs: I have been there. Mr SHINE: Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the imprecise answer to my statement, might I inform the House, including the shadow minister, that the Toowoomba Turf Club has this year announced one of its biggest profits in the history of the club. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SHINE: Whether that is relevant to the biggest profit in the history of the club, I am not too sure. Other good news is that the club is on track to reach that milestone again this year. The Toowoomba Turf Club is looking to establish a registered club in conjunction with the Toowoomba Clydesdales at the racecourse, which now has freehold title. So the club has been innovative. It is expanding into other forms of sport. One can only hope that that venture will be successful. This would break new ground in Queensland racing through combining racing and Rugby League. Feasibility studies into this venture point to strong success. Benefits for a successful joint venture club would flow back to the racing industry on the downs and to Rugby League as well. The Toowoomba Turf Club committee is hopeful that this proposal will receive strong community support, because at the end of the day it is the community that will gain the most from this proposed venture. It is hoped by the club that they will lodge an appropriate application for a gaming licence in the near future. I was pleased to be able to inform the House of that development. I formally acknowledge the contribution made by that committee, led by Neville Stewart, as a very successful entity in the Toowoomba community and economy. Before I conclude my remarks, I must take issue with my friend the member for Mackay. Earlier today he made reference to what happened in the 1920s and referred to the late Mr John Wren. He quoted as his source of information the communist author Frank Hardy in his novel Power Without Glory. It was of course erroneous. The late John Wren was nothing like the picture painted in that book or in its following series. Having heard the honourable member for Mackay, I spent the lunch hour researching in the library facts about Mr Wren. I have come up with an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. It is true that Mr Wren was very, very interested in proprietary racing. Although it is mentioned in this bill as being innovative, it is not unknown in Queensland. Just to give members a picture of Mr Wren's activities, I quote the following— The Victorian Racing Club's temporary refusal to accept Wren's nominations was based on competition for gamblers' shillings and distaste for his origin, associations and success. Wren's response was to buy into Richmond, Fitzroy and Ascot pony courses, which he personally controlled and cleansed. His use of professional stewards was an innovation. There is no evidence that he had associations with the murderous tout ‘Squizzy Taylor‘. Further— In Brisbane-Ipswich Wren owned six racecourses, including Doomben. A Queensland inquiry under a non-Labor government— the Moore government— in 1930 found that, because proprietary racing was controlled by Wren, it was inherently corrupt. Simply because of that reason! Further— In 1948 Wren told a Commonwealth royal commission that he had bought Albion Park for £31,000, sold it for £450,000 and earned £300,000 from it. I think that that quote contains some interesting points. Mr Cummins: Huge amounts in those days. 30 Oct 2002 Racing Bill 4229

Mr SHINE: I take that interjection from the member for Kawana. That quote puts into perspective what happened in the past. The fact is that Mr Wren was the victim of that conservative government that was elected by accident in 1929. As members will know, that position was rectified in 1932, although proprietary racing was not introduced thereafter. The legislation provides that proper controls be set in place for eligible corporations, as they are referred to in clauses 8 and 10 of the legislation. The bill sets out seven criteria, such as that the applicants or the directors cannot be bankrupt, convicted of various offences, have not been warned off, and so on. It would seem to me that the controls that have been set in place will be more than adequate to ensure that we have a competitive and successful racing industry in Queensland in the early part of the 21st century. I commend the minister for the work that has been done. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr McNamara): Order! Before calling the honourable member for Cairns, I ask members to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of a group of Ministry of Education officials from Mozambique who are in Queensland studying English for business at the North Point Institute of TAFE. The chair would also like to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of school groups from the Emerald Education College in the electorate of Gregory and from Banora Point in New South Wales. Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (2.42 p.m.): I wish to speak to this bill for several reasons. Firstly, I pay compliments to the minister and the staff of her office and the department who have been instrumental in the formulation of this bill over a number of years. It has been a long and hard job undertaken in difficult circumstances. Unfortunately, probably the best word to describe racing in Cairns over these past years is ‘difficult’. It has been a hard time. The news has been absorbed in Cairns—and not happily so—that a reduction in race days is necessary. It was not really news in that all of us involved—and I dare say those closely involved in terms of it being their livelihood as well as those of us who have been clients, as it were, and who have enjoyed racing in Cairns—knew that it was coming. It has been a very hard time for racing in Cairns for some good number of years. We have known that there have been increasing debts, that attendance has progressively dropped off and that prize money has become more and more problematic. There have been a number of changes of management in the Cairns Jockey Club over these past years—all of them good people intending to do their best and putting in considerable effort to try to lift the club out of its difficult position, to improve racing in Cairns, to improve attendances and to become again financially viable. Unfortunately, as committed as the efforts of these people have been, they have not been successful. That is not due to the people involved; it is the circumstances in which the racing industry is in these years not only in Cairns but across Queensland and the changes that have occurred across Australia and in other countries. Sometimes, that has not been understood by those in Cairns who have been hanging on to a fine past, hoping that somehow the way could be found for that to occur again. Perhaps they have not looked closely at the changes that have occurred in the industry elsewhere and recognised the inevitable flow-on to country towns, such as Cairns. Unfortunately, there are no prospects of success, of a financial turnaround, or of a sudden change of heart in terms of customers coming back to attend race days. There are too many other choices. Those who enjoy horseracing can watch it in comfortable circumstances in clubs or pubs and even easily from their own homes. Nonetheless, there are some bright prospects for Cairns. I know the kind of support that the industry has and I know the determination of many of the players in the industry to find a good way forward. Maybe this crisis in racing will lead to a better time some years ahead. One of the tremendous advantages that we have in Cairns is that the Cairns Jockey Club has this magnificent parcel of land where the racecourse is situated. The parcel of land is very much larger than is needed for racing itself. Therefore, it offers some prospects for the development of associated industries or activities on that land, which may provide some income both in capital and in recurring funds. My hope is that those whom I know are interested in considering such proposals will find a way to put together an exciting proposal for maybe a multisports complex, where the racecourse itself might be the centrepiece and can be well enjoyed but also can be supported financially through other ancillary and related activities. I hope that the difficult times will lead us to this better place. I want to place on record my sincere support for the industry and my recognition that it is a very difficult time for a lot of people who have earned their living through racing in Cairns—probably for all of their adult lives. It is still 4230 Racing Bill 30 Oct 2002 some way away before we can look forward to the good times, but so far as I can assist with the planning of future race days and a more viable financial future in Cairns, I want all of those in the industry to know that I will proudly be part of that team. However, I recognise that the direction indicated in this bill is absolutely essential for the future. It is right and appropriate and I commend the minister and her staff for their efforts. I support the bill before the House. Hon. K. W. HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (2.49 p.m.): I rise to welcome the introduction of this bill and to acknowledge the great determination of the minister to pursue reform in the racing industry. Over the years we have seen how difficult it is to achieve reform, because a lot of vested interests resist, fight, and argue very determinedly against reform of the industry. They appeal to all sorts of people, all sorts of media outlets, or whatever they can, in order to resist reform of an industry that over the years has required great, great reform. The Racing Bill 2002 is definitely part of that process of reform. As I said, I congratulate the minister for having that determination. From what I see of the racing industry, nothing is easy. The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Racing and Betting Act 1980 and its key objective is to maintain public confidence in the racing of animals. The bill regulates the racing of animals upon which betting is permitted. It is important to recognise—I am not sure that the opposition has done that—that the bill implements the recommendations of the national competition policy review and provides an opportunity for new codes of racing to be improved. It removes the prohibition of proprietary racing. I am certain that the shadow minister spoke about that, but its importance is that it provides an opportunity for new ideas and potentially for new entrants to come in as promoters of racing. In the 21st century it is important to recognise the opportunity for taking on those new ideas and the possibility of new promoters. The bill removes advertising restrictions on racing bookmakers. What amazes me is that the shadow minister continues to operate under the assumption that privatisation never occurred. It is disappointing that the shadow minister has been exposed in this House as a member who knows nothing about the operation of the product and the program agreement, the back-to-back agreements, the Sky Channel contractual agreements or, it seems, any of the raft of other arrangements that allow the industry to function. I do not want to spend a lot of time talking about that, except to say that it is disappointing that the member has not understood it or not taken on board those issues. With the introduction of this bill, political interference and pressure will never again darken the door of Queensland racing. Decisions concerning racing will have to be made on the facts, because very clearly this minister and this government are not about pork barrelling, nepotism, mates rates and, in the end, shoddy public policy. Why does Mr Hobbs oppose this bill? Well, it is a mystery to me. It seems obvious to me that the Liberal Party supports this bill strongly. The member for Southport said that perhaps it had to do with some of the characters who have sent mail to the shadow minister or have urged him to oppose the bill. As I think the member for Southport said, one of those particular characters would at best be described as dodgy in terms of the times he has come to the attention of stewards. Perhaps the shadow minister has adopted the philosophy of politics which occurred this morning with the Leader of the Opposition in question time that 'we do not bother to read anything because we may learn the facts about an issue'. Other members, particularly the member for Caloundra, mentioned Corbould Park at Caloundra. I support her comments and the comments of other members in terms of Corbould Park. The good news for Corbould Park is the relocation of the powerful Bruce McLachlan stables to premises adjacent to the track. The proposal is for 66 stables adjacent to the track. Mrs Carryn Sullivan interjected. Mr HAYWARD: Exactly; it will create a lot of jobs and I will talk about some of those issues soon. When we speak about Bruce McLachlan we speak about one of the master trainers in Queensland, he having won 17 metropolitan premierships. He has trained more Group 1 winners than any other Queensland trainer. He is the holder of the Australian sports medal for his contribution to the sport of racing. I had the great pleasure to present that medal to him last year. Last year, he also won the Sunshine Coast premiership, and he leads this year's premiership on the Sunshine Coast. Some people say that if he felt like it—I do not really know what that means—he could win this year's metropolitan premiership as well. Knowing Bruce and his son Jason as I do, their stables will quickly become a showpiece on the Sunshine Coast and, importantly, as the member for Pumicestone said before, a substantial job generator in the local area. That is one of the great issues for racing—how much it can generate jobs in the local area. Mr Cummins: We welcome him on the Sunshine Coast. 30 Oct 2002 Racing Bill 4231

Mr HAYWARD: I think you should, because he has made a great contribution to racing in Queensland and Australia and will continue to do that from those stables. He currently operates out of Thornhill Park in the shire of Caboolture in the electorate now of the member for Kurwongbah. As I said, in the course of time he will relocate to these stables. While not directly related to racing, I take the opportunity to acknowledge a couple of jockeys I have got to know on the Sunshine Coast. The leading apprentice on the Sunshine Coast is a young man called Mitchell Rice. He has a big career in racing. I think he has a bigger career than he has in boxing, because Mitchell challenged a fellow called Brad Appo, someone the member from Toowoomba South would know, who hails from a family of very determined boxers. In fact, I think his brother held the Australian bantamweight or flyweight title at one stage. Mitchell fought Brad Appo for what was the south-east Queensland jockey's boxing title. Brad showed that that sport certainly does run in his family as well as racing—of course his brother is a prominent jockey as well—and if he decided to give up racing, he could quite easily take up the sport of professional boxing. In order to confirm that, we only have to ask Mitchell, of course. Racing is big business and, like it or not, people may have views that it should not be, but the reality of life is that it is big business. When we look at these big stables like the McLachlan stables and when we look at the number of jockeys and apprentice jockeys coming through, it has to be run like a business. That is what this bill is about. The approach must be based on sound commercial decisions. People who make decisions to race in Queensland, whether they are owners or trainers, must do that on the basis of commercial decisions. Those commercial decisions are taken in the best interests of the entire industry. This bill takes those decisions in the best interests of the owners, breeders, jockeys, trainers, stablehands and, importantly, the punting public. Surely we must accept the reality that a sport like racing in which so much money and investment is involved can no longer be controlled by what is basically a social club. Surely the time has come to accept that. The shadow minister spoke in opposition to this bill, but I think he made a mistake. The member needs to reconsider his position. It is important that he does that. The member cannot rely on the gang of informants he has, the people who have been exposed now as dodgy letter writers and so forth. They have nothing to offer Queensland racing. They have no vision, plan or chance. If the shadow minister continues to go down that path, he will be known as a person with no vision, no plan and no chance. I support the bill. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (2.59 p.m.): I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate because of the importance of the racing industry to Queensland, to my electorate and the city of Toowoomba. The Toowoomba track is one of the major training centres in Queensland, with some 600 horses in work, and it is the centre of the thoroughbred breeding industry on the Darling Downs. The bill has a number of broad objectives, as set out in the overview. A number of key reforms are aimed at the approval system for a control body for racing, including criteria that must be met, and the responsibility of the chief executive for monitoring the operations of control bodies from a probity, integrity and public accountability perspective. The bill sets out the responsibilities and obligations of a control body. It removes restrictions on new codes of racing by allowing a corporation to apply for control body approval under the act, it establishes the Racing Animal Welfare Integrity Board, a Racing Appeals Tribunal, maintains unlawful bookmaking and unlawful betting offences, and provides that existing control bodies will continue as statutory bodies for a period of three years, during which time they will be required to form a corporation and apply for control body approval. Under the Beattie government and in particular this minister there has been great instability and controversy in the racing industry. There is a lack of confidence in this minister, much of which stemmed from her woeful handling of putting in place the Thoroughbred Racing Board. Many people throughout Queensland in the racing industry have been prepared to look carefully at reforms. Over the years, thoroughbred racing, greyhound racing and harness racing have all had to adapt and move with the times. Although people are prepared to move with the times and adopt new ways of running a business, if they see a process that they believe has been manipulated and a process that takes away all of their confidence in the selection and appointment process, great damage can be done to the industry. This industry depends upon people cooperating and pulling together. People from different race clubs race at each other's venue. The industry needs to work cooperatively. Trainers, owners, strappers, jockeys, commentators, announcers and so on all need to feel they are part of a code that is pulling together. 4232 Racing Bill 30 Oct 2002

Under this government we have seen a total lack of confidence in the minister's and the government's ability to understand the industry, take the industry with them and carry out processes in difficult times correctly. I guess that is one reason the CMC is undertaking an investigation into the process. Ms Rose: No, they are not. You keep saying that, and they are not. Did you get a call the other day? Mr HORAN: The minister does not like the fact that there is an investigation under way. Ms Rose: Into the leaking of documents. Mr HORAN: That is part of the whole process. The minister should tell the whole story. Ms Rose: Get the facts right. Mr HORAN: It was about the leaking of the documents, which was part of the whole process. Ms Rose: Right. Mr HORAN: That is right. That is what the investigation is about. Many of the problems have started from the bungled handling of the TAB privatisation by the Labor government, which has forced prize money and other racing industry incentives to be slashed, has continued to erode Queensland's competitiveness and the ability to prevent owners, trainers, jockeys and racehorses from moving to other states. Under this minister, Queensland country racing is facing a real threat with the likelihood of club closures, despite the minister's reassurances and pledge concerning the future of country racing. It is like any sport: if we break down the structure and the grassroots where people learn and participate, fewer and fewer people will come through. It is like doing away with junior Rugby League and still expecting to have a senior code. The minister's poor handling of the portfolio generally and her interference in the selection process for the Queensland Thoroughbred Racing Board has all been to the detriment of country racing. It is proof that the minister is not capable of making decisions for the betterment of the industry or to take the industry forward in a cooperative way. The racing industry in Queensland has always depended to a great extent upon prize money. When we compare the amounts available, we can see why the other states are racing ahead of Queensland. This is an important industry, worth about $700 million to Queensland and employing directly and indirectly some 24,000 Queenslanders. Metropolitan Queensland race meetings paid average prize money of $23,193 compared with average stakes of $66,000 for metropolitan Victorian meetings and $57,335 at metropolitan Sydney meetings. Queensland's overall prize money, including country and provincial race meetings, also ranks last in the mainland, averaging just $10,093. Overall prize money averages in New South Wales were $15,146, $22,190 in Victoria, $13,732 in South Australia and $11,918 in Western Australia. The prize money pool obviously needs to be made bigger. Of all people, the Minister for Racing and the Queensland government have a role to play in that, particularly given the amount of money that comes into the government's coffers directly as a result of racing, despite the sell-off of the TAB and the bad deal done there. The adjustments and changes made by the Beattie Labor government gave Queensland a lesser deal through the privatisation of the TAB than would have been realised under the previous government. This Queensland government benefits to the order of $50 million a year from racing. The time when racing had a real boost was when the late Russ Hinze was Minister for Racing. He understood the value and importance of racing facilities. At that time, racing was facing challenges and competition from new events. The facilities provided gave racing a real boost at that time. That modernised racing and was part of a process to bring the crowds back. Racing has to be able to compete. It is competing with many major sports and against the gambling industry as a whole. It is competing with major clubs that have large screens with Sky Channel coverage, comfortable bars and facilities. Members can just walk in and do not have to pay admission at the gate. They are probably also located in their own suburb or town. Racing is also competing with PubTAB, phone betting and other challenges to the old system. Once upon a time, on a Saturday afternoon the racecourse was the only place to have a bet and large crowds used to attend race meetings. Racing has undergone a period of dramatic change resulting in less involvement from bookmakers and more interaction with the tote. That form of betting and TAB coverage have become very important. The clubs have to move with the times, be modern and competitive. In that regard, I congratulate the Toowoomba Turf Club on what it has been able to do over the past decade. The 30 Oct 2002 Racing Bill 4233

Toowoomba Turf Club introduced night racing. It was a bold and courageous move, particularly when sometimes in the evenings in winter the climate can be a bit challenging in Toowoomba. I was with the president and the secretary of the club in the early nineties when we went to the TAB, brought the proposal forward and commenced negotiations. This led to Toowoomba being able to move its timeslot from its afternoon slot to a late afternoon twilight slot so that it paralleled racing in Perth and was able to get better coverage by radio, Sky Channel and the TAB since it was not in the peak-hour congested times when it would be competing for space with some of the metropolitan and coastal tracks. That was a very important move for the club, because it provided the club with stronger returns from the TAB and through betting dividends. It also took a pioneering move to put in lights. They had been tried elsewhere and had not worked. Toowoomba has proved that night racing can work. The club should always be recognised for that pioneering attitude and the risk that was taken in putting in the lights and achieving that new type of thoroughbred racing. As new reforms and changes come into place, not just in Queensland but throughout Australia, it is important that Toowoomba remains the only Saturday twilight racing venue in Queensland. If other clubs see some benefit in twilight or night racing, they should have to choose some other date because the Toowoomba club has established itself as the No. 1 twilight racing club in the state. The club has put twilight racing in place at some cost and at some risk. There is no doubt that had the club not done that it would not have been so successful throughout the past decade. I want to refer to the financial returns of the club in this regard. This year the club returned just over $300,000. When we allow for depreciation and amortisation the figure comes down to about $100,000. It has been a very successful year. The club's trading net profit was $305,225. After amortisation, depreciation and abnormal items the figure was $100,598. For the previous year the figures were $239,262 profit, and after amortisation and depreciation the figure was $52,884. This has enabled the club to be able to put aside funds for items of improvement, for contributions to prize money, for special race meetings and the like. The success of this club can be shown by looking at the racing summary. The average number of starters per race was 10.23. That is fairly much the average that the club has been able to maintain over the past six years. It has varied from a low of 9.87 to a high of 10.37. So the club has been able to maintain that relatively strong average of numbers of starters per race. Prize money in the past financial year was $3,256,750. If we go back six years we find that it was $2,556,252. The average prize money per race for the past few years has been as follows: for last year it was $8,438, the year before it was $7,860, the year before it was $8,500, the year before that it was $7,944 and for the 1996-97 year it was $6,390. It has been a good effort by the club in maintaining an average number of starters and average prize money per race. Toowoomba is probably typical of larger regional clubs. No doubt the club is different in some ways because of the huge number of horses that work and train there. As I said earlier, it is the centre of the thoroughbred industry on the Darling Downs. I would like to congratulate the club on being so innovative, particularly in the area of sponsorships. I think last year the club had almost 300 sponsors. It has been able to maintain a strong marketing program by providing three function venues in the city. Some of these functions attract between 400 and 500 people. The club has large, medium and small function venues. It has been endeavouring to create and develop a club atmosphere that appeals to young people and others who do not normally frequent the races. People are encouraged to attend and enjoy the club and, hopefully, come back for specialised meetings. The big race day in Toowoomba is the Weetwood, one of the greatest race days in the city in terms of atmosphere, the quality of racing and the amount of prize money being offered. I believe the generous sponsorship of CUB has helped to make it a highly successful major event on the Queensland racing calendar. Because of all this and because of Toowoomba's position in relation to the thoroughbred racing industry it is essential that, as racing goes through various changes and reforms, Toowoomba is able to maintain its Saturday twilight race meetings and is not pushed aside by any ideas that the Thoroughbred Racing Board or anyone else may have. I have seen the difficulties under which provincial clubs operate when their race dates are changed. I was involved in starting and operating the Toowoomba Greyhound Racing Club. I was general manager of that club whilst it operated at the Toowoomba showgrounds. When the club raced on Saturday nights and Friday nights it was a successful club because provincial cities do not have large numbers of shift workers. Mid-week racing is not usually successful in provincial cities. It is necessary that 4234 Racing Bill 30 Oct 2002 racing occurs on set days in provincial cities. In Toowoomba it is absolutely essential that the Saturday evening race date is maintained. It is important for clubs such as the Toowoomba Turf Club to obtain one more race per race meeting. Many believe that if we had eight races instead of seven it would make the racing package that much more attractive. The Darling Downs Harness Racing Club had to battle to continue racing at Toowoomba. It was a shame that the club was pushed out by the government. The Toowoomba Greyhound Racing Club, which was so successful in the past, went through a period in the 1990s where it was put under administration. Had it been left to the committees, the volunteers and the types of people who had run it so successfully previously, there is no doubt that it would have continued successfully and would still be running today. This is another example of government interference taking a good race date away from a club. It is an example of destroying a club by the stroke of a pen in giving the club a mid-week race day that simply will not work in a provincial area. As I said at the outset, the racing industry is so important to Queensland. It is important because it is a decentralised industry. It is part of the entertainment of our state. It provides jobs for many people. Young people, including young Aboriginal lads and young girls, receive opportunities in the racing industry. They get into a system of indentures and support that give them every opportunity to obtain the skills of working with horses or working generally within the industry. They are able to work their way up. The industry provides a wonderful opportunity for those who want to get a job. The industry provides employment for many people in the areas of catering, hospitality, promotion, breeding, transport and fodder supply. It is crucial that this government gets back to listening to people. This bill was introduced with absolutely zero consultation with the industry. No wonder the industry is losing confidence in the minister and the government. This industry needs cooperation, confidence and trust. Those ingredients are lacking under this government. The racing industry is important to this state. It is time that this government got its act together and started talking to people and listening to people who give thousands of hours of voluntary time to the industry. They are highly experienced and knowledgable within the industry and know how to promote it. They have been owners or trainers or have put their hands in their pockets in order to be a part of the industry. The government must listen to those people because they have the knowledge and can offer the assistance and support that can make this great industry go ahead. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (3.19 p.m.): It gives me pleasure to rise today in this House to speak on the Racing Bill 2002. This legislation has been brought in to provide a modern legislative framework for the management and regulation of the Queensland racing industry. This bill will remove government further from the day-to-day operations of the racing industry but enhance the government's role in demanding accountability and transparency in the industry in matters impacting upon the probity, integrity and protection of the public interest. The primary policy objectives of the Racing Bill are to maintain public confidence in the racing of animals in Queensland on which betting is lawful and ensure the integrity of all persons involved with racing or betting under the proposed act. Everybody knows of the rogues and the spivs who get around racetracks and how important it is to ensure that they do not get into positions of control within the industry. My dad used to pencil for a bookmaker in central-western New South Wales. It was a treat from time to time to go with him and Big G—Gordon Hennessy—to the Bathurst, Orange, Forbes and Parkes race meetings, and they were mainly picnic race meetings in those days. I can tell members that the characters on those racetracks would open their eyes, particularly people around bookmakers and what they would get up to. Some would try to get more money than they should or urge people to back certain horses. Knowing full well that they had urged five or 10 people in one race, they knew that one of them was bound to get up and they would get a sling from that person but not care that the other nine lost. We have to ensure that the industry is run fairly. Another primary policy objective of the bill is to safeguard the welfare of all animals involved in racing under the proposed act. Most members in this House would think that that would be a foregone conclusion—that is, ensuring that horses in a person's control and management are looked after and that their welfare is in good hands. A mate of mine says that a racehorse is only as good as the feed you put into it and how well you look after it. However, there are other people around who would think differently from him. An uncle of mine used to race trotters—the red hots as they called them; pacers. At the Wagga Cup one of the bookies talked to my uncle and said, 'Listen, Tony. I'm sick of taking your money off you, mate, week after week. This bloody horse 30 Oct 2002 Racing Bill 4235 isn't running right. That bloody bloke of yours is hooking it. Every bookie here's laying it for the simple reason that it's running dead and he's getting money. So don't back it,’ because he and I had pockets full of money and we were going to back it. This bloke had not been looking after the horse well. After the race—it was too late to get at the bloke; he was out on the track—which the horse duly lost, about two minutes after the trainer got back with the horse he lost in the stables and was never seen in the racing industry again. He copped a nice old flogging. He left the district and nobody heard of him again. However, the animals need to be looked after. We found out later that the same bloke—all these stories come out later; people think that if you are the owner or controller of a horse you know what is going on—took a horse to Sydney and flogged the guts out of it. He gave it arsenic and all sorts of stuff to make it go. So there are unscrupulous people around. The legislation that the minister has introduced is needed to ensure that those types of people are kept out of racing and that horses race on their merits. Sometimes you cannot do much about the jockeys on their backs, but you can certainly make sure the horses race on their merits. Another objective of the bill is to meet national competition policy obligations by removing legislative restrictions on competition that cannot be justified in the public interest. Over the years the Racing and Betting Act 1980 has been amended on numerous occasions and as a result has become outdated and very complex. This legislation will rectify that. This is a huge industry and controls need to be kept in place. Since the privatisation of the TAB, the role of government in the regulation of the Queensland racing industry has been to focus on matters of probity and integrity. The actual day-to-day running and operations of racing have been gradually handed over to control bodies, so there is even more reason to ensure that people involved remain of the highest integrity. People make huge investments in this industry. A mate of mine was a builders labourer and is now a delegate on one of our sites. I have known him for many years. I will not mention his name, because he might not appreciate my mentioning him, but he has about 80 brood mares, three stallions and runs a multimillion-dollar complex. He wants to ensure that the industry remains viable and continues to prosper because he has invested a lot of money in the industry and will continue to do so because he loves racing. I do not know what return he gets. I know that he gets a lot of fun out of it and that that is what he lives for. We have to ensure that the racing industry stays viable for large operators as well as the small operators—the mums and dads. During debate on this bill I heard members of the opposition talk about how provincial racetracks are getting on. But the responsibility for making the hard decisions—for example, the number of clubs that can be maintained in a code—lies with the control bodies in racing communities, not with the government and not with the minister. The legislation sets out obligations and responsibilities for control bodies of codes of racing to have policies and rules which are transparent, equitable and non-discriminatory. Those bodies have been set up within this industry and another body will be set up in the year 2003, but the government's role in the controlling and running of racing is being further and further reduced. The minister puts a couple of million dollars into track maintenance— Ms Rose: Track subsidies. Mr PURCELL: She contributes money for track subsidies and so forth. I imagine that would be for safety reasons to ensure that tracks are safe for horses to race on. Some money comes from the Premier's Department for the promotion of racing such as the Winter Racing Carnival to attract people involved in the industry and tourists, because it is certainly a big race meeting. Ms Rose: Sponsorship. Mr PURCELL: Yes, sponsorship. I do not get to the track too often, but it is certainly a great place for socialising. I had a share in a horse with Ronnie McLean, a previous member. As members may know, Ronnie used to breed horses. We never won a race with the mare but we had a lot of fun. I do not think my wife had had a bet in her life until we got a share in this horse and then she went crazy. Ronnie and I would spend our time at the bar and Margaret would be out in the betting ring with both hands going full bore, flat-chat throwing money at bookies. She would back as many horses as she could so she would get a winner. She picked them on the basis of: 'That is a nice name; that is a good colour; I like that number; the grand-daughter was born on this day or that is so and so's birthday.' Inevitably she would come home winning; I do not know how she did it! Mr Seeney: Sounds like a pretty good theory. 4236 Racing Bill 30 Oct 2002

Mr PURCELL: Yes, it does sound like a pretty good theory; the member for Callide is right about that. It was a social outing for me. I would have a punt of course but would not lose too much sleep if I lost because I did not punt too much. It certainly is a great way to socialise. We need to get people back to the track to socialise. These control bodies need to put their thinking caps on as to how they can get people back to the track and make it more fun. The bill also maintains lawful bookmaking and lawful betting. We know what has happened in Sydney and other places from time to time when people do not act lawfully in that they try to control which horse wins or have a horse lose a race on purpose. This bill will clean up that practice. I support the bill. Hon. M. ROSE (Currumbin—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading) (3.28 p.m.), in reply: Before I begin my remarks in response to members' contributions to the Racing Bill, I table the explanatory notes for the amendments to be moved in committee. I also want to thank my departmental staff and Carol Perrett and Bob Mason. Bob has been working on the modernisation of Queensland racing legislation for many years, and this bill is the outcome of that hard work. His knowledge and understanding of the industry is exceptional. Contrary to what members of the opposition have claimed this afternoon, this bill is the culmination of years of consultation and years of hard work. I sincerely thank Bob very much for all of his hard work. I am extremely lucky to have him heading up my Racing Division. I also thank Dawn Ray. She is one of the best parliamentary drafters. She has done an absolutely fantastic job working with the Racing Division to make sure we have this legislation right. I also thank Mike Kelly, my chief of staff; Mike Duff, my racing adviser; and David Smith, my media adviser. They have been with me over my last couple of years as Racing Minister. We have borne the brunt of a lot of criticism and we have really copped it on the chin. That is more than I can say for the member for Warrego, who, as soon as he knew that it was my turn to respond, has run out of the chamber—run with his tail between his legs. Somebody suggested to me that he was 'Howard the Coward'. I would never have thought of that all by myself! All of the insults, nastiness and grubbiness he has thrown at me over the last couple of years I have copped on the chin. I have stood there and taken it, but when he knows that he might get a bit of criticism back, he runs away with his tail between his legs. Before I direct my comments to some of the inaccurate statements made by the member for Warrego, I refer to the comments of the member for Gladstone about moving the Gladstone Turf Club racecourse to land currently owned by the Gladstone Port Authority. I want it on the record that I have been kept informed by Queensland Racing and my department in relation to the proposal. I have an aerial photograph of the present site for the Gladstone Turf Club and the proposed Gladstone Port Authority site. The member for Gladstone is not in the chamber at this time, but I will make sure that she does get a copy of that aerial photograph. I certainly encourage her to encourage the Gladstone Turf Club to liaise closely with Queensland Racing in terms of working through the issues and negotiations. As with any reclaimed land there are a lot of issues that will need to be worked through before any final decisions are made. I will now address some of the comments made by the member for Warrego. I actually had some pictures here for him, because I know how difficult it is for him to understand things. On previous occasions I have used my fingers to help him to count things. I actually had a picture of Parliament House and a little symbol of the logo of Queensland Racing in order to explain to him how Queensland Racing is run in Queensland. The government's and my responsibility is for the integrity and probity of the racing industry. It is not for the day-to-day management issues of racing. My responsibilities have nothing to do with prize money, with race dates or with the day-to-day management and running of Queensland racing. I do not know how many times I have said it. I have listened to the mumbling and bumbling of the opposition spokesman, who just cannot seem to understand. I do not know what sort of language one has to use for him to understand the difference between the roles and the responsibilities of the minister and government and the roles and responsibilities of the control bodies. The control bodies do this. They always have and always will. That is the system Australiawide. I cannot understand. For him to be the opposition spokesman for racing in this state and not understand the functions of the control bodies and the functions of the minister and the government is extraordinary. Either he is incredibly stupid or he continues to play petty politics with the very important racing industry. Mr Lawlor: Or both. 30 Oct 2002 Racing Bill 4237

Ms ROSE: He could be both. The Queensland Thoroughbred Racing Board was appointed by an industry dominated selection panel. It is about time the member for Warrego got over it and tried to offer something constructive to the Queensland racing industry instead of constantly moaning and mumbling. The process was as independent, transparent and professional as I could make it. Unfortunately, I have no power over industry nominees to the selection panel, who leaked like my father's old farm water tank. The member for Warrego has gone on and on in this House about the QTRB. This bill has nothing to do with that. However, as he has raised the QTRB and once again attacked the industry, I need to put a few things on the record. When the chair of the QTRB approached the opposition spokesman at the recent Horse of the Year awards in an attempt to provide some factual information about the structure and operation of the industry, guess what he said? He did not want to know. He was not interested. Mr Seeney: How do you know? Where were you? You weren't there. Ms ROSE: There were plenty of people around who were listening. In Townsville the member told parliament that closing down country race meetings was not on and that he wanted me to interfere in Queensland Thoroughbred Racing Board core business. He wants me to interfere in the QTRB! On the one hand he says that I interfere in the process; on the other hand he is telling me that I should interfere in the process. Seriously, I just do not know how that man puts his thoughts together. Why is it so hard for the member for Warrego to comprehend that the government does not fund race clubs? It never has and it is not going to. The member for Warrego and the member for Callide—I can see that the member for Callide is in the House—have absolutely no understanding about how racing is funded or how it operates in Queensland. It is the Australian Racing Board that empowers the QTRB to act as the principal club within the Australian racing industry. The industry's own rules preclude the minister of the day from any form of direct intervention. The member for Callide should note this, as he exposed his ignorance of this fact in his comments yesterday. Mr Seeney interjected. Ms ROSE: He should read the policy. It says 'policies'. The people sitting opposite do not even know the basics, such as where the money comes from to run racing or what the Australian Racing Board is. The member for Warrego and those who share his views are a small clique that finds modernisation of the industry abhorrent. They prefer to live in the past and they refuse to accept change. They are helping to push an hysterical scaremongering campaign being run by the well-heeled element within the industry that refuses to accept that they no longer hold the reins of power. On the final day of the public hearings of the Fitzgerald inquiry into corruption, Commissioner Tony Fitzgerald warned of the great risk in the period leading up to his report and the implementation of his recommendations. He was so concerned that he warned of a risk. I quote from award winning author Evan Whitton's book The Hillbilly Dictator. It states— ... that the interval will be filled with attempts by those who fear or resent reform to reassert control, including propaganda aimed at diminishing support for what has occurred and for whatever changes are proposed ... One could be forgiven for thinking that he was actually writing about an element within the Queensland racing industry. It is 2002 and it is time to embrace change in the Queensland racing industry. The Leader of the Opposition has been going on for the last couple of years about what a shocking state the racing industry is in. He says, 'It is in a terrible state. It is in decline. All the trainers and horses are going south and there is no prize money.' But when somebody tries to do anything about it, what does he do? He jumps up and down and screams that somebody is trying to effect change! Neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the member for Warrego knows anything about the operation of the product and program agreement. They know nothing about the back to back agreements. They know nothing about the Sky Channel contractual arrangements or any of the other raft of arrangements that allow the industry to function. The Queensland Racing chair, Bob Bentley, is on the public record stating that political interference and pressure will not influence board decisions. I know that the opposition finds that a very different approach to racing—no pork-barrelling, no political patronage, no brown paper bag politics and no building of white elephants. We have heard about this great tradition of Russ 4238 Racing Bill 30 Oct 2002

Hinze—how he went around and he built all of these great facilitates. But did he provide any money for maintaining those facilitates? No! In the House last Thursday, the member for Warrego stated on numerous occasions that no- one in the south-east region was part of the consultation in relation to the Racing Bill. The Racing Bill was not drafted overnight. It is a product of over 10 years of review and reform of the racing industry in Queensland. Proper consultation does not merely involve sending out a copy of draft legislation for comment. The industry has to be involved at the grassroots level and this is exactly what has happened over the extensive period of consultation for this bill. I would like to remind members opposite—and the member for Warrego in particular—that the south-east region of racing in Queensland covers far more players than merely the QTC. The member for Warrego referred to a letter that they had written, saying that they had not been consulted. I met with representatives of the QTC and showed them a copy of a transmission slip, which showed that on the day that the bill was introduced, they were faxed a copy of my press release and a copy of my second reading speech, and they claimed that they got nothing. I seek leave to table a letter. Leave granted. Ms ROSE: It is from Ian Petersen, the President of the Gympie Sprint Horse Racing Club. In that letter, Mr Petersen thanks my department for the manner in which they consulted with this association over many hours and kept them informed during the formulation of the Racing Bill, which permits additional codes of racing to be approved. Not only did we consult with currently registered bodies but also we even consulted with those such as the Gympie Sprint Horse Racing Club, who are not even in the regulated industry. Contrary to statements made by the member for Warrego on Thursday, the QTC was consulted during the preparation of the Racing Bill. Since 1990, the QTC has been consulted on every occasion on which change in the industry has been suggested. In particular, during my government's review of the thoroughbred racing code in Queensland, there was a lot of consultation with the QTC. Both the Premier and I had a number meetings with the committee members of the QTC. The QTC, along with about 90 other people and organisations, lodged a lengthy written submission to the review, which was considered in detail. The Racing Bill is the culmination of a long process of reform of the Queensland racing industry. The bill does not affect the day-to-day operations of the racing industry, that is, the hard work that trainers, jockeys and strappers put in every day to prepare animals to race. The Racing Bill is about ensuring probity and integrity in racing and provides greater safeguards for all racing industry participants, including clubs, trainers and jockeys. It is unfortunate that during every racing reform process since 1990, the QTC has been resistant to any change that has ever been suggested and has actively worked against that change, usually using gutter tactics. Their latest childlike trick is to display defamatory placards on a truck parked in their car park. It appears that their latest media spokesman is none other than Bill Carter, and he is continuing the great QTC tradition of misinformation and resistance. Notwithstanding Mr Carter's comments in the Courier-Mail, this bill does not promote proprietary racing. It simply removes an old fashioned, non-justifiable restriction on competition and ensures the probity and integrity of the racing product. Mr Carter talks about taking racing out of the hands of ordinary people and giving the control of it to rich people. It is interesting to read the names of the so-called ordinary people whom Mr Carter uses as examples: a couple of knights—and I note that Mr Carter dropped the title 'sir' to make them look like ordinary Aussie battlers—Supreme Court judges, a couple of wealthy graziers, large hotelier families and lawyers. Mr Mulherin: And no wharfies. Ms ROSE: And no wharfies. Comments made by the member for Warrego last Thursday in relation to the funding of Queensland racing demonstrate his ignorance when it comes to Queensland Racing and how it is funded. He stated that the 15-year agreement with TAB Queensland is renewable on 30 June 2003. It is a 15-year agreement! He is really good, this guy. The Queensland TAB was corporatised and privatised in 1999. The funding agreement for the Queensland racing industry, known as the product and program agreement, is a commercial contract between the Queensland TAB and the three control bodies of racing. It is not a contract between the Queensland government and the Queensland TAB. That is what the member for Warrego said. He absolutely has no idea. 30 Oct 2002 Racing Bill 4239

On Thursday, the member for Warrego continued to harp on about the TAB privatisation and the raw deal that Queensland racing got from the privatisation. The only raw part of the deal for Queensland racing was that the Nationals and Liberals gutted and sold out the racing industry by giving away poker machine revenue as a source of revenue for the industry. We have heard about that this morning. One of the other members went on about it, so I am not going to waste the time of the House by going over that again. The Queensland racing industry has to operate smart and it has to work out how it can maximise racing revenue to enable prize money to grow. I would like to turn to some country racing issues, because that is something that has been raised by a number of members on both sides of the House. I have said it in the past and I will again state that I have a very strong passion for country racing in Queensland, as many members do. I grew up with it—my mother has been a member of a country race club for over 30 years; my family is heavily involved. But the reality of life is that racing is not the same as it was 30 years ago, it is not the same as it was 25 years ago and it is certainly not the same as it was 50 years ago. However, for the first time, country racing has a dedicated body sponsored by legislation that is responsible for dealing with non-TABQ clubs and their issues. I established in legislation the Queensland Regional Racing Council, which is responsible for considering submissions from racing associations, developing a distribution strategy for prize money and other funding, making recommendations about the racing calendar, monitoring the performance of non-TABQ race clubs and non-TABQ race meetings, and providing reports and recommendations to the control body for the thoroughbred code. Members of the council are the chairpersons of racing associations. However, an individual cannot be a member of the council if the individual holds office as a member of a racing association because of a nomination by a TABQ club or is a member of the committee of a TABQ club. The Queensland Regional Racing Council is responsible for advising the board of Queensland Racing on the very issues that have been raised in this House. This bill is not a trigger for any review. It in no way impacts on the review of racing frequency and race date allocations being undertaken by Queensland Racing. That is their job and they would be doing it regardless of this bill, because it is required. Country racing is important for all the reasons that have been expressed in the House over the past few days. But the fact remains that a lot of small and mid-sized clubs are struggling. They are struggling to fill fields and there is a dramatic lack of support for racing in some areas. The member for Tablelands and the member for Cairns raised the issue of racing in Cairns. I love going to the races in Cairns. I have done so on many occasions, but the fact is that the Cairns club has gone broke a number of times and it has had to be bailed out again and again with industry funds, probably to the detriment of some other clubs. That could not be allowed to continue. The story for Cairns is the same as that of some other clubs: a choice between less racing or no racing at all. Sadly, the industry does not have inexhaustible resources. Racing has to be assessed on what is needed to sustain the entire industry rather than just historical figures and political patronage. There is too much racing and historically it has been poorly programmed. That is the reality. The facts are as has been stated not only by the chair of QTRB but even by clubs themselves. Clubs that can demonstrate that they are viable and have real, long-term community support—not just for a couple of race meetings after someone says they might lose some race dates or when the local turf writer pens a sympathetic article calling on anyone to attend the races—then they have a case to take to Queensland Racing. QTRB chairman Bob Bentley has given me his commitment that he will listen. That was confirmed today by the member for Mackay who recently met with him regarding the Mackay Turf Club. There are some hard decisions coming for the industry, but the decisions are ones for the industry—not government. I will not and cannot interfere in the day-to-day decisions of any control body. The days of any racing minister holding power over the funding and future of race clubs are long gone. Those who wish to influence the day-to-day decisions of the industry should be making their cases to the Queensland Regional Racing Council and Queensland Racing rather than expecting ministerial and government interference. The member for Warrego told the House last Thursday that under the Racing Bill control bodies will be more powerful than the old control bodies. Again, that is just wrong. The provisions in the bill concerning the regulation of race clubs by control bodies replicate the provisions which already exist in the Racing and Betting Act and which were supported by the member for Warrego. There are no additional powers; they are just the same, and they were supported by the member for Warrego. We will be going through the clauses later, but clause 34 actually sets out 4240 Racing Bill 30 Oct 2002 in modern drafting language the powers granted to control bodies. I met with the QTC and explained this in detail, and legal advice to my department confirms this situation. The drafting language used in the Racing Bill differs from the words used in the Racing and Betting Act. This is no surprise given that the initial drafting for the old act relied on legislation from the 1950s. It was clearly a time when it needed to be modernised. The same criticism raised by the member for Warrego was raised by the QTC. One wonders whether the identical words being used was more than just a coincidence. The member for Warrego should do his own research, but if he cannot he should not rely on the QTC or Bill Carter for advice. The power granted to control bodies to give a direction to a licensed race club contained in the Racing Bill is the same power granted to control bodies in 1980 by the Racing and Betting Act 1980. The QTC has actually raised a number of other issues. I am not sure whether or not the opposition will raise them during committee. They did raise some objections to the show cause procedure for race club disciplinary actions set out in the Racing Bill. A review of Queensland legislation shows that at least 51 acts have a show cause procedure which provides for only written representations to be made. The Racing and Betting Act is one of these which has the same show cause procedure for clubs as the Racing Bill. Written representations provide certainty and ensure that all parties have the same facts and information. It is in the interests both of clubs and control bodies that all show cause procedures be in writing. The QTC wanted an additional right for clubs to cross-examine control bodies before responding in writing to the show cause notice. This is neither necessary nor appropriate and does not exist in comparable Queensland legislation. Let us leave the cross-examination to the courts and tribunals. The member for Warrego and the QTC have criticised the Racing Bill for not affording clubs natural justice and not affording race clubs a right of review under the Judicial Review Act. The member for Warrego's suggestion on Thursday that the rights of appeal granted to clubs are 'not anywhere near what they are now' is wrong. It is wrong, wrong, wrong. These concerns are completely without foundation, but I am used to the member for Warrego's wild, hysterical and inaccurate claims. A review of the operations of the Racing Appeals Authority in 2001 confirmed widespread industry support for the operations of the authority. The authority administers justice within the Queensland racing industry efficiently and economically and deals with the vast majority of appeals within 28 days of the date on which an appeal is lodged. Supreme Court litigation is costly and time consuming. Some litigation takes years and thousands of dollars to resolve. The QTC is the only race club in Queensland that has an $8 million slush fund for legal fees. In contrast to the QTC, the vast majority of race clubs in Queensland would find it difficult to afford one day's legal fees for a judicial review application, let alone prepare for a full trial. It would be interesting one day to discover why the QTC is so wealthy when most clubs have nowhere near this type of money lying around. Clause 172 of the bill provides that the Racing Appeals Tribunal has the power to conduct a fresh hearing. A rehearing provides a broader review of decisions than judicial review. As the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee identified, the Judicial Review Act of course confers a more restricted scope for challenging decisions than does merit review. I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. M. ROSE (Currumbin—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading) in charge of the bill. Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2— Mr SEENEY (3.57 p.m.): I would like to deal with clause 2 initially because it refers to the commencement of the bill. I presume that this bill will be proclaimed early next week. I note the minister's comments in response to the member for Warrego's concerns that the minister believes that the consultation process has been satisfactory and comprehensive. The minister would have to concede that there is a body of opinion in the racing industry that holds the contrary view, the view that consultation has not been as it should have. Does the minister have plans to consult with those people before the new legislation comes into place, because the minister would agree that, if the industry is to achieve any sort of stability or equilibrium, we really need to put to rest the concerns out there about the consultation process that has been entered into? Even though the minister holds the opinion that the consultation process until now has been extensive, the minister certainly has not been successful in convincing everybody else of that. It is a problem that needs 30 Oct 2002 Racing Bill 4241 to be addressed. Will the minister give some indication, first, that she recognises there is a problem; and, secondly, how will the minister address it? Ms ROSE: The bill will not start until it is proclaimed. Regulations have to be drafted. It will not commence until next year. Whenever any club, like the QTC, asks to see me, I will always see them. I am happy to talk to them any time. Mr SEENEY: There is one other question regarding the commencement date. Clause 398 and schedule 2 appear to act retrospectively to 4 April 2002. Is there a reason for that? I am always concerned about anything that acts retrospectively. Given that they deal with penalties by and large in that they set out a whole range of penalties for a range of offences, will the minister give the committee an assurance that those penalties listed in schedule 2 act retrospectively? Is there a reason for that? Are there particular instances under consideration that require those penalties to be imposed retrospectively? Ms ROSE: It is not retrospective, it is a relocation. It concerns provisions of the Racing and Betting Act relating to current control bodies, so it is not retrospective. Clause 2, as read, agreed to. Clause 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr SEENEY (4.00 p.m.): The main purpose of the legislation is to maintain public confidence in the industry. Every participant in this debate has expressed the desire for the legislation to achieve that. In respect of clause 2 and the consultation that is necessary, the minister did not address the issue when I raised it in clause 2. Between now and the time that this legislation is proclaimed, does she have plans to do anything to overcome the problem that I spoke about earlier which is threatening public confidence in the industry? Ms ROSE: Does the member mean consultation? There has been so much consultation we have consulted to death. As I said, everything goes on our web site. We broadcast facsimiles to all clubs. If there are to be any changes or if something is happening, all clubs are notified. If I get a request to see, as I did the other day, the QTC, I meet with it. I met with it within 48 hours of its request coming through. Mr SEENEY: How does the minister account for the fact that there is this body of dissatisfaction and angst in the industry? Is the minister going to steamroll those people and force this legislation through the House with the numbers and say to the industry, 'Like it or lump it. Cop it sweet,' or is she going to try to address the dissatisfaction and angst in the industry so that the public can have confidence in the racing industry, which is one of the first points that she lists as the main purpose of the act? That is the question. Ms ROSE: We are not forcing the legislation through. I heard the member for Caloundra, from the Liberal Party, saying that that party was supporting the bill. It certainly is not being forced through; we have the support of the Liberal Party, which is part of the coalition opposition. I do not know how many times I can say that the industry has been consulted. If at any time there is any further consultation to be had, I will consult with the industry. The purpose of this bill is to maintain public confidence. That is a current responsibility of a control body and that will continue. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clauses 5 to 16, as read, agreed to. Clause 17— Mr SEENEY (4.03 p.m.): Clause 17 states that the chief executive must call a meeting of all approval applicants with the intention of mediating. It goes on to state that the chief executive may arrange for a suitably qualified person to be a mediator at the meeting and, if a mediator agreement cannot be reached at the meeting, the chief executive must include information about the mediation in the chief executive's report to the minister. The question that arises is: what role does the minister play in that situation when, after the mediation that is facilitated by the chief executive, agreement cannot be reached? Is it then the minister's role to reach a decision in that sort of situation? The explanatory notes deal with it as well. They state that the chief executive must report to the minister. Can the minister give an example of some sort of situation this would apply to and how it rests with the minister's often repeated assertion in this debate that the minister does not have any control in this type of decision? Yet here in the legislation it quite clearly indicates that in this situation the minister does have a role and the minister must be the one who decides? 4242 Racing Bill 30 Oct 2002

Ms ROSE: If, as the member correctly stated, a mediated settlement cannot be reached, the chief executive must report that to the minister. The minister is the final decision maker to approve or not approve, on the recommendation of the CEO. Mr SEENEY: The minister said 'on the recommendation of the CEO'. The chief executive is reporting the fact that the minister has to make a decision. How does that sit with what the minister has been asserting through the length of this debate, that the minister does not make those decisions? Here is a case where the legislation quite clearly gives the minister a decision- making role? Ms ROSE: It is because that is part of the probity and integrity of the industry. The member is not talking about day-to-day management decisions. I have said all along that the responsibility of the minister and the government are in terms of probity and integrity matters for the racing industry. This is covered in that. This has nothing to do with race dates, race clubs or anything like that. This relates to the fundamental integrity and probity of the racing industry. If the CEO cannot mediate a settlement, he then reports to the minister and the minister is the final decision maker. But these are not on the day-to-day management decisions— Mr Seeney: What sort of issue would that be? Give us an example. Ms ROSE: Two groups wanting to be the control body for sprint racing. Clause 17, as read, agreed to. Clauses 18 to 28, as read, agreed to. Clause 29— Mr SEENEY (4.07 p.m.): Clause 29 deals with the yearly fee payable by each control body. A number of questions relate to the payment of that yearly fee by the control body which certainly are not addressed in the legislation and which I think as part of this debate we should explore. Firstly, I would expect that most people in the industry would be interested to know just how much the fee will be—how it is struck—that the control body is required to pay. Obviously, it will be set by regulation. That is not uncommon in terms of legislation. The regulation can prescribe the amount of the fee payable under this section for each year and it can be varied from year to year. Will this be a substantial fee? Will it be a fee that has to be met by the industry? Will it be a nominal fee? Will it be $1 or $2 or will it be a substantial fee that will be a financial impost on the industry? Rather than asking for a specific amount, I am seeking an indication of just how substantial that fee will be and whether it has to be met by all of the subsidiary bodies that the control body is responsible for. That would be a responsible thing for the minister to do so as to give the industry some indication of the extent of that fee and whether or not it will be an impost on the industry. The second question that arises in regard to that fee is: what happens to it? Where does it go? Does it just disappear into the government's consolidated revenue or will it be used for the advancement of the industry in some way? Has the minister dealt with those issues or does she have any plans in that regard? Ms ROSE: As the honourable member quite rightly pointed out, the fee will be determined by regulation. There will be consultation with the control bodies. The impact, of course, will need to be assessed. It goes into part of the control body's costs of operating, the same as other administration costs. It goes into a consolidated fund. I just cannot give the honourable member an idea of what the cost is going to be because I do not know. There is going to have to be consultation with the control body. Mr SEENEY: I take it from what the minister has said that she is going to negotiate with the control body about how much it is either able or prepared to pay to the government. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is a fee that is paid by the control body to the government. The minister is going to negotiate with the control body about what they are able or willing to pay. That is something that the minister will negotiate on. She cannot give us any indication at the moment as to the size of that fee. I guess the option for the control body is to argue that it cannot pay anything. The second issue concerns what the fee is going to be used for. I think this is probably the more important issue. If the government is going to collect money from the industry is it not duty bound in some way to ensure that that money is spent to the advancement of the industry, or is this fee simply going to be a tax on the industry which can disappear into consolidated revenue and be used for whatever? We have a situation where the fee can be prescribed by regulation each year, and that is not unusual. If it just becomes a tax on the industry it is not beyond the realms of possibility that it can be used as some sort of a growth tax over time, and the industry 30 Oct 2002 Racing Bill 4243 can be taxed more and more each year for the benefit of the government without any assurance that the money so raised will be used for the betterment of the industry. Ms ROSE: It is intended to cover costs of monitoring the approved control bodies only. We are not out to make any money out of it at all. The government collects fees from all sorts of industries—for example, the real estate industry. We do not actually make any money out of it. It is not a tax. It is a fee for service and it is just about recovering costs. Clause 29, as read, agreed to. Clauses 30 to 33, as read, agreed to. Clause 34— Mr SEENEY (4.12 p.m.): Clause 34 relates to the powers of the control body and it sets out in some detail the sorts of powers that the legislation gives to the control body. I guess the concern of some people in the community is how they can be assured that those policies will be fair and reasonable. The control body is answerable to the minister. The minister has been saying over and again in this debate—even though I disagree—that she does not intend to exercise any control over the control body. What, then, is the mechanism for a section of the general community or a section of the racing community that believes that the powers that are being exercised by the control body are being exercised in a manner that is not fair and reasonable? Surely there needs to be a check and a balance. There needs to be some sort of assurance which gives the general public and the racing community in particular some confidence. In an extreme situation in which the control body is, in their belief, acting in a manner that is not fair and reasonable, there needs to be a mechanism for them to have their case heard. Perhaps the minister could give the House some indication of what options would be open to members of the racing community who felt that the control body was acting in a manner that was not fair and reasonable. Ms ROSE: I want to again make it clear that the powers of the control body under the Racing Bill are the same as they were under the Racing and Betting Act. The wording and the language are different but the powers are still the same. The wording needed to be modernised. The control bodies do have an obligation to operate effectively and efficiently. There are three options open to race clubs or people who feel that they have been unfairly treated by the control body. They can go to the Racing Appeals Tribunal, they can go to the Supreme Court or they can make a complaint to me. As I said when we brought the QTRB into being, there have to be extreme extenuating circumstances for me to take away the powers of the control body. However, if it became necessary in extreme circumstances I have the power to do that. What I can do is direct the control bodies in the area of policies. For example, I contacted the former control body about a sexual harassment policy. It did not have a sexual harassment policy. I wrote to them and suggested that it would be a really good idea if they had a sexual harassment policy. What I now have the power to do is to be able to direct them to have a sexual harassment policy or a discrimination policy. For a control body to be a control body it must have a way to develop a policy and it must develop its policy in consultation with stakeholders, and that is where I have the power to direct them to formulate those policies. The minister also has the power to issue a show cause notice, which I referred to in my reply, to a control body that does not comply with the act. If the control body breaches the act in any way I have the power to issue it with a show cause notice. The minister licences a control body and the control body is responsible for its operations. Mr SEENEY: Subclauses 2 to 4 of this clause certainly set out actions that control bodies might take in a fairly extreme circumstance. It relates to the control body giving directions to a club in quite an extensive way. It relates to giving directions about the operations of the club including 'matters in relation to the licensed club's assets'. I ask the minister whether she interprets that section of the clause as allowing the control body to seize the club's assets in an extreme circumstance? How would that work seeing that clubs own freehold land? Obviously there would be major problems involved in that type of situation. Alternatively, if the control body is not to seize the assets, is it possible that a club could be directed to sell its assets? These powers are quite far reaching when one thinks through them. This House needs some explanation about how the minister sees these particular subclauses of clause 34 operating. As part of asking this question, I concede that these situations would arise on a very irregular basis. It is an extreme situation that all of us would rather not see happen at all. It is important in terms of understanding the extent of this legislation that the minister gives us some indication of how these particular subclauses of clause 34 are meant to operate. 4244 Racing Bill 30 Oct 2002

Ms ROSE: As I said before, the powers listed there are the same as they are now. There was an example given to me the other day when a person said, 'Does that mean that a club could be directed to paint all their stables pink?' I said, 'They've never done it before.' So that power of direction is an existing power of direction. It certainly has not been used by any control body, either the current one or previous control bodies, to give directions like that. Mr Seeney interjected. Ms ROSE: Yes, the power is exactly the same. They have had that same power. It is the status quo. All that has been done here is the language has been modernised, but they have always had that power. It would be really foolish of any control body to go in and make outrageous directions with the selling off of assets. It would be extremely foolish of them to do that. There are checks and balances built into the bill. There are more safeguards now. Let us take the scenario that a race club was given a direction that they disagreed with and so they decided to go to the old Racing Appeals Authority and the Racing Appeals Authority would then make a determination as to whether or not it believed that they actually had a case, because until this bill only licensees had a direct right of appeal to the Racing Appeals Authority. What we have done is widened this so that race clubs can now go to the Racing Appeals Tribunal if they feel that they have been unfairly directed by the control body, but they did not have that automatic avenue of appeal to the tribunal before. So we have actually widened that. As I said, the powers are the same as they were in the Racing and Betting Act. Clause 34, as read, agreed to. Clauses 35 to 37, as read, agreed to. Clause 38— Mr SEENEY (4.21 p.m.): Clause 38 deals with the obligation to have a racing calendar for a particular code of racing issued. I presume this refers to the monthly publication and the annual race dates. I think the minister would agree with me that previously the racing calendar for the coming year would normally have been published by now, yet that is not the case. Does the minister see a need to have a period of lead time after the racing calendar is published? The minister said that this legislation will not come into effect until next year. Is it a matter of concern to the minister that there is not a racing calendar published for next year? Is there a need in this particular section of the legislation that deals with an obligation to have a racing calendar for that particular code of racing to have a time line for the publication of the racing calendar so that there is sufficient lead time for participants in the industry to plan for the coming year? Ms ROSE: That is right; the racing calendar is the publication. The race dates are usually published around about March each year. The control body is actually working through the calendar with clubs now to work out race dates. Some concerns have been raised by clubs, but that process is actually being worked through now by the control body. The race calendar is a day-to-day issue. They need one. I do not have the power to tell them when to publish it. A racing calendar is a publication that also publishes important notices to licensees as well as the racing calendar, but my understanding is that the control bodies do not have a legal obligation to actually provide the racing calendar. But it certainly is necessary, I believe, to inform licensees of race meetings to be conducted. As the member says, how can race clubs plan if they do not know their dates? But there is a committee through the control body that is working on those race dates at the moment and it does have to be available seven days before the start of a calendar period. Mr SEENEY: Minister, the point is that this particular section of the legislation does oblige a control body to prepare a program, the racing calendar. The minister does have the power to require a control body to prepare that calendar. I would question whether a lead time of seven days is sufficient in terms of notice regarding the calendar for a particular race code. Given the situation that there is doubt in the industry and the suggestion that a large number of race meetings probably will not continue and a large number of clubs will be unable to run as many race meetings as they have in the past, this issue of the calendar and its publication and the lead time is an important one. It is one that concerns many of those race clubs that are facing the possibility of being granted fewer race meetings than they have in the past. They are keen to know. They will be keen to know from one year to the next the extent to which their activities can continue. I think it is an important issue for the minister. Ms ROSE: The racing calendar is published every month and, as the member correctly points out, it must be available at least seven days before the start of the calendar period and for the duration of the period and include information about the dates and venues at which races will be held and the types of races to be held at the meetings. But the clubs already know. The clubs 30 Oct 2002 Racing Bill 4245 work through it for months. As I said, they will know by March next year what their race dates are for the following year. They will know that. It is only that the magazine is published once a month. There are 900 plus meetings a year. It cannot be put out in one month. There is a monthly calendar of where all the racing is for that month. That does not mean that the clubs are not aware of what their race dates are going to be; they know them because they have already worked through and negotiated with a control body. Clause 38, as read, agreed to. Clauses 39 to 44, as read, agreed to. Clause 45— Mr SEENEY (4.27 p.m.): Clause 45 is the one where I think there has been most disagreement during the course of this debate. It deals with the circumstance where a minister may give directions to a control board about its policies or rules. I quoted subclause (1)(a) in my contribution to the second reading debate and do not believe that the minister responded adequately to it when she summed up the debate. I would suggest that this clause has been put in this legislation to ensure that the government of the day does have the ultimate responsibility for the conduct of the racing industry in Queensland. It is in this legislation to ensure that the government of the day and the minister of the day, whoever that might be, can exercise their responsibility to the people of Queensland to ensure that the racing industry is conducted and continues to operate in a manner that is in the best interests of the people of Queensland. Paragraph (a) is worded in a sufficiently broad way to allow a minister who wants to accept their responsibility, to allow a government that wants to accept its responsibility, to do just that. Paragraph (a) states that the minister may give a direction to a control body 'to ensure public confidence in the integrity of the Queensland racing industry', and paragraph (b) states 'to ensure the control body is managing its code of racing in the interests of the code'. Those two subclauses are sufficiently broad to allow the minister, any future minister or any minister in any government of whatever persuasion, to ensure that the racing industry is conducted in a way that is in the best interests of the people of Queensland and in the best interests of the racing industry. To use the example that was used by a number of speakers in the second reading debate—that is, the example of country racing—it is undoubtedly and inarguably in the racing industry's best interests that country racing continue to operate as an incubator for the racing industry in the larger centres. I do not believe that anybody could argue that it is not in the racing industry's interests to have those country meetings continue to operate. I heard nobody from the government benches put forward that argument and I heard no attempt from the minister to put forward the argument that it is not in the racing industry's interests. Yet this particular clause and those two paragraphs give the minister the power to ensure that that continues to happen. The minister said in her reply to the second reading debate that these country race meetings are going to fold. She adopted the laissez faire attitude of whatever will be will be and said that she is not prepared to interfere, yet it has to be in the industry's interest for the minister to do so, and she can quite clearly do so under that particular clause and those two paragraphs. Why is the minister dodging the responsibility that is quite clearly laid out in clause 45(1)(a) and (b)? Is she not abdicating that responsibility? Is she not walking away? Is she not copping out in terms of exercising the responsibility this legislation clearly gives her in regard to the example of country racing? Ms ROSE: The clause is very clear. It states— Minister may give a direction to control body about its policies or rules. If I acted as the member suggested, Queensland could be expelled from the Australian industry. The member does not get it. Under the Australian rules of racing, a minister does not have the power to direct on day-to-day management issues—only on the matters of probity and integrity. The bill states 'policies or rules'. Policies or rules do not include race dates, for heaven's sake. For example, they are things such as drug control procedures, welfare of animals and sexual harassment. Mr SEENEY: I think the minister's interpretation of the words 'policies or rules' is opportune. I would agree that with regard to the rules of racing it would be inappropriate for the minister to interfere. I do not think anybody would suggest—indeed, nobody has suggested this as part of this debate—that the minister at any time should interfere in the rules of racing in terms of how races are conducted, handicapping or any of the other rules that determine how the races are conducted. Nobody is suggesting that. It is quite nonsensical for the minister to stand up and 4246 Racing Bill 30 Oct 2002 respond to the genuine concerns that I raise by suggesting that that is what is being proposed. That is not what is being suggested. It is quite easy to suggest that the policies of a control body would include the amount of money that is distributed to country racing, the way racing is administered across the state if we talk about thoroughbred racing and the way racing is administered across the state in the distribution of prize money that is available to that code of racing. That is determined by the control body. I do not see that there is any problem, if the minister of the day or this minister wants to ensure that country racing survives, in directing the control body to ensure that the industry is administered in such a way, particularly in terms of prize money, that ensures country racing can survive. It is a question of whether the minister and the government want to do what is in the best interests of the racing industry, want to do what is in the best interests of the people of Queensland and want the industry to do the right thing in respect of those people, or whether they want to step back from what is a hard decision and let somebody else take the responsibility—whether they want to chicken out or take the responsibility for what is, I would concede, something of a difficult situation in a lot of areas. If the minister is going to chicken out of making that decision, then she should at least have the courage to say, 'I am not going to make the decision.' She should not try to fool the industry by saying, 'It has nothing to do with me.' Of course it has something to do with her. She is the minister. Ms ROSE: The only person chickening out is the opposition spokesman for racing, who has not been in the chamber to debate these clauses. He ran out of this chamber as soon as he knew I was going to get to my feet. This clause is very clear. It is unfortunate that the member for Callide cannot understand. But I will not direct the control body and put it at risk of being cut off by the Australian Racing Board. Mr SEENEY: I ask the minister a direct question on behalf of eight race clubs that I represent, which are indicative of a whole series of race clubs throughout Queensland. Will the minister ensure that country racing survives? Will she ensure that the thoroughbred racing industry in Queensland is administered in such a way that country racing survives, both as an incubator for the participants in the industry and as a very important social aspect of the lifestyle of a whole range of communities the length and breadth of Queensland? Will she ensure that country racing survives or will she stand back with her eyes closed and her hands behind her back and say, 'I'm not going to do anything. I'm not going to exercise my influence or any powers I might have under the act to do anything at all.'? If she does not, it will be left to some sort of crazy economic theory that if these clubs can make a dollar, or if these clubs can convince the control body that they can somehow get return for the money they allocate as prize money, then they will survive but otherwise they will fail. The minister knows, I know and everybody who understands country racing knows that in that situation a great percentage of country race clubs will fold. I believe that the minister has a responsibility in this parliament to give some indication as to whether she will try to assist country racing. Will she try to ensure country racing survives by using whatever influence or power she has under the legislation? It is not worth while us arguing about the extent of that power under the legislation. That is not the real argument. We can argue about the extent of the power the minister has under this clause. The real argument is whether she is going to use whatever influence or power she has to do whatever she can to ensure that as many country race clubs as possible survive under this legislation. Or will she just let them sink? Ms ROSE: As I said before, it is up to the clubs, it is up to their communities. Does the member opposite manage the eight clubs? Does he want us to fund country dances? The member opposite is not this thick and he understands what is going on. What clubs need to do is work with their communities—like Mackay has and like Mount Isa has. There is a structure in place with the Queensland Regional Racing Council. They have representatives on that council. They need to talk to them. The Queensland Thoroughbred Racing Board has already indicated that it is prepared to sit down and work with clubs. Clause 45, as read, agreed to. The CHAIRMAN: Can I just make a wry observation. It is obvious that the Racing Bill debate is for stayers, not for sprinters, unfortunately. Clauses 46 to 51, as read, agreed to. Clause 52— 30 Oct 2002 Racing Bill 4247

Ms ROSE (4.40 p.m.): I move amendment No. 1— 1. Clause 52 At page 48, line 19— omit, insert— ‘not a penalty is provided for the contravention;’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 52, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 53 to 57, as read, agreed to. Clause 58— Mr SEENEY (4.40 p.m.): Clause 58 relates once again to actions by the minister. In this regard, it relates to actions by the minister after a direction to a control body to rectify a matter. Once again, it would seem to cast doubt on the position that the minister has adopted right throughout this debate, that is, that the minister has no power to take any action. This is another example of a clause within this legislation that deals specifically with a situation where the minister is empowered to take action. Clause 58 deals with disciplinary action. I am particularly interested in subclause (3), which refers to the fact that more than one type of disciplinary action can be taken under this clause. So I am presuming that more than one type of disciplinary action can be taken against a control body at any one time. The easiest way to deal with the uncertainty that this particular subclause brings to mind is for the minister to give us some sort of example of the type of disciplinary action that the legislation is referring to and the type of disciplinary action that can be taken under this clause. If more than one type of disciplinary action can be taken, there must be more than one type of disciplinary action available to the minister. I ask the minister to give examples to the chamber to help us understand how she is going to exercise this power that she has under this clause to take disciplinary action against control bodies. Ms ROSE: They are clearly listed in the bill. If a future approved control body fails seriously enough, then the minister can take action. It is set out clearly in the bill what those actions are. Mr SEENEY: With respect, it does not set it out in this clause. Could the minister assist me by indicating where it sets out the types of disciplinary action that are referred to in clause 58(3)? It states that more than one type of disciplinary action relating to the approval of a control body may be taken under this section. My question is: what type of disciplinary action does the minister, or a future minister, envisage taking? What are the different types of disciplinary action? It certainly does not set it out there. Perhaps the minister can assist me by indicating where it is set out. Ms ROSE: I can censure a control body, I can issue a direction to rectify, I can suspend it and I can cancel its licence. Clause 58, as read, agreed to. Clauses 59 to 65, as read, agreed to. Clause 66— Mr SEENEY (4.44 p.m.): Clause 66 deals with the establishment of the Queensland Regional Racing Council. In fact, to be more correct, it does not deal with the establishment of it, it deals with the continuation of it. Clause 66 states that the Queensland Regional Racing Council established under the repealed act is continued. That is as it should be. However, I suggest to the minister that, given the concerns that have been raised not only in this debate but also by the industry and by communities leading up to this debate about the future of country racing, this was an opportunity for the minister, in the formulation of this new legislation, to give the QRRC some real teeth. Here was an opportunity for the minister to use her influence in the drafting of this legislation to ensure that the QRRC had the power to ensure that country racing continued. Under the legislation—the way that it is now—and with the enactment of this legislation, the QRRC can merely write to the control board and make a suggestion. That is as I understand it. Perhaps the minister can confirm, initially, whether that is the way in which the minister understands it. Was that her intent—that the QRRC should have its powers limited to making a suggestion to the control board rather than having any real teeth, rather than having any real right to demand a minimum allocation of resources to country racing? It would have been a perfect opportunity for the minister to ensure that country racing continued. It would have been a perfect opportunity for the minister to say, 'This is in the best interests of Queensland. It is in the best 4248 Racing Bill 30 Oct 2002 interests of rural and regional Queensland, certainly. It is in the best interests of the entire Queensland racing industry. We have the perfect opportunity to use the QRRC as a vehicle to ensure that country racing continues and the government wants that to happen and will make it happen by giving this body some teeth in this legislation.' Did the minister consider it? Ms Rose: No. Mr SEENEY: Why did the minister not consider it? Why was it not an option? Why was it not something that the minister, or the government—I presume the cabinet—felt was important? Does the minister not believe that there is a necessity to ensure that country racing continues? I really think that it is time that the minister laid her cards on the table and told the people of Queensland, particularly the people of rural and regional Queensland and the people who make up the Queensland racing industry, just what she believes should happen to racing in rural and regional communities and country racing in particular. We need to know. Not only do we, the members who represent those areas, need to know but also the people who are involved in the industry in those areas need to know what the government's intention is. Within this clause, the minister had an opportunity to do something. Yet she chose not to do anything. Just a moment ago the minister indicated to me that she did not even consider doing anything. We need to know the minister's intent and why she has let this opportunity slip by without using it to ensure that the racing industry continues to operate in the way it has. Ms ROSE: We did consider it, but it would make a hell of a mess of it if we had a two-tiered system. It just will not work. We cannot have two control bodies within a code. Mr SEENEY: I think that the minister is quite deliberately avoiding the issue and distorting the suggestion that I am making. I am not suggesting that the QRRC be a control body—to duplicate the powers of the control body to which it is answerable. The opportunity was here for the minister to give the QRRC sufficient powers to ensure that country racing was able to continue. Once again, the minister has not taken the opportunity to tell this parliament and to tell the people of Queensland her attitude and her government's attitude to the continuation of racing in rural and regional Queensland. That issue has been raised with the minister not only by a number of members in this parliament during this debate but also I know it has been raised with the minister by a considerable number of people involved in the industry. Once again, the minister has shirked the opportunity to tell us what her attitude is. I believe that the minister has a responsibility to tell us what is her attitude to country racing. How does the minister see the QRRC operating? Should it be some sort of toothless tiger with no real powers to protect the interests of country racing? Does the minister agree that that situation exists at the moment, that it simply has the option of writing and making a suggestion to the control body but no real teeth of its own? Why is the minister prepared to allow that situation to continue when she could have changed it by amending this clause? Ms ROSE: My response stands. I have made my position clear on many occasions. I will not waste the time of this parliament, which the member seems to be intent on doing. The member's comments about the Queensland Regional Racing Council are extremely unfair. The people who make up the Queensland Regional Racing Council are good people. They are people who have been put there by the regional racing associations of Queensland. They do a good job. I want it on the record that they do. The member has clearly stated that he believes that those people who do such a job are ineffectual. I say that they are doing a good job and I want that on the record. Mr SEENEY: For the benefit of people who will read Hansard, the minister could not even make that last statement with a straight face. She herself knew the absurdity of the statement she was making. Ms ROSE: For the record, the member was making weird, funny faces at me and that is what I was laughing at. Mr SEENEY: The minister knows full well that that is not the aspersion I was making. The minister knows full well that that is an attempt to divert the question away from the point that I have been trying to raise on behalf of country racing and the QRRC. The fact remains indisputably that the minister had an opportunity in the drafting of this legislation to ensure that the QRRC had sufficient powers to protect country racing. I concur in the minister's comments when she had a grin all over her face that the people who make up the board— Ms Rose: It is because they make me happy because they are doing such a good job. 30 Oct 2002 Racing Bill 4249

Mr SEENEY: They are very genuine and capable people who do the best job that they can for country racing. The fact remains that under this legislation and the way the QRRC is structured they do not have the powers that they need to ensure that those country race clubs or that any country race club survives. That is the fear in the industry in rural and regional Queensland and that is the problem that the minister should have addressed in the drafting of this new legislation. That is the issue that the minister has chosen to walk away from today. It is the issue that the minister has chosen not to respond to in this debate. We can only assume that the minister and the government have no interest in country racing or in ensuring that country race clubs receive a fair go. The minister has no interest at all in ensuring that the race meetings that make a huge contribution to the way of life in rural and regional communities can continue. The minister has written off those people in rural and regional Queensland by refusing to address this issue today. I want to make sure that every one of those people know that that is the minister's attitude and that she had an opportunity to do something about it but shirked it. Ms ROSE: The only person who has walked away during this important consideration of the clauses is the opposition spokesman for racing. Clause 66, as read, agreed to. Clauses 67 to 80, as read, agreed to. Clause 81— Mr SEENEY (4.54 p.m.): Clause 81 deals with matters for which a control board must have a policy. The important word there is 'must'. There are quite a few of those matters listed in the legislation. They are matters for which a control body must have a policy under the legislation. They have no option but to abide by the legislation. Paragraph (f) deals with lawful betting on races held under the control of the control body, including selling a product to a person lawfully conducting wagering. Will the control body be the only one allowed to sell the product, for example to Sky Channel, or will clubs be able to continue this practice? The minister, no doubt, would be aware that some clubs already sell a product. I do not really need to go into the detail. The minister is well aware that that happens at the moment. Will they lose that option and will that option be transferred to the control body? Ms ROSE: That is a commercial decision. Sky Channel will continue to negotiate with the clubs and the control body. Clause 81, as read, agreed to. Clauses 82 to 109, as read, agreed to. Clause 110— Mr SEENEY (4.56 p.m.): Clause 110 stipulates that a licensed club has to give audited accounts to the control body. That is as we would expect it to be. However, it raises the question of what the minister would expect the control body to do under this new act if an executive club member were to spend funds without authorisation and then got the committee to approve that funding retrospectively. Will the minister make a comment about how these auditing requirements will ensure that those types of situation are dealt with appropriately? Ms ROSE: My understanding is that the previous control body, the old Queensland Principal Club, pulled together a set of guidelines as to the sort of expenses that a club committee person could claim. The control body has the guidelines on expenditure. Mr Seeney: Why won't you give a specific example? Ms ROSE: Don't go there. Mr SEENEY: I will not, as the minister said, go there and mention a specific example. I refer to subclause (4) in a different vain. It mentions non-proprietary racing. Non-proprietary racing is mentioned in clause 111 as well. As I understand it, by omission, this legislation allows non- proprietary racing to be conducted in Queensland. What options would— Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr SEENEY: Yes, I'm sorry; that is correct. By omission, this legislation allows proprietary racing to function in Queensland, whereas it was impossible under the old act. I thank the member for Southport for his assistance. The member makes quite a few interjections when I am speaking in this House. That is the first one that has been of any help to anybody. I do thank the member for Southport. The CHAIRMAN: When you get legal advice that is free, you get what you pay for. 4250 Racing Bill 30 Oct 2002

Mr SEENEY: Thank you. Let us get back to proprietary racing. It is an issue that has been raised a number of times. It is probably a significant change when we compare this legislation with the old legislation. Under this legislation, proprietary racing will be allowed to develop and, hopefully, I suspect in the minds of some people, to flourish in Queensland. Can the minister give an outline to the parliament about how she sees proprietary racing starting up and developing in Queensland, particularly in respect of the thoroughbred racing code? I know that sprint racing is most often talked about in terms of proprietary racing. Does the minister see that the thoroughbred racing industry also will be subject of the development of proprietary racing? The CHAIRMAN: Clause 110 is about audited accounts of control bodies. 'Proprietary' and 'non-proprietary' are mentioned, but I am not sure that that is the purpose of the clause. But if the minister wishes to respond to your question, she can. Ms ROSE: Hopefully, the member will not bring this up in the clause where he should have. The bill simply removes a non-justifiable restriction. The member is asking me for an opinion as to what I think the future of proprietary race will be. I guess we are just going to have to wait and see. As the member says, there has been some interest in sprint racing in Queensland. I guess we will have to wait and see. When an application has been put before the control body, it will consider it on its merits. It will be interesting. Clause 110, as read, agreed to. Clauses 111 to 112, as read, agreed to. Clause 113— Mr SEENEY (5.01 p.m.): Clause 113 deals with the prohibition on the disposal of assets of a non-proprietary entity. It once again gives quite extensive control to the control body over the affairs of an entity within the industry. It relates particularly to a prohibition on the disposal of assets. Subclause (1) states that a non-proprietary entity 'must not dispose of any of its assets unless', and it then refers to three subclauses. The question that I want to raise concerns the definition of 'assets' under this legislation. In the definition section of the legislation 'assets' is not defined. Is the legislation referring to current or non-current assets or to the Australian Accounting Standard? The example is cash and debt. How would the minister see those types of things being handled within the definition of an 'asset' under this clause? Ms ROSE: This is the same as section 134 of the Racing and Betting Act. We covered this issue last year. There are assets listed in (a), (b) and (c), so the member can read them for himself. Mr SEENEY: With respect, the question related to the definition of 'assets', and it is not defined in the act. Ms ROSE: Why does it have to be defined? Does the member not know what an asset is? It is something somebody owns. Mr SEENEY: For the minister's information, I suggest that it is probably defined differently by a lot of different people in terms of current and non-current assets. Cash and debt are treated very differently in terms of the definition of 'assets' by different people, whether it be the tax department, accountants or a range of other people who deal with the concept of what is an asset and what is not an asset. In relation to this clause, the minister is giving the control body— Mrs Edmond interjected. Mr SEENEY: I think the Minister for Health needs to take this seriously. The legislation is giving the control body a particularly far-reaching power in relation to the assets of a club. It is only fair to those clubs involved that they be aware of what those far-reaching powers apply to under this legislation. It is in the interests of good legislation that it is made clear in this part of the debate on this legislation. That is what this part of the debate is all about—determining the detail of the legislation that the minister is bringing into the House. All I am asking for is a definition of 'asset' that these far-reaching powers the minister is giving to the control bodies applies to. Ms ROSE: We are not giving it to the control body. I told the member before and he is not listening or he is having difficulty understanding. These are the same powers that were in the Racing and Betting Act. We are not giving it to them. They have the same powers now. Clause 113, as read, agreed to. Clause 114, as read, agreed to. Clause 115— 30 Oct 2002 Racing Bill 4251

Ms ROSE (5.05 p.m.): I move amendment No. 2— 2. Clause 115 At page 82, lines 27 and 28— omit, insert— ‘(3) Further, the integrity board has the function of— (a) developing or adopting procedures about the way things for analysis are to be taken and dealt with; and (b) publishing the procedures, and amendments of the procedures, in a way prescribed under a regulation. ‘(4) The integrity board has power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for the performance of its functions.’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 115, as amended, agreed to. Clause 116, as read, agreed to. Clause 117— Ms ROSE (5.06 p.m.): I move amendment No. 3— 3. Clause 117 At page 84, after line 7— insert— ‘(fa) is named in an accreditation certificate in any capacity, or is a member of the staff of, or is otherwise engaged in any activity relating to, an accredited facility or a secondary facility for an accredited facility; or’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 117, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 118 to 142, as read, agreed to. Clause 143— Ms ROSE (5.06 p.m.): I move amendments Nos 4 and 5— 4. Clause 143 At page 96, line 25, ‘approved by an integrity officer’— omit, insert— ‘the control body considers is consistent with the research or survey purposes’. 5. Clause 143 At page 97, lines 3 to 6— omit, insert— ‘must take and deal with the thing for analysis under the integrity board’s procedures mentioned in section 115(3) as in force at the relevant time.’. Amendments agreed to. Clause 143, as amended, agreed to. Clause 144— Ms ROSE (5.07 p.m.): I move amendment No. 6— 6. Clause 144 At page 97, line 19— omit, insert— ‘(a) under the integrity board’s procedures mentioned in section 115(3) as in force at the relevant time; or’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 144, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 145 and 146, as read, agreed to. Clause 147— Ms ROSE (5.07 p.m.): I move amendment No. 7— 7. Clause 147 At page 99, lines 31 to 33 and page 100, lines 1 to 5— omit, insert— ‘(c) no drug was found in or on the thing or if a drug was found— (i) the fact that a drug was found and its name; and 4252 Racing Bill 30 Oct 2002

(ii) if the control body or integrity officer who delivered the thing for analysis to the accredited facility asked for information about the amount or concentration of any drug found in the thing—the information requested; (d) for a thing delivered under an agreement between a control body and the accredited facility—no code substance was found in or on the thing or if a code substance was found— (i) the fact that a code substance was found and its name; and (ii) if the control body that delivered the thing for analysis to the accredited facility asked for information about the amount or concentration of any code substance found in the thing—the information requested.’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 147, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 148 to 226, as read, agreed to. Clause 227— Mr SEENEY (5.08 p.m.): Clause 227 deals with the criminal history report for investigation. It deals with the requirement of the Commissioner of the Police Service to provide a written report on a person's criminal history. This clause states that the commissioner must give the report to the gaming executive. I am interested to know whether or not the minister consulted with the Minister for Police in the drafting of that particular clause and how this clause is expected to work in, once again, an extreme situation where the Commissioner of Police was reluctant to provide the report that was being requested by the gaming executive. Has there been consultation with the Police Service, in particular the present Police Commissioner and the present Police Minister, about how this particular clause might work? The minister would agree with me that it is a little unusual for a clause to require the Police Commissioner to 'give the report to the gaming executive' and that the 'report is to contain ...'. It would seem to me to be quite an unusual situation for a racing act to require that type of very clearly defined action from the Police Commissioner. Ms ROSE: I do not wish to embarrass the member for Callide, but that was previously section 157D in the Racing and Betting Act. It is not new. It has been there. I am sorry, I did not want to embarrass the member. Mr SEENEY: I can assure the Minister that she certainly does not embarrass me. I repeat the question: did the Minister have any consultation with the Minister for Police about the appropriateness of continuing with this particular clause in the legislation, given the Minister's previous answer? Ms ROSE: No. Clause 227, as read, agreed to. Clauses 228 to 398, as read, agreed to. Schedule 1, as read, agreed to. Schedule 2— Ms ROSE (5.11 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 8. Schedule 2 At page 212, after line 6— insert— '4A Amendment of s 152 (Prohibition on other use of premises) ‘Section 152(1)(a)(ii), from ‘on behalf’— omit, insert— ‘for which the licensee is a wagering agent under the Wagering Act 1998; or’.’. Amendment agreed to. Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to. Schedule 3, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Ms Rose, by leave, read a third time. 30 Oct 2002 Justice Legislation (Variation of Fees and Costs) Regulation (No. 1) 2002 4253

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Aerial Firefighting; Correction to Answer Hon. M. F. REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (5.12 p.m.), by leave: Since my statement in the House this morning when I said— I have been very critical of the federal government. I have not even received a letter from the responsible Minister, Wilson Tuckey. But I can assure the member that if fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters are required, or even if Elvis is required in a particular area, we will look at bringing in whichever firefighting planes are necessary. it has been brought to my attention by my office that Minister Tuckey recently communicated with me by saying in part— To address the high risk of the coming fire season, the Commonwealth is prepared to offer to supplement the State and Territories dedicated aerial firefighting capacity by contributing up to 50% of the direct costs for 3 heavy capacity helitankers, including that currently retained on contract by Victoria. The letter was immediately directed to the Department of Emergency Services for attention and advice.

JUSTICE LEGISLATION (VARIATION OF FEES AND COSTS) REGULATION (No. 1) 2002 Disallowance of Statutory Instrument Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (5.14 p.m.): I move— That the Justice Legislation (Variation of Fees and Costs) Regulation (No. 1) 2002, subordinate legislation (No. 223) 2002 tabled in the parliament on 3 September 2002 be disallowed. It was with a great degree of considered thought that I decided to move this disallowance motion in parliament today because what we are seeing here is another sneaky Beattie government tax; something which places an onerous impost upon people who are forced to, and have to, use the court system in Queensland. The first notion that I had that something was going on with regard to this was when the ministerial program statement for the Department of Justice and Attorney-General was presented during this year's budget. On page 1-24 at dot point 3 under 'Higher Courts' it says— A new fee structure will be introduced in the Supreme and District Courts in 2002-03. The new structure will differentiate individuals from corporations and will result in fees and the level of cost recovery of the Higher Courts in Queensland being consistent with other Australian jurisdictions. It also says— A process to consider exemptions from fees payable by low-income earners is proposed as part of the implementation process. During my questioning of the Attorney-General he did indicate to me that this was certainly on the way but at that stage we did not have the information which I thought was necessary to allow us to be able to pursue it at that particular stage during the estimates process. Certainly, there was not any great indication of the quantum or magnitude of the fee increases, and there seems to me to be no indication in the budget papers that I can find of the overall expected amount of money which is projected to be raised by these significantly increased fees in the higher courts during the forthcoming year. I think it is important to say that this government pretends to adhere to the principle of increases in fees, fines and moneys that it can raise no greater than the level of the consumer price index. Sometimes I suppose one can be fair to the government and say sure, there probably is need to look at the cumulative effect of CPI, particularly when there has not been an increase in the particular fee or the particular charge over a period of time—whether it be four or five years, or whatever the case may be. When we are looking at this, that does not appear to be the case because we are dealing with a statutory instrument in 2002. There was a statutory instrument in 2001 which had previously indicated the fees which apply basically today. I know that on the weight of government numbers here tonight we are not going to be able to defeat this, but it is an important principle, particularly when we consider the quantum and the magnitude of the increases which the government is proposing. When he responded to me during the estimates committee process the Attorney-General indicated that some 13 people objected to the payment of the existing filing fees and application fees in the higher courts. That is under the fee structure which was put in place as part of the statutory instrument of 2001. I understand that five of those were rejected, five were accepted and two have gone on appeal. So, even under the previous system prior to the regulation coming 4254 Justice Legislation (Variation of Fees and Costs) Regulation (No. 1) 2002 30 Oct 2002 in putting these fees in place, a person who had bothered to apply for an exemption was given absolutely no surety whatsoever that they were going to be successful. It is important that we look at the magnitude of the increase with which we are dealing here. If we go to the fees which existed under the 2001 statutory instrument, in the Supreme Court the filing fee was $220 and in the District Court it was $200. What this regulation is seeking to do is to introduce a new filing fee which will be, for individuals, in the Supreme Court $420 and in the District Court $400. In the case of corporations or companies it will be $840 in the Supreme Court and $800 in the District Court. That applies for general matters filed on application in those respective jurisdictions. I do not know how honourable members on the other side can seek to justify this in any way whatsoever, because that is way over and above the consumer price index. This will impact in a significant and onerous way on many people who can ill afford it. These increases in the fees are not just a four per cent or five per cent increase. It is not even a 10 per cent increase. It is not even a 20 per cent increase. It is not even a 50 per cent increase. Rather, in the case of individuals it is a 91 per cent increase. In the case of companies, it is a 380 per cent increase. How can those opposite honestly justify that? By introducing these increases, the Attorney-General has struck at the heart of the low fee system which has operated in the state of Queensland. This is sneaky and ill considered and impacts unfairly on the ability of people in Queensland to seek proper access to justice. Sure it applies to civil courts, but our civil courts are used by many people in the community to seek redress for a whole lot of wrongs. It already is a costly enough exercise to start with without this parliament being complicit in passing a regulation which increases the fees charged to individuals by over 90 per cent and those to companies by about 380 per cent. That is significant and was encapsulated by the feelings of a gentleman who wrote recently to the Townsville Bulletin, Mr R. W. Sherrington. He indicated— The most common fees charged in the courts have increased dramatically. The fee for filing a claim, application or probate in the Supreme Court has been increased from $220 to $420—almost 91 per cent. If the claimant or applicant is a company, the new fee is $840, an increase of more than 380 per cent. Some members on the other side would probably say that in the case of a company that is justified because they can pay more. Some of them may be able to pay more, but needless to say not every company that has to commence a court action is a large multinational company. There are a whole range of family companies and very small companies that fare no better and have no greater assets than resource limited individuals. That is due to the way that they seek to operate or have to operate their business. This is a significant cost on those people. The Attorney-General said, to be fair to him, that a process of potential exemption or waiver may exist. But how broad is that going to be? What is the definition? People can apply for it, but a far greater number of people will be impacted upon by this significant increase in fees than those impacted upon previously. How can we find any solace whatsoever from the Attorney- General's assurances that those people will be in a better situation because they will have the financial impact placed on them by this significant court fee increase ameliorated by that process of exemption, because it does not provide me with any comfort whatsoever in that regard? What will happen? Will there be another five rejected and a whole range of other people running off to appeal to have the matters dealt with? Is that going to happen? How can the minister justify this? This is an enormous impost. People trying to seek redress through the courts at the moment have an onerous enough task as it is. How many honourable members have constituents come into their offices about this on a regular basis; I suppose that those members who are solicitors may see this a little differently? I certainly have a number of people come into my office to complain about the cost to access justice in this state. Mrs Reilly interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: They complain about that. The member for Mudgeeraba indicates that people are happy in her electorate about the cost of justice because she shook her head, but a whole range of people— Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: The honourable member for Southport would have to say that his constituents are happy as he is a former solicitor. He would have to indicate absolute and complete happiness with the way the legal and court systems works in this state. However, many people come to see us in our offices who are unhappy about the cost of accessing justice. In some cases people do not even commence actions. In some cases people do not even defend 30 Oct 2002 Justice Legislation (Variation of Fees and Costs) Regulation (No. 1) 2002 4255 actions because of the costs that go with it. This adds to the problems that those people have with regard to accessing cost-effective and timely justice. For some people— Mr Malone: Sometimes they plead guilty. Mr SPRINGBORG: I will come to that point in a moment. Whilst that is a criminal matter, it is an important principle nevertheless. We are dealing with civil matters here, because people are concerned about access to civil justice. How many people say that they cannot afford and would not even try to commence a defamation action? Some people do not even want to try to recover moneys owed to them. The honourable member for Mirani raised a good point which is intrinsically linked to access to legal aid in this state. Whilst I concede that there has been an increase over the last few years, I think the Attorney would admit that we could always do with more funds for legal aid. That is not necessarily the Attorney's fault, because he has to go into the Cabinet Budget Review Committee and argue for it. When dealing with these sorts of civil matters, there is virtually no legal aid available. The honourable member for Mirani mentioned the issue of people pleading guilty. That is certainly the case in the criminal court. In terms of matters heard in the Magistrates Court on committal, one virtually cannot get legal aid for matters at committal. Many people go into court and plead guilty in the state of Queensland because— Mrs Reilly: You know that that is not true! Mr SPRINGBORG: They do so. I have solicitors say it to me. They go in there and— Mrs Reilly: And solicitors never lie! Mr SPRINGBORG: When dealing with solicitors or dealing with anyone, there will always be those who bring the profession into disrepute and others who are upstanding members of the community. However, this is a problem. I have been told by members of the legal profession that there is a real issue for people defending matters on committal because they do not have access to legal aid. It is as simple as that. When they want to take it beyond committal, they may have access to legal aid. But that is a real problem. We know that there is insufficient legal aid. As a consequence of these sorts of actions, those people who purportedly make up the Labor Party heartland—that is, the battlers—are not going to be— Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: We will see how they treat those opposite after this. They are supposed to be in here standing up for them, not throwing smart alec jibes across the chamber, as the member for Southport has just done. He should throw off his solicitor's hat and come in here and show his alleged innate sense of justice and stand up in this parliament for the battlers. He should stand up and say how he can justify increases of 91 per cent and 380 per cent. If members cannot do that, they should stand up and tell me that they are comfortable with the process of exemption for individuals and take it beyond that so that it applies to small family companies that are no better off than many individuals, quite frankly, and cannot afford these fee increases. This strikes at the heart, as I said, of the principle which has been adopted in this state over a long time of not increasing fees and charges beyond the rate of the consumer price index. This increases these fees beyond the rate of the consumer price index. It is not good policy. It cannot be justified. It cannot be justified on the basis, as the Attorney is seeking to do, that we currently have the lowest court filing fees of any Australian jurisdiction and that this is about bringing them into line with other jurisdictions and allegedly keeping them at the bottom of the range. I understand that these increases will put us about halfway up the tree. I think that there are nine jurisdictions in Australia. I do not think that this puts us near the bottom; I think these increases put us some way up from the bottom. What is wrong with having a system where comparatively our court filing fees have been the lowest and provided far greater access to justice for Queenslanders? Why does the Attorney-General want to come in here and use that very feeble excuse of increasing the fees to be in line with all of the other states? Who wants to be like all of the other states and use that as some sort of flimsy justification? That is not a good justification. This will strike at the heart of access to justice for a lot of Queenslanders, particularly Queenslanders who can ill afford it. They will take no comfort whatsoever from the assurance of the Attorney-General and honourable members opposite who will seek to say that there will be a compassionate process for considering exemption dispensation. That will not work, just as it is not working in respect of the fees and charges process exemption that exists for the Freedom of 4256 Justice Legislation (Variation of Fees and Costs) Regulation (No. 1) 2002 30 Oct 2002

Information Act. This disallowance motion should be carried, and it should be carried in the name of accessible, cheap justice in this state. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (5.30 p.m.): I rise to second the disallowance motion moved by the member for Southern Downs to disallow subordinate legislation No. 223 of 2002, the Justice Legislation (Variation of Fees and Costs) Regulation No. 1. This is becoming an all-too-familiar pattern in this parliament. What we see here once again is the Beattie Labor government searching desperately for any sneaky avenue it can find to plug its leaky budget. That is what this is all about. No member of this House should be under any illusions that this is not about a grab for cash. Every little bit helps when one is as desperate as this Beattie Labor government is for cash to prop up a budgetary situation that is becoming worse by the day. This particular grab for cash is simply another one in a line of such moves that are all about squeezing as much money from as many different areas as possible. I predict that we will see many more actions of this type in this parliament. We will certainly see many more such disallowance motions, because every time this Beattie government attempts to squeeze a bit more cash out of a particular group of Queenslanders to prop up its terrible budgetary situation, we will move a disallowance motion in this House, as the member for Southern Downs has done today. It is a matter of principle. This is a Beattie government that promised not to increase taxes in Queensland. Because it is bound by that promise, it has been forced into the situation whereby it has to take every opportunity to jack up fees in a whole range of areas. Our justice system is now added to that long list of areas in which there have been increases in fees and charges. That long list of increases includes the tick inspection charges and the new transport charges, both of which have been the subject of debate in this House, new electricity charges for contractors and land tax increases. All of them have been under-the-table methods to try to sneak money into government coffers and out of family pockets. All of them have been attempts to get around the election promise the Beattie Labor government made to the people of Queensland and to access extra money at every possible opportunity. In this particular instance, new fees for filing a claim, application or probate in the Supreme Court have increased from $220 to $420. If the claimant is a company, this fee has now increased to $840. These increases cannot be justified as a CPI increase. They are, as the member for Southern Downs said, many times the size of any CPI increase. These increases in both the District and Supreme courts are an outright revenue raising slug on the pockets of the people of Queensland to plug a terrible budgetary situation. True to form, the Beattie government attempted very covertly to sneak these charges in, hoping that opposition members, their constituents and the people of Queensland would not notice the hikes in fees. However, this government has underestimated the Queensland people's regard for the price of justice. I would like to refer to a letter printed in the Townsville Bulletin on 9 October 2002 by a Mr Sherrington. I do not know Mr Sherrington, but I agree with his comments. He says— The Beattie Labor Government is going the same way as the Goss Government. They have spent all their reserves of funds and are now desperately looking for ways to get in more money, but they are caught by their election promise not to increase taxes. Instead they increase fees. Mr Sherrington goes on to comment about the increase in court fees. He says— The most common fees charged in the Courts have increased dramatically. The fee for filing a claim, application or probate in the Supreme Court has been increased from $220 to $420—almost 91%. If the claimant or applicant is a company, the new fee is $840, an increase of 380%. Imagine if the Beattie Labor government had been honest with the people of Queensland and had gone to the election campaign and honestly said that it was going to increase one fee by 91 per cent and another fee by 380 per cent. If it had gone to the election campaign and been honest about the increase in these and all of the other fees, it may well have received a different reception from the people of Queensland. It was not prepared to be honest. It made the promise of no new taxes and now it is trying to wriggle out of it by instead increasing fees by such massive amounts as 91 per cent and 380 per cent. I think the words of Mr Sherrington sum up the inequity of these charges very succinctly. On reading that letter one point was made very clear to me. These new court charges are slugged against the average person, many of whom already struggle to raise the funds to enter the court process. It is difficult enough for the average Queenslander to access the court process. These 30 Oct 2002 Justice Legislation (Variation of Fees and Costs) Regulation (No. 1) 2002 4257 massive increases in court charges will only push the price of justice further out of the reach of the average Queenslander. However, the concerns of the average Queenslander seem wasted on the Beattie Labor government. They certainly seem wasted on the Attorney-General, who treats this subject with his usual flippancy and mirth. 'Never takes the subject seriously' seems to be the approach of the current Attorney-General. It is an approach that has been maintained here today. These increased court fees will not affect Premier Beattie. They will not affect the Attorney- General or the Health Minister or any of the Labor lawyers who found a cushy spot on the government backbench. They will not be affected by this savage increase in the fee structure. They are secure in their protected circle of Labor lawyer mates—privileged, sheltered and oblivious to the reality that faces everyday Queenslanders who struggle to access the court system. Unlike the Labor Party, the National Party will stand up for those average Queenslanders. This dodgy Beattie budget plugging is pushing the price of justice out of the reach of the average Queenslander, and we will use the avenues we have available to us in this parliament to highlight to the people of Queensland the reasons the cost of justice is so much further out of their reach. This increase joins a long list of increases in fees and charges. That list includes payroll tax, where superannuation contributions were included in the payroll tax base, which increased the payroll tax base by seven per cent. It also includes the inclusion of the eligible termination payments, which grossed up fringe benefits. The payroll exemption on wages was dropped. It is all about getting more money into government coffers. The same scenario existed in relation to land tax. Property holders have already contributed significantly to government coffers this year through increased stamp duty receipts from rising land valuation. In this year's budget the Treasurer scrapped the 15 per cent rebate on land tax for companies, trustees and absentee landlords. Commerce Queensland has requested more detailed information from Treasury and has not got it. The Property Council is on record as saying that there was no consultation undertaken with industry prior to these changes. Once again, as with these increases, it was all about squeezing more money out of the people of Queensland in every way possible. In the electricity industry workers will cop fees of $240 to renew or apply for an electrical contractor licence and more than $1,500 to apply for approval of various classes of electrical equipment. Electrical work licence applications and renewals will cost $50, and workers face fees of up to $250 to apply for or renew an appointment as an accredited auditor. Transport charges were debated in this House when they were increased—$10 million in transport fees and charges that were not included in the budgetary process. Of course, this government scrapped Queensland's free cattle tick clearance service and increased plant inspection fees by more than 100 per cent. The government also changed the royalty regime for mining royalties for after 1 January 2002 so that it could slug the coal companies for extra royalties, because it now charges royalty on the coal and then there is the cost of the rail freight. This is all about more money. Of course, the corker would have to be stamp duty on insurance premiums. This is just another slug by a government that is desperate for funds to prop up its ailing budget. Time expired. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (5.40 p.m.): I rise to speak against the disallowance motion regarding the Justice Legislation (Variation of Fees and Costs) Regulation 2002. On 29 August, two types of increases were approved. They include increases in court fees—and those increases are in line with increases in the CPI—and increases in filing fees in the District and Supreme courts. Even with these increases, Queensland courts will still be among the least expensive courts anywhere in Australia. This increase will still allow people's accessibility to the courts. This accessibility is enhanced through several exemptions and the waiver of fees. The amendments include the provision for the registrar to waive the fees if it is clearly in the interests of justice. This is an important safeguard to ensuring access to justice for all members of the community. The registrar must consider the individual's financial position in making the assessment and have regard to issues such as whether the individual is highly or mainly dependent on Commonwealth benefits. The registrar is able to consider any other matters that are considered relevant. That may include the type and amount of the person's pension, how much the individual is paying in rent, or whether close relatives may be willing to financially assist the individual. 4258 Justice Legislation (Variation of Fees and Costs) Regulation (No. 1) 2002 30 Oct 2002

The waiver provision applies only to individuals. Therefore, corporations would not be eligible to apply. The purposes of waiving filing fees for this category of litigant is to ensure that people who may not have the means to pay filing fees have access to the court to resolve disputes and enforce their rights. There is also a provision for a person who has applied for the exemption, but has been refused, to apply to have the decision reviewed by a judge. That is what standing up for battlers is all about. In other words, safeguards are there to ensure that a person who may have a limited financial capacity still has access to our court system. In other words, it is standing up for battlers. These increases are to assist courts to recover operating costs. Currently, there is a shortfall in recovering costs in the Queensland Supreme and District courts. It is inconceivable that the opposition would think that it is good economic management not to improve the recovery of costs. In order to subsidise court fees, I would like to know what services the opposition would like to see cut to fund the shortfalls. Would the opposition like services to health, education, roads or police cut so that we can subsidise court fees? Perhaps they would like to see only the court fees for corporations subsidised? Mr Reeves: They probably want legal aid cut. Ms STONE: There we go. Maybe the opposition wants legal aid cut to subsidise court fees. Would the opposition like to see the upgrade of the Springwood ambulance services, through the building of the new ambulance station, not take place? Would the opposition like the proposed Springwood bus station—very important infrastructure for Logan public transport—not to be built and money put into court fees subsidies for corporations? Is the opposition saying that the Springwood community should not be getting a Springwood police beat? Does the opposition want fewer police now? Perhaps the opposition would prefer that the Springwood Central State School get no funding for their tuckshop or that the Springwood State High School did not get their leaking roofs fixed? Is the opposition saying that they would like no maintenance budget for local schools? Instead, they would like to subsidise court fees? The opposition claims that this is just revenue to pork-barrel. They claim that it is a grab for cash. I do not call providing the community with bus stations, police beats, maintaining local schools or building a new ambulance station pork-barrelling. I call it servicing the needs of the community. I hear the whining of the opposition about budget deficits. These increases are about good financial management. Yet, the opposition opposes them. This disallowance motion is almost as absurd as saying Jack Camp is not qualified to be the new electrical safety commissioner for Queensland. I oppose the disallowance motion. Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (5.44 p.m.): I bet Mr Sherrington did not realise that he would be so famous. He has had his letter to the editor read out by the member for Southern Downs and the member for Callide today. Mr Reeves interjected. Mr LAWLOR: I am. I am sure that he would love to be here. He is probably having lunch with Charlie Doyle, I suppose. Basically, these increases in fees are designed for three purposes: to move closer towards parity with other states, to improve the recovery of costs, and also to differentiate fees between individuals and corporations. I will give an example of how these fees compare with the fees imposed in other states. In Queensland, fees to institute proceedings in the Supreme Court would be $420 for an individual and $840 for a corporation. I ask members to compare those figures with the fees in New South Wales, for instance, which are $574 for an individual and $1,148 for a corporation. In the Supreme Court in Victoria, which does not differentiate between a corporation and an individual, the fee is $610 for both. In the Federal Court, the fee is $574 for an individual and $1,377 for a corporation. In the High Court—which does not provide a really good comparison as usually matters taken to the High Court are matters of appeal and do not take very long—it is $1,052 for an individual and $2,104 for a corporation. The primary increase in fees impacts on civil matters only, which did not appear to be very apparent to the member for Mirani. In some cases, fees have not increased for over a decade. So Queensland has been out of step with the rest of the country for many years. In other states, corporations have usually paid higher fees than individuals. For some time, Queensland's fees have been considerably less than what has been charged elsewhere. Queensland will still have 30 Oct 2002 Justice Legislation (Variation of Fees and Costs) Regulation (No. 1) 2002 4259 among the least expensive courts by which to access justice anywhere in Australia. As I said, its fees are still well below those charged in New South Wales and Victoria in the commercial sphere, which are appropriate comparisons for the Queensland courts. Fee increases should be seen in the context that litigation is usually a one-off occurrence for an individual. Costs will generally be met only once in the course of an individual litigant's life and, of course, if the litigant is successful they recover the total amount of the filing fee from the unsuccessful party. The imposition of higher fees on corporations recognises that most of the litigation conducted in the courts is by corporations. The imposition of fees for corporations at twice the rate for personal litigants gives effect to the policy that business users of the court should contribute to its cost—in other words, user pays. What is actually happening now— Mr Flynn: Justice for those who can afford it. Mr LAWLOR: That is a very good point. It is justice for those who can afford it. What is happening now is that the people who cannot afford it are subsidising corporations. They are keeping the court process afloat. This is an attempt to address that anomaly. The legal and court costs of such litigation are generally tax deductible for a corporation, because they are a legitimate business expense within the meaning of subsection 51(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. At the end of the day, it costs them roughly half of what it would cost an individual. Of course, rarely are those fees that are paid by an individual tax deductible. Court filing fees for both corporate entities and individuals need to be considered in the overall cost of litigation. Filing fees represent only a small proportion of the overall legal costs incurred during the course of litigation. In return, the parties receive all registry services and, if the matter proceeds to trial, it includes the cost of the trial. In contrast, the procedure in the Federal Court is that not only do people pay the filing fees to institute proceedings but also people are charged an extra fee to set down the matter for trial. This fee is $2,296 for a corporation and $1,148 for an individual. That is in addition to the filing fee to institute proceedings. I suggest that that is a very favourable comparison with these increased charges. The other thing that should be borne in mind is that, in the Supreme Court, all civil claims are for amounts in excess of $250,000. As I have already said, the filing fee incurred in such claims represents only a small amount of the ultimate claim. I certainly oppose this motion. Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Lib) (5.50 p.m.):It is quite appalling to look at the increases in taxes and charges that this government has introduced. I support this disallowance motion because of the sheer hypocrisy behind what the government is trying to do and because this Beattie Labor government went to the last election saying that there would be no increases in fees and charges over and above CPI. This increase is far in excess of over and above the CPI and this is not the first instance of this occurring. We have taxation by stealth. When is a fee not a tax? When the Premier daily stands up and says how honest he and his government are, how we are the Smart State, how we are the lowest tax state and how people are so much better off when the taxation figures are quoted. These fees and charges are not even taken into consideration. All this increase by stealth in fees and charges has to be documented for the people of Queensland so that they know what they are really paying to this government. To hear the nonsense of previous contributors that we will not fund education, et cetera if we do not support this is totally irrelevant and illogical. Education, et cetera, are paid for out of consolidated revenue which comes from general taxes levied and is the place, of course, to which this type of increase will now go. The budget needs to be transparent in terms of what has been spent, what is going in and where it is coming from. The fact is that this levy is a tax; saying that it is not is just a blatant lie. The government is getting away with it. This information is not being adequately picked up and relayed to the people through our general media channels. They need to tell people exactly what is happening. What is happening is a huge hike in fees and charges, in other words taxation by stealth, that the government is getting away with. When we look at the increases—and I will deal first with the increases we are speaking of here—they are really quite extraordinary. The percentages have increased. The fees payable in the Supreme Court and the District Court under the originating process for individuals have gone from $220 to $420 and from $200 to $400 respectively. This is hardly an increase of the latest CPI increase of about 3.5 per cent. Under 'otherwise', the fees have increased to $840 and $800 respectively. These are quite extraordinary fees. Where do they go? Straight into the coffers of justice. Where does that go? Straight into consolidated revenue. It is a tax of mammoth proportion. The schedule provides— 4260 Service Delivery, Beattie Government 30 Oct 2002

On filing any application that is an originating process— (a) if there is only 1 applicant and the applicant is an individual or if there is more than 1 applicant and all applicants are individuals—$420 ... otherwise, $840 ... $800. (3) On filing any document initiating any appeal, including a case stated ... These increases in fees and charges are a direct tax and it cannot be said that companies will pay the increases. What a load of rubbish. The companies will pass the fees on to the individual or whoever is being represented. What I find quite extraordinary is that this Labor government, which says that it supports equity, fairness, being up-front, being honest and being smart, is doing this by stealth and via the backdoor. There is no way that we can support what is happening. This is just a small window of the increases in taxes, fees and charges that this government has introduced. For instance, under this government superannuation contributions have been included in the payroll tax base. In 2000-01, the payroll tax base was increased by seven per cent. The inclusion of eligible termination payments and grossed up fringe benefits occurred in 2001-02. The payroll exemption on wages paid to existing employees who undertake traineeships was dropped. In terms of land tax, property holders have already contributed significantly to government coffers this year through increased stamp duty receipts from rising land valuations. In this year's budget, the Treasurer scrapped a 15 per cent rebate on land tax for companies, trustees and absentee landlords and is reported to slug property owners anywhere between $30 million and $48 million this year. Commerce Queensland has requested more detailed information on this from Treasury and, may I add, have not got it. The Property Council is on record as saying that there was no consultation with the industry prior to the changes. Of course there was not, because by scrapping that 15 per cent rebate it just added a few extra million, $30 to $48 million, into the coffers for consolidated revenue. What about electricity charges? Workers will cop charges of $240 to renew or apply for an electrical contractor licence and more than $1,500 to apply for approval of various classes of electrical equipment. Electrical work licence applications and renewal each will cost $50 and workers face fees of up to $250 to apply or renew an appointment as an accredited auditor. Yet again another slug, another tax. Of course, the new fees will see electricians' costs soar to make the work viable. The people opposite reckon they support the worker and the small family man, but these people have to pay electricians for what they come and do and it will be more expensive thanks to the tax take. There is a $10 million increase in transport fees and charges which was not included in the budgetary process. What about tick fees and charges for people out there in the drought who are suffering considerably? We see the Premier, hand on heart, saying 'we will do everything we can while we rip you off'. The government has scrapped Queensland's free cattle tick clearance service and increased planned inspection fees by more than 100 per cent. What about mining royalties? The government changed the royalty regime from 1 January 2002. This government changed the imposition of the royalty from the price received at the mine gate to the gross realised value aboard ships. This of course means that the royalty will be charged on an amount that included rail and freight costs. It is estimated to bring in an extra $60 million in revenue per year. The government is not doing too badly, is it? What about stamp duty on insurance premiums? The Insurance Council of Australia estimates that the imposition of state government stamp duty on top of insurance premiums gains the government an extra $10 million a year. I did hear the Treasurer say something about not charging stamp duty on public liability premiums. If that does happen, that is to be applauded, but let us look at all the other insurances on which stamp duty is being claimed. If we put on top of that the extra take that would have come fairly legitimately from increased land values this year, that is an extra take as well. I am surprised that the Attorney is prepared to agree to this taxation by stealth. Let us have some truth and honesty about the extra tax take from the ordinary battlers' and taxpayers' money that this Labor government is indulging in on a daily basis. Debate, on motion of Mr Reeves, adjourned.

SERVICE DELIVERY, BEATTIE GOVERNMENT Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.57 p.m.): I move— That this parliament condemns the Beattie Labor government for the serious decline in service delivery to the people of Queensland as a result of its four-year history of financial mismanagement and maladministration. The Beattie government's legacy will be marked by its chronic financial mismanagement. This is the Premier who promised no increase in taxes, fees and charges above the CPI. Since then, he 30 Oct 2002 Service Delivery, Beattie Government 4261 has broken just about every promise he could have possibly made when it came to taxes, fees and charges. The Premier has widened the payroll tax base and trapped more businesses in the payroll tax loop by including superannuation contributions in the payroll tax base. In 2000-01, this increased the payroll tax base by some seven per cent. He included eligible termination payments and then this financial year we see the grossed up fringe benefits. He has dropped the payroll exemption on wages paid to existing employees who undertake traineeships. This financial year alone we will see payroll tax in this state increase by about $100 million. The Premier has reaped a windfall gain on land tax from property owners of between $30 million and $48 million this year. Property owners have already contributed significantly to government coffers this year through increasing stamp duty receipts from rising land valuations. In this year's budget the Treasurer scrapped the 15 per cent rebate on land tax for companies, trustee and absentee landlords—another broken promise. What about the new electricity charges? Workers will cop fees of $240 to renew or apply for an electrical contractors licence and more than $1,500 to apply for approval of various classes of electrical equipment. This government specialises in massive increases, not the normal three per cent or five per cent increase. This government specialises in increases of 100 per cent or up to 300 per cent. The transport charges, hidden from the state budget and snuck in after the state budget, were bumped up by another $10 million. They have scrapped Queensland's free cattle tick clearance service and increased plant inspection fees by more than 100 per cent. The cattle tick clearance service fees have been increased by about 300 per cent. What about the increased court fees? Supreme Court writ application fees jumped from $156 to $420 per application and $820 for two applications from 1 September this year. That was another greedy grab for money because this government is broke because of the atrocious way in which it has handled the finances of this state. It has altered the mining royalty regime to plunder an estimated $60 million in revenue per year from the mining industry. From 1 January this year, the ALP government changed the royalty regime from imposing the royalty on the price received at the mine gate to the gross realised value aboard ships, which includes rail and freight costs. It has maintained the stamp duty on insurance premiums, despite the estimate that the imposition of stamp duty on top of the GST on insurance premium gains the government an extra $10 million a year. The government has now stopped this practice for not-for-profit and sporting clubs, but private enterprise and small enterprise continue to pay this extra tax on tax. It imposed a new pub tax on poker machines and introduced significant new increases in the charges for freedom of information applications to add to the barriers it had already been throwing up by wheeling documents through the cabinet. As well as the financial impost these cash grabs are imposing on Queensland, the greatest concern is the fact that the Premier has betrayed the trust that people put in him at the 1998 and 2001 state elections. He made a promise at those two elections and he has broken it. He promised to be honest, and he has been dishonest. Nearly every single one of these new taxes, fees or charges and these increases has been imposed by deceit, perhaps none more so than the cowardly action by Minister Palaszczuk, the Primary Industries Minister, who is the secret enemy of the bush, who did not even have the courage to bring his increases through the normal processes through this parliament so they could be scrutinised and debated. Many of these new charges and increases were not included in the state budget or even foreshadowed in the public arena, none more so than the new transport charges. There was no consultation with the people and industries they would affect the most. All of these measures were simply a blatant revenue grab by another Labor government that has ridden the state's finances into the ground, proving once again that Labor governments cannot manage the state's finances. What about affordable service provision? With much fanfare, the Premier launched his Charter of Social and Fiscal Responsibility—another piece of propaganda—included in which was a promise called Affordable Service Provision. It stated— The government will ensure that its level of service provision is sustainable by maintaining an overall General Government operating surplus, as measured in Government Finance Statistics terms. This has been another con on the people of Queensland. Under the Beattie government, Queensland has recorded consecutive whole-of-government operating deficits—$820 million in 2000-01 and $883 million last year. For the first time since 1977-78, Queensland has recorded a deficit—not one, but two on the trot. What about total state net worth? The consecutive budget deficits recorded by the Beattie Labor government have broken one central promise in the charter and is breaking another one as well. In that document the Beattie government has promised that it would at least maintain and seek to increase the total state net worth. But the budget papers for 4262 Service Delivery, Beattie Government 30 Oct 2002 this year reveal a drop of approximately 4.8 per cent in per capita net worth, with a prediction that it will keep dropping over the next three years. In other words, Queenslanders are getting poorer by the day under the Beattie Labor government. But perhaps the best example is unemployment. Do members remember the Premier's famous jobs, jobs, jobs promise and these words from the 2001 state election campaign launch— I am committed to an ambitious jobs target—and I stand by it. I will not forsake all the unemployed Queenslanders who are desperately wanting to work. You know the mantra—jobs, jobs, jobs. My Number one job is to get Queenslanders into jobs. And keep them in jobs—real jobs. The real story is in the delivery or the lack of delivery. Queensland's unemployment rate stands at seven per cent, well above the five per cent target that the Premier promised not only in 2001 but also in 1998. This figure is the worst figure in mainland Australia. In fact, it has been the worst figure in mainland Australia month by month for 25 months now. What a shame and tragedy it is that the people of Queensland can be conned and misled and be given false promises in that manner. Let us look at the VER program. Some 2,000 public servants are being pushed out of work, probably undertaking of the order of 40 hours work per head each. That is 80,000 hours of work that is not being done in Queensland. Is the Premier trying to say that they were not doing a good job before? This is the madcap, Mad Hatter sort of answer to the financial mismanagement that has forced this government to have to push 2,000 people out because it can no longer afford to pay them to provide the service and work they have provided in the past. That is the solution to the financial crisis that is gradually sinking this Beattie government. He promised there would be no impact on service delivery. He promised that departments would make the decision as to which public servants were offered a VER and that the process would be accountable. Yet we have already seen that this is another Beattie untruth, with the Primary Industries Minister intervening in the process in his department and then refusing to reveal the details of which officers had been lost from where. It is a cowardly and arrogant response to a question. He is not prepared to tell where these jobs have gone, what they were doing and how much loss of service there will be. What about the $50,000 teacher payouts? Where else in the world are people paid to have a career change? What about the nursing and specialist shortages. The waiting lists are growing. The tragedy is that the waiting lists improvements brought about by the coalition government are being ruined by this government. What about the problems of radiation therapy? Prior to the Beattie government, the DPI had responsibility for compiling and submitting applications for exceptional circumstances. Now, because of apathy, lack of staffing and underresourcing in DPI, Agforce has to take on that role—another service totally lost because this government is broke and is pushing out the people who provide the services. Single-handedly, Agforce has compiled the latest EC application for the Peak Downs district. What about ambulance response times? Due to a lack of staff and resources, particularly on the Gold Coast, ambulance services are slow and are not meeting the required demand. The lack of staff and resources makes ambulance response times in the evening and early morning slow and difficult to maintain. The clear-up rate for property crime—break and enters—averages around 13 per cent for the state. Damage mitigation permits are being delayed in the face of a kangaroo plague and serious drought. Just try to get one. There are no staff; they have all been pushed out. There have been delays in the processing of vegetation management permits. A lack of resources is slowing down the process. I know of people who have waited two years to get permits to pump water out of a creek for a tanker to water the roads for Main Roads construction, because they just do not have the staff. This is the evidence of what is happening. The government's financial mismanagement has caused services to go to the pot. Time expired. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (6.08 p.m.): I second the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. What we have seen in Queensland over the past four years of the Beattie Labor government is an illusion. We have seen a government that is run effectively on public relations—and very effectively at that. It is paper thin. It is the political equivalent of the boy with his finger in the dyke trying to push back the ocean and waiting for the ocean to rush in. In the areas for which I shadow government ministers there have been a large number of problems, for example, in fair trading, emerging problems in the technology portfolio and also significant issues with respect to the portfolio of Attorney-General. That is why tonight this motion deserves to be passed by the parliament because there have been serious problems with regard to financial 30 Oct 2002 Service Delivery, Beattie Government 4263 management and maladministration in this state. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned many of those; I wish to mention a number of others. If we turn to the portfolio of the Minister for Fair Trading, for example, we have seen the problems in this state with regard to the prosecution of marketeers. We had legislation introduced into this parliament last year to address the problem. What did the government do on the first prosecution? It failed! We had a situation where, on the first direction hearing, the 14 or 15 individuals were present and the presiding officer threw it out. We have a situation where those people who appeared before that particular tribunal are now seeking costs against the government. So, after having all this smoke and mirrors about how they are going to fix up the problem of two-tiered marketing in this state, we saw a situation where the government failed on its first attempt at prosecution. In parliament this morning we saw a concern starting to emerge with regard to the government's Smart State agenda. The concept of Smart State is a very excellent one, and one on which the opposition will continue to provide support. But we want to know that it is more than just a public relations exercise. We want to know that, if there are structural and real issues with regard to the Smart State agenda, the government is prepared to address them. When we raised an issue in this parliament this morning about a matter which was reported in the Courier-Mail we saw the Premier stand up there and seek to ridicule that report by referring to a very small part of it which referred to a bohemian index. It was one small part of it. It was a tiny part of it. The Premier knows that there are hundreds of pages in there that address a whole range of issues, including lifestyle, for which the government can be responsible as far as attracting investment in those areas is concerned. To ridicule something like that as glibly as the Premier did this morning did him and this parliament an enormous disservice. I invite honourable members to look at the ABS figures and the other matters which were tabled here this morning. These matters lead to some concerns as well with regard to investment in the Smart State agenda. I think we have our PR very good in this area and I commend the Premier for the job which he has done. However, there are some areas that we have to address. We should look at a comparison with Victoria with regard to investment in information and computing communication sciences. Victoria invested almost $28 million last year; we invested $5 million. New South Wales invested $27 million—almost $28 million. They are investing more. If we look at the issue of law enforcement we see that New South Wales invested $6 million and we invested $121,000. Sure, in the area of biological sciences, which is an important area and which has enjoyed long ongoing bipartisan support, Queensland invests reasonably well. However, if we look at the other indicators with regard to these areas of research we are not investing on the ground as much as we should be. They are the issues that we should be able to debate in this parliament without copping the ridicule and the diversion which we saw in here today. If we cannot bring this to the attention of this parliament and if these matters are not addressed early we imbue our research fraternity in this state with mediocrity. That is something on which we cannot catch up. Structural issues are difficult to catch up in the future. If we go to the issue of Justice and Attorney-General, we have a whole range of areas there with regard to the underfunding of the Guardianship Administration Tribunal. We do not have enough money for education campaigns for the Anti-discrimination Commission to make sure that it can properly enforce the new racial vilification legislation. We have delays in the criminal asset legislation. We have problems in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Legal profession reform has been delayed in this state for so long. We have a situation of general maladministration. Time expired. Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (6.13 p.m.): I move the following amendment— That all words after 'parliament' are omitted and the following words inserted: 'Applauds the Beattie Labor government for its strong record in building and improving service delivery to the people of Queensland. Further, this House recognises that expansion in service delivery has been underpinned by sound financial management and on a continuous basis since the election of the Beattie government in 1998.' This government is about smart service delivery. That means we deliver better services. It means we deliver smarter services. It means we deliver more cost-effective services. It means we deliver more services. This government is committed to delivering services to all Queenslanders, no matter where they live, so that we improve people's quality of life. 4264 Service Delivery, Beattie Government 30 Oct 2002

In this debate there will only be time for a few ministers to outline some of their major achievements on behalf of the government in improving services to the public. The Treasurer and the Ministers for Health, Education and Employment will all outline how services have improved since this Labor government replaced the Borbidge coalition government in 1998. I will deal with some of the areas. Let us talk about police and law and order. This government has increased police numbers by 1,380 officers since coming to office. At the beginning of this month Queensland had 8,188 serving police officers. This compares to 6,808 officers when we came to office in July 1998. The last coalition government promised 695 extra police but only delivered 437, well short of the target. We have delivered tactical crime squads. We have opened more police beat shopfronts and more police beats. We have extra police stations. We have extra police stations being built and I will table some of those details later on. Let us talk about ambulance services. A record of over 335,600 urgent—Code 1 and 2—ambulance cases were attended to in 2001-02, representing an increase of approximately 16.5 per cent over the 2000-01 financial year. A record Emergency Services budget of $558.6 million for 2002-03 is providing improved service delivery to communities throughout Queensland. The volunteers support package provides $18.9 million over four years as part of the government's commitment to ongoing support for the vital role that volunteers play in delivering emergency and counter-disaster services. We have extra funding for essential emergency helicopter services. In 2001-02 the Queensland Ambulance Service took delivery of 136 replacement ambulances. There is more in fire services. We have the continuation of the seven-year vehicle replacement program as well as commencement or completion of replacement stations at Surfers Paradise, Yeppoon and North Mackay. The list goes on. The QFRS delivered 42 urban appliances in 2001-02. The list goes on in terms of fire. We have a very impressive record. Let us talk about families. We are investing an additional $188 million over the next four years in Queensland families and children through the Department of Families. Over the next five years we will double the proportion of the Families Department's budget spent on prevention and early intervention and provide an extra $33 million over four years to our community partners in service delivery. Foster carers will benefit from an extra $33.5 million over four years and the introduction of a new foster carer card with business and government discounts. The list goes on. Over the last four years there has been an unprecedented policy and budgetary focus on building our social capital including increased funding of $76 million for disability services; $17.4 million for child care services; $1.8 million for youth crime prevention services and anti-graffiti initiatives; $9.8 million for gambling help services; and $63 million over 10 years for youth detention infrastructure. We ensure regular public transport air services to link 26 transport disadvantaged communities to a range of essential business, educational, medical and cultural destinations. The annual subsidy for the regulated air service network is now $6.92 million, an increase of almost $3 million per annum from the previous subsidy. The list of what is being delivered by Queensland Transport continues. In terms of service delivery, every year Queensland Transport processes more than 12.5 million transactions—over 48,000 every working day—satisfies more than 1.5 million customer inquiries and tests more than 100,000 drivers. We are delivering everywhere. With regard to long-term community housing I want to know if the member for Gregory thinks the $1.8 million being spent on his electorate to keep the outback's older citizens in towns like Quilpie, Longreach and Barcaldine—the highest amount ever spent in his electorate on this program—is money well spent. I bet he agrees. We help 47,000 older Queenslanders through the Home Assist/Secure program which my government has increased by $3 million. To protect people we have amended the Local Government Act to provide for restrictions on certain breeds of dogs. The Queensland government is also subsidising councils under the Security Improvement Program. In the Department of Primary Industries there is assistance in an unprecedented way. In 1999, the government established the Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences. We have boosted budgets across the area. We have delivered. I seek to incorporate the rest of this in Hansard so that everybody knows exactly what is there. Leave granted. 30 Oct 2002 Service Delivery, Beattie Government 4265

This Government is about smart service delivery. That means we deliver better services. It means we deliver smarter services. It means we deliver more cost-effective services. It means we deliver more services. This Government is committed to delivering services to all Queenslanders, no matter where they live so that we improve people’s quality of life. In this debate there will only be time for a few Ministers to outline some of their major achievements in improving services to the public. The Treasurer and the Ministers for Health, Education and Employment will all outline how services have improved since this Labor Government replaced the Borbidge Coalition Government in 1998. Police Numbers: This Government has increased police by 1380 officers since coming to office. At the beginning of this month Queensland had 8,188 serving police officers. This compares to 6,808 officers when we came to office in July 1998. The last coalition government promised 695 extra police, but only delivered 437, well short of the target. Tactical Crime Squads: In 2001, this government made a commitment to establish 16, 14-officer tactical crime squads during this term. We are meeting that commitment. At the last election, we promised to provide 10 new Police Beats and 10 new Police Beat Shopfronts during this term. Last financial year we funded seven new police beats for the Holloway’s Beach, Crestmead/Marsden, Oxley, Tullawong, North Ipswich, Rochedale South, and Goodna communities. This year we have committed to establish a further five, to be located at Manoora, Redbank Plains, Narangba, Mango Hill and Beachmere Last year we also built new shopfronts at Cannon Hill, Morayfield and Thuringowa. Four more new shopfronts are being funded this year at Coolangatta, Springfield, Milton/Paddington and Deception Bay. However, the Police Beats and Shopfront program is only one part of our overall capital works program. Under way at the moment are: ¥ $2.4 million Calamvale Station, due to open next month. ¥ Stage One of the Toowoomba Police Station complex, worth $9.8 million, due for completion in December. ¥ $11 million Mount Isa police station project, due for completion in January. ¥ The 2002/03 State Budget allocated $2 million to progress a replacement station at Mundingburra, $1.7 million toward a new station at Palm Island and $1 million ($500,000 each) to progress new stations at Mackay North and Loganholme. Projects in 2001 included the construction of new police stations at North Rockhampton, worth $2.3 million, Tannum Sands, Kowanyana, Marlborough, and South Kolan. Stage 2 of the Yamanto Police District Headquarters and the replacement of the Roma district headquarters, worth more than $3 million, were also completed. A record of over 335,600 urgent (Code 1 and 2) ambulance cases were attended in 2001-02, representing an increase of approximately 16.5% over the 2000-01 financial year. A record Emergency Services budget of $558.6 million for 2002-03 is providing improved service delivery to communities throughout Queensland. The Volunteers Support Package provides $18.9 million over four years as part of the Government’s commitment to the ongoing support of the vital role that volunteers play in delivering emergency and counter disaster services. $15.6 million in additional funding over four years has been allocated to essential emergency helicopter services throughout Queensland. In 2001-02, the Queensland Ambulance Service took delivery of 136 replacement ambulances to enhance its emergency response capacity. The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service capital expenditure in 2002-03 totals $26.1 million and allows for: ¥ Continuation of the seven year vehicle replacement program to reduce the average age of the urban appliance fleet to 15 years; ¥ Commencement or completion of replacement stations at Surfers Paradise, Yeppoon, North Mackay and Wynnum; and ¥ Refurbishments of existing stations at Ipswich, Mackay, Proserpine and Roma Street. In 2001-02, the QFRS delivered 42 urban appliances in the continuation of its fleet modernisation program, designed to ensure that urban vehicles in service are less than 15 years old. In 2002-03 the urban vehicles program is expected to build an additional 30 vehicles. In response to requests from rural Fire Brigades, the Rural Fire Service delivered 55 appliances (30 light response vehicles and 25 medium attack vehicles) in 2001-02 and will deliver a further 52 vehicles (18 light response vehicles and 34 medium attack vehicles) in 2002-03. In addition, 32 rural firefighting trailers were constructed in 2001-02, with a further 22 rural firefighting trailers to be constructed in 2002-03. 4266 Service Delivery, Beattie Government 30 Oct 2002

Patient and community satisfaction with the Queensland Ambulance Service have remained extremely high. The 2001 Queensland Household Survey shows that 93.9% of patients and 83.6% of the community were satisfied with the services provided. The Queensland Ambulance Service has hired approximately 8,400 baby capsules to the community during 2001- 02. This is an approximate 11% increase over the previous financial year and is the fourth consecutive year of growth in this community service. We are investing an additional $188 million over the next four years in Queensland families and children, through the Department of Families. Over the next five years we will double the proportion of the Family Department’s budget spent on prevention and early intervention and provide an extra $33 million over four years to our community partners in service delivery. Foster carers will benefit from an extra $33.5 million over four years and the introduction of a new foster carer card with business and government discounts. Over the last four years there has been an unprecedented policy and budgetary focus on building our social capital including: increased funding of $76 million for disability services, $17.4 million for child care services, $1.8 million for youth crime prevention services and anti-graffiti initiatives, $9.8 million for gambling help services and $63 million over ten years for youth detention infrastructure. This year we will have increased our service delivery staff in the Department by more than 270 since 1999 and we have increased the number of front line Department of Families staff in regional and rural Queensland from 68% to 75%. Today we announced details of ten new and enhanced respite and family support services across Queensland Ð more than $5 million in recurrent operational and one-off capital funding. We are delivering a comprehensive range of new services to support reforms for our Indigenous communities, including Cape York Partnerships and our response to the Cape York Justice Study, Meeting Challenges, Making Choices. We’ve provided the Endeavour Foundation with an additional $6 million this year, bringing our total contribution to Endeavour to $22.6 million. This year we have also provided $2 million to assist community organisations experiencing service and demand pressures, including $850,000 to the Cerebral Palsy League. We’ve provided $1.6 million for a targeted response model to better support people with disabilities living in private residential facilities. We started Local Area Coordination services in 2000 and since then more than 1,000 people with a disability have been assisted from 17 rural and remote locations throughout the state. We ensure Regular Public Transport air services for 26 transport-disadvantaged communities to a range of essential business, educational, medical, and cultural destinations. The annual subsidy for the regulated air service network is now $6.92M—an increase of almost $3M per annum from the previous subsidy. In 2002 the government committed $1.78 million to support long distance bus services in rural and remote Queensland. Covering ten long distance bus routes, the funding will ensure outback Queensland communities have affordable and timely access to essential services in regional communities for the next five years. Queensland Transport delivers the following services every year: ¥ process more than 12.5 million transactions (over 48,000 every working day) ¥ satisfy more than 1.5 million customer enquiries ¥ conduct more than 100,000 driving tests ¥ issue or renew 1.6 million licences to drivers ¥ administer registrations for 2.8 million motor vehicles or recreational vessels Since the Labor Party came to government, Queensland Transport has employed 44 new school crossing supervisors. With regard to long term community housing I want to know if the Member for Gregory thinks the $1.8 million being spent on his electorate to keep the outback’s older citizens in towns like Quilpie, Longreach and Barcaldine – the highest amount ever spent in his electorate on this program and indeed the highest figure in this years overall state allocation—is a lack of service to the older citizens in his electorate. We help 47,000 older Queenslanders through Home Assist/Secure—a program which my government has increased by $3 million. This government bought 160 homes from the Commonwealth at the Amberley Air base which are now being shifted to places like Bedourie and Normanton to help Councils overcome a housing shortage for their workers. In December last year, The Queensland Government introduced Restricted Dog Legislation enforcing stricter controls by councils over certain prescribed breeds of dogs thereby improving community safety standards. The Queensland Government is also subsidising councils under the Security Improvement Program to purchase security cameras and lighting to promote safer communities. Department of Primary Industries: Under this Government, the Queensland Government Agent Program has expanded to 66 centres across the State. In 1999, the Government established the Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences which has combined the research and development activities of the DPI into one organisation. It boasts a budget of more than $150 million and a staff of almost 1500 based in centres across the State, working in areas as diverse as biotechnology, climate forecasting, plant breeding and livestock genetics. 30 Oct 2002 Service Delivery, Beattie Government 4267

Last financial year, Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority approved more than $26 million in concessional loans, another $4.3 million in subsidies and grants with $2 million approved for group training. It established its first ever regional offices with staff based in Mackay, Kingaroy, Innisfail and Roma. The DPI’s efforts to eradicate the red imported fire ant in south-east Queensland is strong evidence of this Government’s commitment to service delivery. No other country has eradicated fire ants. We aim to be the first. More than 500 officers are engaged in this program. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (6.19 p.m.): I have pleasure in seconding the amendment moved by the honourable the Premier. The motion that was moved by the Leader of the Opposition states that they condemn our government for the serious decline in service delivery to the people of Queensland. One thing one needs to do upon entering a debate and attempting to move a motion is to have some basis for moving the motion. I do not believe that those opposite do that. I listened to the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition. One issue that he raised as a decline in service delivery to the people of Queensland was the increase in cost of tick inspections. We thought that people using our tick inspectors should pay full costs. That is not a decline in service at all. It simply requires people to pay the proper cost for a service. Where a service only goes to a certain portion of the community, I think that that is the way it should happen. Since I have been Treasurer and since the Beattie government has been in power, we have ensured the delivery of services to the people of Queensland. This year's state budget saw the annual funding for the Families Department, excluding funding for concessions, increase by $194 million—that is, 97 per cent higher than when the Beattie government was elected in 1998—following the announcement of a $188 million package over four years, including an extra $42 million in 2002-03. In this year's budget we allocated $158 million over four years for Queensland the Smart State: education and training reforms for the future, the white paper on which is now being developed. The education reforms will provide Queensland kids with more time at school and access to modern technology. The ratio of kids per computer is now coming down. Also, in the past two budgets the Education recurrent budget has increased by around 14 per cent. Teacher numbers have increased significantly through the employment of more than 250 additional teachers from the start of the 2002 school year to support growth in enrolments and new facilities as well as 135 additional teachers over and above that needed to meet enrolment growth as the second stage of the government's election commitment to employ 800 additional teachers over four years. We have established a $100 million Smart State Research Facility Fund through which the government has committed up to $20 million to support the establishment of the Australian Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology. We have seen a 6.7 per cent increase in the Health recurrent budget for 2002-03 with initiatives including an extra $50 million for capital needs over four years, $13.3 million to address access to acute in-patient services and $10.6 million to enhance mental health services. This followed growth in the Health recurrent budget the year before of over six per cent. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned radiotherapy. Queensland is the only state increasing expenditure in the area of radiotherapy. In fact, we have committed into the future an extra $28 million to ensure that radiotherapy is able to be provided to the people of Queensland. There has been a substantial increase in the Disability Services Queensland recurrent budget with increases of 11.6 per cent in 2001-02 and another 8.8 per cent this year, a total increase of over 20 per cent in two years. I am very proud of the initiatives that the Beattie government has been able to deliver to ensure that service delivery is being provided to the people of Queensland, that the money we are spending is going to the people most in need and that services are being provided. The motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition is absolute nonsense. The statistics show— Time expired. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (6.23 p.m.): I rise to support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition—that is, that this parliament condemns the Beattie Labor government for the serious decline in service delivery to the people of Queensland as a result of its four-year history of financial mismanagement and maladministration. I totally oppose the amendment moved by the government. I again put on record my disappointment that motions moved in this House in good faith are able to be amended in such a way as the motion before the House tonight will be amended. Deleting all words of the motion except three and then substituting words which are the 4268 Service Delivery, Beattie Government 30 Oct 2002 complete opposite of the original intent of the motion would not be accepted in any other forum in this state. No P&C meeting, community meeting or any other forum in this state would allow a motion to be amended like this motion will be amended tonight. It makes a mockery of this parliament, just as the Premier and his ministers come in here and make a mockery of this parliament day after day after day play-acting and using it as a stage and doing a clown act. Once again, tonight we see this parliament treated with contempt in the way that this motion will be amended. This is all part of an attempt to maintain a facade—to maintain a facade of a government that is supposedly delivering to the people of Queensland. But it is, after all, a very thin facade. It is a facade that is being maintained by a legion of spin doctors and PR people who, admittedly, are very good at their job. They are good at PR. They are good at maintaining that facade. They are good at information management, but they fail completely when it comes to delivery of services. They fail completely when it comes to the delivery of things that affect the real people of Queensland. They are particularly good at maintaining the rhetoric and managing the information. It fools the cheaper end of the media and fools the less professional journalists in the Queensland media, but it does not fool the people out there in the communities who know that in their contact with government departments and the government, service delivery is not there. The services that they have a right to expect are not being delivered. The best example of all that the Beattie government will never get away from is the Premier's core plank of his promises at the last election when he promised jobs, jobs, jobs and a five per cent unemployment rate. How much of that has been delivered? Queensland is still the worst state in mainland Australia in terms of its unemployment figure. That is the biggest example, but it is only one example of a whole range of areas where rhetoric continues to be repeated day after day after day that gives the lie to the delivery of service. In the portfolio areas that I represent of police and natural resources, the Premier talked about police statistics. But he never talked about the property crime clear-up statistic—the statistic that matters most to people who get their houses broken into and their possessions stolen. He did not tell this House that only 12 per cent of property crime in Queensland ever gets resolved. Some 88 per cent of people who have their houses broken into in Queensland have to cop it sweet and put up with it. Nearly nine out of 10 have to cop it sweet and take it on the chin. They never get closure. They are flat out getting the police to come and investigate it let alone catch the grubs who do it. That is the statistic that matters to the people of Queensland who have to live in fear in their own homes. Let us look at the DNR portfolio. The statistics there are just as bad. In relation to the river operation plans—which no-one opposite would understand but every irrigator and every water user in Queensland wants completed so that they can move to a more efficient water use system and put in place the water reform plans so they can trade water allocations—nine of them were supposed to be delivered last year. How many were delivered? None! Zero! Nil! Zilch! That is the figure that matters, not the press releases and the fancy PR and the facade that is very well done by their university educated public relations people. They are very good at maintaining the facade, but the people out there who are getting their houses broken into, the people on hospital waiting lists and the people who are waiting to trade their water allocations to do something realistic and valuable for the water reform process simply have to wait. They know that this is a farce. They know that this— Time expired. Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts) (6.29 p.m.): Jobs, jobs, jobs are at the very heart of what this government stands for and the services it delivers. There are 47,000 Queenslanders to testify to the difference between the service delivery of the coalition and the service delivery of the government. Some 47,000 Queenslanders have got jobs under the program promised by Premier Beattie and delivered by this government in Breaking the Unemployment Cycle—47,000 jobs. By contrast, what was the degree of assistance when the current Leader of the Opposition was in government? Absolutely none! The current Leader of the Opposition, Mr Horan, and his former ministerial colleague Mr Santoro were proud of the fact that they offered nothing in the way of employment services. Ms Bligh: They didn't even have a minister for it. Mr FOLEY: As the Minister for Education observes, they did not even have a minister for employment. Why not? Because they were shackled to an outdated ideology which said 'leave it to the marketplace and hope for the best'. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: there are 47,000 30 Oct 2002 Service Delivery, Beattie Government 4269

Queenslanders who well know the difference between the services delivered by this government and the appalling abandonment of responsibility on the part of the previous government. I welcome the debate on unemployment— Mr Horan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr FOLEY: He speaks with the authority of a man who delivered nine and a half per cent unemployment to this state—'Mr Nine and a Half Per Cent'. Ms Bligh: That's higher than his popularity rating. Mr FOLEY: It could be said to be higher than his popularity rating, but let us just deal with the facts. In February 1997, when the honourable gentleman sat around the cabinet table, he presided over an utter disaster in employment in this state. By contrast, we now have the lowest unemployment rate in this state since April 1990—an unemployment rate which has fallen to 7.1 per cent. Significantly, annual employment growth in Queensland, at 2.9 per cent, is faster than in any other state. Nationally, employment grew some two per cent over the year. Our annual growth in full-time employment is also the fastest at 2.5 per cent, in contrast with the national average of 1.2 per cent. That is notwithstanding a high participation rate. Let those opposite bring on the debate about employment services. Forever they will be shackled by the ghost of former minister Santoro and by their shameful willingness to accept a cut to those fundamental services needed for mature-age workers to get back into the work force. In relation to the youth, we have 10,000 people out of school, out of work and out of training. It is imperative that we offer employment services, and that is exactly what this government has done. Let us look at the record of those opposite in relation to training services. Theirs was a government that slashed $125 million out of the TAFE budget. It slashed 900 jobs out of the TAFE budget. And those opposite have the temerity to come into this parliament and speak about services! Let them bring on the debate. The Beattie government's record budget for TAFE of $552.8 million for training delivery this year stands in stark contrast. Nothing is more fundamental to the economic, social and cultural rights of Queenslanders than the opportunity to get a job, and what that boils down to is a government committed to the delivery of employment and training services. That is what we went to the people on in 1998 and 2001. That is at the very heart of this government's commitment, and that is the essential difference between those in the opposition and the Labor government. Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA) (6.34 p.m.): After four years, the Beattie government has left Queensland's environment in a state of tragic despair and crippled under financial mismanagement. To see this we have to look only as far back as the recent bushfires, which left thousands of hectares scorched, homes razed and unfortunately one life lost. These bushfires were a tragic indictment upon Queensland Parks and Wildlife's national parks management processes, critical underresourcing and critical understaffing. In reply to a question on notice Minister Wells advised that of the 11.9 million hectare estate that is managed by QPWS only 5.24 per cent was subject to a planned burn in the year 2002. That is absolutely disgraceful. This is a cutback of nearly 246,097 hectares from the previous year. These cutbacks make a mockery of the QPWS policy of supposed proactive management and the use of planned burns. It did not happen. The Beattie government allocated an estimated $2.3 million for fire management in national parks this year. That figure is a paltry sum compared to the amount that is now required to address the damage wreaked across Queensland by these devastating bushfires. Surely to goodness a bit of proactive management would have saved us a lot of heartache and a lot of money. It was damage that could have been prevented or contained by a more extensive fire suppression planned burn program. This is not the only area in which we have seen our national parks suffer. Information provided in a question on notice shows that numerous national parks have been forced to close or operate in a reduced capacity due to poor park maintenance. For instance, in the past two years Carnarvon National Park has had to close or operate in a reduced capacity more than eight times for reasons extending from vandalism and unsecured or unsafe sites to sewerage problems. From the EPA web site I discovered that, along with numerous other parks, this particular park remains closed. I have to wonder what on earth is going on. I would hope that after the recent tragedy at Carnarvon National Park the minister would seek to urgently increase national park maintenance funding. 4270 Service Delivery, Beattie Government 30 Oct 2002

The lack of national park funding is impinging on the use of these parks and impinging upon the health and safety of those using these parks. I call upon the minister to now correct the situation and resurrect Queensland's confidence in our national parks. Queenslanders have the right to swim in our national waterways, camp in our national parks and breathe air without feeling any unease whatever. I call upon the Beattie government to urgently inject funds into a crippled and dying environment and to restore our precious national parks network to the funding level that the people of Queensland deserve. In addition, I make a plea in this parliament tonight for more staff to be provided to enable our national parks people to operate and do their job properly. We should have a system in Queensland whereby people who go into national parks can have the courtesy of being spoken to by an officer of the Parks and Wildlife Service and to have explained to them the fauna, the trees and all things special to that particular park. But it rarely happens in Queensland because our parks and wildlife officers are too busy trying to maintain the park, battling for rations—for petrol for their vehicles and so on. This is the sort of thing that is going on. If one goes to Kakadu National Park one is shown how to appreciate all of the culture in that particular area. Time expired. Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (6.40 p.m.): Tonight, the government stands accused of a serious decline in service delivery. I ask myself: a decline from what? Presumably from that which was delivered by the previous government, that is, the Borbidge coalition government, of which many members here were members. I want to take a little trip down memory lane to see how the record of the two governments compare just in the area of education. Under this government, maintenance programs have not only been maintained but also we have put in place two special new programs to make sure that our schools are renewed and maintained. The Secondary School Renewal Program, with $141 million over three years, and the Triple R program, which is repainting, re-roofing and providing reticulation in those schools which need it, with $50 million over three years is $190 million in new, specific, targeted initiatives for rebuilding and maintaining our schools. How many specific new programs were there under the coalition? None! Not a single new dollar. I ask members to consider this as a maths lesson. If we go from no dollars to $190 million, is that generally regarded as a decline or an incline? It is basic geometry. It is an incline—$190 million is a lot; no dollars is not a lot. So when we go from that figure upwards, it is not a decline, it is an incline. In the capital works area again, under Cooler Schools, when this government came to power the previous government had initiated a program to aircondition schools. How many P&Cs had it funded? It funded nine P&Cs in two and a half years. How many has the Labor government subsidised? Three hundred and thirty-one. Again, if we go from nine to 331, are we going uphill, or are we going downhill? It looks up to me. Again, that is an incline, not a decline. Under this government, we have put in place 800 extra teachers over and above the normal growth. This is to reduce class sizes to deal with behaviour management and children with special needs. How many new teachers over and above growth were put in under the coalition government? None! Again, we go from zero to 800. Is this an incline or a decline? It is going up. It is basic, primary school geometry. In the area of providing services for students with disabilities, under our government $75 million in new funds was provided. How much in new, specified, targeted funding was provided under the previous government? Zero! Again, it is simple geometry. This is not a decline: zero dollars to $75 million. One figure is nothing and one is a lot. In the area of distance education, this year alone there have been three new initiatives. There has been a commitment that all primary students in the School of Distance Education would be able to use email for their assignments from term 1 next year, a commitment to the digitisation of all materials for secondary students to progress through next year and, importantly, a commitment to convert all HF radio schools to telephone teaching by 2004. How many new initiatives for the School of Distance Education were made under the coalition? Again, not one! The score is three-nil in an area that the coalition would regard as their heartland. What did they do in that area? Zip! In the area of information technology, when the coalition left government it left a situation where students in our classrooms had a ratio of one computer for every nine and a half students. Under this government, already this year we have achieved a ratio of one to five for high school students in Queensland and we will have achieved it for primary school students by the end of 30 Oct 2002 Service Delivery, Beattie Government 4271

2004. Although the 9.5 of the coalition is a higher figure than five, in this case the decrease in the ratio means an increase in service delivery by the Beattie government. All of that has been achieved without the significant and major initiatives that our government has announced this year. In the previous term, we set a vision, which is Education 2010. This term, we are implementing it. We have committed to an entire new year of schooling, to significant new information technology and to reshaping the senior years of schooling to improve pathways to work and further study. I ask members to compare this with the record of the architect of the Leading Schools agenda. I ask members to remember when the Education Minister in the coalition government was known as 'Backdoor Bob' because he was tearing school communities apart and could not enter schools by the front door. I ask members to remember when he tried to sack 6,000 cleaners in this state. That does not count as improving service delivery. The member left school communities torn apart. I am happy to compare the record of this government in just one area. I wish that I had time to tell members more. Time expired. Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (6.44 p.m.): I rise to support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, because every day now in electorates the members opposite talk to people who know how difficult it is to access services from this government, they know how difficult it is to access information from this government, and they know how difficult it is to actually get anything provided by government departments—from people out in the front line who are so stretched and so overloaded that they are simply unable to provide the services that they want to provide because of the demands that are being placed on them. Whether we talk about Families, Health, Education or Police departments, the story is the same. I will just touch on the Department of Families. During the estimates committee hearings, we exposed that the number of kids on waiting lists—those assessments awaiting finalisation, those children who have been recognised as being at high risk of immediate physical or sexual harm—had absolutely blown out in a matter of months. What did the minister say? 'That is just a management tool.' But when the management became completely impossible, what happened? That tool was scrapped. It was too embarrassing. It showed up too well just how bad the situation in the Families Department was. Last Saturday morning I was at a conference where a lady came up to me because I had been introduced as the shadow minister for disability services. She said, 'Can you please help me. Some friends of mine, who are in their 60s, look after their adult son. He is in his 20s, he is over six feet tall, he has a mental disability, and he is violent towards them. They cannot handle him. The police have tried to help them, but cannot do anything. Disability Services Queensland will not do anything. They are at their wit's end. Where do they go? What do they do?' I said, 'We cannot help you.' The government will not be there to help them and people with children who have a disability know that they have to abandon their children on the steps of Disability Services Queensland if anything is going to be done for them. That is a disgraceful state of affairs. Mr Horan: There will be VERs in Disability Services. Mr COPELAND: There will be VERs in Disability Services Queensland, just like there are in every other department. It is true. We are hearing that from people in our electorates. That is what is happening in the electorates right across the state. I want to touch on just two very simple examples from my own electorate that have happened in recent weeks. I put questions on notice to the relevant ministers relating to those examples. One question was in response to the workload that the Department of Natural Resources officers are under. They cannot keep up with implementing regulations that are being forced on them. They are stuck in the middle of land-holders and the government and are not able to provide the services that they are expected to provide, especially in relation to vegetation management, in relation to the ROPs, as the member for Callide said, and a whole range of other issues. I had heard that the departmental officer for the Department of Natural Resources in Pittsworth was being removed. So I put a question on notice about that. I received the following answer— With regard to the Pittsworth office I am not willing to guarantee an ongoing presence at this centre. ... 4272 Service Delivery, Beattie Government 30 Oct 2002

That officer, who has long standing service at Pittsworth, has signalled an intention to retire in the coming months. Consideration is being given to accommodating priority departmental service needs in the Pittsworth area by coverage from existing officers working in this field stationed at Warwick, Toowoomba, Millmerran and Dalby. I know that those officers who are already stationed in those areas are already overworked. They cannot keep up with the workload that they have already and they are going to get more. This officer at Pittsworth is going to retire and is not going to be replaced. That means simply that more services are not going to be delivered. The officer in Millmerran is doing his damnedest to do everything that he can, but he simply cannot keep up with demand. The second question that I put on notice related to the Environmental Protection Agency. It is question on notice No. 1313 to the Minister for Environment regarding the applications for getting damage mitigation permits. As every member knows, it is a very dire situation in rural areas. One of my constituents was having problems with kangaroos and decided to apply for a damage mitigation permit. The Premier is even reported as saying in the Sunday Mail that it is a valid way that people can go to actually try to control pests on their properties. What did the minister say in his answer? The minister stated— The department advises that generally, DMPs are issued within 5 days of receipt of an application. Sometimes turn around times are shorter. The minister does not say anything about turnaround times being longer. My constituent had to wait 23 days before he received his permit. By that time, the situation was completely out of control. What happened? He had to grin and bear it. There is so much froth and bubble with this government. There are 180 people in the Community Engagement Division. The government's PR is brilliant; the spin is brilliant. They will flick off any criticism at all. But when it comes substance, when it comes to services on the ground, the people who are trying to access those services know exactly what is going on. They know that the services are not being delivered. They know that they are not able to access the information that they want to access from government departments. What is more, they know that it is getting worse. It is getting worse every day. When we talk to public servants, the answer is, 'They are broke. They have no money.' Time expired. Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy) (6.50 p.m.): I rise to support the Premier's amendment. After the last speech it does not really need supporting. The member could not find anything to complain about, so he just repeated it over and again. The Beattie Labor government has an impressive record in improving and expanding health services across the state. This government has provided a record health budget every year in office. That is five consecutive record budgets. This year I was delighted to announce a record recurrent health budget of $4.33 billion as well as $248 million in capital works and equipment to complete the Labor government's $2.8 billion health rebuilding program. Under this innovative Labor program commenced in 1992-1993 and now in its final year, we have rebuilt and re-equipped hospitals and community health centres from the Torres Strait to the Tweed, from the coast to Cunnamulla. Just last week the Premier opened the $78 million East Block as part of the $510 million investment in the flagship Herston hospital complex. Mr Horan interjected. Mrs EDMOND: The Goss Labor government started it all and I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition raised that. The planning was done under then minister Hayward. This year, an extra 237 full-time staff positions will be created at the frontline of health service delivery, bringing to more than 2,000 the number of extra service positions created in health service delivery in the past four years. Under this government, Queensland is now the fastest growing jurisdiction in its rate of new spending under the Second National Mental Health plan. More than 300 new mental health worker jobs have been created. This year alone, an extra $10.6 million has created another 55 community based and an extra 16 forensic positions. Our record is all the more remarkable as Queensland began the National Mental Health Strategy with the lowest per capita spending on mental health services that we inherited from the Bjelke-Petersen government. Now it is close to the national average. The Beattie Labor government's new Mental Health Act for the first time balances the needs of patients with the rights of victims of crime. These changes were long overdue but were too hard for my predecessor. In two years Mr Horan passed just three new health acts, compared with the 26 acts passed since I have been Health Minister, because it was 30 Oct 2002 Justice Legislation (Variation of Fees and Costs) Regulation (No. 1) 2002 4273 just too hard for him. We have now rewritten, modernised and improved more than two-thirds of health legislation. The Beattie government has a proud record of improving and expanding services in palliative care, child health, family support programs, youth and women's health, drug and alcohol services, health promotion—cut by the previous government—renal services and cancer services. We are the only state, as the Treasurer said, that has expanded radiation therapy services. The Commonwealth is now funding Victoria and New South Wales to try to get them to expand and follow Queensland's lead. In rural areas, telemedicine is now available to 240 sites and outreach specialist services, where they have never had it before, including the first ever flying paediatrician. The extra $10 million allocated to elective surgery last financial year delivered an extra 4,300 elective surgery operations compared to the previous year. But under the first two years of Labor, 20,753 more people received their operations than under the two years of the coalition government. That is the statistic that counts. Clearly, health services have been expanded greatly under the Beattie Labor government, but there are serious pressures on the public system because of the federal government's policies. The federal government's reneging on HOCI increases cost Queensland health services this year over $100 million. Just think what we could do with $100 million extra that is denied us by the federal government. This was agreed to in an agreement with the previous minister when he was Health Minister. Where is the opposition fighting for the federal government to pay up? Where is the opposition's voice on behalf of Queenslanders when the Beattie government takes the feds to task over its underfunding through Medicare of GPs and the consequent added pressure on public hospital emergency departments? They sit there and bleat but are not prepared to speak up to their federal counterparts. The Beattie Labor government has so many achievements in health over the past four years that I do not have a chance to mention them all. I would go on for hours. I need to go on for hours. Time expired. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 55—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Bredhauer, E. Clark, L. Clark, Cummins, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Purcell. NOES, 16—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flynn, Horan, Kingston, Lee Long, Malone, Pratt, Quinn, E. Roberts, Seeney, Sheldon, Watson. Tellers: Lester, Springborg Resolved in the affirmative. Motion, as amended, agreed to. Sitting suspended from 7.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.

JUSTICE LEGISLATION (VARIATION OF FEES AND COSTS) REGULATION (No. 1) 2002 Disallowance of Statutory Instrument Resumed from p. 4260. Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (8.30 p.m.): I wish to speak against the disallowance motion moved by the member for Southern Downs. The amendments to the uniform civil procedures regulations increase Supreme and District Court filing fees in order to move closer to parity with other states, improve the recovery of costs and differentiate between individuals and corporations. Let us look at the fees in the other states. If we compare the Supreme Court fees with the fees for equivalent courts in other states, we see that only the Northern Territory and Tasmania have lower fees than our new fees. The claims by the opposition are completely false. In terms of appeals in the Supreme Court, once again Western Australia and Tasmania are the only two jurisdictions with lower fees than Queensland's. The opposition has not backed up with evidence its screams about how high the fees are. The fee increases were in part motivated by an assessment of similar fee structures nationwide. This assessment revealed that the fees charged in Queensland were among the lowest in Australia. In other Australian jurisdictions, for claims by individuals in the Supreme Court or higher, the fees range from $116 to $1,052. Queensland's new fee of $420 for claims by individuals in the Supreme Court still places us third lowest in respect of nine other comparable 4274 Justice Legislation (Variation of Fees and Costs) Regulation (No. 1) 2002 30 Oct 2002 jurisdictions. For claims by corporations in the Supreme Court or higher, in other Australian jurisdictions the fees range from $116 to $2,104. The changes we have made enable a separate fee to be charged for corporations initiating a proceeding in the Supreme or District Courts. These fees are $840 and $800 respectively. Of the four jurisdictions that provide for separate filing fees for corporations, Queensland's fee of $840 is the second lowest. Another goal of the fee increases was to help the courts to recover some of their operating costs. Data from 1999 to 2000 indicated that the fees in the Queensland Supreme Court recovered 24 per cent of costs while the District Court recovered 17 per cent of costs. For the same period, other Australian jurisdictions were recovering up to 39 per cent of costs for Supreme Court applications and up to 48 per cent of the costs of District Court applications. The increase in filing fees will assist the courts in the greater recovery of their operating costs. A regulatory impact statement was not prepared in relation to the amendment regulation. In relation to fees increased in accordance with CPI, no RIS is required as there is no appreciable cost to the community. In relation to increases in fees in excess of CPI, the department determined that it was exempt from preparing an RIS on the following basis. The fee increase achieved greater uniformity with like fees charged in other Australian jurisdictions, plus they were matters that are substantially uniform or complementary with the legislation of the Commonwealth or other states. Pursuant to section 46(1)(g), such matters are exempt from the requirements of a regulatory impact statement. The fee increases were announced as part of the state budget in the Ministerial Portfolio Statements and the opposition spokesman raised questions about these fee increases in the estimates committee. For this reason, the fee increases were considered announced government policy and comprise an exception to matters requiring an RIS pursuant to section 46(1)(j) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (8.34 p.m.): I rise to support the disallowance of the new justice legislation regulation. Many of the fees in this document have been raised by CPI and can be justified in order to keep pace with real costs. However, I find it difficult to understand the justification of the one-off rises of 91 per cent for individuals—that is, $420 in the Supreme Court and $400 in the District Court—for filing charges, or 380 per cent for companies, up to $840 in the Supreme Court and $800 in the District Court. A previous government speaker said that in effect the $840 and $800 fees were okay as company costs because companies can afford to pay and actually claim that against the running costs of their company. But what justification is there for that statement? Who says that all of the companies affected will be able to pay? Who checked? Companies come in a wide diversity of shapes, sizes and cash flows. I can remember a time not that long ago—and it is continuing now—when a lot of people were encouraged to form their own small company, whether it be a house cleaning or a mowing business or whatever. These people will be affected by this; they are sole entity companies. I know a lot of really hardworking people in such arrangements. For example, up home there is one person who cuts firewood. He would never be able to afford this sort of fee, yet he would come under the range of company fees. How much work has been done to estimate the amount of fees raised by these new charges in one financial year? An estimate would have been done. I would be interested to hear the minister's response in terms of the amount of revenue received. The budget papers indicate that a rise would apply, but there is no hint of the quantum of that rise. It has been stated that the registrar may grant a waiver or an exemption. I acknowledge my lack of knowledge in this area. I would question what triggers that exemption. Must the applicant ask for a waiver for that waiver to be considered and perhaps granted? I believe the member for Southern Downs said that of 15 applications last year only five were granted. But if the waiver or the exemption applies only on the basis that the applicant makes an application at the time the documents are tabled, I would stand here and say that the majority of people will not know to ask. Most people are unfamiliar with court processes. Indeed, if the member for Southport is correct, most people will be in this position seldom in their lives. For those who do find themselves in court, the experience can be daunting and, for some, traumatic. If the onus is on the applicant to request a waiver or an exemption, most will not know to ask let alone go down that path. Some who consider court action will be dissuaded by costs. In isolation, $420 for an individual and $840 for a company does not appear to be a great deal. But to someone in financial straits every dollar counts. They are already frightened by the costs of court action and these additional charges will only make it worse. I believe a huge number of people no longer access FOI because of the charges applied to the information-seeking process. At the time of the 30 Oct 2002 Justice Legislation (Variation of Fees and Costs) Regulation (No. 1) 2002 4275 debate it was stated that the fees would in the most part be modest, but they have never been quantified. There has never been a review to see what the impact of those FOI charges are. I dare say that we will see a similar situation in relation to the Supreme Court and District Court filing fees. Given the level of increases—91 per cent for the individual and 380 per cent for companies—I looked for an RIS. I could not find where one had been tabled. My expectation is that the mention of this rise in the budget will have been used as a defence against having an RIS carried out and yet in the budget there is no mention of the level of the rises proposed. RISs are documents and processes intended to indicate the impact of proposed regulatory changes on the community. The whole purpose of RISs is to gauge that impact. An RIS does not appear to have been done in this instance, and yet it would have been a very strong defence for the government had the RIS been done and had it supported the government's stated reasons for these rises. How many people will be affected by these rises? To what extent will they be affected? What revenue will accrue to government? All of these are unanswered questions that would have been addressed in terms of the RIS process. They remain unanswered. There are several categories of fees which have risen exponentially and without justification. I will be supporting this disallowance motion. Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (8.40 p.m.): I thank all honourable members for their contribution to this debate on the variations of fees and costs in relation to the courts. I can very quickly, I think, address most of the issues raised by members of the opposition over and above what has already been said by my learned colleagues on the government benches. A government member interjected. Mr WELFORD: There are a lot of them and they presented the most compelling arguments in this debate earlier tonight. I noticed that the opposition spokesman was nodding with significant approval when members of the government put their arguments absolutely demolishing every concern that he was raising. I am very grateful that he has now agreed to support the government in opposing the disallowance motion. The member for Callide put the argument that the government was taking a sneaky avenue in introducing these new fees and charges. It was so sneaky that we put it in the budget papers and then we published it in the Government Gazette. If that is sneaky I would hate to see what it would have been like if we wanted to publicise it. An opposition member interjected. Mr WELFORD: The opposition spokesperson read it out tonight. You weren't listening; you were asleep. This is about making sure that we can properly fund our court system. Yes, the increases are significant in percentage terms, but this needs to be kept in perspective, as other members of the government have mentioned. The increases still only put Queensland in the middle band of the costs of court filing fees around Australia. In that respect we are still a comparatively low tax state when it comes to court filing fees. In relation to the cost recovery of the costs of administering the court system, in the District Court the fees will increase that cost recovery from about 20 per cent to about 45 per cent, and in the Supreme Court we will be increasing cost recovery on the cost of administering the court system from about 24 per cent to 55 per cent. Even with the increases in fees that the government has introduced the court system is still substantially subsidised by all the so-called battlers whom the opposition members sought vehemently to advocate for this evening. The fact is that the battlers are not the ones running Supreme Court trials. Supreme Court trials are run by people who have the capacity to fund lawyers to run substantial cases. The most significant cases in that court are commercial causes run by corporations who well and truly have the capacity to pay and, as other members have indicated, can do so in a tax deductible way. The Leader of the Opposition, bless his heart, ought to be cautious about interjecting in this debate because he might expose his ignorance on a few issues. Legal Aid is irrelevant to Supreme Court civil proceedings. Legal Aid is not provided for Supreme Court civil proceedings; it is provided for criminal defence. So Legal Aid has nothing to do with this situation at all. People in the Supreme Court are not legally aided for civil proceedings in relation to which these filing fees apply. 4276 Justice Legislation (Variation of Fees and Costs) Regulation (No. 1) 2002 30 Oct 2002

I should mention that in respect of those cases where individuals are bringing proceedings in the court, they are predominantly in the District or Supreme Courts on matters involving personal injury claims. Members will be aware that the Personal Injuries Proceedings Bill which I introduced on 17 September this year, and which this parliament passed very shortly after that, instituted a number of reforms in the procedures for resolving and achieving early settlement of personal injury claims primarily to address the overall costs of administration of the personal injuries claims process and the cost of insurance, but in the course of that significantly reducing the likelihood of individuals having to institute proceedings in the District or Supreme Courts. The Personal Injuries Proceedings Bill I introduced was all about putting in place procedures for early disclosure and for early settlement of matters even before the writ needed to be issued and even before any court application needed to be taken out. So all those individuals who previously might have had to bring applications in the court and pay the increased filing fee now have access to a reform process where personal injury claims will be much better expedited and therefore avoid having to pay any filing fee at all, whether it be the previous one or the new one. In the grand scheme of things it also needs to be remembered, as I think the member for Southport mentioned, that these filing fees, whether they be $400 or $800, pale into insignificance in terms of the cost of prosecuting court proceedings in the District or Supreme Court. The very first day of any court proceedings will cost double, if not triple, that in either of those jurisdictions, and any case that goes beyond a day makes the filing fee barely a blimp on the radar screen on the costs of proceedings in those courts. These filing fees, in the scheme of things, will have very little impact on whether people decide to institute proceedings or not. Those decisions will be made on the broader costs of bringing proceedings in those courts which we all know are expensive in the first place. That is why I have been committed to reforming procedures for civil proceedings in those courts in order to encourage the early resolution of disputes and, preferably, settlement of matters prior to court proceedings being instituted. The member for Caloundra boldly stepped forward and accused the government of hypocrisy for introducing new taxes and charges. If I remember rightly, in the very first budget of the Borbidge government in 1996, when the member for Caloundra was Treasurer, the member for Caloundra introduced seven new taxes in her very first budget. Mrs SHELDON: I rise to a point of order. That is an untruth and I ask that it be withdrawn. It is a bit more Labor mythology. Mr WELFORD: I withdraw the offence but I will let the rest go. Mrs SHELDON: No, an unqualified withdrawal. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): Order! Member for Caloundra, he has withdrawn. Sit down! Mr WELFORD: I unqualifiedly withdraw any offence, but let the record speak for itself. We all know that government decision making is about competing priorities. It is about allocating resources in a context where there are competing policies and service priorities. In this case, as a number of government members have pointed out in the debate, one has a budget and one allocates it according to priorities. We want to make sure that our court system is well funded. We want a court system where people can get an early hearing if they need to get a hearing. We want a court system that has the resources to function effectively and can resolve disputes quickly. That is why these filing fees are, in the grand scheme of things, reasonable. They do not reflect any unfairness in the way that the opposition has proposed. As a result of this initiative no- one will suffer any undue hardship. That is why, in the context of introducing the fees, I made sure that hardship cases can nevertheless be addressed in any circumstance where that needs to be done. This is about ensuring that we can fund an effective and healthy court system, that justice is accessible and that justice is swift—not that justice is cheap or delayed. Delayed justice is not cheap. This is about ensuring that when people need to bring applications to the court they can get them resolved quickly. The government has made the point that we can do it this way or draw funds from some other source. I understand the argument of those members opposite, but for them it is not a case of getting A or B; they want A and B. They want their cake and want to eat it, too. I can understand that they would put that argument. It is an argument that can be put from the comfort of opposition when you do not actually have to make a judgment about competing resource priorities. Our government is making that judgment. We are putting resources into all the other important areas of service delivery of government that need it but also ensuring that, in the context of filing fees, which, in comparison to other states, still remain modest, we are providing 30 Oct 2002 Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 4277 additional resources to our courts to ensure our courts deliver the best and swiftest justice money can buy. Question—That Mr Springborg's motion be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 16—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flynn, Horan, Kingston, Lee Long, Malone, Pratt, Quinn, E. Roberts, Seeney, Sheldon, Wellington. Tellers: Lester, Springborg NOES, 52—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Bredhauer, Briskey, E. Clark, L. Clark, Cummins, Edmond, Fenlon, Hayward, Jarratt, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, T. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Purcell, Reeves Resolved in the negative.

LIQUID FUEL SUPPLY AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 4 September (see p. 3320). Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (8.57 p.m.): The government will be opposing the Leader of the Opposition's private member's bill. There are very good reasons for the government's decision. The House will recall the ministerial statement made by the Premier yesterday encouraging the Commonwealth government to act to protect consumers, promote the ethanol industry and ensure a national approach to biofuel blends. That is because this is the smart approach to achieve some of the objectives this bill seeks to address. If it was possible to make a legislative change as simple as that proposed in this bill to achieve the outcomes sought by this bill, the government would have acted. However, the government is forced to oppose this private member's bill because it is unworkable. Regrettably, in an attempt to find some relevance for himself in a debate that was leaving him behind, the Leader of the Opposition has introduced a poor piece of legislation with numerous faults and failings. The government's commitment to establishing a sound market for ethanol consumption and, through that, ethanol production was in the ministerial statement by the Premier. That statement noted how Queensland is setting the national pace of supporting expansion of the fuel ethanol industry. In contrast, the opposition has resorted to empty platitudes and hollow political grandstanding on the ethanol issue which has more to do with political opportunism than good public policy. On 4 September 2002 at the Townsville sitting of this House Mr Horan introduced a private member's bill proposing an amendment to the Liquid Fuel Supply Act 1984 to require all petrol sold in Queensland to contain a minimum 10 per cent ethanol. It is a pity the Leader of the Opposition did not devote more time to researching the basis of his bill rather than seeking political mileage in Townsville. There are practical, legal and constitutional difficulties with mandating the use of ethanol in transport fuel at the state level. These difficulties were brought to the attention of the opposition before this bill was introduced, but it appears the desire for some relevance got the better of Mr Horan's judgment. The Queensland government, together with all other state governments, passed the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. This legislation is significant to this debate. In technical terms, the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 referred to the Commonwealth government the power to enact legislation recognising that goods that are produced in or imported into one state may be sold in another state as long as it is lawful for them to be sold in the first state. Therefore, the imposition of a mandated level of ethanol in transport fuel in Queensland will be rendered ineffectual to the extent that interstate traders choose to sell motor spirit in Queensland containing no ethanol or less than a prescribed 10 per cent ethanol component. No Queensland act can prevent this from occurring. Section 109 of the Constitution provides that the Commonwealth act prevails to the extent of any inconsistency. So even if this parliament were to pass this flimsy bill it would be immediately rendered ineffective by the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. This bill has other problems. Section 92 of the Constitution provides that trade within Australia will be free and without restraint. Where fuel is manufactured in Queensland and then sold in Queensland there are no section 92 constitutional problems as it does not impose a barrier to free trade between states. However, there could be section 92 constitutional difficulties in the case where fuel is manufactured interstate for sale in Queensland. The interstate producer could argue that it would incur costs to alter the composition of its motor spirit in order to comply with the Queensland mandate. 4278 Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 30 Oct 2002

It would seem that the Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill could impose a discriminatory burden on interstate sellers of motor fuel and that this burden would be of a protectionist kind. A court would need to decide whether section 92 has been breached. Therefore, the bill could be subject to challenge on constitutional grounds. Case law indicates that a possible defence to a potential breach of section 92 is that the burden imposed has as its purpose a legitimate objective and that any burden imposed on interstate trade is incidental and not disproportionate to the achievement of the legitimate objective. In essence, it might be argued the broader public interest grounds justify a possible breach of the Constitution in this case. Unfortunately, in the case of this bill, the main objective expressed in the explanatory memorandum of the Leader of the Opposition would appear to be to support the viability of the Queensland sugar industry. This is arguably a protectionist objective. Whilst potential environmental advantages of an ethanol-petrol blend are also referred to in the memorandum, this objective would appear to be regarded as only a subsidiary objective and hence would not constitute a defence to a breach of section 92. So in his rush to gain some relevance in a debate that was getting away from him, the Leader of the Opposition has not properly thought through the implications of his bill. The problems with this bill continue. There are also definitional problems within the bill itself which reflect the haste with which it was prepared and which would potentially create opportunities for avoidance. For example, the bill does not adequately address the concept of when motor spirit is sold in Queensland. If a bulk user of fuel purchases their fuel from an interstate supplier, then the transaction could conceivably occur outside Queensland and circumvent the mandate. Also, the bill is potentially in breach of Queensland's obligations under the national competition policy agreements in that it is not supported by a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. If the Leader of the Opposition had introduced a bill that would work and actually achieve something for consumers, industry and the environment, the government would have looked seriously at it. However, the Leader of the Opposition has not done his research, despite warnings that what he was proposing would not work. As the Premier indicated in a ministerial statement, the best way to encourage expansion of the biofuels industry in Australia is for the Commonwealth government to take coordinated action at the national level. The Premier has previously indicated that the Queensland government would support a 10 per cent mandate at the national level if this did not result in Queenslanders paying more for fuel. Any moves to mandate the use of ethanol in transport fuel at the state level are open to constitutional and legal challenges. It would be commercially irresponsible for the Queensland government to pass state legislation purporting to mandate the inclusion of ethanol in transport fuel in Queensland in the knowledge that this legislation could be successfully challenged. For the above reasons, the government will not be supporting the private member's bill of the Leader of the Opposition. Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA) (9.07 p.m.): I am disappointed that the government will not be supporting this very important initiative of the opposition. We are trying to put forward an alternative and to help an industry that is in dire straits. I rise to support the Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 2002. Here in Queensland we are fortunate to live amongst some of the most rare and delicate ecosystems in the world. But how much do we as citizens really value our environment? How much does the Beattie Labor government value our environment? Ms Molloy: Heaps. Mr LESTER: Over the past two months, if we cast our eyes over the city we were greeted with a heavy blanket of smog weighing down the city. To the person who interjected and said 'heaps' I say that we could do with heaps more people looking after our national parks. Clean, green Brisbane no longer exists. Brisbane, like every other capital city, is choking itself on its own exhaust fumes. We do have an opportunity to resurrect ourselves—an opportunity to right our wrongs. The Premier himself often says that it is not too bad to admit that we are wrong sometimes. So perhaps on this occasion we as a parliament might admit that in the past we have been wrong and we might admit that it is time we took the opportunity to do something about it. This bill aims to introduce a mandate minimum of 10 per cent ethanol content for petrol sold in Queensland. Unlike oil or petrol based products, ethanol is non-toxic, water soluble and biodegradable. The benefits of ethanol blended fuels in reducing vehicular emissions has proven, through extensive use throughout the United States and Europe, to be a success. The 30 Oct 2002 Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 4279

Renewable Fuels Association has advised that, according to figures from the Argonne National Laboratory in the United States, the use of ethanol blended fuels has reduced the CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 3.6 million tonnes in 2001. That is not something to sneezed at. We do the sneezing when we have the fuel pollution. To put that in real terms: this is the equivalent of taking over half a million cars off the road. These are issues that we should not ignore. The use of ethanol blended fuels reduces vehicular emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other pollutants that contribute to global warming. I think that we all realise that the most likely reason we are having our terrible drought throughout Australia currently is the ozone layer. Certainly, it has a lot to do with our sunburn. The 35 per cent oxygen content in ethanol means that when it is added to fuels, it results in better combustion. The higher oxygenate level creates cleaner burner fuel, thus lower tailpipe emissions and, therefore, less pollution. The Renewable Fuels Association has stated that, in the United States, over half of the vehicle emissions comes from so-called gross polluters, which make up only 10 per cent of the nation's fleets. Studies have shown that ethanol blended fuels reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and other pollutants by up to 40 per cent in these vehicles. Mr Reynolds interjected. Mr LESTER: In comparison, petroleum based fuel would produce up to 30 per cent more carbon monoxide and polluting gas than would ethanol blended fuel. What I am going on is research. For too many years we relied on plundering our irreplaceable natural assets, leaving our precious landscapes desecrated and stripped. Ethanol blended fuel relies on a renewable energy source, such as sugar cane, corn and grain. This fuel initiative will provide not only substance for the rural community but also a welcome respite for our choking environment. We talk a lot about our environment, but here is a chance to do something about it. The renewable ethanol blended fuel option provides Queensland with an environmentally friendly energy option that is sitting right on our doorstep. Other countries around the world are crippled by environmental hazards wrought by years of bad government policy and ignorance. We have the option of making the difference, of not letting Queensland go down that route. Why should we follow what has gone wrong in some other parts of the world? After all, it is suggested that we are the Smart State. So let us take up that option, be smart about ethanol and reduce pollution. I believe that that would be putting the Smart State advertisements and whatever into some form of reality. Queensland has the option of breaking its reliance on international oil markets. That makes us more independent, reduces our polluting emissions and utilises a cleaner renewable energy source. But the Queensland Nationals are not alone in taking forth this initiative. Surprisingly, the use of ethanol blended fuel has also been researched and adopted by oil companies both here and overseas. Any member of this House can hop on the Internet and witness BP's warm accolades for the use of ethanol blended fuels, citing reasons such as numerous environmental benefits, supporting local industry and increased engine performance. However, that is just adding to the list of endorsements that ethanol blended fuels have received in recent years. The environmental benefits of ethanol are so well recognised that legislation has enshrined its place in the American market and further research will continue to unlock the potential powers of this renewable fuel. Queensland has a chance to take the lead, to be smart and to do something positive. Or do we just sit here and vote against a bill that is so important for the sugar industry and, indeed, so important environmentally for our great state of Queensland? Queensland is continuing to lag behind. The Beattie Labor government appears content to ignore the sound evidence, both nationally and internationally, that supports the use of renewable fuel. This government is saying, 'No, we don't need to'. The Beattie Labor government, as it does on most environmental issues, is ducking the issue by again attempting to pass the buck to the federal government. The poor old federal government! The Beattie Labor government is into them all the time. Mr Reeves interjected. Mr LESTER: Can I just simply say that sometimes maturity is very necessary and some of it is lacking in the Labor Party in this House. Can I suggest also— Mr Reeves interjected. Mr LESTER: The member is getting off the subject. At least the member uses a bus, and that is something that I have to give him a tick for. What will happen as a result? Our beautiful city 4280 Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 30 Oct 2002 and precious state will continue to choke. The heavy blanket of smog that presses down upon the city will get heavier. We will choke on our own emissions. The Beattie government will continue to relentlessly plunder our natural assets with no thought of future generations or the viability of the rural industries of today. I suggest that this government take the lead and get smart. Time expired. Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.17 p.m.): As every member knows, this government has a very keen interest in advancing the use of ethanol. The reason why I am, in a very unprecedented way, speaking in this debate is not just to agree with the Deputy Premier but also to highlight to the House that we should not be playing silly games with this issue. That is exactly what this private member's bill is all about. It is about games; it is not about finding a solution. The sugar industry is in trouble and the government, through a number of strategies, is trying to assist this industry. But when we play silly games, all we do is raise expectations and we damage a lot of good people. We want a practical and workable outcome that will ensure the long-term future of the sugar industry. Sometimes having the courage and the guts to do the right thing is not easy. But my government will show integrity when it makes the tough decisions. We will ensure the long-term future of this industry. I will deal with some of the issues that have been raised. Yesterday, the Opposition Leader said—and it is quoted in today's Courier-Mail and it was on ABC radio—that the interdepartmental ethanol report, the executive summary of which I tabled and incorporated in Hansard so that everybody knew its outcome, was a costly cop-out. The Leader of the Opposition even, rather unwisely, accused the committee—an interdepartmental committee; not political people, professionals—of kowtowing to powerful multinational oil companies by not recommending an ethanol mandate. These are professional people and I want to defend their reputation. They are good people. They are people who did their best. When we ask for a report and we ask professional people to come up with recommendations, we ask them to examine the issue and to report accordingly. We do not ask them simply to agree with what we hold as a view. We ask them to come forward with advice. Whether we accept that advice is a matter for us. We ask them to give fearless, independent advice. It is bit unkind to go around attacking these professionals. That undermines the very system. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to give some thought to that. The leader erroneously accuses me of flick-passing the ethanol issue to the federal government and says that I lack the courage to confront the problem head on. Please, let us understand the law. As Premier, I have responsibility to lead and to ensure that all in this House, not just those on my side, are aware of how the processes of government and law work. Let us deal with lesson number one about the law. There is a little structure called the federal Constitution. It is the guide that we as a nation work by and have done so successfully for more than 100 years. To cut to the chase, the Commonwealth has powers when it comes to cross- border trading. For that reason alone, the state cannot go it alone and mandate ethanol. A would-be Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, ought to know that. There is a little thing called section 92. I will give a real life example of dealing with the selling of fuel. I refer to those annoying B- double fuel tankers rumbling west along James Street in Toowoomba, heading to Goondiwindi and taking fuel for northern New South Wales users. The Leader of the Opposition sees them every day. They rock on past Toowoomba all the way down to northern New South Wales. How can the Queensland government mandate what is sold in New South Wales? We do not have the legal or the constitutional power, but the Leader of the Opposition thinks we can rule New South Wales and Victoria. Both those states would be better off if we did. This alternative Premier has no understanding of the law. People in the bush and the sugar industry are not stupid. They understand when they see a nonsense. What they see from the Leader of the Opposition is nothing more than a stunt. The only way ethanol can be mandated is simple. We need to get the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to do it nationally. It is the only way that it can be done. The other issue is simple. If by some magical power under the Constitution we could mandate it, I point out that we simply do not have the cane plantings at the moment to meet such a mandate. In fact, we would have to expand our industry 12-fold to achieve the 10 per cent. That is the practical application. There is not enough capacity to supply a mandated 10 per cent. Our professional advice is that there is currently not enough capacity to mandate 10 per cent. That would be comical—a mandate to have 10 per cent and an embattled industry unable to meet it. The only solution then would be to import it. Instead of killing off Brazil and supporting our own industry, it would be an own goal. We would kill off or own and make 30 Oct 2002 Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 4281 them more dominant. We would have to import ethanol. That is not smart. It is dumb, dumb, dumb. We have said very simply that the federal government should establish a mandated level. The federal government should do it and it should be national so that every car in this nation is required to use a blend of ethanol. It needs to be done on a national basis. There are many issues that are involved in terms of consumer concerns about what it means for their vehicles. We have to allay those concerns by appropriate labelling and marketing. We have to deal with those issues. Not only that, but we need a scheme that will work. This is nothing more than a stupid political stunt. I say to the member for Lockyer that the Nationals are terrified that One Nation will do them over in every one of the sugar seats. Therefore, they bring on a very dishonest stunt which not only is simply unconstitutional but which is unworkable. The member can complain all he likes. The sugar producers in this state are very bright and will not be conned by stupid stunts. That is why I say to the leader of One Nation that the National Party is desperately fighting him. It has nothing to do with us. They are terrified about what will be One Nation's vote on the Tablelands and in Lockyer and what will be their vote all the way down the coast. This private bill tonight has little to do with the government. This is really what we could call the anti-One Nation bill. They are terrified because they do not have a sensible policy on sugar. They know that the federal government has joined us in a sensible plan to deal with sugar, a plan that will give the sugar industry a sensible future. That is what they do not like, because they lack the courage to go out and tell the cane farmers in the sugar industry what needs to be done to give it a real future. That is what they are scared of. They do not have the courage to argue for real reform. They are terrified that the member for Lockyer will go out in their sugar seats and campaign against them. They are terrified that the new Country Party will take their preferences and votes. An honourable member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Well, I don't know what it is, but it's aspiring to be one. It does not matter. One Nation is who they are scared of. Do not be under any illusions about what is going on here. This is nothing to do with the sugar industry; this is about crude party politics. Let me come back to the issue. The reality confronting the sugar industry is this: Brazil is clearing on a regular basis a large amount of rain forest—jungle. They are planting sugar in very fertile soil. Eventually, that will be leached and destroyed. But over the next 10 years Brazil will be able to continue to dump on the world sugar market and keep down the sugar price. We need to find sensible outlets for sugar. Yes, ethanol is one. The sensible way out of this is to put a 10 per cent ceiling on it. The federal government needs to mandate two per cent, or whatever it can, to sustain our own industry and needs to ban importations for at least five years so that our industry can grow and produce. Secondly, we need to look at bioplastics. I spent some time talking with representatives of Bundaberg Sugar when I was in Brussels, because they are now the owners. We are looking at new, creative value-adding opportunities. They have some very exciting opportunities, provided that we can make some of the changes in relation to the domestic single desk where they can take some exciting opportunities to create more outlets and more markets for sugar. That is what we have to do. Mr Flynn: Are you worried about them owning Bundaberg Sugar? Mr BEATTIE: The fact is that Bundaberg Sugar is already in that position, as the member knows. We need now to take advantage of that and value add. We have a real solution, not a stunt, which is what this bill is. Mr Horan interjected. Mr Terry Sullivan interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): Order! There is too much audible conversation in this chamber. Dr KINGSTON (Maryborough—Ind) (9.28 p.m.): As a sugarcane producer and as a representative of a sugar producing district, I rise with pleasure to support the thrust of this bill. The sugar industry is the biggest provider of employment in the Maryborough district. Poor returns from the sugar industry have immediate negative impacts on our regional economy. Few, if any, sugar producing areas have achieved the percentage increases in total production and in the overall efficiency that the Maryborough sugar factory has achieved in the last 10 years. Credit for motivating and steering these improvements is largely due to the drive and foresight of David Braddock, managing director of the Maryborough sugar factory. With the proposed closure of the Moreton mill at Nambour, the Maryborough mill will take cane from those farms in the Nambour 4282 Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 30 Oct 2002 district where the transport costs are not prohibitive. This will necessitate the upgrading of some roads and bridges. In fact, wooden bridges in the Tiaro shire are already causing concerns. I hope the Treasurer is listening. Mr Mackenroth: I am hearing every word. Dr KINGSTON: The thrust of this bill is to promote the increased production and the guaranteed sale of ethanol. Thus there is a need to understand the market environment within which ethanol will have to compete. It is essential to realise that the sale of molasses does not currently bring producers a direct income, but increased sales of molasses could help smaller mills maintain a critical mass. In the financial year 2000-01 Australian road transport consumed 18 billion litres of petrol, 12 billion litres of diesel and over two billion litres of LPG—a total usage of 32 billion litres of liquid fuel. Seventy per cent of Australia's liquid fuel needs are produced domestically. The Australian petroleum industry's value of production is $16 billion per annum. The industry's net present value is $178 billion, the majority foreign owned. A 20 per cent rise in production of liquid fuel in Australia leads to an increase of between 0.4 per cent and 0.5 per cent in GDP and an increase in employment of between 0.2 per cent and 0.4 per cent. Unfortunately, these are not very exciting figures when asking for a national mandate. Resource taxes on oil and gas production in Australia amount to $3 billion per year. If we are to produce and consume ethanol in Queensland, we need aggressive activity within Australia equal to, or preferably greater than, that in the corn growing states within the USA. Ethanol production in the USA has grown from a few million gallons in the mid-1970s to over 1.7 billion gallons in 2001. In May 2002 the US Senate voted to mandate that a total of five billion gallons of US motor grade fuel is to be made with corn based ethanol by 2012. Also in 2002 the US federal government allocated a reported $50 million a year for 10 years to assist processing plants to expand their ethanol production. The ethanol component of fuel is free of excise duties. The State of Minnesota has a well established ethanol production incentive program. This state government provides a 20 per cent ethanol producer incentive under its ethanol for clean air legislation. Such further processing of its corn doubles the value of each bushel to the farmer. Although these ventures have been successful to date, margins have been squeezed at times. It is hoped in Minnesota that 10 years of government support will allow the farmer co-ops to retire debt, increase efficiency and develop new products. The Minnesota authorities concluded— Unique aspects of the ethanol industry make these payments necessary, but our ethanol industry will contribute over $350 million in net annual benefit to the state. So far I have been unable to find a cost-benefit study which justifies that statement, but it is an interesting concept that a subsidy paid to an industry within a state can generate a situation which yields a net profit to that state—and a very substantial net profit. I conclude by saying that surely such an achievement should not be beyond the abilities of the Smart State. Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (9.33 p.m.): Tonight I rise to oppose the Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill cobbled together by the Leader of the Opposition when the parliament was in Townsville. For a fleeting moment in Townsville I thought the Leader of the Opposition had actually done some work and come up with a policy, but I soon realised that that was not the case. The Opposition Leader's proposal to mandate the 10 per cent of fuel used in Queensland is hardly thought through at all. He is proposing a major costly change to fuel, one of Queensland's major economic inputs. But who does he talk to? No-one! How much work has he done? Not much! A quick read of Mr Horan's second reading speech reveals this mandatory E10 policy for what it is—an absolute sham. There are no costings, there has been no consultation and there is very little analysis of the impacts. The Opposition Leader did not do any work. He got to Townsville, saw some sugarcane and plucked this idea out of the air. It is a bill that is typical of this lazy and inept opposition. Now let us take a closer look at this proposal to mandate a minimum of 10 per cent of ethanol in all fuel and let us look at what would really happen. Firstly, the Opposition Leader says there would be significant environmental benefits with E10. I am interested in the environment. On the face of it, I would be happy to support that. But let us not get too carried away. Sure, it is true to say that E10 burns more cleanly than 100 per cent fossil fuel, but not much, because in E10 there is still 90 per cent fossil fuel, so the emission reduction is pretty marginal. Mrs Reilly: Smoke and mirrors, isn't it? Ms NOLAN: It is an absolute joke to talk about a serious environmental benefit. In addition, engines using E10 are, on the best evidence, 2.7 per cent less efficient than the same engines 30 Oct 2002 Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 4283 using 1000 per cent fossil fuel. So there is a marginal environmental benefit on what is burnt, but then more of it has to be burnt. On environmental grounds I will not totally condemn ethanol, because it is, importantly, a renewable fuel. But there are plenty of ways that we can develop renewables and reduce the consumption of fossil fuel. We can develop more efficient engines. We can research a range of renewable fuels and we can drive smaller cars, not the four-wheel-drive I am sure the Leader of the Opposition climbs into when he slips on his Akubra and pretends to be a bushie. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition has proposed E10 as an environmental solution in its own right rather than as part of any concerted environmental strategy reveals the underlying fraud of these environmental claims. But God knows the National Party is not here to save the environment; the environment is just a convenient aside. The real agenda is to artificially prop up the ailing sugar industry and to do so at everybody else's expense. Ethanol might be a great idea on the face of it, but the real problem lies in the expense. Petrol costs around 42c a litre to produce. Add some transport costs and the 30c federal government tax that you pay and you get the 75c or 80c that we pay at the bowser. The ethanol that you make from molasses costs between 45c and 64c a litre if you are doing well, that is, up to 22c a litre more than petrol to produce. But ethanol made from molasses is not the answer for the sugar industry. Instead, we need ethanol made from raw sugar product, and that is even more expensive again. The only ways to make ethanol viable—and even the Leader of the Opposition will admit this—are to mandate it so that consumers have no choice but to pay more or to subsidise it. The Leader of the Opposition actually wants to do both. There is still a good deal more research and development needed before we really know how much ethanol produced on a large-scale would cost. But we do know for sure that mandated E10 would push up the price of petrol by at least a couple of cents a litre at the bowser and, realistically, probably more like 10c a litre. When there is no gain other than to prop up a struggling cane industry, I just cannot buy that. My constituents in Ipswich drive a lot. About a quarter of our work force goes to Brisbane every day. Those people who drive because the factory they work is not served by public transport are driving 40 kilometres each way every day just to get to work. My constituents work in a competitive environment and there is no way they should have to pay even more for their petrol just to prop up someone else's industry. That is the bottom line here. This is not about the environment, this is about propping up an industry that is having a hard time. I think the federal and state governments have worked very well together on the existing sugar industry rescue package. There are already enough special deals, handouts, grants and subsidies for the bush without the people of Ipswich having to pay more for petrol in order to maintain someone else's lifestyle. This is the hypocrisy of the National Party at its worst. It is on the front foot ready to preach self-reliance for everybody else, but then it is in here trying to artificially subsidise rural industry. Ethanol as a long-term part of fuel in Queensland and in Australia more broadly is by no means dead. But as the Premier said earlier on, for it to really work it has to be national, otherwise it is quite simply unconstitutional and, I point out for those who have not heard of the Constitution, illegal. There has to be a fair bit more technological work done to make it anything like affordable. I support adjustment assistance to rural industry in times of change just as I do for other industries, but we cannot establish one industry as a protected species by trying to mandate a levy on the rest of the community for ever more. Before finishing, I just hope that neither the member for Hinchinbrook nor the member for Mirani are going to vote on this bill because both of them are canegrowers and, as such, stand to make a direct personal financial gain if this bill is passed. Standing Order 158A is abundantly clear about conflicts of interest and what it says quite clearly is that if an honourable member has a pecuniary interest in a matter before the House and the member stands to make money out of a bill that is before the House the member has to declare that conflict of interest before he speaks or, alternatively, as soon as a division is called. There is nothing clearer than this. These people stand to make money. An opposition member interjected. Ms NOLAN: They stand to make money if this bill is passed. They have a conflict of interest and they should declare it before they vote on this bill. It is time we stopped having one— An opposition member interjected. 4284 Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 30 Oct 2002

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): Order! The House will come to order. I cannot hear the speaker. Ms NOLAN: It is time we stopped having one rule for the National Party and rural industry and one rule for everybody else. That is exactly what this bill seeks to establish and I cannot support that. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (9.41 p.m.): I think I am gobsmacked after that last speech. It was one of the worst dissertations I have heard in 13 years. The honourable member would be better off coming into this parliament and reading something she has written herself rather than a diatribe trotted out from the office of the Premier or the Treasurer. She talked about consultation. If she bothers to go to the explanatory notes provided by the Leader of the Opposition she will see that they talk about consultation with the federal government, industry groups, including canegrowers, the Australian Cane Farmers Association, Queensland Sugar Limited, Agforce, the RACQ and other interested individuals. That is reasonably extensive consultation. There was other consultation in other places abroad. Not only that, she has really joined the ranks of the Democrats and the fairies at the bottom of the garden because she is talking about this strange sort of mathematical— Ms NOLAN: I rise to a point of order. I find that terribly offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr SPRINGBORG: I withdraw. In her speech she mentioned that we are going to mandate 10 per cent and therefore 10 per cent only means 10 per cent less greenhouse gases. Anyone with any basic understanding of how ethanol works in fuel knows that it oxygenates fuel. That is a scientific fact. That means that it burns with 30 per cent less greenhouse gas. The honourable member can go and check the parliamentary library if she does not believe me. It is unfortunate that she has come in here tonight and argued that it is going to put up the price of fuel because where is the evidence of that? It is very unfortunate that she and other government members have become toadies of international multinational fuel companies. That is all we are seeing here tonight. The fact is that they are not prepared to stand up for Australian industries and they are not prepared to stand up for fuel which can be manufactured here. Another flight of fancy is this issue about honourable members having a direct pecuniary interest. That is a nonsense and the honourable member knows it is a nonsense because there is a difference between an interest in common and an interest principally held by a member. That is a fact. The honourable member for Fitzroy has a racehorse and the honourable member for Kallangur has racehorses. They voted on the Racing Bill. This is just absolute nonsense. The other thing that the honourable member does not know is that there is something in this state that regulates the way that sugar mills- Mr HAYWARD: I rise to a point of order. I do not mind the honourable member saying that I have racehorses but the reality is that I do not. Mr SPRINGBORG: I understood you did have racehorses, honourable member. I accept that that is not the case. However, the member for Fitzroy has a racehorse. The point I am trying to elucidate is that there is such a thing as interest in common and there is a principal interest held by a person. There is a significant difference. Honourable members ought to read the parliamentary record of the debates that have been held in this place over a long period of time because they clearly indicate that there is a very marked difference between the two. The member for Mirani and the member for Hinchinbrook who may produce sugar will not necessarily benefit from this because they do not own the product under the division of sugar moneys. The sugar mills themselves own the particular product and it does not flow back to the sugar grower. The only way that the sugar grower might accrue a benefit from it is if it might be providing more sustainable markets. Sugar growers do not directly benefit from it. If we are going to have a debate here about the way these things operate it would be far better if we had a debate about some of the principal things behind it. Tonight, the government has been extremely negative in knocking this particular proposal. Even the Treasurer, whom I have always found has made quite warm and significant contributions, has spent a fair bit of time talking about the negative aspects rather than initiatives which, whilst he might not agree with them, are probably useful in trying to overcome a problem in this state. I am saying to the government that if they have a flawed proposal here they should fix it. I do not believe what the Treasurer said here. I do not believe what the Premier said. There are some 30 Oct 2002 Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 4285 very simple reasons for that. I picked up the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee report on this particular bill. That is the committee who would firstly notice if there was a constitutional issue. I put a bill in here on electoral fraud some time ago and the committee identified a potential constitutional issue on some of the advice they received. They said the jury was still out but there was a potential constitutional issue. Okay, I accepted that and sought to address it. It is notable that in the committee's conclusions on this matter it did not identify the constitutional issues which were allegedly identified here tonight by the Premier and the Treasurer. I think that is somewhat significant. It would be very interesting to see how many government members have seen this constitutional advice which supposedly exists which says that this legislation contravenes section 92 of the constitution regarding free trade between the states because quite clearly it does not, and they know that it does not. I invite honourable members to go and ask the Premier and the Treasurer and I am sure they will show it to them. I have a greater challenge: if the Premier and the Treasurer do not want to table the advice they can show us the advice and we will be prepared to accept their argument. They will not do that because they know that they do not have it. If it was an issue it would have been identified by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, and it was not identified by that committee. The other interesting issue that has been raised by honourable members opposite is the fact that things cannot be done in isolation. Quite clearly, it is the sovereign prerogative of this state to legislate its own standards in many areas. It does it with regard to food standards, it does it in regard to other standards and certainly in the past and in the present it does it with regard to fuel standards. It does that with regard to lead replacement petrol and it does it in regard to the sulfur content in petrol which quite clearly is different here in Queensland from other Australian states. It is different, it is legislated differently and it does not raise a constitutional issue. If it did, the alleged advice that the government has would have come forward. What we are attempting to do here is no different from the mandating of particular standards with regard to the sulfur content in fuel and the way that lead replacement petrol came in. I refer to the Hansard of 18 July 2000 when the then Minister for Environment came into the parliament and made a ministerial statement about fuel regulations and lead replacement petrol and sang lots of praises about himself and the government and told us how they were leading the nation with regard to standards on fuel. In his speech he said this—and I am not selectively quoting— With these regulations the Queensland Government has moved well ahead of the national fuel quality agenda. There was absolutely nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with maintaining different standards for any company or supplier wishing— Mr Horan interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: That's right. There is nothing wrong with maintaining different standards for any company or supplier wishing to sell fuel in this state. We set the standards and they meet the standards. It is the same with ethanol content. The legislation introduced into the House by the Leader of the Opposition basically means that a fuel company and/or supplier, regardless of whether they are Queensland based or interstate based, which want to sell fuel into the Queensland market have to meet our standard—that is, a mandatory 10 per cent ethanol content in petrol sold in this state. That is the rule, the same as it is for sulfur and lead replacement petrol. They would have to meet that rule. I understand that there is nothing stopping refineries producing unleaded petrol or lead replacement petrol with no ethanol and selling it interstate—nothing whatsoever. However, if a company is based here or interstate they have to stick with the mandatory 10 per cent. The big problem here is that there is no will on the part of the government to meet what is a fine aspiration—that is, doing something to clean up our environment and providing an alternative market for our sugar producers and refineries in this state. Those who actually own the refineries are the ones who make the principal gain out of it and it only benefits sugarcane farmers by the mere fact that they grow the product and, as a result, might have a more sustainable market. However, growers do not own the product when it goes from the mill to the refinery. This is about providing an extra opportunity. This is also about the grain industry and any other industries which are able to produce ethanol, and there are a number of options in that regard. This is about finding an innovative way forward. I am afraid to say that the government's argument tonight was extremely flimsy and extremely weak. I am very disappointed that people of the stature of the 4286 Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 30 Oct 2002

Treasurer and the Premier—quite learned gentlemen—came in here and tried to spout an argument of constitutionality without presenting any real advice to the parliament. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (9.51 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 2002. I am sure that everyone is well aware of the sugar industry's belief in the viability of ethanol as a product. After all, it has already been widely used as a supplement to conventional petrol in the United States of America, Brazil and Europe. However, there are those knockers who say that ethanol will wreck engines, rust fuel systems, reduce power from the motor, cost a lot to make vehicles suitable for ethanol and so on. These arguments have been totally discredited and oil companies in the USA now embrace ethanol and advocate its benefits to motorists. Pure ethanol has about 30 per cent less energy than petrol but when mixed at 10 per cent actually increases the energy output by virtue of the way it combines with normal fuel. For the information for the member for Ipswich, ethanol will be good for the environment, especially in the cities. For example, for every 1,000 litres of ethanol mixed at 10 per cent with petrol, carbon dioxide emissions drop by 1.59 tonnes and carbon monoxide is also cut by 30 per cent to 40 per cent. People with modern cars can rest easy. Manufacturers have already indicated that 10 per cent ethanol is so benign mechanically that it will not even void their warranties. There is no solid reason that a 10 per cent blend will be more expensive at the pump than normal fuel. In fact, BP is now selling an E10 blend here in Brisbane at the same price as unleaded fuel. In NSW, it is being sold a few cents a litre cheaper than unleaded petrol. Ethanol will benefit farmers, not just canefarmers. It can be made from a whole range of crops such as grains, tomatoes, potatoes and tobacco—actually, from most plant materials and waste. This is important, as the risk of a single product industry is being clearly demonstrated right now by what is happening to our sugar producers. There is nothing new to be proven technology wise. Ethanol has been used for years in America with first-world environmental standards, let alone in places like Brazil where Third World standards apply and the environment is considered unimportant. In fact, there are cities and states in America where an ethanol blend is mandated to help reduce air pollution. I also want to refer in passing to the volatile world we now live in, especially as regards the availability of overseas oil. As I understand it, Australia imports more oil proportionally than the US, and introducing the production of ethanol would help reduce that reliance and take some of the strain off our foreign accounts. Our city based members may relate to it more in these terms: E10 means cleaner air, less pollution and less consumption of fossil fuels. By helping to boost the economy of Queensland, it will also mean more investment, less need for government assistance and more and safer jobs. Yet one might wonder where in this Smart State DPI and leadership from government have been hiding for the past several years. Now all we hear about the sugar industry is that restructuring is essential, vital, necessary, overdue. At a time when it could have helped, there was nothing but silence on the issue. Now at a time of badly corrupt world prices, the sugar industry is facing a penny-pinching attitude from both state and federal governments with regard to helping them. Despite the sugar industry's aim for a comprehensive restructure involving entirely new products and markets such as bioplastics, the state government is putting up just $30 million. It sounds a nice figure, but the truth is that it represents little real help for farmers or their communities. The state government can require oil refineries in Queensland to purchase and blend a prescribed quantity of ethanol manufactured in Queensland into motor fuel for supply and sale. These provisions were introduced in 1988 and allowed for the possibility that ethanol production could become economically viable at some time in the future. The provisions can be activated by the Governor in Council, but a demand for ethanol needs to be established first. This bill proposes to amend the Liquid Fuel Supply Act 1984 and introduce a mandated minimum 10 per cent ethanol content in petrol sold in Queensland. It replaces the provisions for the Governor in Council to make an ethanol mandate order; instead, it introduces a statutory mandate requiring that all petrol sold in Queensland should be a blend containing a minimum 10 per cent ethanol by volume. The 10 per cent may have to be brought in on a gradual basis. Currently, approximately 3.8 billion litres of petrol is used in Queensland each year, which means that 380 million litres of ethanol would be required. In the year 2001, Queensland produced nearly 29 million tonnes of sugarcane. Approximately 4.8 million tonnes of sugarcane would be required to supply sufficient ethanol to meet a statewide 10 per cent mandate. If grain is used, even less sugarcane would be required. The use of ethanol has been proposed for many years and the only thing standing in the way is the lack of a sure market, and that is something this government can provide through a 30 Oct 2002 Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 4287 mandate. I urge this House to support this bill. It is a smart bill. It is a smart solution to a host of issues. In a Smart State, the only smart thing to do is support it. Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (9.57 p.m.): I rise to oppose the Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 2002 introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. In doing so, I wish to put on the record my very strong support for the development of an economically viable and ecologically sustainable import replacing ethanol industry. I sympathise with the position of the Leader of the Opposition who, while understandably trying to create the impression of giving political leadership from opposition, regretfully has fallen into the trap of overplaying his hand by telling people what they want to hear. 'Just do it' is a fine advertising slogan, but it is a very poor ethos for a government. In its desire to look hairy chested on this issue, the opposition is saying, 'Just make it law and damn the consequences'. But governments have to consider the consequences—both good and bad—of the laws that they pass. Make no mistake: there are clear negative consequences in the opposition's crash-through or crash approach. There is something quaintly old fashioned about the philosophy which underpins this bill from the Leader of the Opposition. It is very fifties in its belief that a state government can just unilaterally intervene in a national market without consultation and cooperation with the particular industry, without matching or template legislation from other states to regulate that national market, and without support from the Commonwealth despite the clear probability of subsequent Commonwealth legislation overlapping and causing section 109 constitutional problems and section 92 problems outlined by both the Premier and Treasurer earlier. The bill is simply unconstitutional, but in an effort to limit repetition I will put that to one side and not repeat what has been said earlier. I will proceed to make my contribution on the basis that that is a given. Nevertheless I will move on. This is old-fashioned, big government legislation. It is simplistic in its charming faith in the government's ability to fix industry problems with the stroke of a pen. It is offset, unfortunately, by the carefree abandon with which it seeks to blithely interfere in the petroleum market. I would hope— Mr Flynn: Why make it difficult? Mr McNAMARA: The honourable member should recall that I am working here, and I would ask him not to interfere. I did not go around to the burger shop where he used to work and spit on the burgers. I would hope that philosophically the opposition is not a believer in unilateral and monolithic government. In his contribution on the Racing Bill the Leader of the Opposition criticised the government for allegedly bringing in that bill without consultation with the industry. But where is the consultation with interstate fuel distributors? Where is the consultation with the hire car industry, with the insurance industry or with consumer groups? Why does he just ignore the clear advice of the fuel companies? There has been no thought beyond a facile and ill-conceived appeal to very desperate farmers. But it is a trick, a mirage—a cruel and feckless charade. There is nothing in this bill which would guarantee local ethanol producers one dollar's worth of sales if ethanol were put into fuel here. Putting to one side the unconstitutionality of the bill, the likelihood is that the passing of this bill would probably kill our infant ethanol industry. The local industry could not meet the huge surge in output required and, in the absence of any protection, could reasonably expect fuel companies imposed on in this way to source their ethanol from overseas. This bill would kill the industry before it got off the ground, and that is the problem with the just-do-it approach. It is devoid of any economic rationale or political philosophy, or even a simple business plan. We do not often speak about political philosophy in this place, which I think is a mistake. It is an important discipline to ask what our core beliefs are and what economic and social theories work and to put any policy proposal through that analysis before supporting it and its implementation in law. Before I came to this place I had heard it said that the Queensland National Party was the last true socialist outfit operating in an Australian parliament. That unique brand of agrarian socialism is apparently not a rumour. It is self-evident in this bill which, if passed, would see fuel prices rise and all Queenslanders taxed. Mr Flynn interjected. Mr McNAMARA: I have never found a fuel company warning that petrol prices will go up to be wrong. Paying through the petrol bowser affects all Queenslanders, without any guarantee that this cross-subsidisation will wind up in the pockets of the farmers the National Party claims to help. Do opposition members believe that government should unilaterally and fundamentally 4288 Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 30 Oct 2002 change the operation of markets? Do they have a political philosophy? Do they call themselves conservatives, and if so why? This legislation should offend anyone who believes that governments should work with business, not run business. I suggest that it is a blind spot of enormous proportions for members who think of themselves as economically and politically conservative to simply trample over business operations—so many large and small, as I mentioned before—in this way. We are not just talking about up-ending the operation of fuel companies. All those small businesses I mentioned earlier would be affected. Opposition members should go out and sell this to them and then come back and claim popular support. They should go out to the electors of Queensland and say, 'We may be putting your fuel bills up by 2c a litre and forcing you to in fact support Brazilian ethanol producers.' They should see how they go. There is no more reason to suggest that fuel companies are wrong when they say that fuel prices are going up simply because opposition members wish it were not so. I have sugar producers in Hervey Bay, but this quick-fix or just-do-it approach will not help them. We need to develop an ethanol market which is national, uniform, stable and developed in consultation with all those industries and businesses that would be affected. I support an ethanol ceiling which is determined by reference to the capacity of the Australian ethanol market to supply it. I think we can play a leading role in bringing in a national system of ethanol in fuel, but not like this. As law-makers we have a huge responsibility to tell the truth, to not beat up expectations and to not promise more than we can deliver. All members here should avoid saying things that people want to hear if they do not actually know they can deliver. It is a cruel and intellectually dishonest approach to promise outcomes that any dispassionate analysis can demonstrate are highly unlikely to be achieved. That might be economic rationalism; it is also just simple honesty. These are the facts. The Australian ethanol market is immature and will require years of nurturing to reach a position where it can supply a 10 per cent component of Australian fuel requirements. Implementing this bill would instantly force the fuel industry to start importing large volumes of ethanol, probably from Brazil—not from Hervey Bay, not from Mackay and not from Whitsunday, but from Brazil. Any honest appraisal of this bill would acknowledge that it is fatally flawed in that it is not part of a national legislative scheme adopted in consultation with the industries affected. Honourable members, let us take this opportunity to recommit to putting forward laws which we believe in—reforms which honestly present the achievable rather than the imaginary. As it is drafted, this bill offends section 92 of the Constitution and it has to be rejected for that reason alone. But there are many other reasons, which I have outlined. John Kenneth Galbraith once said that politics was the never-ending choice between the unpalatable and the unacceptable. We do our people no favours by promising snake oil cures and quick fixes that just do not add up. Government must work with industry and not just rule by edict. I cannot support this bill, and nor should anyone who supports an open, fair, capitalist economy. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (10.05 p.m.): I rise to support the Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill. At the outset I express my disappointment at the indication the government has given that it will not support this legislation. I think it is obvious from the contributions made by various speakers in this debate that the only reason the government will not support this legislation is that it was introduced by the opposition and it is a good idea. That is base politics at its very worst. The only reason this legislation will not be supported is that it is a good idea that the opposition came up with. The extent to which the government finds itself isolated on this issue is clearly indicated by the speakers list tonight. That the Treasurer and the Premier both came into the House on a Wednesday night and participated in a debate on a private member's bill is an indication of the extent to which the government is isolated. There is no doubt that this is a good idea. There is no doubt that the ethanol industry needs government action. It needs a mandate. I have sat here, with a rising sense of amazement, and listened to the arguments put forward by the Treasurer and the Premier, dutifully repeated by an array of irrelevant backbenchers, about section 92 and the constitutional issues that prevent this idea being accepted by this parliament. I have sat here almost incredulous and thought to myself: ‘Haven't these people heard of their own energy policy?’ Do honourable members remember the energy policy that the former Deputy Premier and former Minister for State Development introduced into this House? That 30 Oct 2002 Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 4289 energy policy mandates that 15 per cent of Queensland electricity be produced from gas fired generation by 2005. That is a 15 per cent mandate on a national electricity market. It is exactly the same situation. That does not contravene section 92. Electricity generators in Queensland can still sell their electricity in New South Wales, Victoria or wherever else. But if they want to sell it in Queensland they have to source 15 per cent from gas fired generation. Every retailer that wants to sell electricity in Queensland after 2005 will have to source 15 per cent of their electricity from gas fired generators. That is because of the mandate the former Deputy Premier and former Minister for State Development foreshadowed in the government's energy policy. It is exactly the same situation being put forward in this private member's bill. Of course it does not contravene any of the sections of the Constitution the Treasurer spoke about and which were referred to in all of the other irrelevant contributions. This is a case of 'you can do it when you want to'. The government wanted to do it in the case of the electricity industry. It wanted to do it because it wanted to support its mates in the big multinational companies that were proposing to build a pipeline from Papua New Guinea to Queensland and they wanted a base market. They wanted a minimum level of consumption for the gas that was to come down that pipeline. The government wanted to do it. So it found a way. It came up with the idea of mandating a 15 per cent share of the electricity market in Queensland to be generated by gas fired electricity. We are suggesting that they do the same thing for ethanol. They can use the same justifications, because I well remember the debate on that energy policy when it was introduced. I well remember the dewy-eyed contributions about how gas was environmentally friendly and how 15 per cent of our electricity was going to be generated from a green fuel. The members opposite can use the same arguments tonight to support the bill that has been introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. Exactly the same arguments apply. Mr Horan: They used mutual recognition for New South Wales not being able to sell electricity to Queensland. Mr SEENEY: Exactly. That makes a mockery of the argument that has been put forward by the Premier and the Treasurer in terms of mutual recognition and section 94. The arguments about environmental factors and the need for a government mandate are exactly same and are just as valid in relation to this private member's bill that was introduced by the Opposition Leader as they were in regard to the government's energy policy that was put in place by the former Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development. As I said, we have here a case of 'we can if we want to'. The first thing that this government has to do in terms of the ethanol industry is to want to do it. It needs to make a commitment to wanting to develop the ethanol industry just as it did for the gas fired electricity generation industry. That is what is missing here tonight—the will to do it. It is very easy for a government to find an excuse not to do something if it does not want to do it. That is what we have seen from the Premier, the Treasurer and so many others on the back bench opposite. They have put forward foolish arguments and their own energy policy destroys their arguments. Mr Springborg: Did you see them stand up for the fuel companies. Mr SEENEY: The member for Southern Downs makes a good point. It has been a demonstration of almost unbelievable hypocrisy to see so many government backbenchers launch into speeches that somehow defend the actions of the fuel companies. This government is led by a Premier who talked about royal commissions into fuel prices and called the fuel companies all sorts of names—'We will force them to open their books' and all of those types of things. Yet for this bill, simply because it is a good idea that was introduced by the opposition and for base political reasons, all of a sudden the tables are completely turned. We get the Socialist Lefties who sit opposite on the back bench standing up and passionately defending the oil companies. It is political hypocrisy at its very worst. This bill is a great idea that will benefit Queensland's economy as a whole. It will benefit Queensland more than any other state in Australia. Queensland should be taking the lead. Mr Horan: Even the Environment Minister, Dean Wells, says that it is two to three per cent more economical than regular unleaded. I suppose he'll speak tonight. Mr SEENEY: The minister will be here! All the environmentalists who were so passionate and dewy-eyed about the government's energy policy are missing tonight. They are not in this place putting forward the same arguments because if they were they would be on our side of the debate. Those arguments would support this private member's bill that was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. 4290 Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 30 Oct 2002

Finally, I want to issue a challenge to the government backbenchers who represent those sugar electorates up and down the coast, who represent those electorates that are situated close to the areas that the member for Mirani and I represent. Those members are not even in this place. The member for Burnett is not here. The member for Bundaberg is not here. The member for Burdekin is present in the House. I would be very interested to see how the member for Burdekin votes. I would also be very interested to listen to his contribution. I am sure that the sugarcane growers in his area would also be interested to hear his contribution to this debate. I would be interested to hear the contributions of the member for Burnett, who is not even in this place; the member for Bundaberg, who is not even in this place; and all of the other members who talk about supporting the cane industry, who talk about the importance of the sugar industry, but when it comes down to doing something, politics reigns supreme. They cannot bring themselves to accept a good idea, because it has been introduced by the opposition. That is the bottom line. The struggling canegrowers who live in the electorates that are represented by those members will know the way that those members voted tonight. Those people are depending on the people whom they elected to advance their cause. This proposition is a great idea for Queensland farmers. It is a great idea for Queensland's environment. It is a great idea for Queensland's economy. It should be accepted by this parliament tonight. Time expired. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (10.15 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 2002. I wish to congratulate the opposition on its initiative in introducing this bill to the House. Although I have lots of reservations about the bill, I fully support its intent. Since June this year, I have been pushing for the establishment of an ethanol industry and, as is proposed in the bill, the use of ethanol in petroleum, which will mean much to the state of Queensland economically, environmentally and in employment opportunities, which is contrary to the stated view of the member for Ipswich. My particular interest lies not in sugar but in the introduction of a grain based ethanol industry. The Nanango electorate is ideal for the establishment of such an industry. I refer to the Dalby biorefinery project, which I was told is looking at establishing a further four processing plants. I have pushed for the consideration of the Nanango electorate for at least one of these plants to be established. As the area also meets all of the requirements as stipulated by the company involved, I have also urged the shires of Esk, Rosalie, Nanango and Kilcoy and the Kingaroy Shire Council to become actively involved. In such a large catchment area of almost 19,500 square kilometres and with all shires meeting the requirements, who knows? We might be lucky and perhaps we might get two plants. According to the company that is working towards the green based ethanol plant in Dalby, the core infrastructure for establishing an economical and viable plant relies on several conditions: easy access to a power station, grain, feedlots for residuals after processing, water supply and transport. Several sites in the Nanango electorate would comply with each and every one of those requirements. It is a matter of fact that until the 1950s, ethanol was used in petrol throughout Queensland with up to 15 per cent content per gallon. The new limits in the bill of a minimum of 10 per cent ethanol content fits well within the proven guidelines of the content proposed. One of the biggest advantages of ethanol is that it is a renewable fuel that is grown and refined from plant materials and waste. It is used in the United States, where there are now in excess of 60 major ethanol plants. That proves the scope and enormity of the economics involved. Its viability is further backed up by its use in Europe and South America. At a time of such uncertainty in the future availability of oil supplies from the Middle East and with the current unstable global conditions since September 11, it is time to consider ethanol production as a serious addition to petrol. Therefore, the timing of the introduction of this bill is also relevant. Any new industry that creates employment, especially for rural communities, is welcome, particularly given the current conditions. Although the amount of rainfall, water accessibility or lack thereof will limit some areas, I believe that it is a necessary and relevant industry needing to be pursued. Drought may be detrimental, but rural regions are used to drought. Droughts come and they go and life goes on. With proper management practices, I am sure that excess grain and sugar cane will be stored in sufficient quantities to ensure that any future droughts will not impact on the supply of raw material to produce ethanol. The estimated 380 million litres of ethanol that 30 Oct 2002 Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 4291 is needed to blend with the current estimated 4.8 billion litres of petrol used annually in the state will instil the investor confidence that is needed to ensure its success. I am aware that there are people who would not be happy putting fuel containing ethanol in their car, but research shows they need not have any fear for their vehicles. But I wonder if the fuel industry would embrace the inclusion of ethanol to ensure its success if it were not made compulsory. The compulsory aspect of this does concern me because it forces all motorists using petrol to use ethanol. I question our right to do that. In stating that, I am torn between the two points of view. Without compulsion, will the industry flourish? Without this compulsion, would growers squeezed out of one industry and hoping to adopt this new one survive? It may well be that individual refinery operators will sue for the right to conduct their business in a manner they see fit. But the argument exists that the government must support this bill and stick to imposing a compulsory requirement as a policy to ensure the industry's viability. As the opposition leader stated in his second reading speech, this will be a fuel that is made by Queenslanders for Queenslanders. As I said, I have some reservations, but I support the intent of the bill. Dr LESLEY CLARK (Barron River—ALP) (10.21 p.m): The fact that we are debating this amendment bill tonight is proof positive, if ever any was needed, that the Leader of the Opposition and the National Party members are in fact more interested in political point scoring and headlines than they are in pursuing a practical, bipartisan strategy that can achieve the outcome that they are seeking, indeed that we all are seeking, namely, the establishment of an ethanol industry that can in the longer term provide the sugar industry with a stable market for its product as well as result in general positive economic, social and environmental outcomes. The fact that the member for Toowoomba South chose to introduce his bill in Townsville to make a hero of himself and the Nationals with the sugarcane farmers when he knew that it could not deliver anything more than a headline is just what leads people to become so cynical about politicians. Rather than adopt a bipartisan approach, we are debating a bill that is fatally flawed and that they know is flawed. I am convinced, as is the Leader of the Opposition following his visit to the US, that Australia should develop an ethanol industry. I fully support the three mills in far-north Queensland that are actively exploring this option because they, too, can see the benefits. There has been some very significant progress with the developments in far-north Queensland, but the reality is that we need a national approach and a federal government that will do more to help us create a guaranteed market for an ethanol blend of fuel. Until that happens, no further action is possible. I want to share with the House some of the things that are happening in far-north Queensland, because it just underscores how important it is to have a bipartisan approach that will actually achieve some positive outcomes. On the tablelands there is a proposal by the tableland canegrowers, Delta Pacific and Bundaberg Sugar, to develop a flexible ethanol distillery at the Arriga mill. An initial pre-feasibility study assessed the capacity of the tablelands district to supply a 60 megalitre plant similar to the Dalby grain ethanol plant. It suggests that sufficient grain and sugar cane could be grown on the tablelands to easily supply such a plant. Developing a plant with the flexibility to switch between grain and sugar juice would mean a plant that could potentially operate for a maximum number of days per year, maximising its efficiency. An application was made to the federal Tablelands Sustainable Regions Fund to fund a $500,000 planning and feasibility study. Unfortunately, that was knocked back. I am very disappointed that they did not get the support. The project is now on hold, though. Potential investors have indicated that they are reluctant to invest until the federal government mandates a blend. In Mossman, where members would know the mill is in serious financial difficulty, Australian Biofuels has been working on a joint venture with the Mossman central mill to establish a $36 million ethanol plant with molasses and sweet sorghum. The federal government provided Mossman's mill with $7.35 million through the greenhouse abatement program. It is ironic that on announcing the funding for the project Truss claimed that this program was demonstrating that greenhouse gas abatement can be achieved at a low cost while generating innovation, wealth and new jobs. Mossman mill may indeed be wondering where is the innovation, wealth and new jobs. Meanwhile, in today's Cairns Post came reports that the canegrowers and stakeholders of Mossman mill have supported a proposed rescue package to carry the cash-strapped mill through the crushing season, because the stakeholders have agreed to guarantee the $3.039 million to satisfy the National Australia Bank. This is just an indication of how serious is the situation facing the Mossman mill, but again the ethanol project is on hold because we have not got the leadership that we need from the federal government. 4292 Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 30 Oct 2002

In Johnstone shire, the council has invested considerable time and effort to develop an ethanol scoping study to quantify the viability of producing ethanol from sugar juice and molasses. That report essentially found that the production price of ethanol from sugar syrup and molasses was competitive with petroleum based fuel. The report was completed in the hope that it would inspire private sector investment in ethanol in the Johnstone shire, but of course to date that has not happened because of the uncertainty surrounding this issue. That report did conclude that the development of an ethanol industry in far-north Queensland would create significant economic spin-offs for regional communities, with benefits including improved regional employment, increased levels of local investment and environmentally sustainable social development. Most importantly, the ethanol industry will benefit everyday Australians by supplying a locally produced, environmentally friendly renewable resource. As I have indicated, if the Leader of the Opposition were genuinely interested in achieving a positive outcome he would work with us and take the approach that will result in a positive outcome. We have heard from the interdepartmental committee that there are real problems with the Constitution and the mutual recognition legislation. I am not a constitutional lawyer. We have heard members of the opposition dispute that assertion. I really think that if they are not prepared to accept the view of experts—again, like the Premier, I cannot believe they are kowtowing to the oil companies—if they do not believe that advice, let them get some legal advice of their own. I would be very receptive to hear it. Let us get some factual basis on which— Mr Copeland interjected. Dr LESLEY CLARK: I am quite prepared to accept the word in the executive summary of the interdepartmental committee. Mr Horan interjected. Dr LESLEY CLARK: I believe that we can address this issue together. I am really disappointed with the tone of this debate tonight. Why are we going down this track when we know that the outcome we all are trying to achieve is the same? We do not believe— Mr Seeney interjected. Dr LESLEY CLARK: I am sorry. I see the member’s side as the ones playing the politics. The member had only to wait for the interdepartmental committee and then he would have been in a position to act. I was quite shocked when the Treasurer said tonight that the member for Toowoomba South knew before the interdepartmental committee reported that there were constitutional problems. If the Treasurer was wrong, that is fine; the member can say that, because I was very disappointed to hear that. I thought that the bipartisan approach would have been to wait until we had the report from the interdepartmental committee. On that issue, I say to the member for Callide, again, that I am afraid the argument is flawed. If the member had the time to sit down with the Treasurer, he would have explained how there is a very significant difference between our mandating the generation of electricity from gas-fired power stations here and mandating what is brought into this state. I am sorry if the member cannot understand that. The member needs to discuss that issue in more detail and think it through, because it is flawed. The benefits clearly are there for our Queensland community. If we work together, we can get those benefits that would include regional development, employment opportunities in regional and rural communities, improved fuel self-sufficiency and a cleaner environment. The far-north Queensland economy and the lifeblood of communities like Mossman depend on the sugar industry finding a sustainable future. I urge the opposition to work with us to convince the federal government to provide the leadership that we so desperately need on this vital issue. On that point, I cannot support the legislation tonight. I would like to, but I cannot support legislation that is impractical, flawed and will not get us the outcome we want. Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (10.28 p.m.): I rise to support the Leader of the Opposition on the Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill. It is disappointing to me and our side of politics that we are not getting a reasonable debate on this subject tonight. A lot of members on the other side of the chamber appear to not understand what they are talking about. The Premier referred to his discussions with Bundaberg Sugar. There is no doubt that about $60 million is available through the innovations fund put in place through the sugar package that multinationals like Bundaberg Sugar would like to get their hands on. The discussion that the Premier had with Bundaberg Sugar related to a chocolate factory that may or may not be established in Queensland. That would create some jobs, but at the end of the day the reality is that unless some changes are made the growers will receive only the world market price for the sugar sold into that chocolate factory. That is a very big issue for the sugar industry. The fact that 30 Oct 2002 Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 4293 all of our sugar is based on world market prices is a very big issue for the sugar industry and it is making the life of the sugar farmer very difficult. The other issue that the Premier raised concerned changes to the single desk seller. The biggest single concern to farmers throughout Queensland is the proposed change to the act in respect of the CPA, or the cane production area, changes to the negotiations between millers and growers in terms of contracts and, finally, and most importantly, the proposed changes to single desk selling. Meetings are taking place throughout Queensland now that have been generated out of the fear that there will be changes to the act and single desk selling. I assure the Premier that if he wants to see a fight and demonstrations in Queensland, he will get that if the government tries to change single desk selling for the domestic market. There will be a huge eruption throughout Queensland. We have to understand that the Queensland sugar industry cannot continue to accept the world market price for domestic sugar. I would be the first to agree that there have to be some changes to that mechanism. If single desk selling for domestic sugar were abolished, that would be a terrible outcome for the sugar farmers in Queensland. The debate tonight seems to have overlooked a whole range of issues that are very important to the ethanol industry. Anyone listening to some speakers could be forgiven for thinking that ethanol is a poison. The unleaded fuel that we put into our cars every day of the week in Australia is the dirtiest fuel in the world. It has an additive called MTBE. That additive is carcinogenic and is being banned in America at present. In some states it is totally banned and in others there is an exemption for a period. Only one product can replace MTBE, and that is ethanol. Ethanol added to low-quality unleaded fuel will raise the quality of that fuel to premium grade. That is the basis of a lot of the blending going on in Queensland and New South Wales now. They are using fairly low-quality unleaded fuel, adding ethanol to it and getting specifications equivalent to premium grade unleaded fuel. Let us not hear all of the debate about how bad it is, how it will not be good for the environment and other stupid claims. We really need to get back to the facts. Mr Lawlor: The environment is a stupid debate? Mr MALONE: The environment is a stupid debate? Mr Lawlor: You reckon it is a stupid debate. Mr MALONE: I heard one speaker from the member's side of the parliament saying that the E10 additive would not be substantially advantageous to the environment. A 10 per cent add of ethanol into unleaded fuel will decrease emissions by 30 per cent. We have to realise that in Sydney, for instance, as underground tanks are being filled and as people put nozzles into their cars, over a week 50 tonnes of fuel evaporates into the air. That is evaporated because the fuel companies are using the low-quality, high-vapour fuel. One of the ways to change that is by adding ethanol. Reid vapour pressure is of great concern to all of us. As the Reid vapour pressure goes down—there is a specification for this—the ethanol added to unleaded fuel will reduce the amount of evaporative vapours. BP is working towards an $8.8 million federal government subsidy to allow it to blend E10 in Queensland. It was allowed by the EPA in Queensland to set its own Reid vapour pressure. That has restricted Queensland to an E10 blend. Currently, in Sydney, every day of the week a million litres of unleaded fuel with 20 per cent ethanol is used. Manildra is supplying the ethanol and, as I said, every day in Sydney one million litres of fuel with 20 per cent ethanol is being used. Mr Strong: The problem is people don't know they are using it. Mr MALONE: The fact is that they know they are using it. I have talked to service stations that were supplying about 100,000 litres of blended fuel a month. They went on to the ethanol based fuel. They are now selling up to 400,000 litres a month. The public's adoption of the use of ethanol is strong and they are very aware of the fact that they are buying ethanol. I wish to raise a couple of further issues as we go along. In terms of the mandate the government is talking about across Australia, how much sense does it make to carry ethanol from where it is produced in Queensland, New South Wales or wherever across to Western Australia? If we had a mandate across all of Australia, how much sense would it make to carry that ethanol across to the other side of Australia? We have to introduce a mandate in each state with exemptions until the factory output can meet the demand. Over time we will get to 10 per cent. That is allowed for in this legislation. 4294 Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 30 Oct 2002

I question the arguments from the oil companies. We have heard a lot of rot not only tonight but also in the media about how ethanol will increase the price of fuel, blow up car motors or rust them out. We have to realise that if we introduce 10 per cent ethanol into fuel that is 10 per cent less fuel that the oil companies will sell. So in real terms they have a big vested interest in making sure that they do not allow ethanol into fuel, irrespective of how good an idea it is. With those few arguments, we cannot deny the need for a mandate in Queensland to allow the industry to become mature and move forward. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (10.38 p.m.): I have found tonight's debate most interesting. I found myself changing from one side to another side on the basis of what had been said and the counterarguments. However, I initially supported the Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill on the basis of principle. In my electorate I have a fossil fuel production industry, namely, an oil shale plant. Although I believe it is very important for our community and our nation to supply the vast majority of its oil and fuel products, I have seen the impact of the oil shale production on the community. State and federal governments support the process wholeheartedly. In fact, the Premier and, I believe, the Minister for State Development here in Queensland have given unreserved support to shale oil and subsequently talked about the shale oil operators needing to make some modifications to the process. I have seen how the outputs from the oil shale plant have affected a very small community. It is easy when there are 30 or 40 families affected to give the economy and jobs greater importance than the small number of families and their farming enterprises. However, the effect on those families is an indicator that the outputs from the shale oil plant are detrimental not only to husbands, wives and children but also to the economy that they produce, namely their farm production. It is also detrimental to the environment. We have had Greenpeace campaigning in my electorate in an attempt to try to shut down the shale oil plant. They have been unsuccessful. My argument with Greenpeace has always been that they started their campaign about 20 years too late. If they were serious about closing it they should have started their campaign before any infrastructure was put in place. However, they still strongly campaign against the shale oil production. So this bill presented an opportunity to introduce some balance into our state in relation to the production of an energy source and I certainly saw that as a positive. I do not have sugar production in my area. It is produced to the south in Bundaberg and also to the north. In the main, grain production in my area is in the electorate of Callide. Both sugar and grain are sources for ethanol production. Both of those industries have faced tremendous challenges in the past and continue to face challenges not only in the global markets but also with wet weather. The opportunity to introduce, albeit on a sliding scale, a 10 per cent requirement for ethanol production to be included in fuel for community use appeared to me to be a very sound strategy. Then the Minister rose and spoke about its unconstitutionality. That to me put paid to any support for the bill. I listened to his arguments and I listened to the Premier's arguments on its lack of a constitutional basis. On the basis of that argument I felt that it was a bill that I could not in good spirit support. Consequent to that, however, there were two or three contributors to this debate whom I felt I had to take into account. There was one member from the government side who was particularly nasty in their presentation and debated the people rather than the issue. Then there was another member who made what I felt was a very sound statement, namely that governments must look at the consequences of their legislation. They do not have the benefit of sitting in opposition and being able to support legislation that has some either unforeseen or unpredicted consequences. In my electorate 75 per cent of one gentleman's farm has now been coloured pink under the vegetation management plan. He came to me seeking some respite and some recompense. I felt that he had a very good argument. It was not a small part of his property that needed assistance. It was not that he could fence off that small portion of his farm and work the rest. Seventy-five per cent of his farm had been coloured pink. I met with the senior people in the department to talk about relief for this gentleman because of the impact of the vegetation management legislation. I was advised that there was nothing that could be done for him. The tree clearing legislation had been put in place and the practical consequences to the community were in no way addressed. There was no compensation. This gentleman has been left with a property that provides no return on his investment and his hard work. He cannot claim compensation because the Queensland government has not made allowance for that in its 30 Oct 2002 Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 4295 legislation. This government is relying on the federal government to do that. So governments do not always look at the consequences of their legislation; those consequences have to be taken into account. The question of constitutionality—section 92—came into it. I felt that that was still a very strong point. There is no point in supporting legislation on the basis of principle when it could be the subject of a constitutional challenge. It was pointed out that the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee had found nothing to report to this House in relation to this private member's bill, and that to me is a very important indicator. Then the member for Callide raised the issue of the 15 per cent mandate on the electricity market. The electricity market is national and it is contestable. The mandate that has been put in place was, rightly, trumpeted by the government as a clean, green approach to energy production. This is a commodity that is produced in Queensland for a national market, and yet there is a mandated requirement for 15 per cent gas production. Therefore, the arguments that the government had put forward that I felt were compelling against this legislation have, because of these comparisons with other legislation but in comparable conditions and environments, shown that the government's argument does not have credibility. I would be interested if there are any other members who can correct me in my understanding of the debate tonight. I have not researched the Australian Constitution on the Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill. I honestly did not think there would be cause to do that. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee is a very competent committee, as are its staff, and it has not seen any reason to report on the unconstitutionality of this private member's bill. On the basis of the debate tonight and the information that has been presented—and I readily admit that I did not have a lot of the facts and figures that have been presented—I will be supporting this bill, not just because I believe it gives an indication of what would be better for members of my Yarwun-Targinni community but because there has been ample opportunity for the constitutionality or otherwise of this legislation to be demonstrated. It has been demonstrated that the contents of this bill are comparable to other bills and other policies that have been passed in this parliament, and on the basis of its complementary nature I will be supporting this legislation. Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (10.47 p.m.): I have sympathy for the intent of this bill. After all, any measure that would assist our sugarcane farmers at this time and into the future, whilst at the same time providing benefits for the environment, certainly deserves support. However, I think when we look at the bill and see what has happened over the past month or so since the bill was introduced we find that the bill has largely been overtaken by events. Since the bill was introduced on 4 September the Commonwealth announced its sugar rescue package on 11 September and I understand that that is currently being put in place. On 12 September there was a significant announcement by both the Prime Minister and the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. After there was a public debate about whether or not there ought to be a fuel subsidy applied to fuel which has an ethanol content, the Prime Minister moved to indicate that in fact there would be a production subsidy for the on-shore production of ethanol whilst the current fuel taxation regime would still apply. That was a critical announcement. At the same time, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry made a statement about ethanol in fuel which I think bears upon the debate. I will read three or four of his paragraphs so that people get the flavour of the Commonwealth's intention. Honourable members will then understand why I say that to a large extent the bill has been overtaken by recent events. 'The National and Liberal parties committed to a target during the last election campaign that would see biofuel production in Australia rise from about 40 million litres to 350 million litres by 2010', Mr Truss said. 'We are committed to developing a strong biofuel industry in Australia because it is good for the environment, good for regional and rural communities and good for reducing Australia's growing dependence on dwindling supplies of imported oil. The sugar industry is one industry in particular which has a natural synergy with ethanol production from molasses.' Mr Truss said the Coalition Government had already demonstrated its support for ethanol by providing $7.35 million to proponents of an ethanol project at Mossman Sugar Mill near Cairns. 'A further $8.8 million had been provided to BP for it to produce an ethanol-petrol blend at its Brisbane refinery. The product is already being sold at Brisbane service stations for the same price as regular unleaded petrol. Ethanol may not be a silver bullet for any agricultural industry, but its use in our motor vehicles will help underpin regional and rural economies while giving us cleaner air to breathe.' When asked about further decisions and the target of 350 million litres by 2010, he said— 4296 Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 30 Oct 2002

... I don't see that objective as being the end of the trail. I think that once we've made that initial beginning that there will be increasing potential for uses of biofuel, the full range of biofuel, some of it will be ethanol, some of it will be biodiesel, some of it will come from sugar, some from grains, some from a range of other raw materials. But the potential for those industries is obviously still quite substantial. The decisions about the way in which these measures will be put in place will be made later in the year. The Commonwealth is initiating a range of investigations in terms of the financial, economic and environmental impacts upon using biofuels within Australia. The decisions emanating from those studies will be made between now and the end of the year. I would think that we would be very prudent not to pass this bill but wait for the Commonwealth to report on its national approach to biofuels, which not only includes ethanol but a whole range of other biofuels. It will determine what the financial implications are, how we intend to use them and what the long-term plan is and allow us to then mesh in on a national basis with the Commonwealth and move forward in that regard. This bill may in fact be slightly premature. The honourable member may bring it back in a different form after the Commonwealth has in fact made its announcements between now and the end of the year. As I said, I have sympathy for the intent of the bill—there is no doubt about that—but at the same time we have to take the broader approach. I think the Commonwealth is on the right track here. It has instigated all of the studies that need to be done. It has supplied the money and has the targets. I think we would be very prudent if in fact we do not move down this path tonight but waited for the Commonwealth to finish its decision-making process. As I indicated, I have sympathy for the intent of the bill. What the proponents of the bill are trying to do is certainly laudable, but in terms of the detail I think it is lacking. We need to ensure that we mesh in on a national basis, and that is the reason why I will not be voting for the bill tonight. Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (10.53 p.m.): I am very happy to rise to participate in the debate tonight on the Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill. It has been an interesting debate. I think some members have wrongly seen this as simply an issue to try to save some sugar areas. I do not see that at all. I do not have sugar producers in my electorate or near my electorate, but I see it as a very valuable new industry that will also benefit the grain industry. It will benefit the environment. It will benefit the Australian economy by import replacement. It will benefit regional and rural areas with the opportunities created. It is a smart solution. We should be seeing some real and positive things on the ground as opposed to a lot of the froth and bubble with regard to selling innovation and initiatives in this state. I was very pleased to hear a lot of the arguments that the member for Barron River put forward. She put forward all of the same arguments that we have put forward regarding the benefits of ethanol, and I was very pleased to hear that. I heard her plea for bipartisanship, and that is exactly what we have been pleading for—that is, to work together on this issue rather than trying to flick it off. I have to say that the member for Barron River said that it is a cynical headline- grabbing move by the National Party. I find that a disappointing comment coming from the member for Barron River. I quote from the Cairns Sun from Wednesday, 31 July 2002 from an article entitled 'Sugar support essential' written by the member for Barron River, Lesley Clark— Diversification into new products must be part of the long-term blueprint for the industry and in my view ethanol has the greatest potential. She goes on to say— ... in my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier, I am urging Peter Beattie to mandate a 10 per cent ethanol fuel blend for Queensland as soon as possible to create the catalyst for investment to assist local mills like Mossman and Arriga on the Tableland to make the transition to ethanol production. Mr Springborg: Was that a headline? Mr COPELAND: That was a headline. I agree with all of that. It is great to hear that members of the Labor Party also support this— Dr LESLEY CLARK: I rise to a point of order. I feel that my views have been misrepresented here because the member for Cunningham knows that I made the statements before the interdepartmental committee reported. I am convinced about the constitutional problems now. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): Order! There is no point of order. Mr COPELAND: I simply quoted from a newspaper article and quoted the date that that statement was made on. I agree with the argument then and I agree with it now. I commend the member for Barron River for putting that argument forward. I think it is a great argument. Unfortunately, the influence that she has as parliamentary secretary to the Premier obviously is not that great and she has been railroaded. But I urge her to keep up the good fight, because I think that this is a great issue and I know that her area will benefit from it as much as mine will. Mr Horan interjected. 30 Oct 2002 Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill 4297

Mr COPELAND: Following the constitutional advice, I want to take up the point the member for Southern Downs made regarding the claims made in the parliament around the year 2000 by the former Minister for the Environment, Rod Welford. He quite rightly was boasting on the roll-out of the quality requirements for the Queensland fuel industry that he made in advance of other states. That was a quality requirement that the Queensland state government put in place which was not in place in other states. I want to read some of them from the Environmental Protection Regulation (Queensland) from part 3C, 'Quality standards for petrol and diesel', which states— ... 38ZK Permitted concentration of ethers and benzene—after 14 July 2000 ... 38ZL Permitted concentration of sulfur—after 14 July 2000 ... 38ZM Permitted concentration of lead—after 28 February 2001 ... 38ZN Permitted Reid vapour pressure—15 November 2000 to 14 November 2002 ... These are different quality requirements put in place by this government in Queensland which any of the fuel companies wanting to supply into the Queensland market had to comply with. That was put in place by the government. This is simply another quality requirement that the government can put in place by agreeing to this bill and passing it so that we can have a high- quality product that is good for the environment and also good for our industry. There has been a lot of discussion about the price of fuel and some of the issues regarding the implementation of this within the fuel industry. In particular, the speech by the member for Hervey Bay sticking up for the multinational fuel companies was interesting given some of the positions that have been taken by other members of the Labor Party in this parliament. For the benefit of the member for Ipswich, because obviously she is interested in conflicts of interest whether they are relevant or not, I will actually own up. I have a conflict of interest in this because I was employed by an oil company until four or five years ago. That is obviously as close a personal interest which needs to be declared given the statements made by the member for Ipswich. I have to say that I am usually a fairly staunch defender of the oil companies. They work in a competitive environment. It is a hard environment and they play it hard. There is no question that they play it hard, because they are there to make a buck. As a capitalist society, we should respect that and allow that to happen. There is no question about that at all. But what they will do is fight it very hard when it will take money from their pockets and make them source product from somewhere else. This requirement would mean that 10 per cent of the product that they sell they will have to buy from somewhere else rather than through the vertically integrated companies that they run from exploration to production, upstream production, retailing and distribution. They are going to have to do that if this legislation is passed. Of course they are going to kick and scream. Of course they are going to say that it is too expensive. Of course they are going to say that petrol is going to go up. Of course they are going to say that it is going to harm cars and does not have benefits. But guess what? When it is mandated as it is in many states in the United States, what did they come out with? I have here a brochure from the Mobil oil company, a company which operates in Australia. It is entitled Why is ethanol good for your car? The brochure states— Q. What does research say about ethanol-blended fuels? A. The American Institute of Chemical Engineers compared ethanol fuel to straight gasoline. In a published report, the institute said ethanol was 'very similar in driving characteristics to straight gasoline, except that pre-ignition and dieseling (run-on) are noticeably reduced and acceleration can be improved' with ethanol. Mr Springborg: I wonder what Mobil Australia says? Mr COPELAND: I wonder: 'Price is going to go up. It is going to hurt your car.' The brochure continues— The report continued, 'Ethanol should be looked at as an octane enhancer. Mixing it with gasoline in a 9 to 1 ratio improves the octane rating about three octane numbers.' There have been many other tests of ethanol during the past 20 years. Those tests found ethanol completely safe to use in all types of engines. Mr Malone: And that is by Mobil. Mr COPELAND: That is by Mobil. This is a brochure that is distributed by Mobil. The brochure contains a section headed 'The Clean Air Choice'. It also states— Ethanol ... Engine friendly, Clean burning, American made ... POWER. 4298 Adjournment 30 Oct 2002

Just think. We could have 'Ethanol, engine friendly, clean burning, Australian-made power'. That is what we could be achieving by passing this bill. The brochure continues— Q. How will ethanol affect my engine? A. Ethanol is safe to use in any type of engine. And further— Q. Will ethanol plug my fuel filter? A. Generally no. You can feel safe using ethanol. Ethanol is a very clean burning fuel that has some detergent properties. And further— Q. How will ethanol affect my fuel injection system? A. Ethanol helps keep fuel injection systems clean so they perform better. And further— Q. Will using ethanol help me during the winter? A. Yes. And it goes on. The Premier put forward an argument about how any company in Queensland could not supply into New South Wales if this legislation went through because it would be supporting blended product. That is an absolute nonsense. Yes, he was right: there are trucks leaving every day from Brisbane that go into New South Wales. They go into places such as Boggabilla, Glen Innes, Tenterfield, Lismore and Ballina. There is a whole range of them, and at different times of the year there are different blends of petrol that go into those areas. There are different blends of diesel, depending on what the temperature is—whether it is a winter mix or not—and they are supplied from the exact same terminals as normal diesel is supplied through to the rest of Queensland. They are done as a mix. They can be supplied in different ways from within the terminal tank farm. That makes a mockery of the argument put forward by the Premier. It goes to show just how desperate the Premier is to avoid the responsibility to actually implement something that will be positive for this state. We hear a lot about the Smart State and about innovation, but we do not see anything that can really affect people on the ground. That is what this legislation can do. I commend the Leader of the Opposition for introducing this bill. It is a very good bill. It will provide a lot of opportunities for Australians in the areas that need that opportunity to be provided. I commend the bill to the House. I hope that those members opposite who also support it—and demonstrably support it—actually vote with us to make sure we implement something that is of real and tangible benefit to the people of Australia. Debate, on motion of Mr Wellington, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (11.03 p.m.): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

Bushfires Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (11.03 p.m.): Last week in this parliament I rose on at least two occasions to talk about the devastating bushfires which were experienced in my area, particularly in the Granite Belt. Since that time and over the weekend some more significant bushfires started up in the Maryvale area. That created a great degree of concern, threat to property and potential threat to lives. As I did last week, I would like to commend all of those people who were involved in the absolutely sterling effort of fighting those fires. During the fires in the Stanthorpe and Warwick areas over the last couple of weeks people from a whole range of emergency services have been involved, including volunteers. I commend the Queensland Police Service and those who came from all across the Warwick district to work so well there. I commend the Queensland Ambulance Service at Warwick and Stanthorpe, as well as those who came down from Toowoomba. I commend the St John Ambulance Service from Stanthorpe and Toowoomba, the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service (Urban) from Stanthorpe, Warwick and Goondiwindi and the Queensland Rural Fire Service volunteers, including but not exclusive to Stanthorpe, Warwick, Wallangarra, Ballandean and the Granite Belt. 30 Oct 2002 Adjournment 4299

It needs to be noted that the shires of Warwick and Stanthorpe did an absolutely wonderful job, as did those who volunteered their time to provide the backup support that was so necessary to make sure those firefighters were able to be sustained in their need. That included backup as well as the provision of the sandwiches and other refreshments. There was a wonderful camaraderie. A lot of donated goods went from one community to another to assist as well. Telstra has done a sterling job in putting up overhead telephone cables which were downed, particularly in the Granite Belt. Ergon Energy has also worked extremely well in reconstruction. I think this does go to show that there are some significant issues we need to deal with in the next year or so as we seek to avoid these sorts of circumstances in the future. I say to the government: make sure there is a fire management strategy which includes pre fire season controlled burns, because that is not happening. Quite frankly, there is too much concern out there that if they do this then somebody from the environmental movement will complain or someone will litigate if a fire gets out of control. I think we need to make sure there is a proper management plan. To give members some idea of the heat of the fire, the first dead koalas I have ever seen in my life were at the top of Cunningham's Gap as they sought to escape the very intense fires. I have never seen them on the road there, but they tried to cross the road. This is a consequence of these super-hot fires. Time expired.

University of the Third Age Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (11.06 p.m.): I rise to commend the work of the University of the Third Age, Brisbane, which is centrally located on Level 1 of Travel House at 243 Edward Street in the city. Resident of the Mount Ommaney electorate Shirley Gilkens plays a major role as editor of its informative newsletter, which provides a comprehensive list of courses available for the term. She also tutors on many of the topics. The University of the Third Age uses the word 'university' in the classical sense, as applying to groups of students participating in learning and sharing knowledge rather than the modern concept of learning to attain qualifications. 'Third age' refers to the age of retirement, though all age groups are welcome. U3A originated in France in 1973 and is now world wide. Tutors and class convenors are members who give their time voluntarily. There are no tuition fees, and members are entitled to attend as many classes as they wish, as long as there is room in the class. However, there may be a small charge of about $1 per class if rent is being paid for the premises in which the activities take place. Most classes are conducted during the day and take place in many venues throughout Brisbane—private homes, schools, halls, community centres and libraries. As I previously mentioned, U3A Brisbane has its own rented premises in Travel House, Edward Street, where many activities take place. These rooms are equipped with computers and other facilities which facilitate learning. Courses vary from computing and desktop publishing to photography and language studies, to name but a few. Members of U3A pay a low annual fee, with a reduction for a couple sharing the same address. This fee covers the costs of producing the newsletters, which members receive five times a year, and other charges related to administration. U3A is a totally voluntary organisation, including all office workers. The management committee is elected annually and operates under a constitution which is designed to cover the requirements of U3A. The president, Patricia Lea, is also a resident of the electorate of Mount Ommaney, and a number of months ago she invited me on a tour of the city premises. Where would U3A be without all these marvellous folk—tutors, office helpers and the committee? These people really have U3A at heart and do so much to contribute towards its success. I know that most members will feel grateful for the time and effort they all contribute. U3A has achieved what it had always been working towards—a city venue which is conveniently near the bus and train terminals. The atmosphere of the venue is light, pleasant and a nice place for getting together with other interesting people. U3A will only continue to provide these valuable learning experiences to the general public— Time expired. 4300 Adjournment 30 Oct 2002

Dairy Industry Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (11.09 p.m.): I rise to speak about the merging of the Queensland Dairy Authority with Safe Food Queensland, which will contribute to the destruction of niche markets earning valuable export dollars for this state. I am talking in particular about the effects that it will have on dairy farmers—the few who are left in the industry—who are looking for new markets and products to keep their farms viable. The dairy industry has already gone through enormous upheaval and changes over the past four years following the deregulation of the industry. As the full economic effects of deregulation took hold, many dairy farms that had been in families for generations had been sold, forced to change to other types of farming, amalgamated with neighbouring properties or sold from underneath the feet of dairy farmers by the banks. Now the industry is to be priced out of the market as it struggles to diversify and to reach new markets through innovative ideas and products. I speak in particular about the cottage cheese industry, which is now facing fee increases of up to 200 percent. How can the government justify such an action? Not only will the move to amalgamate the two organisations into one mean the loss of highly skilled technical staff but also it will mean that many value-adding businesses will be unable to compete with the massive burden of government-imposed extra fees. I use the highly successful Kingaroy Cheese factory as an example. Here we have a company that is using milk by-products to create employment directly and which contributes indirectly through the tourism industry by value adding dairy products. In fact, the business, in conjunction with Stuart Range Estates winery—which are on the same property in Kingaroy's CBD—won the Fraser Coast Tourism Award for Best Winery category this year thanks to the inclusion of the cheese factory. The technocrats will say that only Victorian dairy products are cost effective, which has been proven through the performance of the Kingaroy joint venture to be totally wrong. In fact, while talking about Victoria, which instigated the deregulation of the dairy industry, it is interesting to note that the dairy industry in that state is collapsing due to farm gate pricing and the drought. Under the current dairy authority structure, audits, technical services and licensing fees are covered in one fee that costs in the vicinity of $220 a year. How can the government get it so wrong when under the new requirements with Safe Food Queensland, the Kingaroy Cheese factory now has to cover a $5,000 fee, plus an auditing fee, given that the company is about to embark on exporting cheese? On top of that, the company will now have to cover costs of travel added to the fee. The current authority provides a level of expertise in auditing and technical services that will not be replaced after the amalgamation. In the past 10 years, quality systems have been used increasingly as a risk assessment tool and I have been informed that there is no situation where the adoption of quality systems has reduced costs or reduced the amount of product testing. In fact, Kingaroy Cheese claims that quality systems have actually increased overheads by an average 20 per cent a year due to increased staffing levels required and testing requirements. Insurance premiums are another consideration, compounded by the hysteria of product liability, which is increasing premiums in some industries by up to 50 per cent. Over the past five years there has been an increasing niche for the supply of specialty dairy products into North America and South-East Asia, thanks to the promotion by the Queensland government. So how can this justify an additional $5,000 fee, plus a $1,400 Australian Quarantine Inspection Service fee, which does not physically handle any issues in this area, to establish export markets? I call on the minister and the government to look at this issue as a matter of priority. Time expired.

Classical Music Trials in Railway Stations Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (11.12 p.m.): Legend has it that Nero played his fiddle while Rome burned. More recently, we have seen Hollywood director James Cameron going to great pains to depict the string quartet playing soothing music as the Titanic sunk into its watery grave. Fact or fiction, those two stories reinforce the theory that music will surely soothe the savage breast. Mr McNamara: Beast. 30 Oct 2002 Adjournment 4301

Mrs LAVARCH: Breast. The playing of classical music has been trialled and used in a variety of locations around the world in a variety of circumstances to decrease stress, decrease agitation, improve mood and improve performance. It has also been used to decrease antisocial behaviour, especially around transport stations. Putting this theory to the test, recently Queensland Rail undertook a three-month trial of playing classical music at night at six suburban railway stations in an attempt to reduce vandalism, especially graffiti, at the stations. The trial took place at the Bray Park, Woodridge, Ferny Grove, Sherwood, Wynnum North and Nundah railway stations. Speaking for my local community, I know that the trial was welcomed by the Bray Park community consultative committee as this initiative was one of its suggestions to improve safety at the Bray Park Railway Station. At the time of implementing these trials, Queensland Rail reported that, after extensive study of how the use of classical music elsewhere had had positive effects, they hoped that these trials would discourage antisocial behaviour at and around stations and thus create a safer travelling environment. The trial has now been completed and evaluated with mixed results. At a couple of stations, even after extensive community consultations prior to the trial, complaints were received from neighbouring residents and the music was stopped, although I understand that at one location residents surrounding the station put in requests for their favourite concertos. At two other stations the experience was more positive, with the reported decrease in antisocial behaviour. The Bray Park community consultative committee would like QR to introduce this music project on a permanent basis and has been heartened to hear that the project has not been forgotten. QR's crime prevention unit hopes to conduct further trials with upgraded sound systems. On behalf of my local community I commend QR on its innovation in taking on board this somewhat unusual approach to safer travel. I know that Peter Gockle and all the team at QR's crime prevention unit work very hard to uphold and maintain safety and community on the CityTrain service. I take this opportunity to put on record my appreciation and support for the work that they do.

Biloela Meningococcal Vaccinations Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (11.15 p.m.): Some six weeks ago the community of Biloela in the Callide electorate was shocked to hear that there had been a fourth case of meningococcal occurring in their local community. On 19 September, the Minister for Health announced in this parliament that the Department of Health would undertake a mass vaccination program for meningococcal in the Biloela community. It was the first time that such a mass vaccination program had been undertaken in Australia and, indeed, it had not been done very many times before in the world. During the days leading up to that announcement, I was well briefed by the Minister for Health—and I thank her for that—and I was well aware of the potential for a bad reaction to that announcement from the Biloela community. I want to take this opportunity to report to the parliament and to congratulate the Biloela community on the success of that vaccination program. Some 2,500 people were vaccinated in that mass vaccination program at Biloela—2,500 people in the target age group of between 18 and 40 years—and it was done in a very professional and a very calm way. I want to particularly congratulate Monica Seth and the staff of the Biloela Hospital and the also the other staff who came to assist from the neighbouring health services at Rockhampton and Gladstone. They did a very professional job. They were able to carry out what was always going to be a difficult task in a very professional way. I want to particularly congratulate the Mayor of the Banana Shire, Glenn Churchill, and his staff for the role that they played in making sure that the community was given accurate information. The situation was controlled in a way that it should have been. Mayor Glenn Churchill bore the brunt of the obvious media interest in the mass vaccination program and he did that in a very admirable and very professional way. He was able to ensure that the message that the rest of Queensland received about what was happening in Biloela was the right one. I also want to congratulate the editor and staff of the local paper, the Central Telegraph. They, too, played a very responsible role in ensuring that the mass vaccination program was carried out in an appropriate way and that there was accurate information given to the community of Biloela. 4302 Adjournment 30 Oct 2002

It was always inevitable that there would be some concern among people planning to visit Biloela. Unfortunately, there was something of a downturn in the number of visitors in the tourist trade in the time immediately after the mass vaccination program. But through this parliament tonight I want to send the message that Biloela is a great place to visit now. With the mass vaccination program, it would have to be one of the safest places in Australia to visit. Everyone has been vaccinated against meningococcal. It is a great place to visit. It is a very safe place to visit. I want to send that message tonight. Time expired.

Bulimba Creek Oxbow Rehabilitation Program Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (11.20 p.m.): On Thursday 24 October I had the pleasure of representing my colleague, the Hon. Steve Bredhauer, Minister for Transport and Main Roads, at the launch of the Bulimba Creek Oxbow Rehabilitation Program at Murarrie in my electorate. It was a milestone event in the port of Brisbane motorway project and will inject a new lease of life into the Bulimba Creek oxbow and the surrounding wetlands and marine areas. The rehabilitation of the oxbow sets a precedent in combining environment and development goals. Business, government, community and the port of Brisbane motorway project team are all stakeholders, working together on this project. Soon we will see plans for better water quality, a more colourful habitat and a great biodiversity realised. This all will contribute to our broader goal of improving the Bulimba Creek catchment. More than $650,000 has been committed by key stakeholders and the motorway's project team to ensure sufficient funding for the rehabilitation, management and monitoring of the Bulimba Creek oxbow. Organisations which have provided funds include Main Roads, the port of Brisbane Motorway Alliance, Powerlink, Queensland Rail, Darling Downs Food and the Port of Brisbane Corporation. A number of grants have also provided a source of funds. I also wish to acknowledge the work that Greening Australia has undertaken in the rehabilitation project. Wayne Cameron and the Bulimba Creek Coordination Catchment Committee have also had an enormous input into the project. The oxbow is a great example of industry and environment groups working together very successfully. Work that has or will be undertaken in the near future includes the reintroduction of tidal and flood movement to promote healthy, sustainable ecosystems. The total area of fresh and saline wetlands in the area will increase from 6.6 hectares to 8.1 hectares. The site will be enhanced through the revival of the existing wetlands, removal of weed species and the construction of visually attractive water treatment devices. The adopted water quality treatment systems are soft engineering solutions using a natural process. This rehabilitation project will provide benefits to the entire Moreton Bay catchment area, helping to fix past degradation and clean up an important water source. The motorway project is part of an overall plan to improve trade facilities along the east coast of Australia through the provision of alternatives routes for commercial vehicles between the port of Brisbane and the Gateway Motorway. The $196.4 million stage 1 of the port of Brisbane motorway is funded by the state government, the Commonwealth and the Port of Brisbane Corporation and will play an important part in the Australia Trade Coast initiative.

Bushfires Mr FLYNN (Lockyer—ONP) (11.23 p.m.): Today I asked the Minister for Emergency Services a question based on the difficulties in information distribution regarding the recent fires in and around the Lockyer valley in Toowoomba. The minister in his reply, whilst accepting my expression of appreciation of the sterling work of those fighting the fires, suggested vaguely that one of the reasons for a lack of information from a single agency responsible for the dissemination of such information was that the primary focus of the emergency services was fighting fires—of course that is true—but that in doing so they were tired out and therefore it was no wonder there was a dearth of information. I most certainly resent the inference of the minister that I was uncaring about the welfare of firefighters and was in some way suggesting they could have done better. This is not a fact. What the minister conjures up is an image of hundreds of valuable workers out there fighting fires with no direction, no guidance and no-one in overall command. The truth is that while sometimes information can be hard to verify until after the events, all the services involved were locally and centrally coordinated and therefore their local 30 Oct 2002 Adjournment 4303 controllers and the central command post were or should have been at all times aware of hot spots, personnel involved, what they were doing, where they were and what they had achieved. To suggest that they were out there blind is somewhat irresponsible in itself. It was quite clear that no one agency was across the bigger picture, even as late as yesterday. Each agency approached was doing its job, of course, but no-one knew the whole picture, even today. This situation requires serious examination in any revamp of a counter disaster plan. An attempt by this government to suggest that due to the fatigue of the workers on the ground information failed to flow simply fails to meet any level of credibility. I refer to the minister's attempt to digress from my question when he referred to a news article in the Toowoomba Chronicle this morning where I was quoted as suggesting that people who wish to guard their own homes should in fact be allowed access to the homes. The minister said that I was irresponsible in saying that. I said that elderly people, the sick and children should be removed. They are not in a position to make up their own minds. But those taking the minister's own advice and taking proper precautions to protect their property, including the strategic placement of hoses and water tanks, should in fact be allowed to assist the brigades and defend their own homes. Having made that conscious decision, there should be no recourse upon emergency services to the effect of, 'I have tried my best, now come and haul my arse out of the coals'. I was suggesting that people take responsibility for what they do.

Migrant Women Mr BRISKEY (Cleveland—ALP) (11.25 p.m.): I wish to draw members' attention to a new publication which tells the remarkable and courageous life journeys of volunteer migrant women and their contributions to the community. Researched and written by Jeannie Mok, a tremendous contributor to Brisbane's multicultural community, the book, The New Wave, looks at the lives of 16 women who have made a difference to the lives of many migrants in Queensland. The publication will be officially launched by the Premier, the Hon. Peter Beattie, during the Multicultural Service Awards to be held here at Parliament House on 7 November. For many decades now these women have been part of a silent wave of heroism which until now has been largely unrecognised by the community. The New Wave, funded by Multicultural Affairs Queensland, seeks to change this by providing a comprehensive, historical record of their challenges, triumphs and achievements. The title The New Wave has special significance to Australia's past. The 1947 Australian census reported that 90.2 per cent of the national population declared that they were born in Australia and that 95.5 per cent considered themselves as British. By the end of World War II and the relaxation of the Immigration Restriction Act 1901, a piece of legislation which was at the cornerstone of the White Australia policy and which guided the country's immigration policies for more than 50 years, a new wave of immigrants emerged. When the White Australia policy was finally dismantled, there was another new wave of migrants from Asia. This was the start of Australia's future as a more cohesive, unified and genuinely multicultural nation. Despite the adversity they each faced as a result of their own settlement challenges, these women, whose lives are detailed in the pages of this book, have become pioneers of migrant voluntarism. Their achievements serve as a constant source of inspiration to the new wave of migrants. Each has devoted many years of dedication and thankless service to assist those who face the very same challenges they themselves faced when first arriving in Australia. As this publication correctly points out, these women are in many ways the unsung heroines of our community, providing a valuable service without ever seeking a reward. While the individual stories in this book are unique, a common element in every story is an underlying compassion and an overwhelming commitment to cultural diversity. Without their contributions, Queensland would not enjoy the rich, cultural diversity and harmony that exists today.

Powerlink Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (11.28 p.m.): On 24 October the first electronic petition in the history of Australian parliaments was officially tabled right here in the Queensland Parliament. I believe it is appropriate that such an historically significant petition should draw to the attention of Queensland parliament an issue that is of such importance to so many residents on the eastern Darling Downs. The Powerlink proposal to construct a 330,000 volt powerline 4304 Adjournment 30 Oct 2002 between Millmerran and Middle Ridge has caused great concern amongst local residents. I have spoken of these concerns previously to parliament and can assure the House that these concerns have not subsided. Residents have been frustrated with the mixed messages that they have received in regard to the aim of this proposal, which was firstly stated as meeting the needs of the Darling Downs. However, Powerlink has now come forward and stated that the aim is in fact to also power the whole of south-east Queensland. The community protest steering committee is working very hard in representing the affected residents. Representatives will this week meet with the energy adviser for the Deputy Premier to put forward their concerns and alternatives. I sincerely hope that the state government will be receptive to the needs of these affected residents and give proper attention to the viable and reasonable alternatives that have been put forward. In speaking to this petition and the important issues it raises, I would like to make some observations on its acceptance in the community as our first ever e-petition. It can be said that Darling Downs residents approached this new type of petition with interest yet also considerable caution. This is reflected in the conservative total of 126 signatures received. At the same time, the affected residents have been compiling a paper petition and at the current rate I can assure the House that this petition, when tabled, will yield a great many more signatures. There are many issues involved in the reluctance to fully embrace the e-petition. However, the major issue is the fact that the Internet is still not readily available to people in the community. A Queensland household survey on computer and Internet usage released by the Department of Innovation and Information Economy in May of this year revealed that household Internet usage on the Darling Downs was still significantly behind the metropolitan south-east. Figures show that 45.2 per cent of people on the Darling Downs have access to the Internet from their home compared to 58.2 per cent in Brisbane and 63.6 per cent in the south and east Moreton region. These figures are a marginal increase from last year, and I am sure that as Internet access becomes more affordable and efficient in regional areas we will see this figure continue to improve. It is, however, a fact that the level of affordability, efficiency and broad knowledge of the Internet will continue to hold back any active embracing of e-democracy in areas such as the Darling Downs. Nevertheless, I do believe that it is a positive step forward for democracy in our state to trial e-petitions, and I look forward to the further expansion of e-democracy in Queensland. I equally look forward to the response from the state government in regard to the very important issues raised in the petition and in addressing the reasonable requests made to the parliament regarding the Powerlink proposal to build a high-voltage powerline from Millmerran to Middle Ridge.

Wide Bay Group Training Scheme Awards Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (11.31 p.m.): Last Friday I was honoured to attend the Wide Bay Group Training Scheme annual awards night at Kondari Resort in Hervey Bay to represent the Minister for Employment and Training and the Minister for the Arts, Matt Foley, in celebrating the achievements of so many young apprentices and trainees in the Wide Bay area. As a former company secretary for the group scheme and a director for six years, I was well aware of the very important work which this not-for-profit company does in ensuring local apprentices and trainees continue to be planned for and employed locally. However, under the stewardship of CEO Ross Tregidga and board chairman Fred Kleinschmidt, the company now has grown to have over 400 apprentices and trainees on its books, with host trainers providing training from as far afield as Brisbane, Ipswich, Bundaberg, Rockhampton and Townsville. I wish to pay tribute to all of the staff who are so hard working. It is no easy feat to support apprentices and trainees over such a wide geographic area, and the commitment of the field officers in particular has been extraordinary. I wish to single out Julie Pieper for special mention for her personal effort in sticking with the young people for whom she cares so much. She is a true inspiration. While I congratulate all of the nominees and winners on the night, I wish to particularly congratulate those award winners from Hervey Bay. Daniel Mulhare won the Hervey Bay regional award, and his host trainer is Mulhare and Miles Electrical. Well done, Daniel. Brad Nugent won the outstanding achievement award for labour market programs for his work on the wonderful Links Mobility Corridor project. He has done outstanding work and has also shown natural leadership skills which were recognised on the night. John Dent won the award for outstanding apprentice stage 2, and his host trainer is Kingfisher Bay Resort and Village, which has itself been 30 Oct 2002 Adjournment 4305 honoured many times by the Australian tourism industry. Dane Daillis won the very prestigious school based trainee apprentice of the year award. I also congratulate his host trainer, Best Caravan Services Hervey Bay. I congratulate the winners also of the host employers of the year award. There can be no trainees and apprentices without host employers taking up that challenge. For small employers the winner was G&M Clarke Builders Hervey Bay and, for large employers, Holston Ford. It was a wonderful night attended by 300 guests and was a credit to all of the organising committee. Kondari Resort was again a splendid venue and I thank Geoff Mahoney and Kym Bell from Kondari for their care and attention to detail, which made the night run so smoothly. On the night I spoke of how terribly important it was after the horror and tragedy of Bali that we continue to celebrate our achievements, to come together as a community and to retain those things which make it so wonderful to be an Australian. It was an important evening for my community and I say well done to everyone involved. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 11.34 p.m.