17 Apr 2002 Legislative Assembly 1043

WEDNESDAY, 17 APRIL 2002

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

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I have to report that today I received from the Auditor-General a report entitled Audit Report No. 3, 2001-02, Auditor-General's report to parliament—Results of audits performed for 2000-01 as at 28 February 2002, and I table the said report.

PETITION Gold Coast Harbour Vision 2020 Project Mr Lawlor from 161 petitioners, requesting the House to advise the Gold Coast City Council that the House will not agree to the recommendations contained in the Gold Coast Harbour Vision 2020 Project—Report No 1 and is against any commercial development of the Broadwater (including Wavebreak Island) and the western foreshore and any further reclamation.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Tourism Futures Conference; Regional Events Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.32 a.m.), by leave: Later today I will join my colleague Tourism Minister Merri Rose to officially open the National Conference on Tourism Futures being held at Couran Cove Island Resort on South Stradbroke Island. This conference brings together operators, policy makers, academics and tourism professionals to address the challenges faced by the industry. Tourism has a very positive future, with international tourist numbers to Australia expected to double to 10 million people a year by 2010, with about half of these visitors coming to Queensland, the Smart State. We need innovative promotional campaigns to capture the lion's share of this growing market and we have to put in place the infrastructure to cope with the influx of visitors. This conference is looking at many different topics that influence tourism, including transport, regional development and economic policy. For my part, I will be spelling out the Queensland government's commitment to the tourism industry, for which I am a strong advocate, along with the minister. I will also emphasise the bounce our industry can expect from this the International Year of Ecotourism, which features the 2002 International Ecotourism Conference endorsed by the United Nations to be held in Cairns in October. Queensland has five World Heritage areas—the Great Barrier Reef, Fraser Island, the Wet Tropics, the Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves and the Riversleigh fossil fields. Ecotourism already makes up more than a quarter of the total Queensland tourism industry and is forecast to grow by 20 per cent to 30 per cent a year. The outlook for tourism in Australia is very positive. We have a magnificent product and we stand poised on the brink of a huge expansion in international tourism over the next decade. My government has developed a very forward-looking Growing Tourism strategy, including a specific tourism blueprint for the large US market. In Queensland we have initiated a Regional Tourism Organisation Network that divides the state into 14 regions so that we can promote the special features of these regions individually as well as collectively with our brand Queensland marketing. The $110 million Queensland Heritage Trails Network is a real focus, with the network's 32 attractions bringing life and tourism dollars to regions and rural Queensland. A government member: Hear, hear! Mr BEATTIE: I take that interjection from the minister responsible for heritage trails. Tourism is one of Queensland's largest employers, providing jobs for 150,000 people, with visitors to our state spending more than $14 billion a year. One Queensland job is created or supported for every 167 domestic visitors or by every 65 international visitors. One feature of international tourism is that it is driving the development of indigenous tourism in Queensland, because international tourists want to experience the distinctive and unique culture of the original Australians. Drive tourism is also an expanding market, with 75 per cent of visitors using a private 1044 Legislative Assembly 17 Apr 2002 vehicle or hire cars. The Tourism Futures conference is important for our tourism industry. I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in the conference a little later today. Event tourism is particularly important. Mr Speaker, as you would understand, event tourism also promotes jobs and opportunities. That is why it was so important that more than 38 regional events now have support from the state government's Events Regional Development Program. This is the largest program of supported events of any state in Australia. On Friday I was at Noosa, along with the local members—I mentioned them yesterday—for the announcement of the 22 successful applicants in round 2. Funding allocations varied from $5,000 to $25,000. For this round there were 154 applicants. For round 1 there were 89 applicants. It is certainly catching on. Already we have seen a significant lift in visitor numbers and economic activity favouring the regional tourism economy. Members might recall that last week I detailed how Toowoomba's Gospel Music Festival had an extra 5,000 people attending this year's three-day event. Our assistance with its marketing played a significant role in attracting that 20 per cent increase. This is precisely why my government initiated this strategy. The regions are an integral part of Queensland—the big events state. We want them to share the gains we are making. Therefore, I want to highlight this relationship between tourism and events and event tourism. The second round of funding embraced a range of events from fishing competitions, bush poetry contests to the Noosa Long Weekend. Mr Foley: Hear, hear! Mr BEATTIE: We are getting cultural here. I commend all of the people and communities who applied for funding. I also thank members for playing their part in increasing the program's profile as evidenced by the 154 applications in this round. We are seeking a strong emphasis on quality event delivery, creative approaches to their development, and far more sophisticated marketing. The program's popularity comes as no surprise. As we see many rural and regional centres turning to tourism, special events provide one of the most unique and fastest-growing forms of tourism attraction. From my discussions on Friday with the Maryborough Technology Challenge representatives and those from the Childers Multicultural Festivals and the Noosa Long Weekend, I have an increased appreciation of just what this funding can do to boost these people and their events and what it means for their community. The guys from the Thumpernats—a national senior motocross event for Conondale in March—explained to me that their event will attract 5,000 to 6,000 spectators and up to 400 competitors from across the nation. The events program offers the chance to exploit our state's great diversity and to provide ongoing economic benefits to our regions. This was highlighted at Friday's function opening when Queensland Events board member Peter Owen highlighted that no longer does Queensland Events just have a few high-profile events to cater for. This program is opening up a whole new era of opportunity for events, both large and small, right across regional Queensland. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of the second round winners. Leave granted. EVENT TOWN/CITY RTOREGION Isisford Fishing Competition & Festival (13-14Jul) Isisford Outback Black Stump Camel Races (26-27Jul) Blackall Outback Isa Rodeo Festival (5-11 Aug) Mt. Isa Outback Birdsville Raceday (6-7Sep) Birdsville Outback National Bronco Branding Championships (22-23Jun) Stonehenge Outback Bush Poetry Championship (20-24Jun) Winton Outback Childers Multicultural Food, Wine & Arts Festival (22-28Jul) Childers Bundaberg Gemfest (8-11Aug) Anakie Capricorn Big River Jazz Festival (6-7 Sep) Rockhampton Capricorn Hogs Breath Race Week 2002 (9-16Aug) Airlie Beach Whitsundays Gold Coast Film Fantastic (16-19Aug) Gold Coast Gold Coast Cairns Amateurs(12-15Sep) Cairns Tropical NQ Cooktown Discovery Festival (7-10Jun) Cooktown Tropical NQ Australian Festival of Chamber Music (3-14Jul) Townsville Townsville Grandfather Clock Campdraft (18-20Oct) Chinchilla Toowoomba Jondaryan Woolshed Australian Heritage Festival (24Aug-1Sep) Jondaryan Toowoomba Maryborough Energy Festival (13-15Sep) Maryborough Fraser Coast Goomeri Pumpkin Festival (24-25May) Goomeri Fraser Coast The Noosa Long Weekend (21-30Jun) Noosa Sunshine Cst National Country Music Muster (20-25Aug) Amamoor Sunshine Cst 2002 ADB Thumpernats (21Jul) Conondale Sunshine Cst 2003 Australian Motocross Championships (Mar2003) Conondale Sunshine Cst 17 Apr 2002 Ministerial Statement 1045

Mr BEATTIE: I will table some material, but before I do so I wish to highlight that the Queensland Events Regional Development Program was announced in 2001 as part of my government's election promise in line with the state's first-ever events policy, Events the Queensland Way. It is working well. I again call on members to push this hard. Round 3 is open now and closes on 9 August. While at the Sunshine Coast I took the time to inspect the Lensworth Kawana Waters project, along with the member for Kawana. I table for the information and awareness of members a statement and publications that highlight the successes of this exciting project that is expected to deliver 10,000 jobs over the next 13 years. Mr Cummins: Job, jobs, jobs. Mr BEATTIE: Absolutely.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Cape York Justice Study Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.39 a.m.), by leave: The Queensland government alone cannot improve the prospects of the children of indigenous communities in Cape York and in other parts of the state. Even community partnership, although essential, is not enough to ensure children born today live longer, healthier and more satisfying lives than their parents. Essentially, we are talking about a rescue mission that requires the combined force of all agencies involved in Queensland's indigenous communities. We need the federal government and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission seeing eye to eye with us on the need for dramatic change, as outlined in our response to the Cape York Justice Study, titled Meeting challenges, making choices. The House will recall that after the release of Mr Fitzgerald's justice study in November 2001, I met with the federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mr Philip Ruddock, and the chair of ATSIC, Mr Geoff Clark, along with Ministers Spence and Bredhauer. At the meeting, we all acknowledged the importance of cooperation in addressing the problems highlighted by Tony Fitzgerald. Last week, after tabling the government's response to Fitzgerald, I wrote to Prime Minister John Howard while the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy, Judy Spence, wrote to Mr Ruddock and Mr Clark. We wrote to secure the federal government's and ATSIC's ongoing commitment to a joint effort in Queensland communities. Some of the changes we can make at the government level are quite straightforward. As I said in my letter to the Prime Minister, which I table— I believe it is critical, if we are to achieve substantial improvements in the lives of indigenous people, particularly women and children, that greater flexibility is required in how resources are applied. There must be increased willingness to collaborate on service delivery initiatives that respond directly to identified need. One early avenue for positive change is a plan to identify 10 trial sites around the nation for whole-of-government cooperation. This plan was endorsed at the Council of Australian Governments meeting in Canberra on 5 April, and I spoke at some length about it at that meeting and addressed certain issues to the Prime Minister. At COAG I raised Cape York as a suitable trial site, and in my letter to the Prime Minister I sought his support for including the Torres Strait and Palm Island in this trial as well. The state government is already striving for better coordination of services to indigenous communities through our plan for a 10-year partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Queenslanders. The federal government and ATSIC control enormous resources that have a direct impact on everyday lives—for example, housing, the Community Development Employment Program and family support payments. So to really make a difference, we need the federal government and ATSIC singing from the same song sheet that we are. A win for the collaborative approach is already emerging in the trial of the family income management scheme in two Cape York communities. I was also heartened by the productive tone of a meeting I held last week with a senior ATSIC elected member, Commissioner Jenny Pryor, other indigenous representatives and Judy Spence. There are many good and committed people in ATSIC, just as there are in the state and federal governments. Many of us have long agonised over the decline of indigenous communities, and especially the insidious growth of abuse of children and women. The need has 1046 Ministerial Statement 17 Apr 2002 never been so acute for us to pool our energies and our resources in a bipartisan way and work together to secure the future of these communities and their children. Judy Spence was at that meeting. Judy and I met with Vaughan Johnson yesterday. I thought the meeting with Vaughan, who is the opposition spokesman, was a very positive one. Out of that, Vaughan has given a clear indication of bipartisan support for this plan. I want to thank him for the positive nature of that meeting. I table that letter.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Sister-State Relationship, South Carolina Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.43 a.m.), by leave: Queensland's sister-state relationship with South Carolina has been further enriched with the signing of a memorandum of understanding that is designed to expand education collaboration between the two states. The new memorandum of understanding was signed by myself and South Carolina Governor Jim Hodges during my recent visit to South Carolina from 12 to 14 March. The agreement will be the catalyst for a series of education initiatives and exchanges that will further strengthen the Queensland-South Carolina relationship. Activities under the new expanded agreement include: opportunities for student exchange; the joint development of curriculum projects; the exchange of educational publications and materials; and opportunities for teacher exchanges. The MOU will be followed up with specific project plans that will be negotiated between Education Queensland and the South Carolina Department of Education. A number of highly successful joint education initiatives have already been undertaken under the sister state friendship agreement. In the interests of saving time, I seek leave to incorporate the rest of this statement in Hansard. Leave granted. For example, last year a group of students at Coorparoo State School and Summit Parkway Middle School in Columbia were involved in a joint student web site. A Queensland-South Carolina Tourism Student Exchange Program was established for the interchange of hospitality and tourism undergraduate students between six universities in Queensland and four in South Carolina. And in December last year, students and teachers from Kelvin Grove State High School embarked on a performing arts tour to South Carolina, while an educational centre in South Carolina is developing a travelling exhibit on Australia named Kangaroo Crossing. Of course, our wonderful native animals are a real favourite with people around the world. During my latest visit to Columbia, South Carolina, I had the privilege of officially opening Koala Knockabout—a special exhibit at the Riverbanks Zoo. Riverbanks is now one of the few zoos in the United States to house koalas, thanks to a promise I gave two years ago to South Carolina Governor Jim Hodges that I would help him to obtain two koalas for Riverbanks Zoo. I initiated discussions with Japan's Hirakawa Zoo, which has been breeding koalas since receiving them from Queensland in 1987. I am delighted that two male koalas—the offspring from koalas Queensland gave to Japan in 1987—have now been transferred from Japan to South Carolina. The koala exhibit in South Carolina is extremely popular and will become a symbol of the great friendship that exists between our two states. Queensland is now looking to help assist in the transfer of female koalas to join these males. During my visit I also accepted an offer of assistance from the University of South Carolina Nanotechnology Institute in setting up a similar institute in Queensland. I came to the South Carolina Institute in order to learn lessons for the construction of Queensland's own $50 million Australian Institute of Bio-Engineering and Nanotechnology in Brisbane. I am very grateful for their offer of assistance and have spoken to Innovation and Information Economy Minister Paul Lucas about it. He will travel to South Carolina for detailed talks before he has visited BIO 2002 in Toronto with me in June.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the Minister for Education, I welcome to the public gallery Lyn Gordon-Lewis, who is the first Queensland woman Centurion—she has achieved the feat of race- walking 100 miles in under 24 hours—and her husband, Peter Lewis, from Wamuran in the electorate of Glass House. Honourable members: Hear, hear!

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Learning and Development Centres—Gifted and Talented Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (9.44 a.m.), by leave: I am pleased to advise members that Queensland's eighth dedicated support centre for gifted and 17 Apr 2002 Ministerial Statement 1047 talented students is to be established in Atherton. I am sure the Premier would agree that Atherton already has a well-established reputation for producing gifted and talented young people! The location of the new centre at Atherton State School in far-north Queensland extends the support network for gifted and talented students almost across the Smart State. As promised in this House in December last year, the eighth centre is being created in an area not currently covered by the existing seven to further expand the reach of the gifted and talented program, particularly to remote areas. Atherton State School met strict selection criteria and was chosen as the eighth centre because of a demonstrated commitment to and involvement in gifted education and talented development. The school has had an established gifted and talented program as part of its curriculum for more than 15 years, or perhaps even longer! Its student support team identifies and supports gifted as well as struggling students—a process ingrained in the school's social justice policy. The Beattie government has a proud track record of providing for the needs of all students, including those with special gifts and talents. The seven existing Learning and Development Centres—Gifted and Talented provide valuable ongoing support for gifted and talented students. Like the existing centres, the new centre at Atherton State School will be staffed by a full-time coordinator and receive $20,000 in funding each year for the next three years to support its work with other students on the tablelands. This centre will broaden the vital network of support for students on the tablelands that these educational hubs provide. Our government takes pride in the fact that the public education system can offer such a diverse range of programs across the full educational spectrum. I also advise members that widespread consultation is being conducted this month with the education community. The consultation is part of a review of Education Queensland's policy on gifted education, led by Griffith University's Professor Peter Freebody. The review team is seeking feedback on the current policy through a series of school visits and public meetings which will be advertised in local newspapers. Written input is also welcome. All feedback must be received by the review team by Friday, 3 May. I encourage all interested parties to have their say about the best way for gifted education to become the core business of all schools. Our government is committed to giving students access to an education that helps them reach their full potential here in the Smart State.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Millennium Arts Regional Program Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts) (9.47 a.m.), by leave: Last week I had the pleasure of joining with the Premier in announcing the architects who will design the Queensland Gallery of Modern Art and the State Library of Queensland redevelopment. While these two landmark buildings are an important plank in the Queensland government's $260 million Millennium Arts Project, there is a range of equally significant projects under way across the state as part of the same program. These projects will see a significant upgrading of arts and cultural facilities in rural and regional Queensland. From a new wing for the Gladstone Museum and Art Gallery to a mining heritage project in Mount Isa, from an arts and craft village in the far-north Queensland indigenous community of Yarrabah to a cultural and entertainment centre in Logan City, these projects will ensure that rural and regional Queensland have quality arts and cultural facilities. Not only will these projects maintain and enhance the local arts industry, they will also create local jobs and provide opportunities to increase cultural tourism. In total there are 16 regional initiatives under the Millennium Arts Project worth a total of $15 million. Three projects have already been completed and another seven will be completed by mid- year. Construction on the rest of the projects will be rolled out progressively over the next 12 months. When coupled with the $110 million Heritage Trails Network, this is a huge investment in regional facilities. A total of 43 major projects in regional Queensland have been funded through the $110 million Queensland Heritage Trails Network to develop cultural tourism as a means of stimulating the local economy. The network includes a blend of new cultural facilities, significant conservation work as well as upgrades to existing cultural attractions. Each project is about 1048 Ministerial Statement 17 Apr 2002 preserving and celebrating our culture, showcasing our rich social, natural and indigenous history and making local stories available for generations to come. Twelve of the 43 projects have been completed and opened with the most recent openings at the Jondaryan Woolshed in Jondaryan, the Qantas Founders Outback Museum in Longreach and the Blackall Woolscour at Blackall. On Easter Sunday, I joined Premier Beattie for the opening of the Qantas Founders Museum in Longreach and witnessed first-hand the sense of pride by the local community. Up to 2,000 people came from interstate and across Queensland to participate in the unveiling. The effect that this $8.5 million facility will have on the region is already clear in terms of permanent jobs for locals and benefits for the local construction, tourism and hospitality industries by helping to keep visitors in the area longer. Over the next 10 months, the remaining 31 projects will open progressively. The Heritage Trails Network has also developed an interactive CD, The spirit of Queensland, which I am today making available to all schools—public and private—across Queensland. The CD gives students an opportunity to access the heritage of Queensland through exciting and interesting stories, graphics and music, as well as providing fact sheets on each of the places featured on the CD, which I table. I also hope that from this CD students will seek to explore the heritage attractions around the state and learn more about the rich and diverse heritage which is ours to preserve, share and enjoy. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard details of Queensland Heritage Trails projects. Leave granted. Queensland Heritage Trails Network Projects Project Name Approx. Opening Date Atherton—Hou Wang Temple and Chinatown September 2002 Barcaldine—Australian Workers Heritage Centre July 2002 Blackall Woolscour Opened—7 April 2002 Cairns—Tropical North Queensland Network Gateway November 2002 Presenting the Wet Tropics (PWT) November 2002 PWT—Hasties Swamp Birdhide Opened September 2001 PWT—Halloran's Hill Lookout June 2002 PWT—King Ranch Cultural Theatre & Echo Creek Walking Track June 2002 PWT—Tully Visitor Heritage Centre June 2002 PWT—Kuranda Rainforest Story Opened September 2001 PWT—Palmerston Canopy Walk Feasibility Complete PWT—Ulysses Link Walking Track—Mission Beach Opened September 2001 PWT—Malanda Dairy Heritage Centre August 2002 PWT—Cooktown Interpretation Centre Nature's Powerhouse Opened December 2000 PWT Misty Mountains Walking Trails Opening progressively throughout 2002 PWT—Kennedy Trail linkage September 2002 PWT—Ravenshoe (Nganyadji) Cultural Unity Centre November 2002 Cardwell Telegraph and Post Office Heritage Centre June 2002 Charleville Cosmos Centre November 2002 Charters Towers—The World August 2002 Chillagoe FNQ Historic Mining Precinct June 2002 Cloncurry—Great North West Discovery Centre November 2002 Coen—Cape York Heritage Centre Opened September 2001 Ipswich—The Workshops Rail Museum September 2002 Ipswich—Global Arts Link Opened May 1999 Jondaryan Woolshed Opened March 2002 Laura—Quinkan Country Interpretation Centre Early 2003 Longreach—QANTAS Founders Outback Museum Opened March 2002 Longreach—Stockman's Hall of Fame December 2002 Mackay Old Town Hall Opened December 2001 Mackay—Artspace Mackay November 2002 Maryborough Heritage Gateway Opened August 2001 Miles—Dogwood Crossing @ Miles August 2002 Mt Isa Underground Mining World and Heritage Centre December 2002 Mount Morgan Experience October 2002 Richmond Marine Fossil Museum—Kronosaurus Korner Opened June 2001 Rockhampton Customs House Heritage Precinct October 2002 Torres Strait Cultural Centre—Thursday Island December 2002 Toowoomba—Cobb & Co Museum Opened October 2001 Townsville ATSIC Cultural Centre 2003 Townsville—Discover Townsville and North Queensland November 2002 Warwick—Glengallan Homestead September 2002 Winton—(Lark Quarry)—Dinosaur Trackways October 2002 Winton—Waltzing Matilda Centre June 2002 17 Apr 2002 Ministerial Statement 1049

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Drugs Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (9.50 a.m.), by leave: I wish to inform the House about the Beattie government's progress in its fight against drug trafficking. At the last election our government committed to step up the fight against drugs by funding an increase in drug detection machines and police sniffer dogs. In this respect I can advise that two police dog handlers recently took their purpose-bred labrador dogs to the Australian Customs Service to be trained in the detection of powder narcotics. This specialist training will aid in the fight against narcotics such as heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, ecstasy and ice. The dogs commenced their eight-week training course in late February and will finish by this month. This will increase our capacity to fight trafficking of powder narcotics. I further advise the House today that I recently approved expenditure for the purchase of two Sabre 2000 drug detection machines, which will cost more than $70,000 each. Members may recall that at the election $300,000 was committed for the purchase of these two detection machines. Obviously there will be savings, but I have committed that any money saved will be rediverted to continue the fight against drugs by boosting funding for other initiatives such as the sniffer dog program. The Sabre 2000 is a hand-held detector capable of detecting vapours and trace particles of cocaine, heroin, cannabis, methamphetamine, ecstasy and GHB in a period as quick as 15 seconds. The devices are quite lightweight, which makes them ideal for daily operational use. They will greatly assist in our fight against drug trafficking throughout Queensland. I conclude by saying that both of these initiatives were part of an election commitment. Today's announcement is proof that we are delivering on this promise. I trust that all members will support our fight against drugs.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT State Coastal Plan Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (9.53 a.m.), by leave: Last year the Beattie Labor government delivered on its 1998 election commitment to finalise the state coastal plan. Last November the state coastal plan won the major Queensland planning excellence award from the Royal Australian Planning Institute. Last week in Wellington, at the Australia New Zealand Planning Congress, the state coastal plan won the national planning excellence award for environment or conservation planning. The state coastal plan provides a framework for environmental planning at state, regional and local levels. At the award ceremony specific mention was made of community involvement, which was said to have been achieved in innovative and imaginative ways. The state coastal plan came into force on 27 February 2002 and is now protecting our beaches and sensitive coastline. I record my congratulations to all officers of my department involved in producing the plan for their effort and commitment. When the Beattie government established the Environmental Protection Agency, one of the objectives was that it would set best practice standards for environmental planning. This national excellence award for the state coastal plan clearly demonstrates that the EPA is doing this. Contemporary awards have acknowledged, and future generations will benefit from, the quality of the work of the department and the endorsement of that work through the deliberations of this parliament.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Indigenous Commerce Alliance Hon. R. E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing) (9.54 a.m.), by leave: This morning I had the pleasure of launching the Indigenous Commerce Alliance, a new group aiming to foster indigenous owned and operated businesses. The Indigenous Commerce Alliance has been established by a number of indigenous community leaders to generate greater social and economic independence among indigenous Queenslanders. The alliance is all about helping indigenous communities build their own futures. It is about strengthening links between the indigenous community, the business world, professional groups, 1050 Ministerial Statement 17 Apr 2002 governments at all levels and the wider community. It is adopting a practical approach that will pay dividends for all Queenslanders. A few weeks ago I met representatives of the new Indigenous Commerce Alliance and pledged the support of the two departments for which I have responsibility. As a result of that meeting, work is under way to hold special workshops for indigenous business operators on tendering procedures. These workshops will tap the expertise on tendering that exists within the Department of Public Works. It is hoped to run workshops in Brisbane and several regional centres. Within the Department of Housing, officers from the ATSI housing program have also met representatives of the Indigenous Commerce Alliance at my request. The alliance plans to establish a database of indigenous people with trade skills who now operate or may want to start their own business. The ATSI housing program trains young indigenous people in a range of building skills, so it is a natural source of information and expertise for such a database. Similarly, Q-Build engages a number of indigenous apprentices each year who may also want to operate their own businesses when they finish their training. The aims of the Indigenous Commerce Alliance fit in with the recently released reconciliation management plan 2002-06 of the Department of Public Works. The plan provides practical strategies to support reconciliation, improve service delivery and boost economic development in remote indigenous communities. There are many good news stories within indigenous communities. The new Indigenous Commerce Alliance is yet another one that I hope will be supported by all honourable members.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Cape York Justice Study Hon. J. C. SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Families and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and Minister for Disability Services) (9.57 a.m.), by leave: Last week this government released its landmark response to the Cape York Justice Study which, following some initial resistance, has met with general and widespread approval and enthusiasm from indigenous leaders, organisations and communities here in Queensland and elsewhere. My colleagues the members for Cook, Townsville, Mount Isa and Fitzroy have already received direct feedback from their local indigenous communities in the cape, in the gulf, on Palm Island and at Woorabinda that our response is welcomed and supported. As the Premier said, following a meeting he and I had with representatives of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and the Aboriginal Coordinating Council last week, this government now has a commitment from those groups to work with us as we respond to the urgent need for change in indigenous communities in this state. I note that yesterday in this House the member for Gregory was critical of a column by the Courier-Mail''s news editor, Tony Koch, which called on the ACC to show a consistent commitment to effecting change in Aboriginal communities. I do not have to defend the credentials of Tony Koch, but I must say that he has a long history of reporting on and a good understanding of indigenous affairs and politics in this state, one which gives him a unique ability to judge the performance of the ACC. He, more than any other journalist, has made sure that the issues of violence and alcohol abuse on Aboriginal communities gain prominence on the public agenda. In a meeting yesterday with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition the Premier and I also received assurances that the opposition will work with us in a bipartisan manner on these issues. I welcome that commitment and I look forward to working positively with Vaughan Johnson in the years ahead. Indigenous Queenslanders can rest assured that the Beattie government is determined to work with all well-intentioned groups and individuals to achieve long-term solutions to the problems in Cape York and other Aboriginal communities. If our strategy prevents even one child or one woman from being a victim of violence, then it will have succeeded. We expect it to achieve much more than that. Our response to Tony Fitzgerald's report is comprehensive, new and challenging. I am reassured by the responses of the community, the media and indigenous Queenslanders to our efforts, and they will now intensify. Across government, new programs and policies will directly target critical needs in Aboriginal communities, and we will work in partnership with indigenous Queenslanders to reform the way we do business. 17 Apr 2002 Ministerial Statement 1051

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Tourism Futures Conference Hon. M. ROSE (Currumbin—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading) (9.59 a.m.), by leave: As the Premier said earlier, later today he and I will attend one of the most important tourism conferences ever held in Australia. The Premier will be a keynote speaker and will officially open the inaugural National Conference on Tourism Futures at Couran Cove Resort on South Stradbroke Island. Other keynote speakers over the conference's three days of deliberations include Geoff Carmody of Access Economics; Chairman of the Tourism Forecasting Council, Sir Frank Moore; Qantas chief, Geoff Dixon; and Lyndel Gray of the Australian Tourist Commission. More than 250 delegates from across Australia will attend the conference which will explore the future of tourism and the need to identify and meet emerging challenges. It will discuss how the Australian tourism industry must now, more than ever, be prepared to continually adapt and refocus on the changing needs and dynamics of the industry and local communities. It will look at how to maximise opportunities for, and minimise constraints to, growing the tourism industry in Australia. The sustainable development of tourism is a task that extends well beyond the confines of the tourism industry itself. That task involves many sectors and enterprises which have a direct and indirect influence on tourism—transport, roads, regional development, education, environment, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interests, immigration, economic policy, health and many others. Failure to tap into these interests in the development of tourism limits the potential to grow tourism as an industry. The conference was initiated by Tourism Queensland to provide a national level forum for all players in the industry to obtain high level briefings on the current performance of the industry, forecasts, trends and best practices; view an integrated picture of tourism covering all the key components; and participate in the debate and contribute to resolutions for future directions. The conference is the first to take a holistic approach towards dealing with the industry's future. Now is the perfect time for us to look at our industry's future from a national perspective, and Tourism Queensland has been overwhelmed by the level of interest in the conference. Tourism has come a long way from an industry that no-one took particularly seriously 20 to 30 years ago to now being the biggest export earner for Australia. There is hardly a community in Australia today that is not touched by tourism in some way, so it is very pertinent for us as a national industry to look at ways to better work together for the future. This conference will bring together some of the most respected and influential minds in Australia today to address issues ranging from trends and partnerships to challenges and opportunities. It also provides the opportunity for the tourism industry to broaden its partnerships outside the immediate industry. To take advantage of future opportunities, it is essential for our industry to develop effective partnerships not just within the industry but also with other industry sectors, government and host communities. The conference focus is quite broad, looking at subjects including information technology, the environment, aviation, native title, infrastructure, education and many more.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Rural Water Use Efficiency Program Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (10.03 a.m.), by leave: Water is a precious resource that affects everything we do as Queenslanders—whether it be in the home, on the land in primary production or turning the wheels of industry. Because water is such a finite resource, particularly in rural areas, it is essential that primary producers are encouraged to use water in the most cost-effective and efficient way possible. The Queensland government's $41 million Rural Water Use Efficiency program is helping farmers access the best technology available to get the most out of every drop of water available and is the envy of every state and territory in the Commonwealth. Under the program, financial assistance is available to primary producers through their industry associations to purchase water equipment, technology and services to achieve best practice in irrigation water management. Individual primary producers can apply for subsidies of up to 75 per cent of the cost of equipment such as water meters, surge valves, soil monitoring equipment, weather stations, improved irrigation systems and training and consultancies. The resultant efficiencies in water use are helping irrigators increase productivity, produce a higher 1052 Parliament House, Water Supply 17 Apr 2002 quality product and increase their yield while reducing operating costs, water wastage and the impact on the environment. I am delighted to inform the House that the government's Rural Water Use Efficiency program is proving an overwhelming success in rural Queensland. Since the start of the scheme, almost $5 million has been paid out in financial assistance to irrigation farmers. The funding has been shared between 3,000 producers from around the state who received an average of $1,662 each. As the second phase of the program's financial scheme reaches midway point, the success of the initiative is obvious. The partnership between government and industry has been a success and the better use of available water has economic benefits for farmers. The initiative is on target to achieve an increase in agricultural production of some $280 million by the current completion date of July 2003. This is equivalent to what would have been achieved by supplying an additional 180,000 megalitres of water annually. Efficient water use remains an important priority for the Beattie government and making better use of limited water resources is an investment to stimulate regional economies and create new jobs.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Integrated Planning Act; Atherton Shire Council Hon. N. I. CUNNINGHAM (Bundaberg—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Planning) (10.06 a.m.), by leave: As all members would be aware, Queensland councils are currently undertaking the vitally important task of preparing planning schemes that are compliant with the Integrated Planning Act. Today I am pleased to inform the House that I recently gave the final sign-off to Atherton Shire Council's IPA compliant planning scheme. Atherton Shire Council is to be congratulated on its achievement—the preparation of the first IPA compliant scheme in far- north Queensland. The state has completed two whole-of-government reviews of Atherton's scheme to ensure that state and regional interests have been addressed. While I have agreed that the council can now proceed to adopt its new scheme, I have set conditions which will require some amendments to the plan. Those conditions relate primarily to protection of the state's interests in relation to forestry activities, water quality in Lake Tinaroo and good quality agricultural land. Many members, particularly those from far-north Queensland, would be aware of the controversy surrounding the council's proposals for development on part of the Camp Tinaroo Peninsula. From the state government's perspective, water quality is the main issue. I can inform the House that a risk assessment of the area indicates negligible impacts if proper water quality protection measures are installed. The council has already included stringent provisions in the scheme relating to the development on the Camp Tinaroo Peninsula, and the conditions I have imposed further strengthen these provisions. It is now up to the Atherton Shire Council to properly control and manage development on the peninsula under its new planning scheme. The Atherton Shire Council deserves acknowledgment for its achievement with the planning scheme. The council put in a major effort, with assistance from the Department of Local Government and Planning. As many members would be aware, last year the department released a guideline and template scheme which has proven particularly valuable to Queensland's smaller councils. In the near future, my department will complete a second template for larger councils. The department has been working closely with Ipswich, Caboolture and Noosa councils to develop this second template. Finally, I congratulate Queensland councils on the progress that they are making to develop IPA compliant planning schemes. I strongly urge them to continue to give this work their top priority.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Queensland Ambulance Service Hon. M. F. REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (10.08 a.m.), by leave: Just a decade ago, the only qualification needed to work as an ambulance officer was a first aid certificate. I am very proud to be able to tell the House today that the first group of 10 ambulance paramedics has now graduated with a university degree. The inaugural graduands were awarded with a Bachelor of Health Science in Emergency Health Services in a Queensland University of Technology graduation ceremony earlier this year. This was a very proud and historic moment for them and a 17 Apr 2002 Parliament House, Water Supply 1053 milestone for the Queensland Department of Emergency Services. Perhaps even more significantly, this event was indeed the emergence of a new health profession in and for Queensland. The degree course has been jointly prepared and produced by QUT and the Queensland Ambulance Service to take paramedics to a new level of professionalism. It is the state's first degree for emergency care workers, and the first 10 to complete it are all intensive care paramedics. Areas of study included occupational health and safety, public health and health services management. Electives were also chosen in areas such as physiology and epidemiology. An increasing number of QAS personnel can now offer advanced management, research and clinical expertise. The graduates are now also qualified to work in other health areas, giving them a much broader perspective and understanding of the work they perform as ambulance officers. These graduates have brought the Queensland Ambulance Service into a new era. The upgrading of training and qualifications to a university degree course can mean only one thing—a more professional ambulance service delivering top-class pre-hospital medical care to all Queenslanders. These ambulance officer graduates are the first of a new generation of university trained paramedics. They are the trail blazers for an emerging health profession in this Smart State and, dare I say, will be its leaders in the 21st century as well. The Beattie government is committed to delivering the best possible emergency services to all Queenslanders throughout our vast state. The Queensland Ambulance Service, through this university degree course, has shown that it is ready and very able to meet this challenge.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Anzac Day Trust Appeal Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.12 a.m.), by leave: Without doubt, Anzac Day is one of the most important days in the history of this country. It is a time when we pay tribute to those brave men and women who fought for us and for our families. It is crucial that we make every effort to assist those war veterans and their families. Each year, we ask any business in Queensland that trades on Anzac Day to make a voluntary donation, big or small, to the Anzac Day Trust run by my department. This appeal by the trust has been a tradition since 1965 under legislation allowing places of public entertainment and amusement to open during the afternoon and the evening of Anzac Day. The trust does receive an annual grant from the state government, but it relies on donations from the public to help carry out its charitable work. I hope that this year, 2002, might be one of our best when businesses really dig deep to help the real heroes of this country. Last year, the trust raised just $15,165 thanks to the support of some 75 businesses. But, disappointingly, that is less than the year before, and I know that there are many more businesses out there that could lend a hand. These donations go directly to institutions, organisations and associations that provide financial assistance to ex-service personnel and their families. As our war veterans and their families grow older, naturally they become more dependent on community assistance, and we need to meet those needs. I urge all Queensland businesses that benefit from the Anzac Day trading hours to do the right thing and to donate some of their profits on the day to this very worthy cause. As the trust chairman Miles Farmer said, 'We are simply asking businesses to sacrifice a little for those who sacrificed a lot.' The Anzac Day Trust has now mailed out requests for donations to hundreds of businesses around the state, and I ask all members of this House to ask their local businesses to dig deep next Thursday.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Resourcing Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.15 a.m.), by leave: Matters have been raised in the House in relation to the size of the Premier's Department. I have asked my department to put together some material which will be of interest to members. Let me stress that this information has been put together in a hurry. If there is any more material, I am happy to provide it. As at 30 June last year the Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet had a staff of 576. The figure for those departments provided in official 1054 Parliament House, Water Supply 17 Apr 2002 reports at the same date in New South Wales was 510. So, it is not twice the size as claimed and not 50 per cent bigger. We both have staffing in the 500s. I suggest that it is easier to compare state departments which may have similar objectives than to compare states with the federal government. Let us look at just one comparison with the federal government. My department's Office of Public Service Merit and Equity had a staffing level of 35 as at 30 June last year, whereas the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet staffing figures do not include the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission, which totalled 158. So in this instance apples were compared with oranges. Using the opposition's argument, the Prime Minister has a section four times the size of mine to deal with roughly the same issues. I am sure there is more to it than that. But, once again, that would bring the staffing for the Departments of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission into the 500s—that is, 521—as at 30 June 2001. To make my government more effective and to ensure that I delivered results, I have added units to my department since 1998—and for that I make no apology. This is about getting the best for Queensland. The units include the Policy Division, International Collaborations and Regional Communities. The policy staff provide the government with expert advice on ways to address the many challenges facing Queensland, such as the recent changes in public liability insurance and their impact on non-profit organisations across the state. The international collaborations team is busy identifying new opportunities for Queensland on the world stage. These opportunities involve new research collaboration such as medical research, niche export opportunities and teacher and student exchange programs. This is what the Smart State is all about—improving our education and training system and enhancing the jobs available to future generations of Queenslanders. The Regional Communities Program ensures that this government is directly and continually informed about key issues impacting on Queenslanders living outside Brisbane. I make no apology for being committed to the bush or to the regions of this state. More importantly, we are informed about those Queenslanders' ideas and how best to address these issues and challenges based on their valuable knowledge and experience. This is a key priority of the government, one that requires dedicated resources to ensure its ongoing success. Whilst other units have disappeared, these changes have resulted in a net gain of about 150. So how does this compare with New South Wales? In New South Wales there is a separate department of women, whereas since winning government in 1998 I moved the Office of Women into my department. So my department has the Office of Women—in New South Wales it does not. I am determined to make a difference for women and have set an example by ensuring that we have a record number of MPs. There are 28 people working in this office—28 reasons why the numbers have increased. I make no apology for advancing the cause of women. The Premier should lead on the issue of women. In the Borbidge government, native title was used as a political weapon. I have 48 staff in Native Title Services and Queensland's success in resolving native title issues stands out. Queensland has achieved consent determinations on 18 of the 24 native title claims settled in Australia—not a bad outcome in a very difficult area. In addition, Queensland has been at the forefront of negotiating ILUAs, most recently for mineral exploration and small mining. To date, 22 ILUAs have been registered in Queensland. These successful outcomes require staff on the ground rather than wasting millions of dollars in protracted court proceedings as did the Borbidge government. In other words, I employ 48 public servants who are saving the taxpayers millions of dollars which would have been spent in court fees under the Borbidge confrontation system. That is 48 staff which, it would appear, from the documents my staff have examined, the New South Wales Premier's Department and the Prime Minister's department do not have. So we have an extra role and, because of the nature and importance of mining and of indigenous claims in Queensland, we should have such an extra unit. I make no apology for trying to resolve native title. I also have established an indigenous cultural heritage task force, a Cape York justice strategy unit and a Cape York coordination unit to develop partnerships and new hope for Aboriginal communities. They all are reasons why my department has grown. We are trying to solve the problems that were in the previous government's too-hard basket. Queensland is now the Smart State and I now have an e-democracy unit in my department. I am determined to double the $500 million a year that we earn from the export of our education and training services. I have established a unit in my department to go out and get that $500 17 Apr 2002 Private Members' Statements 1055 million a year and the thousands of new jobs that will come with it. The cost? The wages of another six public servants who are in the newly-created Queensland Education and Training International Unit. We needed extra people to run special functions such as CHOGM and the Centenary of Federation Queensland. Queensland is a highly decentralised state, covering vast distances. We need more resources to deal with issues, say, in comparison to states such as Victoria. The Borbidge government did not deliver for the people of regional Queensland; we are. The Borbidge government occasionally met in regional centres, but it certainly did not have open house where anyone could walk off the street and talk to a cabinet minister or a director-general. We hold community cabinets where people can do just that. We hold community forums where ministers are accessible to communities. I now have a Community Engagement Division to ensure that people in rural and regional Queensland have an input into government and I have eight regional offices, each with staff. So this department is roughly comparable in size with that in New South Wales and the federal government's. It is dishonest to say otherwise. We are not greatly larger, as alleged. As well, as I said yesterday, I am an active Premier on behalf of an active can-do government. Again, I make no apology for that. In March 1998, the former Borbidge government made 25 announcements, four of which were critical of native title and one which urged people to celebrate Commonwealth Day. In March this year, we made 68 announcements because we have announcements to make on things that we are delivering. That is nearly three times the number of announcements made by the government of which Mr Horan and Mr Quinn were members, and that is the difference. Those figures and that material were put together hastily to try to assist the House. I just make the point that Queensland is different. We are a government that has a responsibility to all the regions in the bush. I ask Mr Horan and Mr Quinn: which public servants do they want to sack? Which programs do they want to get rid of? They should come out and name the day when they want to get rid of our regional commitment, our rural commitment, our commitment to resolving native title and our commitment to e-democracy. They should come out and indicate clearly which public servants they want to sack. I look forward to the unions coming out and supporting us in support of their members. Let me make it clear: we are going to deliver for this state. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: They do not like it when I come in here and tell the truth. The facts speak for themselves.

SITTING HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.21 a.m.): I advise honourable members that the House will continue to meet today past 7.30 p.m. The House can break for dinner at 7 p.m. 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.

NOTICE OF MOTION Corporate Assistance Grants Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.21 a.m.): I give notice that tonight I shall move— That this House condemns the government's policy of hiding behind commercial-in-confidence provisions to keep corporate assistance grants secret and calls on the government to provide the people of Queensland with full accountability for government departments and government owned corporations.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Unemployment Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.22 a.m.): At the bottom of the jobs pile in Australia lies the Beattie Labor government. Once again, for the 19th month in a row, this government has come last in the unemployment stakes. The backbenchers of this government must be appalled at the lack of performance by the Premier and his ministers 1056 Private Members' Statements 17 Apr 2002 in addressing unemployment in this state. How do those members feel about coming last for 19 months? What do they tell their constituents when Queensland repeatedly has the worst unemployment figure in mainland Australia? Unemployment in South Australia is one per cent ahead of Queensland's unemployment rate. When it comes to unemployment, the government is failing. This government is the worst in mainland Australia for unemployment figures. Under this government, the gap between the average unemployment figures in Australia and those in Queensland is widening. Since the Beattie government has been in power, Queensland's unemployment rate has on average been 1.1 per cent above the national rate. Over the past 12 months, Queensland's unemployment rate has been 1.44 per cent above the national average. The Minister for Employment stands up in this place and talks about all his little schemes—painting rocks white and all of those sorts of things—but do we get anything solid? What is he doing about targeting the areas in this state where there is high unemployment? Has the government picked out those parts of the state where there is an unemployment problem and done something about it? The government introduced the Smart State political slogan. That was supposed to solve all the problems. But it has not, because people want real jobs, they want infrastructure, they want a targeted plan, they want something that gives them a job so that they can consistently take home a pay packet. Despite all the glossy brochures, despite all the media stunts, this government has the worst unemployment record in mainland Australia. The fact of life in Queensland is that the government has failed the unemployed; it has failed those who need a job in this state. Time expired.

Traffic Control Operations Australia Mr POOLE (Gaven—ALP) (10.24 a.m.): This morning I rise to speak about a rather worrying issue that I feel should be raised in the public interest. It is unfortunate that in today's informed society a bunch of crooks can still come up with another way of scamming the hard-earned cash from the more vulnerable people in the community. It is happening on the Gold Coast and probably in other areas as well. I am talking about advertisements being placed in local newspapers calling for qualified and experienced traffic controllers for immediate starts in employment. However, the advertisements go on to say that if a person is not qualified, they will train them up and give them a job. People have to do only a five-hour course on a Thursday afternoon after paying $104.50 and $250 for a uniform. A guaranteed job goes with it. The problem is that too many of these punters are coming into my office complaining—surprise, surprise—that they depart with the cash, do the training, but there is no job offer. The same company keeps getting named—Traffic Control Operations Australia, a Brisbane and Gold Coast based operation. It advertises as being the largest employer of traffic controllers. It is a sad affair when the less fortunate part with their money in the hope of gaining employment. Some of the people to whom I have spoken have had no work offered and others have had a maximum of 10 hours. I take this opportunity to make people aware that there is an unscrupulous element waiting like vultures to fleece the unsuspecting. I warn them to do their own checks before handing over the $104.50 and the cost of a crisp new uniform to make sure that there is a possibility of a job at the end of the course and to speak to someone else first. Those people should check with the union that has coverage of the industry and it will be able to assist in advising of the company's bona fides and tell people whether it is dodgy or not. I have a separations certificate saying that a person has been dismissed because of the lack of employment. That certificate was issued on 2 March. On 30 March, Traffic Control Operations Australia ran the same ad saying that it is desperately in need of employees. Shame on this company! Time expired.

Gold Coast Trade Delegation to Noumea Mr BELL (Surfers Paradise—Ind) (10.26 a.m.): Mr Speaker, I rise to surprise you, and perhaps the other members of this House, to laud and applaud the Beattie Labor government. Recently, the Premier exercised his discretion to approve my daily travelling allowance to the 17 Apr 2002 Questions Without Notice 1057 international rate when in October I lead the Gold Coast trade delegation to Noumea in New Caledonia. Of course, I will still be out of pocket, because I have to take my electoral assistant to do some of the work, but that allowance helps. I agree that the export of goods and services helps the job position in this state. The Noumea market is particularly good for the Gold Coast because it is of a scale that we can manage to service from the Gold Coast. The costs in New Caledonia are about three times what they are here, so our goods and services appear to be very cheap over there. This year is the 10th anniversary of the signing of the sister-city relationship between Noumea and the Gold Coast. I went over to Noumea and signed it as Mayor of the Gold Coast 10 years ago. The Minister for the Arts will be interested to know that the October delegation will also include the Gold Coast Philharmonic Orchestra, which will display a little bit of Gold Coast culture to the Noumeans, providing that we can get some sponsorship. In the past, the trade missions to New Caledonia that I have been involved in have been spectacular successes. I believe that the October mission will be no less spectacular. It will create jobs. There will be an impetus for employment on the Gold Coast. I agree with the Beattie Labor government that this is a good way to attack the unemployment problem. I also thank the Minister for State Development in his absence in anticipation of favourable consideration when I ask for a very small budget allocation from him to entertain some of the movers and shakers of Noumea. Time expired.

Cairns Music and Arts Exports Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (10.28 a.m.): I am pleased to report to members a growing export industry in Cairns, and that is music and the arts. There has been a fine and long history of various music and arts being exported south, as it were, to other regions in Australia. Of course, we should not forget that Xavier Herbert was a Cairns writer. We have had a tremendous number of indigenous artists over the years. The most famous of the contemporary crew are probably the Lockhart River gang, whose art is selling well around Australia— Mr Welford interjected. Ms BOYLE: In fact, as the minister says, around the world. We have performing artists, for example, from the Just Us Theatre Ensemble, who have toured two of their contemporary productions, Barmaids and Bedtime Stories with Auntie Dee, throughout Queensland over the past year. On the international front, I am pleased to say that our artists are active. The Tjapukai cultural dance troupe has been famous and sought after around the world. May I also inform honourable members that individual artists have done equally well. Lone White, who is an eminent Cairns potter and president of the Visual Arts Association, Cairns, frequently provides tuition and training in countries all over Europe and sometimes in Asia. I am able to report, too, on a musical troupe which toured Guam just last month. It was indeed a multicultural tour, led by Herman Soenario, who is the director of Encore Concerts in Cairns, who took with him two Ukrainian pianists who are well-known in Cairns. I am pleased to inform honourable members that Kathryn Ash, the writer of Bag o' Marbles, which is presently being performed in Brisbane, has been invited to present her play in New York and she will travel there to do so next month. I suggest to honourable members not only that we have fine artists and musicians but that we will hear more of them. Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for private members' statements has expired.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Mr W. T. D'Arcy; Sexual Abuse Victim Mr HORAN (10.30 a.m.): I direct my question to the Premier. In the House earlier this year in relation to Peter Hollingworth meeting with victims of sexual abuse, the Premier said, 'The Governor-General should meet the victims.' Why does the Premier have one rule for others and another rule for himself? Yesterday he told the media— 1058 Questions Without Notice 17 Apr 2002

I can't meet with everybody. I'm not trying to be discourteous. That's why I have 18 other ministers. I refer the Premier to the response of his previous Minister for Families, Anna Bligh, to a former resident of Westbrook Detention Centre and Neerkol, in which she stated— While I understand your disappointment, it will not be possible for the Premier or myself to meet with you individually. Does the Premier have 18 other ministers so that they can tell these victims that nobody from the government is interested in meeting them? Mr BEATTIE: The allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition are not true. There is one article which I have in relation to approaches to government from a particular group of people. Let me advise the House of the level of contact. The Leader of the Opposition has not indicated a particular person, but I think we are talking about the same person. The particular person has regular—at times, weekly—contact with senior bureaucrats or senior advisers in Judy Spence's office. In fact, I understand there is a group arising out of the Forde inquiry process which the Director-General of Families meets with monthly. The current minister, Judy Spence, has held discussions with the person concerned or former residents of a particular institution in person on at least four occasions since becoming minister in February last year, beginning on 13 March last year, shortly after she became minister. On 7 June 2001 she hosted the second anniversary reconciliation event, which was attended by the person concerned. On 6 September last year she met with the person concerned and the group. She also met the individual and others on 6 March this year. She is due to meet them again next week on Tuesday, 23 April at the opening of a peer support group funded by the Families Department. I will refer to Anna Bligh's meetings with abuse victims who attended the Forde inquiry when she was minister. She met with numerous victims of abuse who gave testimony to the Forde inquiry. Staff from her office also met with victims and were in regular telephone contact with a range of victims. In addition, the then Director-General, Ken Smith, and senior officers of the Department of Families met with victims. Meetings with Minister Bligh are as follows, but this is not exhaustive: Forde commission of inquiry, inspired by meetings with three victims of the Neerkol orphanage; numerous meetings with the individual referred to by the Leader of the Opposition; at least two meetings with Project Micah and with two other individuals; morning tea at Project Micah with a number of victims, including two whose names I will not mention; meeting with another individual, a former resident; meeting with another and her lawyers to discuss concerns with the legal system; many discussions with individual members of abuse at various functions related to the establishment and reporting of the Forde commission of inquiry. Also, victims were notified and invited to attend when the Forde report and government response was tabled in parliament. There was a reception here at Parliament House and I attended with the minister and met the victims concerned, including the one referred to. She also held meetings with victims at community cabinet. There has also been regular contact with my office. Today there is much issue with my office not replying to a letter from the network for former residents of Queensland Institutions. I table their letter to me and two replies from my office. They wrote to me on 11 January. An acknowledgment from my office was sent on 17 January to the first signatory of the original letter. A formal reply was sent on 4 April, again to the first signatory. It appears as though the information may not have been forwarded to the other parties. That was provided yesterday. A member of my staff, Richard Cleal, meets him regularly. There was contact from one of the individuals to my office on 16 April, 10 April, 9 April, 4 March and 27 February, all of which were replied to.

Sexual Abuse Victims Mr HORAN: I direct my question to the Premier. Present in the gallery today is a representative of the Historical Abuse Network, HAN, which represents the former residents of state and church run children's institutions. As the Premier has said, this group wrote to him on 11 January to request a round table meeting with him. On 4 April the Premier's chief of staff wrote to this group to tell them their round table meeting was not going to happen. How does this fit with the Premier's instructions to the Governor-General to use his powerful position to help victims with the healing process? Now that the Premier has over 880 staff in his office, can he not have his diary arranged better so that he can meet with these people— 17 Apr 2002 Questions Without Notice 1059

Mr BEATTIE: I rise to a point of order. I have informed the House this morning of the numbers in my department. That reference by the Leader of the Opposition is not true, and I draw that to the attention of the House and I seek that it be withdrawn. It is not true. Mr HORAN: I withdraw that. Now that the Premier has massive staff numbers in his office, can he not have his diary arranged better so that he can meet with these people to help in the healing process? Couldn't the Premier's staff cancel stunts like swimming with sharks, wearing funny hats and meeting Inspector Gadget so that he could meet with these victims? Instead of being a media tart, why does he not become a champion for these victims by meeting with them personally, as he said the Governor-General should? Mr BEATTIE: Can I table for the information of the House the letter from the network for former residents, a reply from my chief of staff on 17 January and a reply from my chief of staff on 4 April. One of the members of that organisation—and here is the list of contacts, going backwards in terms of dates—rang my office on 16 April, 10 April, 9 April, 4 March, 27 February, 26 February, 25 February, 6 February, 30 January, 29 January, 29 January, 11 December last year, 30 November last year, 23 November last year, 21 November last year, 6 November last year—and the list goes on. Every one of those calls has been replied to by Richard Cleal on my staff. One of the concerned victims now has the letter which was sent back in April. It was given to him this morning. He was unaware that we had written to one of the other members of the group before he spoke to the media and he said that to my staff member. As well, we have regular calls to the Premier's office and they are responded to by Richard. I understand that the officer meets with him from time to time on a regular basis. As a result of a call he made to me on talk-back radio on 24 August last year, there were a number of meetings that I arranged and a full report following those was made to me. He wrote to me again on 25 January. That letter included very favourable comment on the efforts of my staff and how I had kept faith with the assurances given to him in August that I would have the matters raised followed up. This has been the only government in the history of Queensland that has had the guts to establish an inquiry—the Forde inquiry. I want to make certain that everybody understands exactly what we have done. The 1999-2000 state budget allocated $40 million in recurrent funding over four years to implement the government's responses to the recommendations of the Forde inquiry. Funds were allocated as $10 million in 1999-2000, rising by $10 million per year to $40 million in 2000-03 to improve services for the care and protection of children. I ask for this document to be included in Hansard to provide more detail for the House. Leave granted. FORDE INQUIRY The 1999/2000 State Budget allocated $40 million in recurrent funds over 4 years to implement the Government's responses to the recommendations of the Forde Inquiry. Funds were allocated as $10 million in 1999/2000, rising by $10 million/year to $40 million in 2002/03 to improve services for the care and protection of children. This investment therefore represented an almost 50% increase in the child protection budget and was the single largest commitment to increase child protection spending by any Queensland Government. The sole objective in allocating these funds was to achieve, to best extent possible, the Government's commitments and undertakings outlined in its responses to the recommendations of the Forde Inquiry. Funds were planned for allocation in the following broad areas: Increase 'frontline' service delivery staff by 250 (over 4 years); and by 15 admin/support staff and 8 Senior Practitioners—a planned total staff increase (by 30/6/03) of 273. Address Past Abuse through the Forde Foundation and other programs Implement Youth Justice recommendations such as closing Sir Leslie Wilson, opening the new Brisbane (Wacol) YDC and complementary and enhanced YJ programs. Build community sector capacity and address viability in the non-government child protection and family support sector A specific focus on the Indigenous child protection sector (eg. AICCAs) Introduce licensing of alternative care services Other ancillary child protection enhancement initiatives—eg. training, advocacy, peaks, plus minor boosts to foster care, child related costs and children with disabilities in care. Mr BEATTIE: The government is now spending almost $110 million a year on child protection. The government's spending on child protection is at an all-time high and child protection officer numbers are at a record number. This is the most to be spent on child protection in the history of Queensland. In 2000-03, funds to improve services for the care and protection of 1060 Questions Without Notice 17 Apr 2002 children will be $45 million more than in 1998-99, which is up almost 50 per cent on when we came to office, when Mr Horan was the Health Minister. In addition to that, we have established the $2 million Forde Foundation. We have had some contributions from the churches. The interest from the foundation has been used. There have been two rounds of funding and 145 people have received assistance. The money has been used for family reunion costs, counselling support services and self-improvement expenses. We understand these people have been hurt, we understand the difficulty and the pain, and we have done what we can and we will continue to help these people who need support and assistance.

Queensland Greats Awards Mrs REILLY: I refer the Premier to the strong support that he has always given Queensland Week, and I ask: is there anything that ordinary Queenslanders can do now to contribute to the success of Queensland Week celebrations? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for the question; it is a good one. There are many great Queenslanders, and I want my fellow Queenslanders to tell the government about the best of them. Today I am calling on Queenslanders to nominate outstanding individuals for a 2002 Queensland Greats award. In June, during Queensland Week celebrations, I will name five 2002 Queensland Greats. This is the second year of this program. These will be people who embody qualities of dedication and commitment to the community and the state. The awards honour people who have made a long-term contribution to the life of the state through decades of endeavour and commitment. They are special people who have notched up important achievements throughout their lives. In 2001 I announced the recipients of the inaugural awards—Mr Ted Smout, OAM; Dr Joe Baker, OBE; Dr Robert Anderson, OAM; Ms Diane Cilento; and Sister Angela Mary Doyle, AO. These individuals have been outstanding ambassadors for the state and their efforts have helped make Queensland the great place it is. Members may recall that during the recent visit by Her Majesty the Queen I took the opportunity to present these Queensland Greats to Her Majesty. In common with them, the 2002 Queensland Greats will be honoured with a brass plaque at Roma Street Parkland. I look forward to announcing another five Queensland Greats and I encourage Queenslanders to nominate deserving people for these awards. Nominees should have made a significant contribution to the state over a period of decades and should be enthusiastic about Queensland's future. The awards will be presented on Wednesday, 5 June as part of the Queensland Day celebrations from 2 to 9 June 2002. The week-long celebrations will feature an extensive program of events throughout Queensland celebrating the state's people, places and achievements. Nominations for the Queensland Greats awards close on Thursday, 2 May 2002. Nomination forms are available by calling 3405 5215 or by visiting the Queensland Week web site at www.premiers.qld.gov.au/qldweek. Having answered her question, I know that the questioner will not mind if I move on to another issue. Yesterday the Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane announced that he had written to the Prime Minister seeking a national inquiry into child abuse. I have also written to the Prime Minister. I believe this is so important that it should be incorporated in Hansard, and I seek leave to do so. Leave granted. The Honourable John Howard MP Prime Minister Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Dear John, The Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane, Dr Phillip Aspinall, recently announced his intention to establish an inquiry to uncover the truth of the Anglican Church's handling of past sexual abuse. I fully support this initiative, however I understand that Dr Aspinall has encountered genuine difficulties in his search for a suitable inquiry head. The Anglican Church has encountered the pitfalls of establishing an inquiry that does not offer protection and lacks power to compel witnesses. I also support the Archbishop's view that an inquiry into child abuse needs a national focus. Child abuse has occurred in many institutions, impacts on Australians of all cultural backgrounds and walks of life, and is not confined to State or Territory boundaries. Children in Queensland are as vulnerable as children elsewhere in Australia. 17 Apr 2002 Questions Without Notice 1061

Therefore, I would ask you to consider establishing a national inquiry into child abuse. The fundamental cornerstone of any genuine search for the truth is ensuring independence, combined with the power to gather full evidence and provide protection to witnesses. I trust you will give this request your urgent attention and look forward to your positive and early response. Yours sincerely (sgd) Peter Beattie MP Premier and Minister for Trade Mr BEATTIE: We have sought to support the archbishop. The reason we have done that is very simply this: in Queensland we had the Forde inquiry. I have made reference to that. That was part of the healing process. I know that not everyone is happy with the outcomes, even though the government has implemented all but one of those recommendations. What we have sought to do is support people. Queensland has had an inquiry as part of a healing process. But we need to do this nationally. That is because paedophiles do not respect state borders. On the weekend, as part of the announcement, I announced our blue card. We need to have a national card at a national level.

Queensland Thoroughbred Racing Board Mr HOBBS: I ask the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice: can he confirm whether there has been any unauthorised access to Crown Law advice or other documents or any tampering with any of the files in his department or any other departments relating to the recently nominated board members or either of the two nominated chairs of the Queensland Thoroughbred Racing Board? Mr WELFORD: There is certainly, to my knowledge, no tampering of any Crown Law advice or documents in files from my or any other department in relation to the selection or appointment of people to any board. If the honourable member has any information relating to those matters which he wishes to draw to my attention I am happy to receive it. But to my knowledge, I am not aware of any such circumstances.

Education, East Timor Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: I ask the Premier and Minister for Trade: can he inform the House how the government is sharing its Smart State education initiatives with one of our closest neighbours, East Timor? Mr BEATTIE: I am delighted to say that, having established strong links with the democratically elected government of East Timor, the government is now working with Nudgee International College to offer a group of young East Timorese the benefits of a Smart State education. Four East Timorese secondary students arrived in Brisbane last week and started studying here on Monday. I am delighted to welcome them to the gallery today. They will be taking a tour of Parliament House to learn more about the seat of democracy in Queensland. We have just seen the democratic elections in East Timor. I wish the new administration every success. The students are Ms Ester da Costa Correia, from St Antonio Secondary School; Mr Juliao dos Reis, from St Pedro Secondary School; Mr Joao Baptista, from the Ave Maria Secondary School; and Ms Floriana Pinto, from the Quatro de Setembro Secondary School. Forgive my pronunciations. I hope I was somewhere close. You can tell me later how close I got. It is great to see you in the gallery today. The scholarship program is a joint effort by the state government and the Nudgee International College. It grew out of a trade mission to East Timor in July last year led by the Education Minister, Anna Bligh. The Whip was also a member of that delegation. It has been enthusiastically embraced by the East Timorese government. In February of this year, Ms Sally Bannah of Education Queensland, who is also in the gallery, and Brian Lewis of Nudgee International College travelled to Dili to assist in the selection of the scholars. The students were selected from a total of 28 applicants from the districts across East Timor. The selection process was arranged through consultation with the Australian Mission in East Timor and the East Timorese Ministry of Education, Culture, Youth and Sport. The students' program while in Queensland includes a 30-week English language training course at Nudgee International College and years 11 and 12 schooling at St Joseph's Nudgee 1062 Questions Without Notice 17 Apr 2002

College and the Corpus Christi College, commencing in the first term of 2003. Education Queensland is coordinating the program and taking responsibility for monitoring and reporting on the students' progress. The scholarship covers tuition fees, accommodation, textbooks, uniforms, return airfares to East Timor and spending money. The total cost of the program is $355,660 and is to be shared equally between the Queensland government and the Nudgee International College. This is a solid commitment to the people of East Timor. A well educated society is a cornerstone of democracy, and education will be a key for the future prosperity of this fledgling nation. East Timorese people are our close friends and neighbours, and this initiative will build ties between the youth of East Timor and the youth of Queensland. I am sure all honourable members join me in wishing our young visitors an enjoyable and productive stay in our state. We look forward to continuing a strong relationship with an independent East Timor. As members know, I visited East Timor and, like many people who have done so, I was devastated by what happened and the destruction there. It is great to see the new face of East Timor and young East Timorese here building a new nation. All we can say is: good luck.

Dingoes, Baiting Program Mr WELLINGTON: I refer the Minister for Natural Resources to the fact that last week he announced a $50,000 one-off dingo baiting campaign for some parts of Queensland. He acknowledged also that state owned lands are largely seen as a refuge for wild dogs to breed and travel to private lands to prey on livestock before returning to the relative safety of state lands. I ask: as the minister's baiting campaign is not suitable for closely settled areas adjoining crown land, what money and/or resources will he provide to get rid of wild dogs in areas where the baiting program is not available, such as in my electorate of Nicklin on the Sunshine Coast? Mr ROBERTSON: The problem on the Sunshine Coast, particularly in the hinterland area, is acknowledged. However, the announcement that I made last week during the debate on the pest and stock route management bill, which I know many honourable members are hoping we will get back to later this week, was that there would be $50,000 in additional money for a special one-off baiting campaign to target those areas, particularly in western Queensland. I am concerned about reports I have been getting that land-holders, particularly those involved in the sheep industry, are apparently making the decision, because of the seriousness of the wild dog problem in western Queensland, to move away from sheep and into cattle, because the impact that wild dogs are having on the sheep numbers is so significant. I am concerned about the economic impact that could be having in western parts of the state. That is why in terms of the additional funding that we have announced we will be targeting areas probably through the sheep belt in western Queensland. Nevertheless, the problem on the Sunshine Coast is acknowledged. I do not want to refer in detail to the legislation; that would be inappropriate because it is still before the House. However, I believe that one of the things that needs to occur on the Sunshine Coast is that local governments in the area need to get on and develop their pest management plans. It is only through coordinated action that difficult areas like the Sunshine Coast hinterland can be addressed. I understand what the member is saying with respect to baiting near urban areas or areas which might be semirural/semiurban. Other tools—such as trapping—are available to councils and land-holders that may get over the problem with baiting so close to urban areas. That is why I encourage the local councils, which will have responsibility once this bill is finalised, to draw up pest management plans. I emphasise to all members—because a number of members have expressed concern to me—that the success of any pest management plan, particularly in terms of wild dogs, relies on the cooperation and coordination of all land-holders in an area. You cannot have a weak link in the chain to address the wild dog problem; as soon as you do, any campaign you may commence is significantly weakened in terms of its effectiveness. My view would be that the member should be concentrating his efforts—and we would support those efforts—in terms of ensuring that his local authorities, the Maroochy Shire Council and others, are up to speed with the new legislation when it comes into force. 17 Apr 2002 Questions Without Notice 1063

Year of the Outback Mrs CHRISTINE SCOTT: I ask the Minister for Education to advise the parliament what Education Queensland is doing to involve schools in celebrating the Year of the Outback. Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. Much of what I have to say will be of direct relevance to her electorate, where many students are studying in some of the most remote parts of the state. The Year of the Outback provides schools across Queensland with an opportunity to provide children with a much better understanding of what life in the outback might be about. I noticed the member for Cunningham last night raised in the House his concerns that too many city kids are unaware of what happens in the real life of the bush. This year provides all of our schools with a chance to use this theme to give young children a much better understanding. I can assure members that our schools are incorporating the theme of the Year of the Outback into all parts of their curriculum wherever they can. There are two specific initiatives that I want to refer to today. They are both competitions that we hope will inspire schools to take up the theme. The first is a competition called 'Adopt an Outback School or Class'. This encourages primary school students across Queensland to form penpal relationships with rural students and to learn more about the differences in their schooling and lifestyles. Partner schools create posters about their new outback friends and city friends and will be able to enter those posters into a competition. The competition will ask the partner schools to put together posters that spell out the things that unite them as well as the differences in their lives. The second competition provides an opportunity to children who are enrolled in schools of distance education. Many children in the outback are not in schools as we know them; they are enrolled through Distance Ed. The distance education system in Queensland is 101 years old this year. This country is one of the world leaders in distance education, but many of those students miss out on things like competitions because they are not in a school environment. The competition is called 'I love where I live because', and students who are enrolled in distance education in years 8, 9 and 10 will be asked to create a piece of artwork that depicts the advantages of living in remote Queensland. The aim of these competitions is to discover more about the school and home lives of students in the outback and forge important links between city and country students. Technology has played an important role in the delivery of distance education, whether it is in distance education schools or in remote schools. That is why the first prize for both of these competitions will be computers. In the first competition, a computer will be provided to the winning partner schools, and in the second competition, the student and their school of distance education will win a computer. The second and third prizes will be school and software resources. I ask all members, particularly those who represent seats in outback Queensland, to urge their school communities to actively encourage schools to join these competitions and to take the chance that the Year of the Outback presents for children in city, regional, rural and remote schools to learn more about the lives that they lead.

Queensland Thoroughbred Racing Board; Mr B. Bentley Mr SEENEY: I refer the Minister for Tourism and Racing to the continuing decline in racing prize money in Queensland relative to other states which is resulting in the loss of trainers, owners, jockeys and jobs interstate. I also refer to the legal action taken by the TAB against the Queensland Thoroughbred Racing Board and some race clubs to stop them taking sponsorship from casinos—an action which, if successful, will further reduce prize money in Queensland racing. Finally, I refer to comments by retired judge Bill Carter at a public meeting on Sunday regarding the conflict of interest of the minister's appointed chairman of the Thoroughbred Racing Board, Mr Bob Bentley, as a board member of the TAB. I quote the retired judge's words— Surely the government must see that conflict is so intense that it is absolutely unacceptable for it to be maintained. I ask the minister to inform the House whose interests will Mr Bentley be representing—the TAB's or the racing industry's? Given the enormous implications for racing if Mr Bentley's TAB board is successful in suing the State Racing Board that he chairs, how can the minister possibly stand by the answer she gave me in parliament last week that this conflict of interest is not a matter for the Racing Minister? Mrs ROSE: I thank the honourable member for the question. There are a couple of points. One, no conflict of interest has arisen. Two, my understanding is— 1064 Questions Without Notice 17 Apr 2002

Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will allow the minister to answer the question. Mrs ROSE: No conflict of interest has yet arisen. My understanding is that no decision on any legal action has in fact been taken. Clearly, whether it is a member of the QTRB or any other board, if there is a conflict of interest, that board member would be expected to declare that conflict of interest— Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked. Mrs ROSE:—and stand down while that particular issue was being discussed. The member is talking about someone on the control body being also a member of the TAB board. This is not the first time that that has happened, where a member of the control body has also been a member of the TAB board. There are a number of instances. When the QTC was the control body for racing in Queensland, Peter Gallagher was sitting on the TAB board at the same time. So this is not setting a precedent. There have been plenty of— Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego will cease interjecting. Mrs ROSE: There have been a number of instances in the past where members of the control body were also members of the TAB board. The Harness Racing Board chair was appointed by Russell Cooper and was also on the TAB board. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I now warn the member for Warrego under standing order 123. Mrs ROSE: So there are a number of instances. Members need to remember that the life of the Queensland Thoroughbred Racing Board is two years. It has to report back to me within 18 months on some options for a company structure for the racing industry. My understanding is that the contracts that the member is referring to are not due for another 13 years or something.

Drink Spiking Mr CHOI: My question is directed to the Minister for Tourism and Racing, Minister for Fair Trading and minister responsible for liquor licensing. I have read a number of alarming reports suggesting that the incidence of drink spiking is on the increase. Can the minister advise what action is being taken to counter this disturbing trend? Mrs ROSE: The member is correct. Drink spiking is a serious and escalating problem. The government is formulating a long-term interagency response to this disturbing trend. As an immediate measure, my Liquor Licensing Division will conduct an awareness campaign in licensed premises across the state. The campaign will start before the end of the month and continue for three months. It will then be assessed as part of our strategy to address the issue. It will involve about 300 licensed premises which trade past 2 a.m. and have nightclub entertainment. The aims are twofold: educating patrons about drink spiking and educating staff about how they can combat the practice. Public awareness posters will be placed in the premises and staff will receive a brochure explaining what they can do to combat drink spiking incidents. Letters were sent yesterday to licensees of the premises identified, seeking their active participation in the campaign. I know that licensees will support the campaign. Sexual assault counselling services tell us that drink spiking is on the increase. The Gold Coast sexual assault clinic quotes figures of eight to 18 cases a month reported to it, but many others go unreported as victims have no memory of what has happened or they are too embarrassed to complain. The Cairns sexual assault centre reports similarly disturbing trends. One counsellor has in the past six weeks dealt with three cases of drug facilitated rape of young schoolgirls under 16 years, the youngest victim being just 14. The girls met young men, went to a party, had their drinks spiked and were raped. No attack was reported to police. We know that fewer than 10 per cent of sexual assaults are reported, so members can see the potential extent of the problem. 17 Apr 2002 Questions Without Notice 1065

The majority of drink spiking incidents, when drinks are laced with either sedative or stimulant drugs, occur in high population areas after midnight in premises that have nightclub-style entertainment. Young people, particularly young women, have to be aware that they may be stalked and they must take precautions. People should not leave drinks unattended, should not allow stalkers to buy them drinks, should stay with friends and should not take chances. If people are attending a party, they should take their own drinks. The Liquor Licensing Division has made licensees aware of the issues relating to drink spiking. I give this assurance to all licensees: we will not hesitate to take immediate action to close venues if we obtain evidence that they or their staff take part in or knowingly allow drink spiking on the premises. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Robina, I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers of St Ignatius School at Toowong in the electorate of Mount Coot-tha.

Electoral System Mr QUINN: I refer the Premier to the fact that the state's gerrymander in the 1980s allowed Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen to win between 50 per cent and 55 per cent of the seats in this parliament with just 40 per cent of the vote. At this time the now Premier quite rightly described the results as 'one of the worst cases of rorting in this state's history' and described the overseers of such a system as 'political criminals'. Now that our current electoral system allows Labor to hold three- quarters of the seats in this parliament with less than 50 per cent of the vote, will the Premier give consideration to appointing respected corruption fighter Tony Fitzgerald to investigate ways to improve our electoral system and report to an all-party committee on what changes should be made to our voting system to ensure fairer results? Or does the ALP intend to go to the next election with the existing distorted electoral system—a system that distorts people's votes twice as much as the infamous gerrymander? Mr BEATTIE: The only reason we had a gerrymander in Queensland from the National Party was that it had Liberal Party support. The Liberal Party was in coalition and the Liberal Party voted for it. The Liberal Party supported it. Mr Quinn: You started it. Mr BEATTIE: As a student of history—as he was a teacher I am sure he would be—the member would know that without the Liberal Party's support there would not have been coalitions and there would not have been the electoral gerrymander, or malapportionment as it is perhaps more accurately called. Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I was about to come to that. One of the major architects of all of this—the person who I understood in fact drafted the electorate of Brisbane Central, which took it over the river to make it a gerrymander—was none other than Don Lane, a well-known member of the Liberal Party before he flip-flopped into the National Party. The Liberal Party has had its paws all over the gerrymander for decades. The member for Robina was a member of the Parliamentary Electoral and Administrative Review Committee. I remember it well. When I was chair of the CJC committee my colleague Matt Foley was chair of EARC and I had a very keen interest in this. The member is quite correct to identify my longstanding interest in electoral reform, because where there is malapportionment or gerrymanders democracy is denied. The member knows that there was a process brought about as a result of Tony Fitzgerald's inquiry. So it has already been through the Fitzgerald process once. It went to the Parliamentary Electoral and Administrative Review Committee and recommendations were made. The member knows that out of that came a one vote, one value system and the fairest electoral boundaries Queensland has probably ever had. There are five electorates in this state in which there is some small weighting. We have endorsed and supported that EARC position. Why do we do that? We do that because we want the bush to be given a fair go. It is about looking after the regions and about ensuring that the bush gets a fair go. If the Liberal Party thinks it does not want the bush to get a fair go, it should say so. Here we have this coalition fight between the National Party and the Liberal Party. This is a statement by the Liberal Party to in some way distance itself from or have a difference with the National Party. There can be no coalition if there are such policy differences that tear at the very fabric and heart of government. When Mr Horan and the member for Robina come back with a 1066 Questions Without Notice 17 Apr 2002 united position, saying that they want the abolition of those five seats, then I will be happy to talk to them. Mr Quinn: That is not the issue. Mr BEATTIE: It is the issue. The member knows that under the current system there are regular redistributions. There is a formula that applies when seats get out of kilter. Indeed, that may well happen in the next term. It will not happen in this term. It may well be that in the next term there is a redistribution, as there was in 1992 when my electorate and the electorate of South Brisbane were made fair.

Beef Industry Mr PEARCE: The Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities would be aware that Rockhampton is currently hosting the World Brahman Congress, which is another feather in the cap of the Queensland beef industry. What is the Queensland government doing to support this important industry? Mr PALASZCZUK: I thank the member for the question. Of course, the member for Fitzroy and the Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing are both strong supporters of the beef industry in central Queensland and are very proud of the fact that Rockhampton is known Australia wide and worldwide as the beef capital of Australia. The honourable member is correct: the 11th World Brahman Congress being held in Rockhampton is certainly another accolade for the beef industry here in Queensland. The introduction of the distinctive Brahman breed in the 1930s has certainly had a profound impact on the northern Australian beef sector. I congratulate the Australian Brahman Breeders Association on its organisation of this event. One of the displays at the congress is the DPI's display in the field of beef breeding services. The DPI is currently establishing a new beef breeding services bull depot and semen collection and processing facility near Rockhampton, at the Belmont Research Station. The new $600,000 centre will be northern Australia's major centre for the collection and processing of bull semen on behalf of stock owners. The DPI currently produces more than 200,000 semen straws annually. With the new facility, the short-term goal is to increase production to 300,000 straws. The DPI also coordinates licensed semen export sales on behalf of our clients, with exports to South-East Asia, South America, China, Africa and Pacific rim countries in recent years. The Queensland government has worked tirelessly with industry to strengthen its export performances. In recent years Queensland's beef exports have eclipsed the $2 billion mark—a rise of $500 million on beef production in Queensland when we came into government back in 1998. Japan is a major market for the Australian beef industry. However, recent difficulties in the Japanese beef market have had a profound impact on our exports into that important market. According to Meat and Livestock Australia, our beef exports to Japan in March were only 15,389 tonnes, which is 56 per cent below last year's exports. However, MLA also reports that our beef is highly regarded by Japanese markets, with a survey finding 62 per cent of people viewing Australian beef as safe compared to only 26 per cent for the US product. Today I can announce that I will be leading a trade mission to Japan next month. I will be joined by representatives from four innovative beef companies which have already had success in Japan. The companies are OBE Beef, Stockyard Beef, the Brigalow Beef Company and the Kilcoy Pastoral Company. Our mission is going to be to reaffirm the clean and safe reputation of Queensland's beef and strengthen our— Mr Hopper: Mr Speaker— Mr PALASZCZUK: Obviously the honourable member has a question for me. I will sit down. Time expired.

Milk Prices; National Foods Mr HOPPER: I refer the Minister for Primary Industries again to the attempt by National Foods to stop dairy farmers securing higher prices for their milk by appealing the ACCC's decision to allow dairy farmers to collectively negotiate milk supply agreements. I ask: when the Beattie government assisted National Foods to set up in Queensland, did the minister impose any 17 Apr 2002 Questions Without Notice 1067 obligations on the company regarding its conduct towards Queensland dairy farmers? What will he do to get National Foods to withdraw its anti-farmer appeal? Mr PALASZCZUK: I thank the member for the question. This is very similar to the question that the honourable member asked yesterday. It is good to see a member who has just become a member of the National Party supporting collective bargaining. Is that correct? Mr Hopper: Yes. Mr PALASZCZUK: Welcome aboard, comrade. The member has asked a very sensible question. The Queensland government did support the dairy farmers' application to the ACCC to authorise them to collectively bargain. As minister I personally raised with the ACCC Chairman, Allan Fels, this very issue back in the year 2000. I welcomed the decision that was announced by the ACCC on 30 March this year to allow dairy farmers to collectively bargain. The ACCC decision essentially allows dairy farmers to collectively negotiate the contractual terms and conditions of raw milk supply to dairy processors. The advice to my office from the ACCC is that the matter involving National Foods is not a court appeal. Rather, it is an application for a review of the ACCC's decision to the Australian Competition Tribunal. It is not appropriate for me as minister to interfere with the rights of parties to seek review of administrative decisions. However, I do not wish National Foods any success in its application to the Australian Competition Tribunal for a review of this decision. The Queensland government supports collective bargaining because it assists dairy farmers. We supported collective bargaining for premium milk supplies, which the ACCC approved back in the year 2001. Let us get back to National Foods. The arrival of National Foods in Queensland has been an important development for the dairy industry. It means new investment. It means new jobs. It means new opportunities for dairy farmers. Like any processor operating in the deregulated dairy market, National Foods is striving to secure milk supply. The member for Darling Down has raised this issue. Let me refer him to the position of Darling Downs dairy farmer Noel Gamble. In the Rural Weekly on 1 February under the headline 'Processing options: dairy farmers banking on a $30,000 gain', the story reads— The business supplies about 2.4 million litres of milk a year, they are expecting about 1.5 cents per litre more as a result of the change to National Foods, which will equate to about $30,000 per year. That speaks for itself.

Supercomputers Mr LEE: I refer the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy to the fact that I understand the state government is spending $10 million on Queensland's supercomputing industry. I ask: can the minister please explain what a supercomputer is and why Queensland needs one? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for his question. Of course, the honourable member has a very keen interest in all things academic and represents an area which includes the main campus of the University of Queensland. A supercomputer is the most powerful of all computers. Supercomputers allow researchers and industry to achieve in minutes what once took months to achieve. They analyse data more efficiently and effectively. They deliver enormous benefits for researchers working in sectors like biotechnology, manufacturing, aerospace, pharmaceuticals and environmental modelling. We have a great commitment, for example, to biotechnology in this state. We simply cannot do that without having high performance computing, the sort of computing that the government is talking about here. A government member interjected. Mr LUCAS: I have a palm pilot in my pocket, but not a supercomputer. Maybe one day we will. Last month I officially launched a supercomputer and visualisation facilities based at the University of Queensland. US computer giant Silicon Graphics has supplied this supercomputer and now lists the University of Queensland as one of its SGI global lighthouse sites. It has just 16 lighthouse sites in the world, and the University of Queensland location is the only one in the Asia- Pacific region—the only one in the Asia-Pacific region, in Brisbane, in Queensland! This program fosters greater global collaboration and recognises the contribution the University of Queensland is making in that instance to the application of technology to science and research in its fields of interest. Having this supercomputer will provide universities and industries across the Smart State with access to the latest supercomputing technology. 1068 Questions Without Notice 17 Apr 2002

The visualisation and advanced computing laboratory will allow researchers to use virtual reality to interpret the vast amounts of information generated by the supercomputer. This government is providing $10 million over three years to the Queensland Parallel Supercomputing Foundation for these facilities. So the Smart State is not just at St Lucia. It is not just at QUT. It is not just at Griffith. It is at universities and research institutions up and down the coast of Queensland, and the benefits are huge. A chemist designing a new drug could use the supercomputer to investigate the molecular structure of pharmaceutical compounds. In fact, that can be done at that facility and also at the Gold Coast campus of Griffith University, where I have seen this process. Researchers can investigate the molecular structure of pharmaceutical compounds and use the visualisation facilities to observe the docking of these drug molecules with cell receptor sites. We are spending this money so that our researchers and industry remain nationally and internationally competitive. This new supercomputer is one of a handful in Australia to offer integrated computational, storage and immersive 3D visualisation capabilities. Later this year new technology will be added to make this the third most powerful supercomputer in Australia and in the top 150 in the world. Researchers across this Smart State are already lining up to use this facility, such as the Genomic Research Centre at Griffith University, the Institute of Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland, the earthquake facility at the University of Queensland, James Cook University's Marine Environmental Modelling Unit and Griffith University's Environmental Science Research Group. QUT and other universities will also make use of it. 'Beautiful one day, smart the next', as they say in Australian biotechnology.

General Agreement on Trade in Services Ms LEE LONG: I refer the Premier and Minister for Trade to the fact that during last week's sitting he answered only the last part of my question in relation to GATS. My constituents would like to know his answer to the other parts of the question, so I shall repeat them. He confirmed that negotiations are proceeding on GATS, the General Agreement on Trade in Services, and I ask: does this mean, firstly, that Queensland services such as health, police, transport, corrections, education, forestry, electricity, water and so on could come up for international tender and, secondly, if the tender is won by a foreign multinational that foreign multinational would then bring to Queensland its own work force? Mr BEATTIE: Services account for roughly a quarter of Queensland's exports and is one of the most rapid creators of employment in Queensland. Therefore, my government supports efforts to free up trade in services where this promotes Queensland's trade and broader community interests. Responsibility for negotiations on international trade agreements such as the General Agreement on Trade in Services lies with the Commonwealth government, not with this government. Based on advice from the Commonwealth, I am satisfied that GATS rules recognise the right of governments to regulate their service sectors. World Trade Organisation members publicly restated this right at the recent ministerial meeting in Doha. Based on Commonwealth advice, I am also satisfied that GATS negotiations will not undermine the Queensland government's ability to determine its own policies in relation to publicly provided education and health services. My government has actively sought to ensure that Queensland's interests are taken into account as the Commonwealth develops its negotiating positions on this and other trade agreements. That specifically covers what the member asked. Indeed, on 7 March I sent a letter to the member. There is a significant level of misinformation in the community about the General Agreement on Trade in Services, GATS, and the implications of the agreement for the delivery of public services. A good deal of public opposition is based on an erroneous belief that GATS will result in the forced privatisation of public services such as education and health. That will not happen. The Commonwealth has advised that it has made no commitments in health services other than allowing limited access for foreign podiatrists and chiropractors. Hence, as a result of the GATS negotiations, Australia will not be obliged to allow foreign medical service suppliers to operate in Australia. The Commonwealth has also advised that public, secondary and higher education has been specifically excluded from its schedule of commitments. No commitments have been made in relation to primary education. The only commitment in relation to education services is in respect of private, tertiary and secondary schools and English language teaching services. 17 Apr 2002 Questions Without Notice 1069

The way that GATS negotiations are conducted means that individual governments decide what sectors they wish to open to foreign competition and the degree to which market opening takes place. The Commonwealth government's position is that decisions will not be undertaken that impact on governments' capacity to regulate in the public interest. That covers the member's question very specifically. If the member wants any more information, I am happy for her to write to me or to raise the issue in here. I know this is a matter of some concern to the member, but I am keeping my eye on it. In these situations, we need balance. We need to protect what is here and we also need access to as many markets as possible. I remind the member—and I know that she knows this—that one in four jobs in the regions of this state comes from exports; it is one in five across the state as a whole. Exports are jobs, and that is what we need to achieve.

Workplace Health and Safety Mr WILSON: I refer the Minister for Industrial Relations to the government's commitment to reduce health and safety incidents in the workplace. What is the government doing about companies which breach the Workplace Health and Safety Act? Mr NUTTALL: This matter is very important, particularly for workers in this state. Of course, the government is committed to a better and safe workplace in Queensland. We are ensuring that our staff are given the resources to help my department better enforce the laws to ensure that workplaces are safe. In the past 12 months we have been tough on a minority of employers who have indeed breached the Workplace Health and Safety Act and who in some way have endangered their workers. I am pleased to say that our efforts in this crucial area are now paying dividends. The number of prosecutions initiated by the Division of Workplace Health and Safety in the last financial year has doubled to 142. Of those 142 prosecution cases, 98 per cent were successful. These prosecutions were brought against companies that span a quite broad range of industries, such as construction, hospitality, electrical, recreation, transport and, of course, manufacturing. Indeed, in the six months to December last year, companies paid out almost $750,000 in fines and costs imposed in the Industrial Magistrates Court for breaches of the Workplace Health and Safety Act. Some of these fines were as high as $50,000. Further, last financial year my department's industrial inspectors received 8,400 wage complaints and also conducted 600 general inspections of time and wage records. On the back of those wage complaints, more than 340 legal actions were initiated, and inspectors helped recover $6.3 million in unpaid wages to Queensland workers. These results are outlined in detail in the latest publication of Queensland workplace prosecutions. Of course, that document will be sent to all Queensland businesses, legal firms and workplace health and safety officers this week. This government wants to raise awareness of the critical importance of correct entitlements in keeping workplaces safe and healthy. Every worker deserves to return home safely to his or her family after work. Mr SPEAKER: I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from Varsity College in the electorate of Robina. Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Anzac Day, Liquor Licensing Mr MALONE: My question is directed to the Minister for Fair Trading. Why has the Liquor Licensing Branch forced RSL clubs throughout Queensland not only to pay for a licence to give our diggers a drink between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. on Anzac Day but to fork out more money to get another licence so the diggers can have a rum and milk at 4 a.m. before they march? Why is the minister's government making it so difficult for diggers to get the traditional rum and milk before they march in the Anzac morning parade? Mrs ROSE: I do not have all the detail before me. Clearly, these are matters dealt with by my Liquor Licensing Division, but if that practice is happening we will stop it. 1070 Private Employment Agencies and Other Acts Amendment Bill 17 Apr 2002

Disability Services Funding Mr PURCELL: My question is directed to the Minister for Disability Services. Last year, the Legacy Trust Fund Act 2001 gave Disability Services Queensland control of more than $390,000 in funding. Will the minister inform the House of the current status of this money? Ms SPENCE: It is always good to rise in this House and to deliver good news for people with disabilities in this state. Before I do so, I report that I have had no good news in the last 24 hours from Senator Vanstone about the $17.5 million the Commonwealth is threatening to withdraw from the Queensland disability budget. However, we will continue to talk with the Commonwealth about that issue. With respect to the Legacy Trust Fund, members will remember that we passed the Legacy Trust Fund Act in this parliament last year which gave Disability Services Queensland the right to distribute more than $390,000 in the Legacy Trust Fund, money that had been donated for over 100 years by generous Queenslanders. Those funds will be distributed to 24 organisations throughout the state, and I shall inform members about some of the organisations which will receive funding. Firstly, in Ipswich the Queensland Blind Cricket Association will receive nearly $20,000 to assist its activities. The Ipswich Vision Impaired Support Group will receive $8,000 to purchase aids and equipment. In Cairns, the Radio for the Print Handicapped will receive $18,000 to train blind and vision impaired people to broadcast programs. This organisation provides broadcast services to more than 1,000 people who are blind or vision impaired in an area from Innisfail in the south to Mossman in the north. In Hervey Bay, the city council will receive $25,000 to help focus groups throughout the Wide Bay area gain a better understanding of the tourism needs of people who are blind or vision impaired. While I am talking about Hervey Bay, I congratulate the Hervey Bay council, because it is building a new disability access ramp on Scarness Beach to ensure that people in wheelchairs can get down to the hard sand. That is a wonderful initiative by that council. Mr Terry Sullivan: It is funded by the Premier. Ms SPENCE: Well done, Premier. In Redcliffe, the Blind and Vision Impaired Group will receive nearly $1,700 to prepare and publish an information guide. This information guide will tell people who are blind or vision impaired about local resources and facilities for them. I am sure that Mr Speaker welcomes that grant. In Toowoomba, the Downs Blind Bowlers Association will receive more than $5,000 to run coaching clinics and workshops to enhance the confidence and skills of blind and visually impaired players. Three city councils, Brisbane, Hervey Bay and Logan City, along with one shire council, Mundubbera, are delivering initiatives through this Legacy Trust Fund. I am pleased to say that each of those councils has matched our money with its own. Well done to those councils! Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired.

PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 16 April (see p. 1034). Mr CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (11.30 a.m.): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the Private Employment Agencies and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2001. The object of the bill is to amend the Private Employment Agencies Act 1983 and the Industrial Relations Act 1999 to implement the recommendations of an independent review of the Private Employment Agencies Act. A technical amendment to the Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990 is also implemented by way of the bill. As I mentioned, there was an independent review of the Private Employment Agencies Act conducted by an independent reviewer—as independent reviews often are—which included an independent public benefit test undertaken in accordance with national competition policy guidelines. This process ensured that the cost and benefits of legislation from a public interest perspective were fully considered. It was determined that the current licensing regime imposes significant net compliance and administration costs upon the industry and government without any significant benefit to job seekers. As a result of the findings of this independent review by the independent reviewer, a number of recommendations were formulated and submitted for consideration. 17 Apr 2002 Private Employment Agencies and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1071

At this point, I point out that comprehensive consultation on the provisions of the bill has been undertaken with key industry stakeholders. I believe that all parties have expressed support for the bill and the important legislative changes that it introduces. These changes will address concerns that have existed with the operations and effectiveness of the current legislation for the benefit of both private employment agents and workers and will reduce the compliance and administration burdens that are faced by the industry operators and government alike. That is another very good positive. Also at this point, I mention that Howard's IR laws have failed Queensland. It is obvious that the dogs on the waterfront approach to industrial relations of the present Prime Minister, John Howard, is responsible for up to 85 per cent of strikes across Queensland. An analysis of data supplied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that the overwhelming majority of industrial action in Queensland was under John Howard's confrontational style industrial laws. In comparison, there was little industrial action in those industries operating under the new industrial approach that was introduced by the Labor government in Queensland. The data shows that last April 5,700 working days were lost due to industrial dispute and that 79,800 working days were lost over a 12-month period. The strike rate was inflated by industrial action in the coal industry, which was responsible for almost 85 per cent of working days lost in Queensland in April 2001. In comparison, before our new legislation took effect—when the coalition government was in power from March 1996 until May 1998—on average 11,200 working days per month were lost across Queensland. We have effectively halved the rate of industrial action in Queensland by the introduction of the state legislation. The industrial relations reform introduced by the Queensland Beattie Labor government has contributed to the low incidence of industrial disputes across Queensland and it is clear that the Industrial Relations Act is delivering a fair and equitable framework for Queensland workers whilst ensuring a strong and effective economic environment. The federal coalition Workplace Relations Act has produced long and significant disputes such as those on the waterfront and those in Queensland's coalmining industries. This state Labor government and the Minister for Industrial Relations are proactive in real job creation and ensuring that prosperity and improvements to our society will flow from positive legislation such as this bill before us today. I also mention that it is quite timely that today I recognise a couple of old railway workers who are in the parliamentary gallery. Bill Wilson was a toolmaker some four decades ago in the North Ipswich railway workshop. He is down here with his wife, Norma, and my parents, Kevin and Priscilla Cummins. I know their keen interest in industrial relations and in this bill. As I say, my father and Bill both served proudly as apprentices and tradesmen in the North Ipswich railway workshop over four decades ago. They have joined my wife, Donna, and Daniel here today. I therefore commend the bill to the House. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (11.35 a.m.): I have been told by the member for Clayfield to keep my comments fairly brief. She tells me that that this bill is to give actors more pay and to watch that employers do not rip off actors, and that over the next two years we should keep an eye on the board that will be set up. I see this bill as being a little bit more complicated than that, and I know that the member for Clayfield does also. I want to make some comments about this bill. I commend the minister for bringing it before the House. It is long overdue. This minister has a history of bringing bills before this House that look after workers. I commend him for that. The act has no power to prosecute an agent who has ripped off people with regard to wages or commissions that they have kept themselves instead of passing them on to their clients. Under this bill, that matter has been rectified. The bill also gives the power to make an application to an industrial magistrate for an order on an agent for the repayment of illegal fees charged on a worker. The process will be similar to that followed in the situation of unpaid wages. Currently, under the act people can make an application, but they cannot recover the funds. The bill also gives the power to make an application to the Queensland Industrial Commission for an order on an agent for the repayment of legal fees charged on a worker. That process will be similar to the process followed with unpaid wages. No such powers are provided under the current act. I want to comment on those provisions and other parts of the bill. Clause 18 requires an agent to keep a register of workers, employers and placements. That is something that we would think most employers would keep for their own records so that they know what moneys come and go and what moneys they are to receive from employers on behalf of their clients. Obviously under the act that was not a requirement. Therefore it was very hard for the person who had been engaged and performed the job to know what had been received by the agent from the employer 1072 Private Employment Agencies and Other Acts Amendment Bill 17 Apr 2002 and what remuneration, therefore, they should have received. It is imperative that those records be kept. I agree fully with the penalties prescribed in respect of the non-compliance with those provisions. Clause 19 states that agents must not publish false information in the course of their business or make false statements to workers on the nature and availability of work. A penalty is prescribed for the non-compliance of these provisions. This morning in the House during private members' statements a member referred to a situation that was not dissimilar in that a company wanted to train people in the traffic control industry as workers who work on the roads. That company was publishing false information to get people in to do a course and, therefore, part with money and buy a uniform. Although the company promised these people jobs, there were no jobs available. An agent who is also a manager of a model or performer may demand or receive a fee only in accordance with a written agreement with a model or performer. Any fee so received is in lieu of a prescribed fee that may be charged as an agent. That is a very important section of the legislation. Those agents find work for performers, charge them an amount in fees and commissions—probably what they get from the employer—and, therefore, the performer gets very little, if any, fees. They are the types of things happening in this industry which this amendment bill will address. Clause 20 inserts a new section 37 which places an obligation on an executive officer of a corporation to ensure that the corporation complies with the act. If the corporation commits an offence, an executive officer also commits an offence. That is a very good section of the bill and I commend the minister for it. He used a similar provision in the occupational health and safety legislation. It tends to focus the attention of large companies and corporations on the fact that they cannot slide away from their responsibilities if their subordinates, their foremen or the people working for them commit an offence. They cannot say they did not know what their company was doing or that it was robbing people and take no responsibility for what has happened within their corporation or company. It really does focus executive officer's minds on the fact that they are responsible. If a person is running a corporation and it does the wrong thing, that person cannot slide out from underneath by saying they did not know what Joe Blow was doing 10 doors down; they did not know he was ripping off clients of the corporation. Clause 29 amends section 319 to specify that legal representation will not be permitted, even with the parties' consent, in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission in proceedings relating to a claim for the payment of a fee received by a private employment agent. This will also apply where the commissioner remits the matter to an industrial magistrate for hearing. I think that is an excellent clause. As members would know, most workers are knockabouts who are not trained in legal matters. They would probably carry a case themselves or with their union, and the union representatives are not legally trained, either. For example, imagine a worker trying to get justice and receive pay for the work he has done against a bank of lawyers from Fox Studios, appearing for an agent. This legislation is levelling up the playing field to make sure that workers get a fair hearing. I congratulate the minister on clause 30, which amends section 320 to specify that the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission is not bound by technicalities, legal forms or rules of evidence, and may inform itself on matters it considers appropriate in proceedings relating to a claim for the repayment of a fee received by a private employment agent. The commission also is to be governed by equality, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case having regard to the interest of the persons concerned and the community. I know the Attorney-General would probably object, but I think this should be placed in a lot of our laws to allow judges to make a fair decision and not be bound by the technicalities of law which sometimes mean that people do not receive justice. I see the member for Hervey Bay is smiling. He knows that from time to time the law is an ass and that justice is not done to some people who deserve it. This Private Employment Agencies and Other Acts Amendment Bill will certainly assist people within this industry to obtain justice. I fully support the bill before the House. Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (11.43 a.m.) I am pleased to support the Private Employment Agencies and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2001. A number of speakers on this bill have tabled their credentials with regard to their personal histories. I note that the member for Clayfield is a former actor and member of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance. The 17 Apr 2002 Private Employment Agencies and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1073 member for Greenslopes informed the House that he was a member of the Musicians Union. The member for Glass House worked for a modelling company in an administrative capacity. My friend the member for Bulimba has referred to my past as a lawyer which, while it might qualify me for membership of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, is not perhaps quite good enough. So I table for the benefit of honourable members a photograph of an advertisement from the Telegraph newspaper of 14 November 1967 in which a young Andrew McNamara appeared as a model. I think I am the first speaker in this debate to appear as a former model. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mickel): Order! Is the honourable member declaring a conflict of interests? Mr McNAMARA: I am no longer in receipt of paid employment. The bill provides for the phasing out of the Private Employment Agencies Act over a two-year period, at the end of which licensing requirements and other legislative controls over the operations of private employment agents will be removed, unless the expiry period is extended. It also provides a simplified licensing process to operate during the phasing-out period, taking some of the unnecessary legal process which currently applies out of the way of the parties. I also note that the bill provides for an Employment Agents Advisory Committee to oversee the expiry period and to formulate a draft code of conduct for the future regulation of agents, which is very welcome. Finally, the bill protects work seekers from being charged inappropriate fees for placement in employment and includes specific measures governing agents in the modelling and entertainment areas. I was a member of the board of the Wide Bay Group Training Scheme in 1998 when the Commonwealth government relinquished its function of finding work for people seeking employment through the Commonwealth Employment Service in favour of its broader Job Network. The Wide Bay Group Training Scheme was one of many organisations which attempted to fill the hole by providing private employment services. I understand that, as of 13 October 2000, there were 885 licensed private employment agencies in Queensland. I think it is fair to say that the private employment industry is still evolving and I very much support the recommendation by the independent review conducted into the Private Employment Agencies Act which suggests that self-regulation was not feasible at this stage for the industry. Quite simply, some form of regulation is necessary to ensure that the industry develops in a professional and transparent fashion and, accordingly, the process of repeal over a two-year period under close monitoring is a very sensible transitional approach. Similarly, the simplification of licensing provisions during the phasing-out period is to be welcomed as it reduces red tape while still putting a proactive oversight system in place. Mr Strong interjected. Mr McNAMARA: I take the interjection from the member for Burnett, who I know has an extremely high interest in all matters regarding employment and is very active in his electorate. The review report also recommended the establishment of a committee to drive the necessary changes and I welcome the committee having representation from employment agent bodies as well as employee groups. The primary role of the committee during the phasing-out period will be to formulate a draft code of conduct for the inquiry, but it will also include advising the licensing officer whether or not to grant or renew licences, recommending any action to be taken by the officer about a complaint against an agent, and where the committee has attempted but not been able to resolve a complaint. Finally, the bill recognises the need to continue to provide work seekers with protection from unfair fees. But some new and sensible amendments are proposed for the arrangements between agents and models and performers. The amendment bill sets out very clear guidelines for agents to be managers of models and performers, including the requirement for a written agreement providing for at least four management services. This is good, sensible legislation which helps protect entertainment industry workers in particular from unscrupulous managers and agents. It also provides certainty for the great number of private employment agencies out there in the market. I congratulate the minister, his staff and his department, who have worked to bring in this important legislation and I commend the bill to the House. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (11.48 a.m.): I rise to support the Private Employment Agencies and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2001. For the best part of my career in the Commonwealth public sector I was employed in the Commonwealth Employment Service. I 1074 Private Employment Agencies and Other Acts Amendment Bill 17 Apr 2002 left at a time when the federal government changed from Labor to Liberal and the closure of a public employment service was on the horizon. That was a sad day for the long-term unemployed in our country. I watched many of my former colleagues get new jobs with private employment agencies, such as Sarina Russo, Mission Employment and so on. I believe some set about becoming private employment agents. The Private Employment Agencies Act 1983 provides for the licensing of private employment agents in Queensland, regulates various aspects of their operations and protects consumers, or work seekers, from inappropriate fees. This amendment bill is a result of a review which addressed a number of problems arising from its operation. Some of the most significant issues were that the application and renewal process for licences are overly complex and costly and having industrial magistrates and police officers involved in the licensing process has proven onerous. The new bill will make provision for the phasing out of the PEA Act over a two-year period. At the end of this period, licensing requirements and other legislative controls over the operation of private employment agents will be removed. It will simplify the licensing process to operate during the phasing-out period. This will be done by removing the need for an inquiry before the industrial magistrate, the need for police reports and other identified difficulties. The establishment of an Employment Agents Advisory Committee to oversee the expiry period will ensure the formulation of a draft code of conduct for the future regulation of agents. The amendment bill also covers the transfer of provisions under the current PEA Act protecting work seekers from being charged inappropriate fees for placement in employment to the Industrial Relations Act 1999. This is particularly important in relation to agents who charged fees for bogus attempts at procuring employment for models, actors and other entertainment industry hopefuls. As times change, so do we need to change legislation to reflect modern working arrangements, such as contract work for entertainers or models. There are also the roles and responsibilities of agents and managers within those industries to be taken into consideration. This legislation will ensure that managers in these industries will have to meet strict criteria regarding their roles and responsibilities. Agents and managers will have to provide written details of the nature of their work and payment, including the fee. There will be no scope for con- merchants who have been in the practice of ripping off industry hopefuls. They will not be able to deduct huge fees from the minimum wage of these workers. As a former employee of a public employment agency, I recognise the need to ensure that there is some protection provided for people whose employment conditions are somewhat unusual. Therefore, a watch over the industry is absolutely necessary, but this does not mean that the process cannot be improved. The current system is a rigid one, with no room for flexibility or efficiency at all. An example of this complexity is the case of an agent who applied for nine licences and had to appear before industrial magistrates in Bundaberg, Beenleigh and Inala within the one week. Ironically, employment agents can set up their businesses in other states without licensing restrictions and still use the Internet to operate in Queensland. The operation and conduct of private employment agency services will continue to be regulated by legislation, including the Queensland Industrial Relations Act 1999, the Fair Trading Act 1989 and the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act 1974 and by the common law. Although the process generates around $231,793 annually, the cost to government is significant because of the need to refer cases to the industrial magistrate, not to mention the court resources and those of the Queensland Police Service that the process ties up. The Employment Agents Advisory Committee will consist of two representatives of the private employment agents industry, two representatives of employee organisations, one independent person and one government representative. Their job will be to judge licence applicants where necessary and examine complaints against agents. Their role will also include formulating a code of conduct for the regulation of private employment agents when the current legislation expires. I commend the minister for simplifying a very complicated and burdensome act whilst still providing consumer protection. Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (11.53 a.m.): It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of this bill and I am sure it gives the minister great pleasure that I am the final speaker. The objective of this bill, as has been said several times, is to implement the recommendations resulting from our review of the Private Employment Agencies Act 1983. It has been reviewed to address national competition policy issues and issues to do with the operation of the legislation in contemporary times. The review was conducted by an independent reviewer and involved comprehensive consultation with industry and government stakeholders. The objectives are to 17 Apr 2002 Private Employment Agencies and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1075 protect employees from being charged inappropriate fees for seeking employment through a licensed employment agency and to determine the fit and proper suitability of an applicant for a licence to operate as a private employment agent. Workers need unions, legislation and protection. Yesterday it was great to hear the member for Clayfield, who in her words is an actor, an industrial officer and a Smart State exponent, highlighting the needs and difficulties that one of her industries continually faced, and that is, of course, the theatre, film and TV industry. This legislation recognises the importance and legitimacy of that industry outside the old constraints of past draconian legislation. The entertainment industry is an extremely valuable one and it makes a substantial contribution to all our lives. This bill is about equity and justice and an end to the unscrupulous practices of managers and agents, and I commend the Minister for Industrial Relations, Gordon Nuttall, for bringing these long overdue amendments to the House. Employment that involves contract work and agreements for entertainers and models in particular will be the beneficiaries of this renewed scrutiny. Agents will still be able to charge fees but that will be at 10 per cent of the gross amount payable to the client, which is fair and reasonable. This will also limit some of the administrative burdens that the industry has faced in the past. Within the Smart State agenda and Breaking the Unemployment Cycle this government is committed to protecting job seekers, particularly the most disadvantaged and vulnerable. Private employment agencies are now a very big part of job placement in today's society. In tightening up licence arrangements, the codes of conduct can now be monitored. This must attract bipartisan support. I join with the member for Algester, who spoke yesterday, and today the member for Hervey Bay, who have highlighted concerns with the federal government's competitive Job Network. Long-term unemployed and minority and marginalised groups continue to be the losers in the job market. Private employment agencies should have a duty of care to give all clients a fair go. Advocacy, equity and access for these unemployed should not stop at the point where the agency collects the federal payment; rather, it should continue for however long it takes to get the disfranchised into ongoing work. I congratulate also the Minister for Employment, Training and Youth, Matt Foley, who has given focus to the over 45s who are unemployed. Strategies are in place to address the growing body of job seekers, and the federal government should do likewise. I congratulate the Minister for Industrial Relations once again on addressing the iniquitous practices that have occurred in some private employment agencies, and I commend the bill to the House. Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) (11.56 a.m.), in reply: In commencing my response, I thank all honourable members for their contribution to the debate and particularly for their kind words in relation to my bringing the bill before the House. I thank the opposition, and in particular the honourable member for Keppel, for its support of the bill. This is the first bill that I have brought to the House as minister for which I have had some support from the opposition. It is a pleasant change. This bill implements the recommendations of the independent review of the Private Employment Agencies Act 1983. This review was undertaken by an independent reviewer and included an independent public benefit test undertaken in accordance with national competition policy requirements. The review has also taken account of the need to ensure that the regulatory framework for private employment agencies is suitable within a contemporary environment. Under the provisions of the bill the regulatory framework for licensing of private employment agencies will expire two years after its commencement and, in the interim, the bill introduces a simplified licensing process where current licences will continue to operate. New applicants will be issued with a licence by the licensing officer on recommendation of the Employment Agents Advisory Committee, comprising a representative of agents, employee organisations and government, and which is to be chaired by an independent person. The new committee will adjudicate on licence applications and examine complaints that may be made against agents. The committee will also be required to formulate a code of conduct for the regulation of private employment agents dealing with the type of work arrangements and commercial operations to be covered by the code, standards of competence, training, disciplinary matters and record-keeping requirements. This code will form a basis for the future regulation of agents and will come into operation after the expiry of the current legislation. The current protections for persons wishing to use agents contained within the Private Employment Agencies Act 1983 will be retained and transferred to the jurisdiction of the Industrial 1076 Private Employment Agencies and Other Acts Amendment Bill 17 Apr 2002

Relations Act 1999. Under these new arrangements the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission will be given powers to enable the recovery of fees charged by agents in contravention of the act through the small claims procedure. This will obviate the need to take a formal prosecution through the Industrial Magistrates Court and thereby help reduce the legal costs that may be incurred by both parties. The bill also introduces some changes to the way in which agents may receive fees from persons seeking work. Under the new provisions, an agent may receive a fee from a model or performer for finding the person work, but only where: first, the fee is no more than 10 per cent of the gross amount payable to the model or performer; second, the agent provides written details of the nature of the work and related payments; and, third, the model or performer is paid at least the amount payable under an applicable award or agreement. For those agents in the modelling and entertainment industries—for example, sports agents—who also act in the capacity of manager, the bill allows such an agent to also charge a fee in accordance with a written agreement with the model or performer. Under these arrangements, an agent or a manager will be required to provide at least four management services for the model or the performer, and they will include: one, the handling of business affairs; two, providing accounting advices; three, publicising and promotion; four, providing services ancillary to a performance; five, providing continuing career or artistic advice; or, six, representing the model or performer in negotiations with the media, entertainment industry workers or the public. I now turn to matters raised by honourable members during the debate. I am particularly pleased that the honourable member for Keppel has indicated his support for the bill. One matter the member raised was that he hoped the new arrangements will also achieve savings for private employment agents. I can inform the honourable member and the House that the new arrangements will result in savings to private employment agents. Initially, fees over the first two years will be reduced where agents will be required to pay only a $450 application fee or a $300 renewal fee. This represents a saving to agents, with applications for new licences currently incurring a $354 application fee. Following the granting of a licence, the agents are then required to pay an annual renewal fee of $178. So if one adds both those together, one can see that the new regime is actually cheaper. Further savings for agents will be achieved because they will not be required to also take out advertisements or appear before the Industrial Magistrates Court as part of the application process. The honourable member for Nicklin raised a matter about the restriction of legal representation in the recovery of the legal fees charged by agents. I can confirm to the honourable member that clause 29 of the bill amends section 319 of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 to specifically state that legal representation is not permitted in such instances. This provision mirrors those that currently apply in the case of an application to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission to recover unpaid wages under section 278 and has due regard to the principles of natural justice. In this regard, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission has traditionally been a lay tribunal, with parties typically represented by lay representatives—usually industrial advocates employed by unions and employer organisations or industrial officers of the Department of Industrial Relations. Both the honourable member for Nicklin and the honourable member for Caloundra have raised a particular issue as to why a person may be represented by a person who is a solicitor if they are an employee of a union when a person cannot be represented by a solicitor as their individual agent. This issue turns on representation rights under the Industrial Relations Act 1999. These matters have been considered extensively by the parliament in both 1999 and 2001. If a person is represented in proceedings by a union and the person who is appearing on behalf of the union as a direct employee is also a solicitor at law, the restriction on legal representation under section 139 of the Industrial Relations Act does not apply. It also does not apply because the union is representing the party. Representation is by the union and not by the lawyer. These provisions apply equally to a person employed by an employer organisation who also may be a lawyer. These provisions were inserted into the Industrial Relations Act 1999 in line with the unanimous recommendation of the industrial relations task force. This recommendation was in response to cases where certain individuals were previously being excluded from appearing on behalf of their organisations where, for instance, they had completed legal studies but were not practising as a solicitor. Legal representation is generally restricted in a number of matters before the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, with the objective of reducing excessive 17 Apr 2002 Private Employment Agencies and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1077 litigation and legal costs and focusing parties on achieving resolution of matters in dispute. It should be noted that other avenues of recovery continue to be available by way of an application to an industrial magistrate for recovery or a prosecution for an offence to an industrial magistrate, in which case legal representation may occur. The honourable member for Nicklin also raised concerns that clause 9 of the bill omits sections 12 and 13 of the act. Section 12 of the legislation deals with the compulsion of a person to answer or produce documents and the admissibility or otherwise of that in evidence. This section was omitted on the advice of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel on the basis that a person is entitled under the principles of natural justice to refuse to answer a question that would incriminate the person. The section is therefore considered to be contrary to current legislative principles and practices. I can also inform the honourable member that this matter was considered by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, which commented favourably on the removal of this section. Section 13 deals with the tabling of an annual report of the licensing officer. This section has been removed also on the advice of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel as it is now considered superfluous with the provisions for the tabling of reports contained within the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977. In future, a report on the operations of the legislation will be included in the Department of Industrial Relations' annual report. The honourable members for Nicklin and Caloundra raised issues with clause 20 and the insertion of new sections 36 and 37 of the bill. These new sections deal with the responsibility for acts or omissions of representatives and provide that executive officers must ensure the corporation complies with the act. Section 36 clarifies the responsibility for acts or omissions of representatives. It declares persons, including corporations, to be guilty of offences committed by their representatives, including their employees. Section 37 places an obligation on executive officers of corporations to ensure the corporation complies with the act. If the corporation commits an offence, each executive officer also commits an offence. These provisions replace existing section 38, titled 'Responsibility for employees', which deals with the criminal responsibility of corporations and partnerships for their nominees who hold a private employment agency licence on their behalf and who are employees. Defences exist if the person took reasonable steps to prevent the offending act or omission to ensure compliance or if the person was not in a position to influence the conduct of the relevant person. These defences effectively reverse the onus of proof. The provisions are therefore considered justifiable and necessary to prevent unscrupulous private employment agents sheltering behind employees or corporations and for the effective enforcement of the legislation. The new provisions have been inserted on the advice of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. The honourable member for Caloundra raised issues about who will be on the Employment Agents Advisory Committee and how they will be appointed. These matters are contained in proposed new sections 31A to 31D. The membership of the committee will comprise two representatives of the private employment agents industry, two representatives of employee organisations, one independent chairperson and one officer of the Department of Industrial Relations. Members of the committee, except for the officer of my department, are to be appointed by myself as the minister. The officer of the department is to be appointed by the director-general. In making appointments, I as the minister will give due regard to industry representation and experience. In conclusion, the Private Employment Agencies Bill 2002 will provide a two-year interim licensing process for employment agents within Queensland while a suitable code of conduct will be developed by industry stakeholders focusing on the minimum standards for the industry. Parties, including an individual, an employee organisation, an agent or an industrial inspector, will now be able to pursue an application seeking to recover fees unlawfully charged through the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission using its successful small claims jurisdiction. Alternatively, they may continue to pursue an application or prosecution through the Industrial Magistrates Court. Importantly, the bill ensures fairer and more practical minimum standards for the setting of fees by agents for models and performers seeking work and in defined circumstances for the provision of appropriate management services. I take this opportunity to thank members of my staff and members of the Department of Industrial Relations who have helped develop this bill. I particularly thank the honourable member for Clayfield for her contribution. As has been stated before, she comes from the arts and media industry. I know that she has been a strong advocate for this bill. It is pleasing in particular for her, 1078 Public Records Bill 17 Apr 2002 after all these years, to be a member of the government that will actually pass this bill. I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) in charge of the bill. Clauses 1 to 36, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Nuttall, by leave, read a third time.

PUBLIC RECORDS BILL Second Reading Resumed from 12 December 2001 (see p. 4523). Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (12.13 p.m.): At the outset I indicate that the National Party is generally very supportive of the principles contained in the Public Records Bill before the House. I commend the minister for bringing such a significant bill to the parliament. Our final position on the bill post the second reading stage will depend very much on the minister's consideration of an amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Moggill. I am not sure if the minister is aware of the status of that proposed amendment. Basically, it is to do with the process of appointment of the archivist. There is little doubt that the process of getting the Public Records Bill to the parliament for debate today has been a fairly long and arduous one. I understand that the first process of review and consideration for a new legislative framework for the preservation and storage of public records goes back some 10 or 12 years. Mr Schwarten: Glen Milliner's committee. Mr SPRINGBORG: That is right. The honourable Minister for Public Works indicated that he was on the legislative committee of the then minister responsible, the Hon. Glen Milliner. At that stage I understand the updated legislation was called something different from what we are debating here today. It was actually introduced into the parliament. When the parliament was prorogued the bill fell off the Notice Paper. Then it did not come back on. Prior to this minister's tenure a public records bill did actually come in to the parliament. Then, of course, due to the prorogation of the parliament the same thing happened. I am very pleased that within the first half of this term the government has been able to bring this bill before the parliament and that it will be passed by this afternoon. We all know the importance of public records in Queensland and the need to appropriately keep those for future purposes. There is a range of important future purposes. There is the historical purpose, the general reference purpose, legal issues and a whole range of other matters. I thank the minister for the briefing he arranged with members of his own staff and the State Archivist so that I had an opportunity to better understand the issues to be brought forward in this bill and to better understand where the government was coming from. I note that there are a number of proposed government amendments circulated by the minister. I commend him for circulating those amendments last week. I have looked at them and I think they enhance the bill. I can see no reason to oppose them. The process of record keeping and storage has changed a lot over the last few years. There has been an enormous increase in technology and records storage processes and techniques over the last 50 to 100 years. I think it is becoming exponential. I am sure the minister, in his capacity as a Minister for Innovation and Information Economy, would agree that things are changing so rapidly and 10 or 15 years in the future the media will probably store records in ways we cannot contemplate today. Volumes of information can now be stored on a very small chip. We have mechanisms in the Parliamentary Library to store in one major storage system probably the amount of information 17 Apr 2002 Public Records Bill 1079 that would fill this room in hard copy form. It is absolutely amazing. It is interesting to talk about this with people in the street. I talk about it with my dad, who is very aware and very worldly. People say, 'How can such things be done? How can the information be retrieved?' Mr Lucas: The question is how you retrieve something of value as distinct from enormous amounts of pedestrian material. Mr SPRINGBORG: The minister raises an excellent point; that is, we have to be extremely judicious in the way we assess information which will have value for future generations. During the briefing I had with the minister's officers and the State Archivist there was an indication that between only one per cent and five per cent of information created within agencies across the world is actually stored long term. I came to this place in 1989, as did the honourable Minister for Public Works. Since that time I have seen an exponential growth in the amount of material generated. I will not say that it is quality material, but it is generated. An extraordinary amount of material is generated. Whilst technology is assisting us to do our work and to meet the demands and expectations placed on us, it does not necessarily flow that our lives have been made a lot easier or a lot better by the information which has been generated. A lot of people generate volumes of information just because they can. They produce 22 pages when one would do. Mr Schwarten: We did not have half of the electronic systems that we have now, and people waited for an answer. They do not wait for it now. Mr SPRINGBORG: The Minister for Public Works is absolutely right. When I came into this place in 1989, as he would remember, we had an old AT computer. That is a concept that does not even exist today. We had a printer like a meat saw, and it sounded like one. Mr Mickel: And a TV. Mr SPRINGBORG: I certainly did not want to have a TV in my electorate office. Anyway, if we did, we would not have had time to watch it because we are very hardworking. We had a fax machine and, as the minister said, people basically waited for an answer. Most of the letters— Mr Lucas: You've got an iPac now. Mr SPRINGBORG: I certainly have, but most of the letters were handwritten. Generally, we were able to better understand and engage with people because a real personal feeling came through. Occasionally, we actually got a fax from somebody. We used the fax to fax ministerial offices, but that did not happen a lot. Then, of course, technology improved. Our computers became better. We got email. We got better fax machines and better photocopiers, and the demand for the creation of information and the ability to analyse it went up exponentially. We all face that issue. If one looks at the already hundreds of kilometres of shelf space in Queensland taken up with historical information, one sees that we need better systems of assessment and better processes, otherwise that will get out of hand. As I said, between one per cent and five per cent of information created by government agencies worldwide is preserved for the future. That shows that we need to be fairly careful in the way that we assess that information and what we do with it. I understand that, under the current regime which operates in Queensland, 97 per cent of records are open for 30 years or less and three per cent of existing records are opened after 30 years or more. The bill before the parliament today further defines restriction periods for different types of documents. The thing we are most aware of in Queensland when it comes to restricted access periods relates to cabinet exemptions—that is, after 30 years one can gain access to that information. I am not sure that anyone would be terribly embarrassed by what happened in a cabinet meeting 30 years ago, because there are not too many people who serve in parliament for that long. Mr Lucas: Tell me in 30 years time. Mr SPRINGBORG: I will take the minister up on that. Thirty years seems so long away from now. Mr Schwarten: You might still be here, but I bet I won't be. Mr SPRINGBORG: I doubt that I will be either. That is an important process. There are reasons for having restricted access periods. Obviously cabinet confidentiality is one of them so that members of the cabinet are able to debate points of view without fear or favour that if made publicly available may compromise their stance and inhibit the interchange they may have with their colleagues. It is a really important process to ensure that information which is necessary for 1080 Public Records Bill 17 Apr 2002 the process of government is properly analysed and properly scrutinised whilst also allowing ministers to go about the business of government without fear or favour. One concern, however, that I have previously raised in this place, as have government members when in opposition, relates to the use of the cabinet process for hiding information which, at the end of the day, is superfluous to the cabinet process. That is something that we need to be very careful about and ensure that it is not abused in the future. I also understand that there are something like—and this might surprise people—800 public authorities which keep records in Queensland, so those 800 public authorities also come under the auspices of this legislation. It would be very intriguing to see the full list of those 800 authorities, because if we rack our brains we might be able to think of several dozen but not 800. We are dealing with government, quasi-government, statutory authorities and all those sorts of organisations. The Public Records Bill also replaces and incorporates much of the old act and regulations but in a very contemporary way. One thing I am pleased to see in the bill is that the Archivist and that office will be very much involved in setting the policy, framework and standards for the storage of documents in Queensland—not just the storage of permanent documents. That is an extremely important point, because it relates to an issue that I have raised previously with regard to freedom of information and the disparate approach of government departments and government agencies to the keeping of information. Some government departments are excellent. I am not pointing the finger at this government. I am just saying that this is an issue of disparity across government. It was an issue when we were in government. It was an issue when those opposite were in government previously, and it is an issue now. Something that happens very quickly and with a great degree of efficiency in one government department or agency does not necessarily happen with the same degree of enthusiasm or efficiency in another department. We need a standard operating framework for the storage, assessment, keeping and release of documents for public purposes. We try to have a standardised approach to operating systems and computer technology across the state, which is extremely important, and we know that within government there are still some issues in that regard. It follows that all government departments and agencies must have a consistent approach with regard to policy and framework for the storage and retrieval of information. Mr Lucas: One person's personal information is another person's privacy. You have to make sure they are aligned. Mr SPRINGBORG: Absolutely. That is very true, Minister. There is no doubt about that. We have to ensure that alignment for the basic administration of access to information. Only by doing that will we ensure that under the new freedom of information regime in Queensland we will have cost-effective and timely retrieval, assessment and release of information. That was a concern that I raised in this parliament when we had a debate last year. I said at that stage that it was extremely important that this complementary legislation come forward to ensure that those sorts of objectives are met at some future time. With regard to the bill, the Archivist has to be informed of the existence of all short-term or temporary records as well as other records. We know that across governments and agencies in Queensland a lot of information exists for a temporary period, and they have their own processes as to what they do with that particular information. Not all information has to be kept for the long term. Some of it has only a short-term life or will only be valid for the short term. It is important, however, that the Archivist is aware of the existence of such information because it helps to keep the agency accountable regarding the information that it holds. As I mentioned before, all records kept on site in government agencies will have to develop access regimes. I want to hear from the minister in his summary how long he believes it might take for that development to occur. Obviously, there will be a process which the Archivist has to undertake because we are setting up a new regime. It is very important to have some sort of indication and idea of when the new policies will be developed for the keeping and storage of information. I would imagine that the Archivist has already put her mind to the way this is going to happen in Queensland, because anyone who is aware that they are going to work under a new authority and a new set of rules is very much in the business of thinking ahead, one would hope, as to what is going to happen. I mentioned earlier the issue of restricted access periods. Under the bill, there will be access periods of 30, 65 and over 100 years. A lot of people would probably ask why an access regime 17 Apr 2002 Public Records Bill 1081 needs to bar release of information for more than 100 years. Of course, there is some historical information to which that applies, and the issue of adoption was brought to my attention. Mr Lucas: Prison plans. Mr SPRINGBORG: There is a whole range of matters which may compromise the good operation of the state. Security issues are something one needs to think about. If the plan for a new prison is made available while it is still operating—and members know that prisons in Queensland can operate for 40 to 50 years or even longer—one does not need much imagination to work out what will happen. I do understand that with the release of information that has existed for more than 100 years special regulations or procedures will develop along the way. The State Archivist has a mechanism to ensure that proper and due process is followed and that there is accountability for those involved in administering this act. The State Archivist will be able to challenge a CEO's decision to declare apparently unreasonable access conditions, and such disagreements can be challenged further with the Public Records Review Committee. The Public Records Review Committee is a very important part of this bill, because there is an arm's length but discerning process of review of the decisions made by the Archivist or somebody else involved in this process. The legislation outlines the people who can be involved in the process. I note also that there is an appointee of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and that is extremely important. We also need to ensure—and I note that the minister has considered this—that there is a usable form of information for future generations. Obviously, in 30 or 40 years electronic environments and interfaces could have changed from the way in which we store information today. It is important that we account for that as much possible. Earlier I mentioned the consistent keeping of records and the release of such information for the FOI process. I would like to see some form of central collection and release of data and statistics for information, because when I have tried to get information on access to freedom of information in Queensland, for example, I have been told, 'No, go here, go there, go somewhere else'. It is done individually. I do not think that in itself is a proper process of accountability for a modern government. If we want access to information on something, freedom of information for example, and some basic statistics or data about documents which have been fully or partially released—and this does not apply just to FOI documents; it probably involves other documents as well—we should be able to get them across government without going through a convoluted and protracted process that infuriates us and wears us down. It creates a suspicion about the intention of those developing the access regime, because one then asks: what is being hidden? That is an issue the minister needs to consider seriously. He needs to speak to his cabinet colleagues about it. Perhaps it is something that can be easily addressed under this bill. I refer to an issue that may cause an interesting reaction from the minister, because I know that we have debated this issue in the past. I do not have any particular prejudices on this matter, but since entering this place in 1990 I have watched with a great degree of interest the debate concerning the Heiner documents and the destruction of public records. I note that the minister said some time ago that this is all pixie land and airy-fairy stuff. That may be the case. However, a little while ago I retrieved some articles on this matter from the Courier-Mail which had been electronically stored since 1994. The wad of articles is absolutely enormous, and they relate to the destruction of documents. There is some validity in the argument put forward by the government of the day that these documents needed to be destroyed because the inquiry constituted to consider the issue of child abuse in the John Oxley Centre did not impose the right sort of protections and immunities, that is, legal privilege for witnesses providing evidence. It goes without saying that that was the case, that it was not properly constituted. Was there a different way of dealing with that issue, that is, to provide some form of retrospective validity to the information provided? If that had occurred, all the argy-bargy and conspiracy theories that developed outside and inside the parliament over the last eight or 10 years may not have developed. I do not know for how long an issue such as this can last, but I raise it today because a process of destruction of documents which occurred in the early part of the Goss government—February or March 1990—has created an issue. How much did the State Archivist know? How much information was actually given to cabinet with regard to the information gathered by the Heiner inquiry? How much of that information may have been needed for pending legal proceedings? There were certainly some preliminary inquiries by a person subject to 1082 Public Records Bill 17 Apr 2002 some of the evidence that had been given and who had said that some of this information may have been required at some future time, even though a proper order had not been given for the securing of that information. There was interchange between the cabinet, the archivist and the person requiring the information perhaps for their own defence or for legal purposes, but, nevertheless, those documents were shredded. It has been interesting to note some of the comment since then by other archivists around Australia. I do not know whether they are apprised of all the facts. I will not try to second guess what people are or are not apprised of. My concern is with the process that occurred up to that date. There is other documentation and media articles on this issue, but I refer to the Courier- Mail's editorials. We cannot say that there is not an amount of due consideration in those editorials in terms of the process followed by the cabinet of the day. However, the editorial of 22 February 1999 states— If the Heiner affair is ever to be put to rest ... a fully independent and thorough investigation into the processes that allowed, and may still permit— and this is the important thing; this is not just not an airy-fairy conspiratorial point of view—it was in the Courier-Mail— such an extraordinary series of events to occur. I do not know myself if what actually happened was right or wrong, because we can go only by what people said in this parliament. Some people will believe that it was wrong. Personally, I am not so sure. I am more concerned about a process that can allow the destruction of such documents. One thing that we should consider is that, whilst the Public Records Review Committee is facilitated under this bill—and I think that is a very good thing—it is a process of potential independent advice before the destruction of documents. The minister may believe that, because of the very orderly process enabled in the Public Records Bill, there will be no real issue with regard to the validity of the destruction of documents. I wonder what process exists for the State Archivist or the other processes involved in this bill to gain access to further independent information and advice before the destruction of such documents. I think that is a valid point. The reason that I raise it again is that I am very concerned that this issue has gone on for so long. It still pops up in the media from day to day. It is not about the release of the information; it is about the perception of a cover-up or the destruction of something. I think that we need to avoid such a situation occurring in the future. I have a document that has been prepared with regard to the destruction of that information and also some of the history leading up to it—its relationship to the Public Records Bill and some matters that have gone before the federal parliament. I think that it makes for very interesting reading for the information of members of parliament, if they are so inclined. It was prepared by a person who was very much involved as the representative of a person who is very much the subject of the early allegations that were made to the Heiner inquiry, and that is Mr Kevin Lindeberg. Mr Mickel: Oh, him! Mr SPRINGBORG: Yes. I submit this without prejudice, because I think that there are some very, very interesting issues in here for the consideration of access to information and public documentation in the future. I table it for the information— Mr Lucas interjected. Dr Watson: He has not sought leave to table it. He has only tabled it. Mr SPRINGBORG: It is qualified. I have been through it and I can say that there is very little in there that has not been aired publicly—aired in this parliament or aired in the federal parliament. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: I am just saying that it is an interesting document. It does not seem to be over the top. I think it gives a very, very interesting chronology of the issues. It is something that people who are interested should look through. By and large, I am very, very supportive of the principles behind this bill. I commend the minister for bringing the bill before parliament. But as I said, the final position that we take following the committee processes will depend very much on an amendment that is to be moved by the honourable member for Moggill with regard to the independent appointment process for 17 Apr 2002 Public Records Bill 1083 the State Archivist. I wait with bated breath and a great degree of interest for the minister's response to that amendment when it goes before the parliament in the committee stage. Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (12.43 p.m.): I rise today to support the Public Records Bill 2001 and to commend its main purposes, which are to ensure that the public records of Queensland are made, managed, kept and preserved in a usable form and that the principles of public access to records are consistent with the principles of the Freedom of Information Act 1992. I think that we all recognise that public records are very important to keep and that they are the corporate memory of the government and of the state itself. While we have a lot of long- serving public sector representatives, we cannot rely on that memory being preserved forever. So that is why it is very important that these records are kept and that we have the proper legislative framework available for that to happen. This legislation provides a balance between the rights of citizens to access information and the need to protect sensitive and personal information, as has already been raised today. It will also facilitate greater consistency in information access decisions. The current Libraries and Archives Act 1988 does not deal with public access to records; it deals solely with the making, preserving and disposing of public records. It focuses on archival records of enduring value but does not highlight the need for current public records to be captured, managed and preserved. The Public Records Bill will ensure that records of enduring value are retained and are potentially accessible to the public. The new legislation empowers the State Archivist to take a lead role in promoting best practice record keeping among Queensland's 800 public authorities. This legislation outlines a clear and transparent access regime for public records. This regime is based on the classification of records and is aligned to the exempt matter provisions and principles in the Freedom of Information Act 1992. In effect, this means that records containing matter that would be exempt matter under certain sections of the FOI Act are potentially subject to greater restricted access periods. This includes matters affecting personal affairs, law enforcement and public safety, legal proceedings, and matters communicated in confidence. This bill complements the FOI regime in terms of providing the basis for managing and accessing information of enduring value to the state. The access regime set out in this legislation recognises that the sensitivity of information declines with the passage of time and that at some point it is appropriate for older records to be available for public access. I think that the member for Logan would know all about old records. Mr Mickel interjected. Ms MALE: Indeed. The restricted access periods in the bill— Mr Mickel interjected. Ms MALE: Yes, the member for Logan should have been archived, and a very valuable archive it would be. The restricted access periods in the bill have been set at up to 30, up to 65 and up to 100 years from the day of the last action on the record. Chief executive officers of public authorities will classify records according to the matter they contain, with the record then attracting the relevant restricted access period prescribed in the legislation. Previous to this legislation, there has been no clear guiding framework available for chief executive officers when making decisions about how to classify records or about the setting of restricted access periods. Therefore, the new access regime will promote consistency in access decisions. The introduction of this legislation provides an opportunity for the government to promote the accessibility of a large proportion of public records. Currently, 97 per cent of the archival holdings at the Queensland State Archives are available for public access after 30 years or less and only three per cent are restricted beyond 30 years. There are three ways for people to gain access to records within the restricted access periods: firstly, when a chief executive officer of a public authority classifies a record as one to which unrestricted access can apply; secondly, when the CEO authorises individuals with access, with or without conditions, under what is known as an administrative access arrangement; or, thirdly, under the Freedom of Information Act, which protects the applicant's rights and provides for appeals procedures. There is scope for the State Archivist to ask a public authority to review or change the classification of a record or a restricted access period. In the event of a dispute, either the State Archivist or the public authority can refer the matter to the Public Records Review Committee for resolution. At this point, I would like to mention that I have visited the State Archives, and that visit was organised by the minister. Indeed, it was a very interesting and informative visit. It was great 1084 Public Records Bill 17 Apr 2002 to see the cutting-edge technology that they have out there and the way in which it is applied. I would also like to commend the dedicated and hardworking staff under the direction of Janet Prowse. Janet's professionalism and keen interest in her role is reflected in the cohesive and well- run institution that she presides over. I am sure that this legislation will enhance her role and give her the power to continue with the good work that she is already doing. This bill further provides the State Archivist with the power to develop policies and standards for the management of electronic records. These will contribute to the success of government on- line initiatives and strategies for the Queensland community. I am also pleased that there was extensive consultation carried out previously and again this time around. That is possibly why this legislation has gained the support that it has today. When I look at this legislation I am made aware that it will help several groups in my electorate as well, the Landsborough Museum being one of them. The people involved with that museum are very keen to be able to access public records and check historical points. Mr Lucas: We visited that museum together. Ms MALE: We did. We went out to the Landsborough Museum to look at all the good work that the people involved with that museum are doing—the way in which they involve their community in the history of Landsborough and, indeed, the history of Queensland. They are an excellent group of volunteers and workers who should be commended for their work. Mr Lucas: You are a very proud local member. Ms MALE: I am indeed very proud of them. Collectively, these provisions provide a balance between the rights of citizens to access government information and the need to protect sensitive information, particularly information relating to personal affairs. I am sure every member of this House would agree with that. The new regime will facilitate greater consistency in information access decisions under both this legislation and the FOI Act. This is indeed Smart State legislation. I commend the bill to the House. Mr FLYNN (Lockyer—ONP) (12.50 p.m.): On behalf of One Nation, may I commend the government for bringing on this Public Records Bill 2001 for debate. However, as with previous legislation, it must be said that this important piece of accountability legislation is overdue. There is one glaring reason why it has not been brought on before and that is the long-running embarrassment of the Heiner affair, which has dogged all Queensland governments since the shredding of those records in March 1990 and which now dogs the Beattie government as serious unfinished business. While there are many important bills, there are few more important than this Public Records Bill because this legislation is about preserving the lifeblood of democratic processes and holding public officials, including ministers of the Crown, to account. This bill is more important now, as we enter into the electronic era of record keeping. It is hoped that we are able to cope with the 21st century as well as earlier archives coped with handwritten and typed transcriptions between government and the people—whom all governments must serve honestly and in the public interest. In short, this bill sets a framework within which accountability must flourish and not be diminished. Its framework must be respected by all. There are several areas of the bill which I believe are deficient and which require further work. They are not necessarily in order of merit, but all are important in their various ways because all are interdependent. Review rights need to be extended to the public at large and not just limited to statutory authorities. This is untenable, undemocratic and potentially detrimental to the right to a fair trial. We are dealing with public records and members of the public have as much of a vested interest in the disposal or retention of public records as do public authorities. This is a critical deficiency that should be corrected. Public records are only held in trust by governments of the day under the guardianship or stewardship of the State Archivist for the people. The protection of public records cannot be played out within public authorities—which are defined in the bill—as if the people are disinterested bystanders. In this debate, it does not take long for the precedents created in the Heiner affair to come into play because, by declaring that shredding of documents legal, especially in light of the recent McCabe v. British American Tobacco case in Victoria's Supreme Court, the Heiner affair stands even higher as a beacon of light in terms of improper record keeping and lack of respect for the administration of justice by a state government. The fact that this government does not mention that name in the course of this debate is regrettable because in the world of archiving, the lessons learned from the Heiner affair—even in its unfinished 17 Apr 2002 Public Records Bill 1085 state—must be heeded. The Goss government took a view, according to its letter to the State Archivist on 23 February 1990, that the records were 'no longer required or pertinent to the public record'. That was cabinet's view, but it was not accurate. We can now say with reasonable certainty, the relevant cabinet submissions having been tabled in this House on 29 July 1998 by the Premier, that cabinet should certainly have been aware at the time it was writing and telling the State Archivist that these records were not required by anyone that solicitors were seeking access to the records in question and were prepared to settle the matter in court, if necessary, but the party to that action had not yet lodged a writ. We also know that the cabinet was advised on 16 February 1990 that once the court proceedings commenced and discovery took place, the Heiner inquiry documents could not be withheld from scrutiny by claiming crown/cabinet privilege because the records were not brought into being for a cabinet purpose. It is important to put on record the doubtful theories of this government and certain journalists that the reason a writ was not served after placing the Crown on notice was that the government was telling Mr Coyne and his solicitors that its position was 'interim' and that once the final advice was received they would be told. Against those assurances from the Crown, in the form of the Department of Family Services and the Department of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, and reasonably believing that they would achieve their objective of access out of court, they thought: why issue a writ yet? After all, they were dealing with the Crown, and the state government is the model litigant, of course! Put simply, they were entitled to believe that they were being told the truth. To clear up another misguided statement by this government which has been swallowed by certain journalists, the so-called Crown Law advice dated 23 January 1990 that the records could be shredded was based on redundant circumstances and on the belief that the records belonged to Mr Heiner as his personal records. It was not considered against the background that the inquiry documents were public records. They were not Mr Heiner's private records—they never were—and cabinet was told this on 16 February 1990 in corrected Crown Law advice. This so- called advice to shred was predicated on the fact that no legal proceedings had commenced requiring their production. Within days the legal battleground had changed, and that is why the records were not shredded right then, because knowledgeable heads in the Public Service knew they were the subject of a legally enforceable demand and could not be shredded until it was settled either in or out of court. In short, this advice has been used as a convenient smokescreen for over a decade, and some journalists have been sucked in hook, line and sinker and, in light of the McCabe case, made to look completely foolish. On 26 February 1990, advice was offered to the department which said that the matter of access—that is, the issue to be settled by court action, if necessary—could not be advanced until cabinet took its decision. We know that cabinet decided to shred the evidence after seeking approval to do so from its State Archivist. However, as the facts show, the cabinet apparently misled its own Archivist by informing her on 23 February 1990 that no-one wanted the records. Cabinet also knew that once the writ was served the documents would be open to access under discovery. While the prospective litigants were taking the state of Queensland at its word, the documents were being shredded behind their backs by order of the Goss cabinet to prevent their use in court and so that gathered evidence could not be used against the workers who gave evidence to Mr Heiner. We know now that documents in the Heiner inquiry were used as evidence of child abuse and grave breaches of a duty of care towards children held in care and custody. By any standard, that should have saved them from the shredder. I will return to that point later. Next I want to examine the definitions and will use the reasoning or principles relating to the Heiner affair to illustrate my point of concern. After all, this government stands by the findings of the CJC of no official misconduct and, therefore, why should we not include its reasoning and public proclamations on the matter? What is good for the Goss and Beattie Labor governments must surely be good enough for all of us, and especially good enough to be included in this bill. I turn now to the term 'legal proceedings'. I am conscious that the minister responsible for this bill is a lawyer and, therefore, I am sure that he will appreciate this point. However, one does not need to be a law expert to understand my proposition because it is fundamental to a civilised society which settles its differences by the rule of law and not by the rule of the jungle, where Rafferty's rules reign. An ordinary citizen in the street would readily accept what I have to say. I believe that this term cannot be left hanging in the air. It cannot be left to be interpreted in a loose, convenient manner for the state's purpose. Parliament must ensure that all legislation 1086 Public Records Bill 17 Apr 2002 reinforces the due administration of justice within the state of Queensland so that everyone's rights are protected and equal justice applies so that a fair trial can be conducted. We ask the minister: why not apply the interpretation put forward by the CJC to clear the Goss government of serious criminal charges in respect of the Heiner affair? We think that would be fair. How could the minister refuse to adopt the reasoning which cleared his colleagues of serious charges in respect of shredding public records, assuming it is based on sound law and not a convenient misinterpretation of what the law really says? This House has a duty to make legislation clear and unambiguous. Unfortunately, if this parliament were to adopt the CJC's interpretation of 'legal proceedings' in this case, the administration of justice would be imperilled instead of being made safe. The protection of evidence required in legal proceedings is fundamental in a civilised society which purports to be governed by the rule of law and which respects and abides by court decisions. If parties can shred known or foreseeable evidence to prevent its use in court with impunity, society will become unmanageable and descend into chaos. That is the reason we have a Criminal Code. Its purpose, amongst other things, is to protect the administration of justice. I return to the term 'legal proceedings'. The CJC and the office of Crown Law have argued that the provisions of then section 129 of the Queensland Criminal Code apply only when a writ has been issued. They claimed that proceedings had to be on foot. Mr Michael Barnes, former chief complaints officer for the CJC, gave evidence before the Senate Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases on 23 February 1995, when that committee looked at the Heiner affair. The Senate Hansard records at page 103— What you do with your own property before litigation is commenced, I suggest, is quite different from what you do with it after it is commenced. Sitting suspended from 1.00 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. Mr FLYNN: For the benefit of the House, I point out that section 129 of the Criminal Code states— ... any person who, knowing that any book, document, or other thing of any kind, is or may be required in evidence in a judicial proceeding, wilfully destroys it or renders it illegible or undecipherable or incapable of identification, with intent thereby to prevent it from being used in evidence, is guilty of a misdemeanour ... This is highly relevant to this bill. Simply put, we cannot have the State Archivist caught in no- man's-land on a matter as fundamental as the protection of evidence required for court. Equally, we cannot have the State Archivist, on the CJC's terms, able to approve the destruction of records because they are of no historical value while at the same time apparently knowing that they are required for court. Mr Barnes's comments, at first sight, may—I stress 'may'—seem reasonable, but on closer examination they are not, because they do not answer the complete equation as section 129 of the Queensland Criminal Code demands of the community. It states 'is or may be required in a judicial proceeding'. The question to be posed and answered is: can a party still lawfully shred records in that party's possession and control—in this case, public records in the possession of the state—when that party has been put on notice that court proceedings are about to happen or are anticipated and the records which it holds will be required in those foreshadowed court proceedings? In case there are honourable members who have never been involved in court proceedings, let me make a few things clear as a former police officer with some knowledge of the law. Legal matters are not always exhausted in court. Most in fact are settled out of court because the law is there for the community at large to understand and respect. If we have a right enshrined in law we do not expect to have that right upheld every time by getting a court order to have it enforced. We may have to as a last resort, though. Our constitution allows that. But our society is based on the premise that its citizens will obey the law without the strong arm of the law coming down every time. Put simply, if there is a matter requiring legal resolution, there is an obligation on all of us, especially lawyers, police and the Crown, to speedily resolve it out of court, otherwise our courts will simply seize up through overload. In other words, section 129 of the Criminal Code is triggered by the state of knowledge of the party involved. If we know, by reasonable means, that we are dealing with records or property in our possession which we know are required for foreshadowed court proceedings—that is, court proceedings will eventuate if the matter of access cannot be settled out of court—we cannot destroy those records without breaching section 129, or engaging in obstruction of justice or an apparent attempt to mislead the course of justice. 17 Apr 2002 Public Records Bill 1087

That is precisely what appears to have occurred in the Heiner matter. All the parties in government, including all members of the Goss cabinet, apparently knew that the inquiry documents were the subject of a notice served by solicitors not to destroy anything because they would be required in evidence if access out of court were not to be granted. This is what Mr Ian Callinan QC, now High Court Justice, when acting for whistleblower Mr Kevin Lindeberg, whom this parliament knows has pursued justice in this matter for over a decade, told the Senate Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases on 23 February 1995 at page 23 of the Senate Hansard— The course of justice, when it begins to run, is a matter that has been much debated in the court and there is a serious open question about when the course of justice does begin to run in cases. Certainly, on no view, can that issue be as shortly and quickly dismissed as it is there. I refer members to the Senate Hansard for the complete statement. Unless this link in the chain of administration of justice is respected, the whole system breaks down. Can members imagine: lawyers having served the Crown with proper notice concerning access to public records, or the Crown, being aware that court proceedings on a matter are about to commence in which public records are a vital ingredient, holding important information, being able to lawfully shred that up to the second of a writ being placed in the Crown's hands? Can we imagine lawyers advising their clients to shred all the evidence in their client's possession quickly enough to prevent its use in court when it is known to be required or foreshadowed to be required in court proceedings, and to do that with that state of knowledge before the writ is served? I believe we need look no further now than to the McCabe case in Victoria's Supreme Court. It totally vindicates the law as expressed by His Honour Justice Ian Callinan QC and Messrs Morris QC and Greenwood QC in respect of section 129 as it applies in Queensland—or should have applied—in the Heiner issue. I concur with this view of the State Archivist as set out in the 1997 Lindeberg declaration, which I believe was tabled in this parliament, and revisited in 2002. On page 8 it states— ... state/federal archivists I suggest stand in the same position in the archives fraternity as do Crown solicitors/state attorneys within the legal fraternity in societies purportedly governed by the rule of law. Crown solicitors/state attorneys, like all law practitioners sworn in as officers of the court, are obliged to obey the law. However, they have a higher moral and professional duty cast on them because they represent the critical principle of being the model litigant and the font of justice within the justice system. In that setting, they must therefore always act lawfully with the utmost probity and fair dealing because they set benchmarks. They should not lend the prestige or trust which the people hold in them while serving in such a public office for the purposes of misconduct or political sectional interest or advantage, for to do so may inflict a fatal blow on the impartial administration of justice. This is what Mr Barnes told the Australian Senate on 23 February 1995 at page 108 of the Senate Hansard when addressing this aspect of the Heiner affair. I invite members of the government to listen very carefully, because this was with the full authority of the CJC, now the Crime and Misconduct Commission, and there has been no recant. He said— ... the archivist's duty is to preserve public records which may be of historical public interest; her duty is not to preserve documents which other people may want to access for some personal or private reason. She has a duty to protect documents that will reflect the history of the State. Certainly she can only preserve public records, but there is no commonality necessarily between public records and records to which Coyne and other public servants may be entitled to access pursuant to regulations made under the Public Service Management and Employment Act. In my submission, the fact that people may have been wanting to see these documents—and there is no doubt the government knew that Coyne wanted to see them—does not bear on the archivist's decision about whether these are documents that the public should have a right to access forevermore, if necessary. That is the nature of the discretion that the archivist exercises. The question about whether people have a right to access these documents is properly to be determined between the department, the owner of the document and the people who say that they have got that right. That is nothing to do with the archivist, so I suggest to you that the fact that that was not conveyed to the archivist is neither here nor there. That has no bearing on the exercise of her discretion. I refer to a State Archives disposal form. It appears to contradict what the CJC claims. It states— Public records must not be disposed if they are required: I. for any court action which involves or may involve the state of Queensland or an agency of the state, or II. because the state holds documents which a party to litigation may obtain under the relevant rules of court, whether or not the state is a party to that litigation, or III. pursuant to the Evidence Act 1977, or IV. for any other purpose required by law. Let me repeat: this directly contradicts what the CJC has said publicly about the role of the archivist, and has been accepted as truthful by those who wish not to listen to the issues arising from the Heiner affair. 1088 Public Records Bill 17 Apr 2002

What is so disturbing as we debate this new archives legislation is that it does not seem to matter what the legislation says, because in the Heiner affair, where the facts are stark and uncontested and set out in the Lindeberg declaration, the archivist approved the shredding, and the CJC endorsed it, when by any reasonable view those records should never have been destroyed, and the CJC should have come down on that side. We suggest that the term 'legal proceedings' could read— ... legal proceedings are a proceedings before a court, tribunal, commission of inquiry or inquiry established under the Public Service Act 1997 or relevant law which is afoot or reasonably anticipated through appropriate notice or means. There is no specific offence of misleading the Archivist. One Nation believes it should be included. We could have a repeat of history wherein a public servant may have access to public records pursuant to section 16(2) of the Public Service Regulations 1997, which is a mirror of the old Public Service Management and Employment Regulation 65, and the department and State Archives may have differing views on whether or not access should be granted. Therefore, the matter may have to be settled in court. If State Archives is the independent protector of public records as set out in clause 27(1), wherein direction cannot be given by a minister or department, it is simply not possible for any of these parties to appear in court to argue their position with the Office of Crown Law representing (a) the minister, (b) the department and (c) State Archives at one and the same time. We believe this might be amended through the State Archivist becoming an officer of the parliament and therefore not subjected to outside influences. Had the Archivist followed the paper trail for this issue independently, she would have found that not only did the cabinet know about the foreshadowed court proceedings; the department did, as indeed did the Office of Crown Law. Moreover, according to Messrs Callinan QC and Morris QC in their opinion offered at different times, these parties were open to the charge of obstructing justice. The McCabe case effectively endorses these views. In summary, the Lindeberg declaration says that the State Archivist is a vital link in the chain of the administration of justice, and I concur with that view. In summing up, I wish to read a quote by Mr H. G. Jones, former president of the Society of American Archivists and influential archivist. He states— ... public records are public property, owned by the people in the same sense that the citizens own their own courthouse or town hall, sidewalks and streets, funds in the Treasury. They are held in trust for the citizens by custodians ... as public property, public records may no more be altered, defaced, mutilated or removed from public custody than public funds may be embezzled or misappropriated. Time expired. Interruption.

PRIVILEGE Tabling of Document Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (2.40 p.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege suddenly arising. Prior to the lunch break, I tabled a document in parliament titled The Lindeberg Declaration Revisited. I have received subsequent advice from the Clerk on a matter that I did not realise at the time. The header on the pages of the document seeks to give the impression that it is an official document created for the purposes of the Legislative Assembly and that it is in fact an official document of the Legislative Assembly. I have given consideration to the advice received from the Clerk. I will be advising the person who has prepared the document that the document seeks to give the wrong impression. I will also be advising that person that there will be no problem in retabling the document with the offending portions taken out. We know that its contents will be given subjective analysis and consideration by this parliament. Given the advice that I have received from the Clerk on the concerns which have been raised, I seek leave to withdraw the document. Leave granted.

PUBLIC RECORDS BILL Second Reading Resumed. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (2.42 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak briefly on the Public Records Bill 2001. Before I do, I would like to acknowledge Mr Terry Skene, Mr Paul 17 Apr 2002 Public Records Bill 1089

Hampson and Mr Roy Sommerville from the Logan City Chamber of Commerce and Logan Economic Development Board and Mr Ignatio Kim, the owner of Springwood Towers, in the public gallery. Government members: Hear, hear! Ms STONE: They are doing a champion job of promoting Logan. Mr English: A great city. Ms STONE: It is a great city. Some of these gentlemen have been rumoured to be the Logan City mafia. I point out that they have asked me to also become a member of the Logan City mafia. While I am not too sure about this, I believe that women need more representation on boards and committees, so as the only woman on this body I think I must accept this invitation. Mr Lawlor: And you want to put it on the public record. Ms STONE: Absolutely. The Queensland State Archives can certainly look forward to an interesting and exciting future. Last year I visited the Queensland State Archives, which is located not very far from my electorate. I was very surprised by what I found. I was fascinated by the restoration work being carried out on some of our very early history documents. The facility has 37.5 kilometres of permanent public records housed in its repositories. It has permanent public records of more than 800 public authorities in Queensland. The facilities include specialised storage areas for computer disks, tapes, maps, plans, films and microfilms. All of these areas hold a valuable collection of our state's history. While I was at the facility I saw old maps and photos of the City of Brisbane. The changes in the city are remarkable and something of which to be very proud. This history of our state is to be treasured. Indeed, it needs to be stored and valued for future generations. When I was at the facility they had a very interesting letterhead display. This display showcased 122 letterheads dating from 1860 to 1950. Traders and businesses featured in the letterheads display, and they ranged from blacksmiths and butchers to tramware companies and sporting clubs. One that comes to mind is the Lennons Hotel. I remember attending many of my family's birthday parties at the revolving restaurant at the hotel, which not only had good food but also a great view of the city and good entertainment. Unfortunately tonight, on my uncle's birthday, I will not be going to Lennons but spending it at the Strangers Dining Room. Upon looking at the letterhead of Lennons, I noticed that the hotel was not in exactly the same location as the Lennons Hotel I know. It was at one point located at another site in the city. That is just some of the history that I was shown at the State Archives. The staff presented me with a cap that said 'I'm worth archiving', and I say that says a lot about me! I found my time at the Archives very interesting, and I urge community groups, schools and residents of the Springwood community to take a history lesson at the Archives. I acknowledge the hard work of the Logan Historical Society, which protects the history of Logan for our future. The Public Records Bill will ensure the independence of the State Archivist in making decisions on the retention and disposal of public records, promoting consistency and accountability in the record-keeping practices of public authorities. To ensure that stakeholders also have a voice in the ongoing administration of public records, a Public Records Review Committee will be established. This nine-member committee will be a formal mechanism for government, the general public and representatives of the historical research community to provide input into a management and policy framework for public records in Queensland. This mechanism will enable representatives from government and the community to work together on strategic decisions regarding access to public records and the disposal of public records. The committee will strengthen accountability for the management of government records by providing advice to the minister and State Archivist on matters relating to the administration of this act. If requested by a chief executive officer of a public authority, this committee can also review decisions of the state not to authorise the disposal of particular public records or classes of public records. A further function of the committee is to decide disputes arising between the State Archivist and the public authority in relation to the classification of the record. For example, if the state believes that a chief executive officer of a public authority has attached an inappropriate restricted access period to a certain class of records, it can formally negotiate with the CEO to seek a review or an amendment. If agreement cannot be reached, either party can then refer the matter to the review committee for a decision. 1090 Public Records Bill 17 Apr 2002

Under this legislation, the State Archivist will control State Archives and be responsible for the administration of the act. In line with the current practice, the State Archivist will continue to be a tenured Public Service employee with certain statutory functions relating to the management, retention and disposal of public records. This will not impact on the independence of the State Archivist in relation to the authorisation of the disposal of public records, as the bill provides that the State Archivist and the staff of the State Archives are not subject to direction by a minister or department in relation to such matters. This independence strengthens the provisions for accountability in the decision-making process on the disposal of public records. While not a member of the Public Records Review Committee, the State Archivist can attend committee meetings. However, the State Archivist must not be present during the part of a committee meeting at which the committee is deciding disputes over the classification of records or reviewing decisions not to authorise the disposal of public records. The powers and functions of the State Archivist will include: the ability to give directions to chief executive officers of public authorities regarding the making, managing, storage and preservation of public records; the development and implementation of a whole-of-government record-keeping policy framework; conducting of whole-of-government surveys and research projects; and management of a publishing and exhibitions program. The State Archivist's annual report to parliament will highlight the Public Records Review Committee's major decisions and levels of compliance with this act. As a public servant, the State Archivist is well placed to advance the objectives of the legislation in promoting consistency and accountability in the record-keeping practices of public authorities but within a legislative environment that supports the independence of the State Archivist in making certain decisions. This new role for Queensland's State Archivist is further supported in this legislation by the establishment of the Public Records Review Committee, ensuring that Queensland stakeholders also have a voice in the ongoing administration of public records. Established in 1959, Queensland State Archives' role has expanded in recent times to include the development and implementation of a record-keeping policy framework to promote consistency and accountability in record-keeping practices across government. This bill provides a framework which offers a consistent approach to the management, storage, preservation and retrieval of public records, making sure that the business of government is adequately documented. I acknowledge the intricate and delicate work done by the staff at State Archives. I personally know one of the staff, Sandy Miles-Bower, who has been committed to providing good service with regard to our state history for a few years now. I acknowledge the work of the department and the ministerial staff on this bill. Keeping our state's history safe and secure is important for our future generations. I commend the bill to the House. Dr WATSON (Moggill—Lib) (2.50 p.m.): I rise to speak on the Public Records Bill 2001. As the minister has noted, the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission, in its report on archives legislation in 1992, recommended major changes to the 1988 Libraries and Archives Act to modernise legislation governing archives. In 1993 the Public Sector Management Commission, in its review of the Department of Administrative Services, did likewise. These two reviews resulted in the Archives Bill 1995, which lapsed with the change of government in early 1996. The current bill differs from that originally advanced in 1995 and is much closer to the Public Records Bill 1999—it is not the same in certain crucial aspects—which was introduced into the last parliament and again lapsed because of the election. The 1999 bill largely reflected the model I chose in 1997 for the development of an archives bill. Unfortunately, the current bill departs from the 1999 bill in respect of the appointment process and the statutory position of the State Archivist. This raises fundamental concerns for the independence of the State Archivist under this bill. When I became the responsible minister in 1997 there were two options considered for proceeding. The first option was to use the Archives Bill 1995 with only minor amendments as the basis for the new legislation. The second was to substantially redraft the bill. The first option would have speeded up the process. The member for Caloundra, as the then Minister for the Arts, was redrafting the library bill and, since the Archives Bill 1995 retained the link between the State Archives and the Library Board of Queensland, choosing this option would have resulted in a quicker passage of the bill. I decided that Queensland would have a more effective and appropriate piece of legislation if a new archives bill were drafted which would break the nexus between the State Archivist and the 17 Apr 2002 Public Records Bill 1091

Library Board of Queensland. Mrs Sheldon agreed with that position, and I recall that in presenting her library bill to the parliament she foreshadowed the later introduction of a second archives bill. In deciding on this course of action I was cognisant of the fact that information management was increasingly carried out in an electronic environment, with the use of email, electronic trading, electronic office systems, imaging and so on. There was a litany of electronic devices affecting the way we conducted our daily lives. New legislation was required to reflect the realities of information management and to address the issue of long-term retention of information of enduring value in electronic formats. Updating the archives act has been a long-held goal of the Records Management Association of Australia and was the goal of the Liberal Party, one which I share with them. In addition, the access provisions for public records under archives legislation needed to be made consistent with the access provisions under the Freedom of Information Act 1992. Also, because the freedom of information legislation is retrospective in its application, provision needed to be made for the eventual release of information as its sensitivity declines over time. Accountability provisions for the destruction of public records needed to be strengthened to assist in the prevention of unauthorised destruction. The current archiving legislation, which this bill is replacing, makes no provision for ministerial records. As officers of the Crown, cabinet members are key players in the evolution of government policies and programs. The records they generate provide a wealth of information of value to historians and other researchers interested in the special perspective that each minister brings to the issues of the day. I am pleased to see that the current bill addresses each and every one of these issues. It is a great pity that this significant improvement is tarnished by compromising the independence of the State Archivist. Having made the decision to separate the Queensland State Archives from the Library Board of Queensland, this was an opportune time to consider whether the then administrative location of Queensland State Archives was the most appropriate for the effective administration of archives in Queensland. There are a number of aspects to this question. The first is the administrative location of Queensland State Archives. Was it appropriate for Queensland State Archives to remain part of the then Department of Public Works and Housing? Second, was there a need to establish a body to advise the minister and the State Archivist on issues concerning the management of public records in Queensland? Third, what was an appropriate avenue for the review of decisions made about the disposal of public records? I turn first to the consideration of the administrative location of the Queensland State Archives. An important aspect of the accountability of government is to ensure that the custodian of public records, and the person or body that sets the standards for their creation and management, is not subject to influence by government or a department. Public records document the activities of a government and its administration. As such, the possibility for the suggestion of impropriety and cover-up in the management of public records, particularly when considering the disposal of public records, must be minimised. It is for this reason that the primary factor that will determine an appropriate administrative location for Queensland State Archives is the need to ensure that the person or body responsible for Queensland State Archives is seen to be able to act independently of political and administrative pressure. The EARC report I referred to earlier noted at paragraph 4.44— If the statutory body or person controlling Archives lacks independence, in the sense of being free of direction, there will always be the possibility that political pressure will be brought to bear to approve, inter alia, which records should be preserved and which should be destroyed. The effect of this would be that Archives would cease to be a mechanism for accountability and a haven for the heritage of the state. I considered a number of alternative organisational structures. These were: first, a division within the existing departmental structure; second, an independent statutory archives authority; third, a statutory office of the State Archivist within a ministerial portfolio; and, fourth, a statutory office of the State Archivist that reports directly to parliament. I decided on the third alternative, namely, a statutory office of the State Archivist within a ministerial portfolio. This option would have established a statutory office of the State Archivist falling within the portfolio of a minister but not forming part of a departmental structure. The State Archivist would be appointed by the Governor in Council for a fixed term. To ensure the independence of the State Archivist, the person holding that office would not be able to be removed under the Public Service Act 1996. This is crucial for effective independence. 1092 Public Records Bill 17 Apr 2002

The State Archivist would only be subject to directions by the minister on matters that related to the administration of the act, excluding matters concerning the disposal of public records. Any directions given would be required to be given in writing and tabled in parliament. Again, this would ensure the independence of the State Archivist. The State Archivist would be responsible for the administration of archives in Queensland. The State Archivist would also be responsible for the strategic planning and policy-making activities related to archives. It was envisaged that this role would be carried out in consultation with an archives advisory body whose members represent the various stakeholders with an interest in public records, either directly or through the minister. The State Archivist would be able to employ a staff who would be public servants. The 1999 bill followed this structure. Unfortunately, the current bill does not. The current bill effectively means that the proposed office of State Archivist is subject to the Public Service Act 1996 and, consequently, to the direction of the minister. This is unacceptable. It is, however, consistent with the Beattie government's fetish for control when it comes to the question of government information. This is particularly crucial when it comes to the issue of public records that are 25 years old or to public records less than 25 years old transferred to the Archivist. If the State Archivist is not independent of the minister, then no believable public assurance can be given that decisions made by the State Archivist are not influenced by the responsible minister. In order to rectify this fault in the bill, during the committee stage of the debate I will be moving amendments which, in essence, replace section 22 of the 2001 bill with the relevant sections of the 1999 bill, which of course was introduced by the previous minister and now Deputy Premier. It is crucial to understand why these amendments are necessary. Even though section 27 of the proposed bill states that the State Archivist and staff are not subject to the control or direction of a minister or department in relation to making decisions about the disposal of public records, the State Archivist is open to subtle pressure from a minister or director-general. For example, the Public Service Act 1996 permits a public servant to be made redundant or to be redeployed, amongst other things. These can be used as subtle mechanisms for influencing the decisions of the appointed person. On the other hand, the proposed amendments make it clear that the State Archivist's appointment can only be terminated on limited grounds which involve serious misconduct or serious incapacity. This proposal is consistent with other statutory appointments such as Parliamentary Counsel, Public Trustee and Director of Public Prosecutions, although I recall the latter has even more safeguards for independence. The really interesting question is why the change between the 1999 bill and the 2001 bill. Why is the current Beattie government so intent on compromising the independence of this important position? Why the retrograde step in this bill? One can only assume that while the numbers in the parliament were close the Beattie government was prepared to pay more than lip-service to the concept of accountability. But now that the numbers in the parliament substantially favour his government, a thin veneer of accountability is sufficient. This latter approach is reminiscent of the Beattie government's approach to freedom of information, electoral reform and of course accountability in general. Slowly but surely, a lead curtain is descending on the openness and accountability in Queensland's government. This revised bill is simply another small step in that direction. It is an attempt to censor the historical record of Queensland. While we will not be opposing the second reading of the bill, the Liberal Party will be moving the foreshadowed amendments in the committee stage. Depending upon the minister's response, we will reserve the right to oppose the third reading and are prepared to oppose it if either the amendments are not accepted or the minister's explanations are simply unsatisfactory. Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (3.02 p.m.): I am pleased to rise to support the Public Records Bill 2001. In speaking to the bill this afternoon, I want to particularly talk about how the Public Records Bill 2001 compares with the Libraries and Archives Act 1988 and with other Australian public records legislation. In doing so, I hope to respond in part to some of the matters raised by the member for Moggill, particularly in relation to the independence of the State Archivist. In fact, it is an independence that is strengthened by this bill. The Public Records Bill proposes a contemporary framework for the management of public records and also marks a changing role for Queensland State Archives. The bill differs from the Libraries and Archives Act 1988 in that it makes access principles consistent with the principles of the Freedom of Information Act 1992, it strengthens the role of Queensland State Archives as the 17 Apr 2002 Public Records Bill 1093 lead agency in developing and implementing standards for the management of the public records of state and local government, it provides for the establishment of a Public Records Review Committee, and it strengthens the provision for accountability in the decision-making process on the disposal of public records and ensures the State Archivist's independence in these matters. This bill proposes that a consistent and equitable approach for access to government information is an essential part of democratic process. The framework for classifying restricted access periods for the provisions dealing with access to public records in the custody of Queensland State Archives has been aligned with the relevant provisions dealing with exempt matter under the Freedom of Information Act 1992. The bill also recognises that the sensitivity of most information declines with the passage of time and that it is appropriate for older records to be available for public access. New legislation for archives has also been made necessary by the rapidly changing technological and administrative environment in which public record keeping now takes place. The Public Records Bill 2001 will provide the legislative framework for Queensland State Archives to establish and implement a policy framework which reflects national and international best practice in record keeping, including the management of electronic records. In this bill we see the necessary evolution of the traditional role of State Archives from managing historical records in its custody to one which also includes regulating record-keeping standards and practices throughout government. All other Australian public records legislation, excluding Tasmania, sets a clear mandate for the relevant archival authority to issue current record keeping standards. This mandate extends to the provision of assistance and advice to agencies in their implementation of record-keeping standards and to monitor and measure compliance with these standards. The bill brings together contemporary archival approaches and builds on the experience of earlier and contemporary public records legislation from federal, Australian states and territory jurisdictions. This bill provides for an access regime which complements the principles of the Freedom of Information Act 1992. This relationship with freedom of information legislation exists in other Australian public records legislation and provides a consistent and equitable framework for managing and accessing government information. Importantly, the Public Records Bill proposes a nine-member Public Records Review Committee whose function it is to advise the State Archivist and minister about issues relating to the administration of the bill. The committee will also hear appeals submitted by the public authorities against certain disposal decisions made by the State Archivist and resolve disputes between a public authority and the State Archivist regarding the classification of records. The structure of the committee provides for nine members drawn from the areas of community, including the judiciary, state government, local government, the information management profession and five others determined by the minister to have experience and knowledge that is relevant to the functions and activity of the committee. This latter category of membership may include genealogists, historians and the academic and research community. All other Australian jurisdictions have some form of council, commission or board to provide oversight of aspects of disposal and access determination. The Public Records Bill also strengthens the State Archivist's independence in disposal decisions. The establishment of a Public Records Review Committee provides a formal mechanism for the review of disposal decisions made by the State Archivist. An annual report to parliament may also detail the disposal of records under the control of State Archives. In conclusion, the Public Records Bill is consistent with fundamental legislative principles and provides a consistent and equitable approach for access to government information. It proposes a contemporary framework for the management of public records and also provides a stronger role for Queensland State Archives, reflecting the clear mandate for issuing record-keeping standards set out in other Australian public records legislation. I congratulate the minister and the department for their work in this matter. I commend the bill to the House. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (3.08 p.m.): I also rise today in support of the Public Records Bill 2001. This is a very important bill in many aspects, as good record keeping will promote efficient public administration, effective delivery of government business and services and, most importantly, accountability of government. Today I want to focus on how this bill will promote the consistency and accountability in record-keeping practices across Queensland's 800 public authorities, particularly in the area of disposal of records. This bill strengthens accountability for the management of public records and the disposal of public records, both key elements of sound corporate governance in the electronic age. This legislation provides a contemporary 1094 Public Records Bill 17 Apr 2002 framework that enables Queensland State Archives to establish and implement a policy platform reflecting national and international best practice in record keeping. This new policy role for Queensland State Archives is in line with international trends whereby the role of archival authorities is evolving to facilitate improvements in government efficiency and accountability through improved records management practices. In the information age, archival authorities need to be proactive organisations concerned with public records both at the point of creation and prior to creation. They need to set record-keeping policies, standards and best practice guides, and conduct education and training programs to ensure that government employees are aware of their accountability obligations. Under this legislation, public authorities will be required to make, manage, store and preserve public records according to the appropriate national and international standards. The legislation will ensure that records in all their forms are managed appropriately for the benefit of all Queenslanders, now and into the future. This legislation also provides clear guidelines for the disposal of public records. A person cannot dispose of a public record unless the public record is disposed of under an authority given by the State Archivist. To assist public authorities to determine the retention period for public records, Queensland State Archives has developed what is known as the general retention and disposal schedule. Each public authority will be required to develop agency-specific retention and disposal schedules to complement this general schedule. These schedules, approved by the State Archivist, are strategic tools to assist public authorities to determine the appropriate retention periods for their public records. Under the legislation, fines can be imposed for the illegal disposal of public records. The State Archivist and staff of Queensland State Archives are independent of decisions regarding the disposal of public records and cannot be directed by the minister or chief executive officer in this regard. However, where a chief executive officer does not agree with a decision of the State Archivist not to dispose of particular public records, the matter can then be referred to the Public Records Review Committee, a totally independent committee which comprises both government and community representatives. Accountability for the disposal of public records is also strengthened by the requirement of the State Archivist to present an annual report to parliament reporting on compliance with the legislation. Chief executive officers will also be made accountable for the management and disposal of public records under their control. In conclusion, the Public Records Bill strengthens accountability both for management and for disposal of public records, bringing Queensland into line with best practice record-keeping frameworks nationally and internationally. I commend this bill to the House. Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Lib) (3.13 p.m.): I would like to contribute to the debate since I am a member of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, because it did make a submission on this matter. The Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee believes that it is essential for the Legislative Assembly to retain control over its internal proceedings, and this includes the publication of its records and proceedings. The purpose of this bill is to provide for the management and preservation of the public records of state and local government. The bill replaces relevant sections of the Libraries and Archives Act 1998 and is very similar to the Public Records Bill 1999. The 1999 bill lapsed when parliament was dissolved in January 2001 for the state election. The bill also seeks to ensure that public access to records under the bill are consistent with the principles of the Freedom of Information Act 1992. The principles of this bill cannot be objected to; however, the earlier bill, the Public Records Bill 1999, was inconsistent with the Freedom of Information Act and the Libraries and Archives Act. The Public Records Bill 1999 included the Legislative Assembly within its definition of a 'public authority'. This was at odds with the provisions of the Libraries and Archives Act and the Freedom of Information Act. The Legislative Assembly is not a public authority in the way that a government department or other organisation is and clearly should not be included in the bill. The current and previous MEPPC therefore wrote to the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy noting its concerns regarding the 1999 bill. The committee is very pleased to note that this bill corrects the anomaly of the earlier bill by removing the Legislative Assembly and the Parliamentary Service from the definition of a 'public authority'. Hon. J. FOURAS (Ashgrove—ALP) (3.17 p.m.): The two issues I wish to address are the impact of this bill on government owned corporations and the management of ministerial records. The Public Records Bill 2001 applies to approximately 800 Queensland public authorities, 17 Apr 2002 Public Records Bill 1095 including state government departments and local government authorities, state courts, statutory authorities, commissions of inquiry, ministerial offices and, unless specifically exempted, government owned corporations. Twenty-two GOCs are subject to the existing legislative framework and will continue to be subject to the proposed legislation. These include Ergon Energy and Energex, the Ports Corporation of Queensland, Brisbane, Gladstone and Mackay port authorities, Queensland Rail, Queensland Investment Corporation and Sunwater, to name a few. Legal opinion obtained by the department has confirmed that GOCs are public authorities for the purposes of this legislation. So that there is no misunderstanding, GOCs have been advised in writing that they are public authorities under the Libraries and Archives Act 1998 and, in future, public records legislation. In supporting the inclusion of GOCs as public authorities, Queensland State Archives acknowledges that effective record-keeping systems strengthen accountability for the management and disposal of public records. These systems also support corporate governance requirements and enable records of enduring value to be available in the future for historical and cultural research purposes. It is important to underline that the proposed bill does not impinge upon the ability of Queensland GOCs to exercise full commercial control of the documents they create. It should also be noted that Queensland State Archives envisage that only a small proportion—a few per cent—of all records created will need to be retained for the longer term. These records will relate to matters of significant public interest for the purposes of future historical research and would normally be retained as part of the GOC's corporate memory. It is evidently clear therefore that the bill will allow the operation of GOCs to continue on an equal footing with their private sector counterparts who are not so constrained by such legislation. The bill will also assist GOCs in establishing cost-effective records retention and disposal frameworks. It should also be understood that ministerial records are public records for the purpose of the Public Records Bill as they are under the current Libraries and Archives Act. The public records created or received in ministerial offices which document the minister's role as a minister of the Crown are public records under the proposed legislation. This is consistent with the treatment of these records under the present legislative regime. Private records, such as party political records, personal records and records relating to a minister's business as a member of the Legislative Assembly are not considered public records and, consequently, do not come within the ambit of the bill. Under the arrangements in the proposed legislation, ministerial records that are subject to the legislation will be classified as restricted access records for a period of 30 years from the last dealing on the record. These arrangements are also consistent with the protocol established between the Premier and the then Leader of the Opposition in April 1999 for the management of access to ministerial public records. Under the terms of this protocol, approval for access to records less than 30 years old must be obtained from the current leader of the party that was in power at the time the records were created. Alternatively, where access to a ministerial record is sought under the Freedom of Information Act 1992, the current leader of the party that was in power at the time that the record was created would be consulted under section 51 of the FOI Act. It should be noted that an additional provision has been included in the proposed legislation to require archive staff to give reasonable notice to a ministerial office before seeking to inspect or recover public records. Queensland State Archives will continue to provide ongoing assistance, advice and training to ministerial staff by the Ministerial Services Branch of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. QSA is particularly active in raising awareness of proper record-keeping practices in the critical periods leading up to and immediately after an election. It is important that incoming governments understand their responsibility. In conclusion, the Public Records Bill will assist government owned corporations in establishing cost-effective record retention and disposal frameworks. The bill will also preserve the current legislative arrangements for the treatment of ministerial records. It is important that we have contemporary legislation for record keeping. This legislation provides the level of regulatory mechanism that is necessary for public records. I commend this bill to the House. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (3.21 p.m.): The Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee is very pleased that the government has had regard to the committee's input concerning certain provisions of this bill and parliament's right to regulate the publication of its own parliamentary papers and proceedings. The bill's current provisions ensure that the parliament retains this right. 1096 Public Records Bill 17 Apr 2002

It is entirely appropriate that the Legislative Assembly have control of its proceedings, maintain its independence from outside bodies, and have custody and management of its own records. The Public Records Bill is aimed at managing government records and ensuring that there is a consistent approach to accessing government records and information under the Freedom of Information Act. The Legislative Assembly is not a government department or organisation and it is not appropriate for the Assembly to be defined as a public authority as it was under the 1999 bill, which lapsed when the parliament was dissolved on 23 January 2001. The previous MEPPC wrote to the Minister for Communication and Information—who introduced the 1999 bill—about its concerns in relation to the bill. Following the election, the present committee wrote to the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy about those concerns. Both ministers took the committee's concerns on board, and as the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy stated in his second reading speech on the Public Records Bill 2001— ... the definition of a public authority does not include the Parliamentary Service or the Legislative Assembly, and this preserves the current arrangements under the Libraries and Archives Act. This also ensures that the provisions applying to the Legislative Assembly and the Parliamentary Service are consistent under the Freedom of Information Act and the Public Records Bill, consistency being one of the stated aims of the Public Records Bill. The Public Records Bill 2001 replaces relevant parts of the Libraries and Archives Act 1988 and the Libraries and Archives Regulation 1990 with a new statute devoted specifically to the management of public records. It is currently recognised under the Libraries and Archives Act and parliamentary practice that the Legislative Assembly's records are separate from government records. As such, the records and proceedings of the Legislative Assembly do not fall within the ambit of the Libraries and Archives Act or the Freedom of Information Act. The custody and management of parliament's records are dealt with under standing order 327, which provides— The custody of the Journals and Records, and all documents whatsoever laid before the House, shall be in the Clerk; who shall neither take, nor permit to be taken, any of such Journals, Records, or documents from the offices of the House, without a resolution of the House. Provided, however, that in the event of the House being adjourned for any period longer than seven days, or prorogued, such leave may be given by Mr Speaker, who shall report the same to the House upon its reassembling. I understand that the Assembly, through the Clerk, takes particular care to ensure that its management and preservation practices comply fully with the principles set down by the Libraries and Archives Act and relevant advice from the State Archivist. Of course, the Legislative Assembly should continue to ensure that its own rules and procedures for the management and preservation of the Assembly's records comply with the principles recommended by the State Archivist, and this is appropriate. The Assembly may wish to consider amendments to standing orders to ensure this position. I commend the bill to the House. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (3.25 p.m.): It gives me pleasure to speak to this Public Records Bill 2001. As my father-in-law would say—and he would talk about births, deaths and marriages—it is a good way to keep track of hatches, matches and dispatches. Jim Prendergast, my wife's father, was a great one for going around and learning from history. That is what records are. He would go into a little town and go through the cemetery. He would get a picture of that town—a snapshot—from the records kept in the cemetery and in the churches. As we know, in countries such as Ireland, where a lot of Australians come from, very good records are kept by the churches. It is very important that we know what our roots are, that we know where we came from. That helps us to know where we are going. Mr Springborg: Some of us still don't know where we're going. Mr PURCELL: The member for Southern Downs may not know where he is going, but the people on this side of the House do—particularly the minister, who has brought this very thoughtful legislation before the House today. Mr Lucas: As they say in the Catholic Church in Ireland, we get them all in the end, even if it is in a box. Mr PURCELL: That is correct. I say to some of my comrades who may not be of the one true faith that we are going to get them all in the end. Ms Liddy Clark: Don't bet on it. Mr PURCELL: I do. 17 Apr 2002 Public Records Bill 1097

Public records are about keeping track of our history and, hopefully, making sure that we do not make the same mistakes again. I remember very well a teacher at St Bridget's and St Raphael's called Mother Scholastica, or 'Big Schol' as she was affectionately known. I can assure members that we remembered the lessons that she taught because she made them so interesting. A couple of the subjects that she taught were ancient history and modern history. She had a saying, 'Pat, there is nothing new under the sun. When you feel that tingle going up your arm when you think what a great thing it is to be holding that girl's hand and carrying her port down to the bus, that has all been done before.' If we look at history and look at our records, we learn valuable lessons. That is very important. The public records of Queensland are the corporate memory of government. They provide evidence of actions, decisions and communications. They are the cornerstone of government accountability. Effective record-keeping systems, practices and programs support good business continuity. Mr Lucas: Did Mother Scholastica ever give you the cane? Mr PURCELL: Could she give you the cane! Yes, she did. She was the principal. I do not know why the minister has got me on to this. Mother Scholastica wielded the corporal punishment in our school. You could cop a bit of a caning. On a cold morning in Cowra when there was a foot of frost on the ground, just getting to school in bare feet was the cause of pain. Then if you had not done your homework, when you got there you had to stick your hand out and cop the cane. However, after the humiliation of being hauled out in front of the whole school assembly by Big Schol and being lectured about how I was letting down my family and my classmates, the caning was the easy part! I wished she would just get on with it and cane me so that I could get back to my place. I have to say that I deserved everything I copped. 'Big Schol' was a very, very fair person. I probably got away with a lot of things that I should have been caned for. She was very good to the boys. The French union team was in town one very hot summer and they were playing down on the oval next to the Lachlan River. Of course, we were paying no attention to what Big Schol was saying; we just could not care less. She said, 'Listen boys, I know you don't want to be here. If you put your ties on, don't smoke and behave yourselves, you can go down and watch the game. Girls, you can go to the library and study.' I want to return to the bill because, as I was saying— Mr Mickel: Who won the football? Mr PURCELL: The Frenchmen flogged us, by the way. They flogged us because it was only a provincial side— Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): Order! Mr PURCELL: I will return to the bill. It will help with effective public administration, delivery of government business and services, e-government—which the minister is interested in; he would be concerned about correct recording and storage of business performed in that way—accountability, and the preservation of Queensland's cultural heritage. It facilitates Queensland business through full and accurate record keeping and better aligning access principles for public records in the custody of Queensland Archives with certain access principles in the Freedom of Information Act 1992. New public records legislation in Queensland has been proposed as the most appropriate policy instrument for enabling accountability through improved public record keeping. The bill supports proper record keeping and improved public access to public records, which is something that did not occur under previous governments. A person just could not gain access to public records. When I was a member of the Builders Labourers Federation, which was founded in the 1890s, it had a lot of historical material in its keeping. When we moved premises from the Valley to Petrie Terrace, all the records were moved. When we wanted to move premises to Roma Street, because the records were deteriorating, we did not want to move them but, rather, to put them in safe keeping. At the time we felt that they would not be in safe keeping if we gave them to the Queensland government. We wanted to ensure that the history of the union was preserved. We contacted the National Archivist in Canberra, who sent someone up, who went through our material and were only too pleased to take it. One of the stipulations that we made about the material was that it had to be accessible to students and to the public. The National Archives stored our stuff but put it all on microfiche to make sure it was accessible for people who 1098 Public Records Bill 17 Apr 2002 wanted to study industrial relations through the late 1880s into the 1890s in and around Queensland, because our union was one of the first to operate in Queensland. For those who do not know, I state that that union was not known as the Builders Labourers Federation back then. When it was formed, it was called the European Protection Society. It was an awful name; that is probably some history that we could have lost, but we did not do that, because it is our history. There are records there that the secretary of the day was called down to Bretts Wharf. There were some Chinamen on the job and he was asked to come and remove them because they were taking the jobs of Australians. Some of that history which we keep stored does not record moments of which we are proud, but hopefully we learn from those sorts of things. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr PURCELL: And it is history, as the minister says, and we need to keep the records and make them accessible, as this legislation does. It seeks to strengthen and clarify the roles, responsibilities and rights of governments and citizens in relation to public records. This legislation will meet the challenges of a rapidly changing technological environment. I think we still get bound volume Hansard, but members know that these days we can put on one disk the same amount of information as is contained in a wall full of books. It is so much easier to store and it is so much easier to find information—not that I can operate a computer, but all you do is press a button and put some names in and up it pops. Mr Lucas: What happens now is if you say the wrong thing in earlier years, someone does a key word search and pulls it up. Mr PURCELL: I dread that, minister. I dread that! A consistent and equitable approach for access to government information is an essential part of the democratic process. We all realise that governments should not have secrets. The Beattie government, which is very open and accountable, makes records available. The bill also recognises that the sensitivity of most information declines with the passage of time. At some point older records should be made available for the public, and I know this bill will achieve that. The new public records legislation has been made necessary by the changing technological and administrative environment. The bill complements the requirements of the Electronic Transactions (Queensland) Act 2001 for producing, recording, retaining and providing access to records generated by electronic communications. I am taking too much time, I know, but I want to go to a couple of places in the bill. I will not take up too much more time of the House. I just want to say that probably some of the greatest records in the world are the gospels. Where would we be if those records had not been kept and preserved down through the generations for the last 2000 years? For people of the Christian faith, they are a very important part of the records of the last 2000 years. I commend the bill to the House. Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (3.37 p.m.): I am pleased, indeed, to follow the honourable member for Bulimba and note that his speech to this parliament today will forever form part of the public record. That means that Pat Purcell the fifth, in 100 or so years—in the year 2102—will be able to search out information about his great, great, great grandfather and discover something of his childhood memories, something about his work history and, of course, about his faith. I am pleased to support the Public Records Bill 2001. Public records are, as the minister has said, the corporate memory of the government and of the state. They are important in their accessibility and, in particular, in their ease of accessibility; but they are important, too, in their historical value. In Cairns recently we have had a demonstration of the importance of historical records and that is thanks to a series printed by the Cairns Post. Some time ago that newspaper started to print just one page in one edition each week on historical articles from their records of about 100 years ago in Cairns. This had become quite a feature that many of us relied upon for interest each week. More recently, however, the newspapers published a series of separate booklets titled Moments in Time that reflect, particularly through the photographic record, the history of Cairns going back 100 to 150 years and reflecting on the social changes and the industrial history of our region. Importantly, it is not only good to have these records and to have them easily accessible; in printing them, the Cairns Post has raised people's awareness of the value of history. In a city like Cairns, where at least a third of the population turns over every five years, many people know little about its history. This has also increased people's pride in Cairns, simply through their knowing 17 Apr 2002 Public Records Bill 1099 more about how it came about, who did what and when, and what the struggles were. It has also contributed to giving us a perspective on the present. Those in positions of leadership in the community have noticed that the more some things change the more they stay the same. Over the past 100 years the conflicts have continued about the water supply, hospital development and services, industries going under and industries that are newly developing. We also rush to read the small articles that might be termed the soap opera of daily living—who is doing what with who, getting married, having babies, dying, leaving town or whatever. The difference this has made in Cairns is significant and I congratulate the Cairns Post on that. This relates to what we are doing today, namely, upgrading our public record standards and ensuring that they are available. I can say with some confidence, though, having been a citizen of Cairns for a great many years and more recently a member of parliament and having served on the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee in the last term of parliament, that the public record is of little significance in the daily lives of most people in Cairns. I can assure the member for Logan that in the suburbs of Cairns as people are watching an episode, say, of Big Brother on TV or the latest Rugby League match, they do not pause, turn to each other and discuss Heiner or any other matter to do with public records. Only a small number of our constituents will ever seek our assistance to gain access to the public record. When that small number do so, even for the majority it will be about a matter of no major consequence; rather, just to check a record or to have access to a matter of fact. A tiny proportion of the searches conducted are for serious purposes or done where there is significant conflict. That small number notwithstanding, having that record available in an orderly fashion and ensuring that it is managed properly is the business of this bill. I commend all who have worked to bring this bill to us today and also the minister. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (3.42 p.m.): I rise to enthusiastically support the Public Records Bill 2001. At the outset, I echo the sentiments of the honourable member for Bulimba: the Irish clergy have a fantastic ability to keep records. As has been said, public records are the corporate memory of government. In the long term, public records provide evidence of actions, decisions and communications. They are the cornerstone of government democracy. Some of the key policy objectives of the bill include facilitating the documentation, management and preservation of government business through full and accurate records irrespective of the technological or administrative environment in which government business is conducted. It is the belief of many that the effectiveness of Queensland's freedom of information regime depends upon good record-keeping practices and upon obligations to preserve public records. The proper management of public records and provision of public access to public records is a critical element in the accountability of government. An approach to accessing government information that is consistent and that is equitable is an essential part of Australia's and Queensland's democratic process. The system and framework proposed in this bill for classifying restricted access periods has been aligned with the provisions dealing with exempt matter under the Freedom of Information Act 1992. The bill also recognises that over time the sensitivity of most information declines and that it is appropriate at some point for records that are older to be available for public inspection. This new bill has been made necessary by the rapidly changing technological and administrative environment in which we live today. The bill provides the legislative framework for Queensland State Archives to establish policy standards and practices that are reflective of national and international best practice in electronic record keeping. There has been extensive consultation in the preparation of the bill with all key stakeholders. All state government agencies have been consulted. Statutory authorities, local governments, the Australian Society of Archivists, the Records Management Association of Australia and the Professional Historians Association, Queensland Branch, were consulted and over 100 submissions were received. It is my belief that good government record keeping must also be reflective of a commitment within the wider community to preserve and record important aspects of not only administrative functions within bodies such as community associations and schools but also to preserve important aspects of local history. Very briefly, I wish to speak of a number of groups in my electorate that are doing just this. They are recording their local history and they are keeping very good records. On 15 March it was my pleasure to participate in an absolutely wonderful event at the Brisbane Montessori School in Fig Tree Pocket. The new administration building was opened and it is absolutely wonderful. At the same time a book by Mr Dan O'Donnell titled Brisbane Montessori School Twentieth Anniversary History 1982-2001 was launched. Mr O'Donnell has 1100 Public Records Bill 17 Apr 2002 chronicled the growth of Montessori education in the state of Queensland and he donated his services in the production of this book free of charge. It is a good read and I recommend it to all members. I seek leave to table a copy of Mr O'Donnell's book so that from this point on it forms a part of the record of the parliament. Leave granted. Mr LEE: I commend the work carried out by two other groups, the St Lucia History Group and the Toowong History Group, which meet regularly. The Toowong group is in the process of preparing for the centenary of Toowong next year. We are publishing a book about the history of Toowong and I am playing a small part by coordinating the chapter on education in Toowong. I compliment the hard work of Leigh Chamberlain, a local resident who has been a long-time supporter of historical activities in the St Lucia and Toowong areas. I commend the minister and his department for the production of a fine bill. It is a pleasure to support it. Mr MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (3.48 p.m.): It is a pleasure to participate in what has been an enjoyable and wide-ranging debate. I am looking forward now to Janet and her staff writing down notes so that the minister can respond to the various points that I want to make today. In the tradition of these great wide-ranging debates, I will touch on the honourable member for Lockyer's comment earlier in the debate about the Heiner report and the Heiner debate. I reassure the honourable member for Lockyer that at the Greenbank Soccer Club in his electorate the parents barrack for their kids and retire to the bar and debate endlessly the Heiner documents. They talk of nothing else at Greenbank! The whole contribution from the honourable member for Lockyer reminded me of the movie Groundhog Day. I am at least grateful that the Heiner report has now become part of the parliamentary debate for the year 2002. The delivery of the honourable member for Lockyer paled in comparison with contributions in earlier Heiner debates. One had to see to believe the contribution to the Heiner debate by the former member for Burdekin. It also owed much to a movie—Gorillas in the Mist. He too was very animated when he talked about Heiner. In fact, he had us riveted one night in 1998 while we sat here for hours and hours debating— Mr Purcell: And he sweated from under his arms on a regular basis. Mr MICKEL: He wore high heels so that his knuckles would not drag along the ground, but I was hoping that the member would not mention that. My appeal to the minister is this: I think Heiner is now so important, so embedded in our culture in this parliament, I call on the minister to hold an annual Heiner debate. We can wander out onto the Speaker's lawn with our shredded wholemeal biscuits and debate Heiner up and down. I am hoping also that we can set the Heiner debate to music. If ABBA can have a musical, so can the Heiner debate! I urge the minister to take up this request on my behalf. The former member for Broadwater used to raise this topic annually, and I was always pleased about that. In his absence, I feel I should take up the cause with a new minister who is eager to get on with it. I ask the minister to recommend to his department that we have a specific annual Heiner debate. Mr McNamara: Nothing could be finer than to keep debating Heiner. Mr MICKEL: That is correct! I want to refer to other features of the bill than the Heiner provisions. I want to congratulate Janet and her staff on the excellent way they have protected the Archives. They were magnificent hosts when we visited the centre last year. I was most impressed with the professionalism shown by Janet and the staff. I am very confident that our historical records, including the magnificent annual debate we are having today, will continue to be very well maintained. I now turn to the pivotal role played by the Archives in areas outside the south-east corner of this state. What is not appreciated is that many public authorities are located outside the south- east corner. It is essential that people in those areas know how to preserve the Archives. All those offices and regional public authorities will be covered by and will benefit from the record-keeping and access frameworks proposed by this bill. The legislative framework for the management of public records contained in this bill will also afford benefits to local governments. The framework also supports the management of public records which are created as part of the electronic delivery of government services to rural and regional communities. Under this legislation, the Queensland State Archives will provide additional tailored support to smaller remote local government authorities, where staff have to sometimes focus only on getting the work of the day done without concentrating overly on the historical 17 Apr 2002 Public Records Bill 1101 records which are a very, very important part of those communities. As part of the implementation of this legislation, there is a focus on regional record keeping and training and education programs, help desk services and the availability of online tools and published information. In July 2001, the Queensland State Archives conducted training seminars in far-north Queensland which were attended by over 100 record keepers. That sort of devotion to regional and rural Queensland is absolutely essential in preserving the great history and the great tales of Queensland country life. I think the honourable member for Indooroopilly referred to the ongoing and growing fascination for people to look up their family and local history records. I am very pleased that the State Archives is providing a more flexible and responsive delivery of services, not just to people in Brisbane but also to people in remote and regional areas of the state. This bill allows the Queensland State Archives to provide access by alternative means, including electronic service delivery, which will assist regional researchers in having quick and equitable access to records of interest. The new technology is far superior in that it provides people outside the south-east corner with equitable access. The bill also proposes a survey to be undertaken to identify records that are over 25 years old. This will identify historical documents currently located in regional centres and ensure that they are preserved and made available not just for local researchers but also for the wider Queensland community. Very importantly, the bill also allows for the distributed management of public records related to regional areas to take place in those regional areas. Where it is deemed appropriate, regional family historians and genealogists will have access to records and information to assist them in their research. This bill will not only provide better record-keeping frameworks to the south-east corner; it will also provide benefits to Queenslanders no matter where they live in this vast state. The bill strengthens public accountability in the management of public records throughout Queensland as well as providing improved access to records and training for regional and remote historians, researchers and everyday Queenslanders. Above all, it provides another opportunity for us to debate that great report—the Heiner report. For that, I am eternally grateful. Ms Boyle: Do they talk about it in Logan? Mr MICKEL: Absolutely—just as they talk about it at the Greenbank Soccer Club! Ms KEECH (Albert—ALP) (3.56 p.m.): It is apt that the Hon. Paul Lucas, the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy of Queensland, is introducing the Public Records Bill. I say this because the bill strengthens the whole-of-government reforms in accelerating Queensland's push as the Smart State. The bill recognises that public records are the corporate memory of government and of the state of Queensland. Public records are also the economic, social and cultural history of the state's public authorities. Throughout the world, technological advances have contributed to the efficient and effective management of records, whether they be in the public, corporate or private domains. This bill provides for the Queensland State Archives to develop and implement a record keeping policy framework and establish a nine-member Public Records Review Committee. Members today have spoken about the consistency and accountability in record keeping that this bill promotes. The state's 600 public authorities will also be given additional resources for conducting their business online. The bill will help to ensure that public records are retained and are potentially accessible to the public. I have not as yet visited the public archives in Compton Road. But in light of the glowing references that many members have given the facility during this debate, in particular the member for Glass House, I am very keen to make a visit some time in the future. Members like myself, who live in close proximity to teenagers' bedrooms, will be aware that the question is not always what to keep but, rather, what to throw out. I am sure that the member for Lockyer would agree with me, as would the member for Logan, who has an absolute passion for throwing things out. I therefore would like to speak on the decision-making process on the disposal of public records, which the provisions of this bill strengthens. Almost every week in the media we are reminded of cases where the decision-making process for throwing out public or corporate records is not adhered to. This morning whilst driving to Parliament House, I was listening to the ABC's 612 4QR. Mrs Carryn Sullivan: What a fine radio station it is. Ms KEECH: It certainly is a fine radio station. In fact, I reckon it is the best radio station on the dial. This morning I heard that senior public servant Jane Halston made a comment to the 1102 Public Records Bill 17 Apr 2002

Senate inquiry into the children overboard affair. This statement indicated the importance of the need for careful scrutiny of the disposal of public records. Ms Halston stated that a key defence briefing which was sent to the Prime Minister's office about doubts regarding the veracity of the claims of children being thrown overboard was destroyed. Perhaps the minister might be able to help the Prime Minister to keep his records intact. Also, last week it was announced that law firm Clayton Utz was under investigation into its conduct after being implicated in document shredding involving the corporate giant British American Tobacco. Members will be aware that British American Tobacco is accused of shredding thousands of documents so that they could not be used in court against the company. Given the strengthening of decision making relating to disposal of public records, I thoroughly support the bill. The Beattie Labor government continues to strengthen the integrity and accountability of public authorities through laws such as the Public Records Bill. The bill before the House delivers new standards for maintaining, managing and archiving public records. I commend the minister, Paul Lucas, and I commend the bill to the House. Ms MOLLOY (Noosa—ALP) (4.00 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Public Records Bill 2001, which assists Queenslanders to define themselves. The significance of the Public Records Bill 2001 lies in its inherent values of sound corporate governance and responsible public accountability. The bill provides a legislative framework. The purposes of the bill are to ensure that the public records of Queensland are made, maintained and kept in such a way to be of use and benefit in this generation and future generations, and to ensure that public access to records under the bill is consistent with the principles of the Freedom of Information Act 1992. I think this bill will be greatly appreciated by Noosa constituents, many of whom are themselves managers of both public and private records. I draw to the attention of the House the level of record keeping I have witnessed among my community groups. My constituents have shared with me information which I have found invaluable in gauging the level of interest and education they have acquired with regard to many issues. As a person of considerable experience in researching, I value the benefits of good record keeping. I give as an example the issue of the Noosa River bar, its history and that of the Noosa River. A vast amount of both public and private documents have been presented to me as research material—historical documents, government public documents, photographs, oral history recorded and aerial photography, and the list goes on. I have conducted many meetings on the issues of concern relating to the Noosa River bar. That information is on the public record. The benefit to the community here is that they know that their elected representative is tackling their concerns. Public records include both records made by the government and records received by the government. This bill gives protection to people who provide or transfer records to a public authority, including Queensland State Archives. We have heard what the member for Bulimba has had to say about this issue. Who are the public authorities? They comprise state government departments, statutory authorities, local governments, the Executive Council and government owned corporations. It is imperative that our government authorities pay meticulous heed to record keeping best practice. It is about accountability. This bill provides commitment and commits governments by way of legislation. Interestingly, archival authorities are no longer regarded as passive recipients of public records of permanent archival value but as lead agencies in the development and implementation of the whole-of-government policy frameworks for records management. The bill replaces those sections of the Libraries and Archives Act 1988 and Libraries and Archives Regulations 1990 dealing with access to public records. The bill, as already mentioned, provides a balance between the rights of citizens to access government information and the need to protect sensitive information. Many of my constituents are involved in protecting Noosa's glorious environment. They access through FOI legislation information that supports and equips them in their quest. The detail of this bill is comprehensive. It will facilitate greater consistency in information access under both this legislation and the FOI Act. Queenslanders should avail themselves of this legislation. I encourage our senior school students to inform themselves about this new legislation. We are accountable to the present community, but we are also accountable to future generations. I believe that Queenslanders can and will embrace change to facilitate the Smart State. At every given opportunity I hear the Opposition Leader damning the Beattie Labor government. I can tell him that this level of accountability was close to non-existent under the opposition 17 Apr 2002 Public Records Bill 1103 administration. Smart State, smart kids and smart legislation equates to responsible, accountable government. Beat that! I commend the bill to the House. I will sign off as Cate Molloy, working for a better Noosa. Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (4.04 p.m.): I rise to support the Public Records Bill. I congratulate the minister and the government on their commitment to enhancing service delivery to Queenslanders through the use of new technologies. I will briefly address that aspect of the bill which concerns e-government and the handling of electronic records. Government agencies are increasingly conducting business on line and providing electronic services to the Queensland community. The need to create dedicated legislation for the management of public records has become imperative in recent years, given the challenges of the technological environment. As information and communications technologies continue to evolve, it is critical that the state's legislative framework for record keeping remains relevant and effective. The Public Records Bill provides the State Archivist with the authority to develop policies and standards for the management of electronic records. Such policies and standards will contribute to the success of government online initiatives and strategies for the Queensland community, and it is particularly welcome in regional areas such as Hervey Bay. Operating in a dynamic electronic environment does not alter the need to capture, create and maintain records as evidence and memory. The Public Records Bill is technology neutral and focuses on the requirements for making, keeping and accessing records rather than on the media and technology used for generating, storing and using records. In the business context, records play a critical role in the strategic use of information, customising services and products, improving the efficiency and reliability of public administration and developing trust among networked communities. All of these activities are facilitated and supported by sound record keeping practices. In order to achieve integrated online service delivery and maintain accountability and credibility, record keeping practices and systems must become consistent. The Public Records Bill provides the legislative authority for Queensland State Archives to establish and implement a policy framework which incorporates specific standards and guidelines. These standards and guidelines will promote a consistent approach across Queensland for the management, storage, preservation and retrieval of technology dependent records such as electronic messages and web pages. It is also worth noting that the provisions of the bill complement the requirements of the Electronic Transactions (Queensland) Act 2001 for producing, recording, retaining and providing access to records generated in the course of electronic communications. In conclusion, the need for government to create and maintain records applies in all technological environments in government where business is conducted. This legislation ensures that a whole-of-government record keeping policy framework is in place to support e-government initiatives. This framework will ensure that the business of government, particularly in the electronic environment, is adequately documented to support government accountability and business continuity. I commend the minister, his staff and his department for driving this important legislation, which is one of the enablers of the Smart State. Mr CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (4.08 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Public Records Bill. This bill represents our government's recognition of and commitment to sound corporate governance and public accountability in the management of Queensland's public records. Public records are our corporate memory of government and indeed the state. A comprehensive legislative framework for managing public records strengthens accountability for managing them, supports consistent access to them and assists public authorities to meet the changing governance challenges of maintaining them. The Public Records Bill 2001 provides this framework, and Queenslanders have a right to good public access to public records. The Beattie Labor government delivers exactly that via this legislation. I believe it was General Douglas MacArthur who said, 'There is no security in this life. There is only opportunity.' I seek leave to table some documents I wish to quote from. Leave granted. Mr CUMMINS: This book, entitled Chronicles of the O'Dempsey family, in fact quotes the Queensland Legislative Assembly. J. P. O'Dempsey left Ireland in 1855 to travel to Australia. He began farming in Upper Freestone. The book states— 1104 Public Records Bill 17 Apr 2002

JP's letter called How the Land Act is Evaded was read to the Queensland Legislative Assembly, together with the reply from Mr. Gregory. In his response to the letter Mr. Gregory called JP 'untruthful', 'fabricator' and 'unscrupulous'. I checked with the member for Southern Downs—some refer to him as the Opposition Leader in waiting—who told me that the Warwick Argus changed its name at the turn of the century, but it was the local paper then and the journalist proclaimed JP's veracity. It continues— The following terms are found in Mr. Gregory's letter in reference of O'Dempsey and his statements, 'untruthfulness', 'fabrication', 'gratuitous falsehood', 'wilful untruth', 'subterfuge', 'unscrupulous', 'unqualified falsehoods'. This is pretty well for one who talks with a sneer about 'the class' to which O'Dempsey belongs. We can state advisedly, that Mr. O'Dempsey's letter bears marks of better cultivation than that of the Commissioner, while it is minus the vulgar abuse that disfigures the production of the other. It goes on to talk about a letter to the editor, but the point I make is that public documents are very important, whether chasing family history or knowing what happened here in the Legislative Assembly. We realise that once public documents such as newspapers and other things are read in this House they become part of the record and part of history, which enables people in the future to access those newspapers and other documents. Again, the book goes on to quote from the Warwick Argus of 1868 and refers to purchasing the farm in Upper Freestone. It also refers to the Irish clan system and how the O'Dempsey name was an honoured and respected surname, but during the 16th century and under English law the O'Dempseys were proclaimed outlaws, stripped of their property and exiled from their native territory, and it goes on. Public records are a very important part of everyday life. They are an extremely important part of our history and how we can judge the past to make a better future. In concluding I, too, compliment the minister, the department and all the other people who worked to get the bill to the House, and I commend it to the House. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (4.12 p.m.): I rise to support the Public Records Bill and congratulate the minister and his department for bringing this necessary legislation before the House. In particular, I wish to congratulate the State Archivist and Director of Queensland State Archives, Ms Janet Prowse, and her dedicated staff. We may well ask whether this legislation and the keeping of public records have any effect on the lives of our constituents. I would suggest that the answer is a clear yes, and I will provide some examples to the House. Some people know only of the Queensland State Archives because they are following up a family history inquiry and attend the public reading room at the Runcorn facility. This is an important service provided by the QSA, but it is by no means the only role or the most important work carried out by this government agency. Examples of accessing public records are numerous and varied, and I will put a couple to the House. Court and police records are essential when following up complaints, appeals and inquiries. Native title claims and property ownership disputes depend on accurate reports being available. When wills are being contested, such records are invaluable. All of these are maintained by the QSA. School records can confirm the qualifications of former students who may have lost family records in a house fire or, on a more delicate issue, information may be needed following a complaint about child abuse. Legal inquiries frequently arise many years after the alleged incidents occurred. School records therefore may form part of the Crown case or indeed the accused person's defence. Accurate, accessible records would determine, for example, if the teacher and the student were both at the school at the time of the alleged offence. Public records form a backdrop to the activities of all 800 government agencies—that is right, more than 800 state government departments or government bodies! If we are to be the Smart State, we need ready access to accurate information. This bill sets in place a framework to achieve this goal. On 30 November last year Minister Lucas arranged for his caucus committee to visit the QSA at Runcorn, and I thank him for that. Because I had to leave early, I was able to follow up other aspects of QSA work late last month, and I thank Janet Prowse and particularly Nola Fulwood for their informative and thorough presentation. On Thursday, 7 March this year the minister hosted a function for state and federal archivists. It was a most interesting gathering. One of the things that occurred at that gathering was a show and tell. Mr Hayward interjected. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: I think that this particular exercise demonstrated, as I hear the member for Kallangur supporting me in the importance of this work, just how important it is that we keep public records. Queensland was able to produce telegrams about Ned Kelly and 17 Apr 2002 Public Records Bill 1105 accompanying information about the Kelly family. The Victorian Archivist produced an object with an estimated value of $10 million. What was this most valuable item? It was an electronic record of geological/seismological sweeps of Bass Strait taken at the time of early searches for oil in that area. This electronic tape was like something out of a James Bond movie and was produced and first used some decades ago. In subsequent years it appeared to be useless and could not be read or used. However, recent improvements in the computer industry mean that the information on this tape can now be accessed. Because of the way this item was produced, it fell into the category of public record and was duly passed into the care of the Victorian Archivist. It may now be possible that this very tape can be analysed by a petroleum company to find new reserves of oil. The information on this tape could save a company millions of dollars because it would not have to produce the same physical record of the ocean floor. What may have appeared of little value some time ago is now a very valuable item. Thank goodness it was preserved and kept on the public record. Archival authorities are no longer viewed as passive recipients of public records of permanent archival value. Instead, they are regarded as lead agencies in the development and implementation of whole-of-government policy frameworks for record management. Likewise, Queensland State Archives is regarded as the lead agency in public record keeping in Queensland. The whole-of-government record keeping framework being developed and implemented by the QSA is a strategic management framework for establishing consistent, comprehensive and compliant best practice record keeping in Queensland's public authorities. I want to take a few minutes to go through some of the details of this framework, and my comments rely heavily on the presentation by Jackie Bettington, who is the prime architect of this policy framework and who is here advising the minister today. It must be acknowledged that, while hundreds of people in government, professional and industry organisations have assisted in the development of this policy framework, Jackie and the team at the QSA took the lead role. In particular, there was valuable input provided by the 31 member work party, the Australian Society of Archivists, the Professional Historians Association, the Records Management Association and senior policy officers within the Department of Innovation and Information Economy. The Queensland government's new record keeping framework provides both the rules and tools of record keeping. It will assist the 800 public authorities in this state to manage public records in all formats. Compliance with the framework will ensure that the business of government is adequately documented and that public records are managed in a systemic way to enable them to be used and accessible for as long as they are required. This will meet a range of legislative, accountability, business and cultural obligations along the way. Public records are the records generated by, and received by, people working in government. This new legislation formalises the role of the QSA as the lead agency for the development and implementation of strategies to deliver best practice record keeping across government. The legislation makes chief executive officers responsible for record keeping within their own organisation. Compliance with the public record legislation and this record keeping policy framework will be documented in an annual report to parliament. Put simply, this is a new framework for the new economy. Record keeping is everybody's business, not just the business of a specialist few within a department. The framework that is provided is a framework for everyone working in government—whether they are the CEO, an executive director, the general manager, manager, project officer or an administrative assistant. All public servants have legislative obligations and are required under legislation to manage public records within formal record keeping systems and programs. This means not only having the right software, hardware, staff training and good processes in place but having the commitment among all staff to ensure that record keeping principles and the right mindset at the senior management levels are in place to achieve the required goals. The policy framework represents national and international best practice and is supported by a range of practical tools to assist with the implementation. The framework will promote consistency in record-keeping practices across all government agencies. Queensland State Archives will provide agencies with a range of advisory and support services—from further assistance with any aspect of strategic record plans to advice on preparing a specific retention and disposal schedule for an agency's records. If we are to modernise government in this state, each government department and every government body will have to be clever in preserving and accessing the corporate memory of government in the information age. As Jackie Bettington explained at the launch of the 1106 Public Records Bill 17 Apr 2002 standards, building a compliant and accountable record-keeping regime within an organisation is like building a house. It takes time and effort, a design or plan, resources and effort from a range of people and ongoing maintenance; otherwise it will fall into disrepair and cost a fortune in the future to fix. The rules and tools are designed to ensure that full and accurate public records are made, kept and accessible for the purposes of government efficiency, effectiveness and compliance. In distinguishing between simply having information and the value of using information creatively, Edward de Bono noted that a large pile of bricks does not build a house. Having records does not mean that one has good records management in one's organisation. Information adds value to organisations. How much value it adds depends on the organisation's effort and commitment to building useful record-keeping regimes. To get value out of records, the right records must be available at the right time and to the right people. This is effective record keeping. The record-keeping standards produced in this framework are not prescriptive. They recognise that, given the diversity of public authorities in Queensland in terms of the environment in which they operate, the functions they have been established to perform and their own internal situation, each public authority will need to address these standards in a different way. So, using Jackie's building analogy, each record-keeping structure built or renovated will be shaped by its environmental context and the needs of the family. In terms of implementing these public standards, authorities will need to invest resources and should expect to gain a return on this investment. When designing record systems, be they manual, electronic or a hybrid, it is important to think creatively when identifying requirements so that government agencies are not just complying with the standards for the sake of compliance or simply replicating existing processes and practices or fixing problems. Public servants should regard this as an opportunity for streamlining record-keeping and integrating it into the organisation so that record keeping enhances activities and outcomes, particularly those associated with delivering products and services electronically. In other words, good record keeping can also be good business practice. The QSA has developed or endorsed a number of resources to provide public authorities with the necessary practical guidelines for implementing the record-keeping standards. Policies, standards and guidelines include the recently released web policy and guidelines and the electronic message policy and guidelines. All of us in our electorate offices know how difficult it is dealing with a regime of emails and how there can be so much useless information that comes into our electorate office, yet we have to manage to retrieve the essential information. As well, a training schedule was organised both last year, for this year and for next year by the QSA. It is in the process of holding half-day workshops in Brisbane, Toowoomba, Rockhampton and Townsville. It was interesting that the analysis of the data collected by the QSA during the record-keeping survey in 2001 indicated that, although the business models and internal and external record-keeping environments are rapidly changing, the record-keeping policies and practices were lagging behind. The survey results indicated that, although public authorities have embraced ICTs and email has transcended paper communication as the dominant form of business communication, our record-keeping practices are still largely confined to the paper world. In conclusion, record keeping underpins and supports government accountability. This legislation ensures that Queensland public record-keeping legislation is relevant and effective within the dynamic electronic business environment. I congratulate the minister and his department on their work and I support the bill. Hon. P. T. LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Innovation and Information Economy) (4.25 p.m.), in reply: I thank members for their contributions to the debate on this important piece of legislation. Members are well aware of this government's commitment to sound corporate governance and public accountability. The bill provides a contemporary framework for the management of public records of state and local government in Queensland. It promotes consistency and accountability in record-keeping practices across Queensland's public authorities. Over the past decade, archives legislation around the world has evolved to reflect the role of archival authorities as lead agencies in the development and implementation of whole-of- government policy frameworks for records management. This legislation provides the authority for Queensland State Archives to establish and implement a policy framework that promotes a consistent approach across government for the 17 Apr 2002 Public Records Bill 1107 management, storage, preservation and retrieval of public records. This framework will ensure that the business of government, particularly in the electronic environment, is adequately documented to support government accountability and business continuity. This legislation for the management of public records will enable Queensland to meet the challenges of record keeping in the information age. The Public Records Bill is technology neutral and focuses on the requirements for making, keeping and accessing records rather than the media and technology used for generating, storing and using records. This legislation will ensure that records of enduring value are retained and potentially accessible to the public. The legislation provides a balance between the rights of citizens to access government information with the need to protect sensitive information, particularly information relating to personal affairs. The access regime in this bill also recognises that this sensitivity of information declines with the passage of time and that at some point it is appropriate for older records to be available for public access. This regime will facilitate greater consistency in information access decisions under both this legislation and the Freedom of Information Act. This is consistent with the principles of the freedom of information legislation and recognises that some information in public records must be protected from access by a third party while sensitivity to that information remains. In summary, this legislation promotes best practice in record-keeping practices across Queensland, and ensures that public records are made, kept, managed and preserved in a usable form. Overall, the bill ensures that government records in all media are managed appropriately for the benefit of all Queenslanders. I shall now comment on the individual contributions of members. I thank all members for their contributions and appreciate the time and effort they took in preparing them. The member for Southern Downs indicated some of our challenges in relation to data storage and alluded to the significant increases in information generated by governments and agencies and to the need to manage those documents created. The member supported the government's recognition of freedom of information and the need to align freedom of information access to archives legislation. The member referred to records over 100 years in age. I indicate that about 0.4 per cent of records over 100 years in age are not publicly accessible. So, the vast majority of records in that area are publicly accessible. The sort of records—and the member recognised this—that are closed beyond 100 years are personally sensitive documents, often relating to indigenous people. Indigenous people do not like the names of deceased persons being in the public domain. Of course, they could access it themselves under freedom of information. Further, restricted material includes prison plans, security buildings, courts, et cetera. The member also referred in some detail to the Public Records Review Committee. I emphasise that in terms of the ownership of records, they are public records. They are not records that belong to me, the Archivist or any government; they are public records concerning the history of this state. It is very important that people recognise this. The member also discussed the Heiner inquiry. I will not go on about the Heiner inquiry—it has been debated to death both in this chamber and in many other forums—except to say this: for any conspiracy theory one normally needs a motive. The National Party constituted the Heiner inquiry. The Heiner inquiry was constituted at a time when there had not been a Labor government in Queensland for 32 years. This hardly indicates a motive in this government, other than acting on the advice it received to destroy the documents. For the purposes of the historical record and for those people who read Hansard now or in the future, in his contribution to the parliamentary debate on 30 July 1998 at page 1494 the Premier commented in some detail on the history of the so-called Heiner matter. As I said, I do not propose to comment on that any further as there are a number of extremely important provisions and contributions that members have made. The member for Glass House spoke about the importance of the legislation's alignment of access with the Freedom of Information Act. She spoke about guiding frameworks for chief executive officers to help promote consistency. She pointed out that only three per cent of records are, in fact, closed to the public over 30 years. As I indicated before, 0.3 per cent are closed over 100 years and three per cent are closed over 30 years. So most of them are clearly available under 30 years. The member also spoke about the ability, apart from access to Archives, to seek administrative access or access under freedom of information to many records. 1108 Public Records Bill 17 Apr 2002

The member for Lockyer spoke about the Heiner inquiry. I have already commented on that. The member for Springwood spoke about the Public Records Review Committee and the good work of the Archives staff. As their minister, I am very proud of them and the work that they do. On a number of occasions I have been out to the State Archives and I am pleased that other members have taken up that opportunity to do the same. The member for Moggill spoke in some detail about the history of the bill. Of course, he previously had a role as a minister in relation to the legislation. The member for Aspley spoke about aligning the provisions in the legislation with the Freedom of Information Act. She spoke about not only the composition of the Public Records Review Committee but also the appeal process that provides for it. The member for Capalaba spoke about standards and the benefits of consistency across government. The member for Caloundra spoke in her capacity as a member of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. She spoke about the 1999 draft. Obviously, she differed with the member for Moggill in some respects in that she was happy to point out a number of deficiencies in it, including the fact that she noted, on behalf of her committee, that this legislation now excludes the parliament from the ambit of the legislation as the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee wished. This parliament is the boss of its own destiny, to use non-gender specific language. Mr Speaker, in your contribution you spoke about the impact of the bill on government owned corporations. The member for Mount Ommaney, in her capacity as chair of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, supported this bill and its removal of the Legislative Assembly from its ambit. The member for Bulimba spoke about history and its importance. He also spoke somewhat about Catholic education in Australia in the 1950s and Mother Scholastica. Mr Cummins: Possibly the thirties. Mr LUCAS: Possibly the thirties. I think that the very important point that the member raised in relation to archives and public records is that we take the good with the bad. Archives have many distasteful things in them. History is not always pleasant. Not everything that we have done—whether that be party political or indeed just general administration of the government of this state or general community attitudes—we would be proud of today. But we have to look at those events wearing the spectacles that people were wearing at that time. The good and the bad are in the archives, and it is important that that is so. The member from Cairns spoke about history in Cairns and some recent initiatives. She also made the very important point that it is the little people who find these archives and records important. They might want to have a look at adoption records, they might want to have a look at some school records. They are their records just as much as they are the records of the Supreme Court or the Premier's Department. The member for Indooroopilly spoke about the alignment of the legislation with the Freedom of Information Act. He spoke about the lengthy consultation process that had been undertaken with community groups. He spoke with the great support of a number of history groups in his community. He also spoke about the centenary of Toowong, about which he is clearly extremely proud. The member for Logan spoke about the role of Archives outside the south-east corner. The Smart State is something that extends beyond the south-east corner. He also referred to the training seminars for record keepers in regional Queensland. In fact, the shadow spokesperson, the member for Southern Downs, indicated 'Hear, hear' then. I note specifically that he has written to me about the Leyburn Historical Society and the courts records process. So clearly they are matters of interest to people throughout Queensland. The member for Albert spoke about the issue of what to keep and what to throw out. That is an extremely challenging decision for Archives to make in terms of the enormous number of records that are created. If in the future someone comes to Archives wanting to search for something and they are given a folder of relevant material as distinct from a container load of rubbish, I know which is more important in terms of accessing historical records. The member for Albert also spoke about the decision-making process for the disposal of records. The member for Noosa spoke about the balance in the bill between access to information and privacy. The member for Hervey Bay spoke about the challenges of electronic records and the decisions in relation to retaining them. I was very interested to hear the contribution of the member for Kawana, because he spoke about some historical aspects that I personally found 17 Apr 2002 Public Records Bill 1109 very interesting. He spoke about the O'Dempsey family from the Warwick area. Many members of this place, including the member for Mount Ommaney who is sitting next to him, would know very well Darcy O'Dempsey who, no doubt, would be a relative of the member for Kawana. Mr Cummins: My cousin. Mr LUCAS: The member has indicated that he is his cousin. Darcy O'Dempsey is known as the Labor Party's greatest doorknocker. He has helped many people in many campaigns. I am proud to say that he was the campaign director for every one of Tom Burns's election campaigns and also for my first two election campaigns. He is a great man and a great contributor. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr LUCAS: Of course, I would have been the member's local member if I had won the seat of Carnarvon in 1983. Mr Springborg: 1986. Mr LUCAS: Sorry, 1986. Mr Springborg: A valiant fight. Mr LUCAS: I got one-third of the vote. The next time when I ran for Lytton I got two-thirds of the vote. So I did a bit better the second time. The member for Stafford gave a very detailed contribution. I know the great personal interest and time that the member for Stafford has spent in relation to Archives. He spoke about the value of records for court cases or reconstructing family histories. On many occasions he has been out to Archives. The member also spoke about the changing value of historical records. I think that is an extremely good point. He spoke about those seismic records in Victoria. To put that in another context, 50 years ago a blood sample would provide very limited material to a pathologist or to police investigating a crime. Now, that same blood sample tells much, much more information. So what was previously thought to be of a certain value can have much greater value now or could have greater value in the future. The member spoke of the role of the Archivist and the Archives in working with agencies in terms of their retention policies. I will be moving a number of amendments to the legislation in the committee stage. I submit that they are non-controversial amendments. I table the explanatory notes for the amendments to be moved in the committee stage. For the purposes of the record, I table a letter from the Australian Society of Archivists, Queensland Branch. Specifically, I draw to the attention of the House one section in the second paragraph, which states that the bill also guarantees the independence of the State Archivist in making decisions regarding the retention of public records and it allows for the formation of an archives board or Public Records Review Committee, which will ensure that stakeholders can have a voice in the ongoing administration of public records. Again, I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. All of them were thoughtful and well prepared. I do not necessarily agree with all of them, but I thank members for the time and effort that they put into their contributions. Finally, I thank the State Archivist, Janet Prowse; Jackie Bettington, who is also from State Archives; and Craig Matheson from my department. One of the things that I am determined to do in my work with Queensland State Archives is to recognise it for its importance, both within my portfolio and within the government. Sometimes when a department is located a little bit out of town, like State Archives is, there can be a tendency for people to think, 'They are just out there doing a good job, so we won't worry about them.' I think that Archives is extremely important. I love history. It is really amazing the work that they do out there. State Archives has a very devoted staff. So again I would like to thank them and commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. P. T. LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Innovation and Information Economy) in charge of the bill. Clause 1— Mr SPRINGBORG (4.39 p.m.): During my contribution to the second reading debate I tabled a document entitled The Lindeberg Declaration, which was basically a chronology prepared by Mr Kevin Lindeberg of the whole Heiner document-shredding issue. It is an interesting chronology. As I indicated earlier, whilst most of the contents are factual chronological issues, there are some 1110 Public Records Bill 17 Apr 2002 matters of subjective analysis. There was an issue with the document providing the impression that it was created by the Legislative Assembly as an official document. That has now been taken out. Basically, it is just the context of the material that I table for the information of the committee. Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clauses 2 to 9, as read, agreed to. Clause 10— Mr LUCAS (4.41 p.m.): I move amendment No. 1— 1. Clause 10— At page 9, lines 7 to 11— omit, insert— '(1) If a public record in a public authority's possession is more than 25 years old, the public authority— (a) must give written notice of the record's existence to the archivist; and (b) if the public authority no longer needs the record to be readily available in its own custody, may, if authorised by the archivist, give the record to the archives. '(2) If the record is not given to the archives under subsection (1)(b), the archivist may take possession, or a copy, of the record or give directions about the storage of the record.'. This amendment is considered necessary to remove any doubt that public authorities may transfer records voluntarily to the Queensland State Archives at any time if this is authorised by the Archivist. A concern has been raised with the government that the bill, as presently drafted, may not provide a sufficient legal basis for voluntary transfer of records to the archives. Amendment agreed to. Clause 10, as amended, agreed to. Clause 11— Mr LUCAS (4.42 p.m.): I move amendment No. 2— 2. Clause 11— At page 9, line 22, 'may'— omit, insert— 'may, if authorised by the archivist,'. This amendment is required to establish that a prior authorisation by the Archivist is required before a public authority may transfer records less than 25 years old to Queensland State Archives. This amendment will enable the Archivist to make prior assessments of storage requirements and other particular arrangements that may be necessary before accepting the transfer of such records. It also provides the flexibility for the Archivist to explore alternative storage options with the relevant public authority in the event that State Archives is unable to store particular records proposed for transfer at a specific point in time. Amendment agreed to. Clause 11, as amended, agreed to. Clause 12— Mr LUCAS (4.43 p.m.): I move amendment No. 3— 3. Clause 12— At page 9, line 27, after 'old'— insert— ', unless the person has a reasonable excuse'. This amendment has been identified as necessary to accommodate those circumstances where a person may have a reasonable excuse for damaging a public record over 30 years old. I thank the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee for raising this particular issue. Relevant examples of what may constitute a reasonable excuse include an outbreak of silverfish or white ants in paper based records, repositories or mould growth occurring on CD-ROMs stored in conditions of high humidity. If clause 12 were not amended as proposed, a person responsible for the storage of these records would potentially commit an offence under this legislation through no fault of their own. Amendment agreed to. Clause 12, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 13 to 15, as read, agreed to. 17 Apr 2002 Public Records Bill 1111

Clause 16— Mr LUCAS (4.44 p.m.): I move amendment No. 4— 4. Clause 16— At page 11, lines 21 to 28— omit, insert— '(b) the period starting on the day the record is made and ending on— (i) if subparagraph (ii) does not apply, the day stated in a written notice given to the archivist by the responsible public authority for the record when the record is given to the archives; or (ii) the day stated in the latest written notice given, under section 19, to the archivist by the responsible public authority. '(3) The "restricted access period" for any other public record starts on the day the record is made and ends on— (a) if paragraph (b) does not apply, the day stated in a written notice given to the archivist by the responsible public authority for the record when the record is given to the archives; or (b) the day stated in the latest written notice given, under section 19, to the archivist by the responsible public authority. '(4) The day stated in a notice mentioned in subsection (2) or (3) must not be later than—'. This amendment is consequential to amendments which I will shortly propose to clause 19. The amendment to clause 16 reflects that the calculation of a restricted access period will need to take into account any change made in a notice by a chief executive officer of a public authority to the Archivist in relation to the access arrangements for a particular public record or class of record. In other words, hopefully from time to time those restricted access periods might be reduced or revised upwards, and obviously we want to facilitate that. This amendment facilitates that action taking place. Amendment agreed to. Clause 16, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 17 and 18, as read, agreed to. Clause 19— Mr LUCAS (4.45 p.m.): I move amendment No. 5— 5. Clause 19— At page 14, lines 1 to 10— omit, insert— ' 19 Reviewing and changing responsible public authority's notice about access '(1) This section applies to a notice (a "restricted access notice") given by a public authority under section 16(3)(a) about a public record mentioned in section 16(4). '(2) The responsible public authority for the record may, by written notice given to the archivist, change the restricted access notice. '(3) Also, the archivist may ask the responsible public authority to review or, by written notice given to the archivist, change the restricted access notice. '(4) If a dispute arises between the archivist and the responsible public authority about the restricted access notice, the archivist or the public authority may refer the dispute to the committee for resolution. '(5) The archivist and the public authority must comply with the committee's decision on the dispute.'. The proposed amendment to clause 19 is designed to incorporate relevant components of section 23 of the current Libraries and Archives Regulations 1990 under the new legislative regime. Section 23 of the current Libraries and Archives Regulations enables a chief executive officer of a public authority to review or change an existing notice about access to public records. This amendment will transfer the current provisions and regulations to primary legislation, which, of course, is always more satisfactory. This amendment is needed so that there is a capacity to review notices in relation to access arrangements to take account of any legislative and regulatory changes that may occur subsequent to the issue of an original restricted access notice. For example, the establishment of a privacy regime in Queensland in 2001 may require the realignment of restricted access notices previously issued for records containing personal information. Similarly, certain cultural sensitivities to particular issues may diminish or, indeed, increase over time and warrant a review of restricted access periods so that records may be opened earlier or, indeed, later than originally intended. Amendment agreed to. Clause 19, as amended, agreed to. 1112 Public Records Bill 17 Apr 2002

Clauses 20 and 21, as read, agreed to. Clause 22— Dr WATSON (4.47 p.m.): I move amendment No. 1— 1. Clause 22— At page 16, lines 1 to 3— omit, insert— ' 22 Appointment of archivist '(1) The archivist is to be appointed by the Governor in Council. '(2) The archivist is appointed for the term specified in the instrument of appointment and is eligible for reappointment. '(3) The specified term must not be longer than 5 years. '(4) The Public Service Act 1996 does not apply to the appointment of the archivist. ' 22A Terms and conditions of appointment '(1) The archivist is appointed on terms decided by the Governor in Council. '(2) The archivist is entitled to be paid the remuneration and allowances decided by the Governor in Council. ' 22B Resignation 'The archivist may resign by signed notice given to the Minister. ' 22C Termination of appointment 'The Governor in Council may terminate the appointment of the archivist if the archivist— (a) is convicted of an indictable offence; or (b) is guilty of misconduct that could warrant dismissal from the public service if the archivist were a public service officer; or (c) becomes incapable of satisfactorily performing the archivist's functions. ' 22D Preservation of rights '(1) This section applies if a public service officer is appointed as the archivist. '(2) The person retains and is entitled to all rights that have accrued to the person because of employment as a public service officer, or that would accrue in the future to the person because of that employment, as if service as archivist were a continuation of service as a public service officer. '(3) At the end of the person's term of appointment or on resignation— (a) the person is entitled to be appointed to a position in the public service at a salary level not less than the current salary level of an office equivalent to the position the person held before being appointed as archivist; and (b) the person's service as archivist is to be regarded as service of a like nature in the public service for the purpose of deciding the person's rights as a public service officer. ' 22E Superannuation for archivist who was previously an officer of the public service '(1) This section applies if a public service officer is appointed as the archivist and immediately before the appointment the public service officer was a member of the superannuation scheme. '(2) The person— (a) continues to be a member of the superannuation scheme; and (b) for paragraph (a), is taken to be eligible for membership of the superannuation scheme under the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990. '(3) In this section— "superannuation scheme" means the State Public Sector Superannuation Scheme. ' 22F Acting archivist 'The Governor in Council may appoint a person to act as archivist— (a) during a vacancy in that office; or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the archivist is absent from duty or can not, for another reason, perform the functions of that office. ' 22G Employment of archives staff 'The staff of the archives are to be employed under the Public Service Act 1996.'. The amendment is designed to strengthen the independence of the Archivist. In common with the 1999 bill, the current bill contains a provision—clause 27—which indicates that the Archivist is independent in issues concerning the decision to destroy public records. However, one of my concerns is that this bill reverts back to the 1995 bill, which indicated that the State Archivist was in fact subject to the Public Sector Management Act 1988. These amendments guarantee the greater independence of the Archivist simply by ensuring that the appointment of the State 17 Apr 2002 Public Records Bill 1113

Archivist is made by the Governor in Council. In other words, it is a statutory appointment similar to the Parliamentary Counsel, the Public Trustee, et cetera. It specifies the length of the term and that the Public Service Act 1996 does not apply to the position of State Archivist. Most importantly, it also specifies in the amendments the particular issues that can be brought forward to terminate the appointment of the State Archivist. It states— The Governor in Council may terminate the appointment of the archivist if the archivist— (a) is convicted of an indictable offence; or (b) is guilty of misconduct that could warrant dismissal from the public service if the archivist were a public service officer; or (c) becomes incapable of satisfactorily performing the archivist's functions. In other words, it specifies how and why the Archivist can be terminated—if involved in an indictable offence, incapacitated or guilty of serious misconduct. The Archivist cannot be removed for other reasons. The problem with the bill we are debating is that, with the Archivist being subject to the Public Service Act, the Archivist can be removed over issues that concern the minister or perhaps the director-general of the department. The Public Service Act provides for the redeployment of a person or for a person to be made redundant. In this way, pressure can be put on the occupant of the position, something which cannot be done if the individual occupies the position as a statutory appointment. Interestingly, these amendments are precisely the same as sections 20 to 28 of the Public Records Bill 1999, which was put before the House in the last parliament. One of the things the minister has to explain is why he considered it essential that these sections be removed when re- presenting the bill in this parliament. It was good enough in the last parliament to recognise that, to ensure the independence of the State Archivist, the State Archivist should be a statutory officer, but when it comes to this parliament that is no longer thought to be essential. The other guarantees, such as the Archivist not being subject to ministerial direction when it comes to the disposal of public records, are in this bill and also the previous one. Nothing has changed in that respect. The only thing that has changed is that the State Archivist is now subject to the Public Service Act 1996, and the minister or the director-general of the department has influence over the individual employee. That raises concerns about the true independence of the State Archivist. It does not matter what the archivists society represents. The same body, the Records Management Association and archivists from around the country told me as the then minister that they wanted independent statutory authority status and that nothing less than independent statutory authority status would guarantee the independence of the State Archivist. Mr Lucas: I have tabled the record. You better table the record. Dr WATSON: I no longer have those records. They would be somewhere in the department. I recall that occurring. I recall discussing the issue and coming up with a model for appointment as a statutory officer rather than as a statutory authority, the reason at the time being that I was aware of the difficulty ministers face by having independent statutory authorities reporting to them in terms of trying to understand what goes on in that body. A lot of the things that the Archivist does are more of a departmental nature. I want to know why the minister thought it essential to drop those sections out of this bill. What was it in the process which caused the minister to say, 'These things which were part of the '99 bill,' and which were thought to be essential by his predecessor in this portfolio, 'are no longer necessary in this parliament'? Mr SPRINGBORG: I rise to support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Moggill. I believe it strengthens the provisions of the Public Records Bill we are currently debating in committee. The member for Moggill has put an extremely strong argument as to why we need to be very concerned about a change that has been made from the time when he was the responsible minister and was deliberating over a new Public Records Bill which was subsequently brought into this parliament by his successor, as I understand it, Mr Mackenroth, but which lapsed following the prorogation of the parliament. It is extremely important, if we are dealing with the public record and we are seeking to address concerns in the broader community and within government agencies about their independent and impartial functioning, that the State Archivist be a statutory position. The member for Moggill has highlighted a number of other positions that are by their very nature considered extremely important and are statutory positions. The Public Trustee is one of those. I would also mention the Director of Public Prosecutions. I think there is good reason for 1114 Public Records Bill 17 Apr 2002 that. Whilst the intentions of this minister might be noble and right, I am not completely sure what the motivation is behind the removal of the larger protection afforded under the previous Public Records Bill, and I am very uncomfortable with it. During the second reading debate I outlined some of my concerns about the conduct and independence of the office of the State Archivist in Queensland. The people who have held that office do their job admirably. But if the position is not independent to the extent that it is made a statutory position, there will be subtle influences over that person. If a State Archivist is not as secure in that position and is open to a greater degree of influence, subtle or otherwise, because of their appointment under the Public Service Act, that raises issues about potential influence over them in relation to the preservation of documents. Although this minister's intentions might be fine, today we have to close the door on a potential abuse or problem arising. What is the problem with making the position of the State Archivist an independent statutory position? Why was it good enough for Minister Mackenroth to do that but not good enough for the parliament to consider that today? Is it because the government feels bolstered by the fact that it has a greater presence in this parliament than it did in 1999? What reason does the minister have for not wanting to assuage the concerns of the National Party and Liberal Party in parliament and not making this position an independent statutory position? I do not think there is one. What could reasonably be the minister's concern about not having this position as an independent statutory position? What is the benefit in making it subject to the provisions of the Public Service Act in Queensland? Mr Lucas: Ask public servants if they'd rather be on term contracts or be permanent public servants. Mr SPRINGBORG: Does that mean that the Public Trustee or the Director of Public Prosecutions will be in the gun sights one day? What does that mean for other independent statutory office holders in Queensland? Today I have a concern—I think a legitimate one—and I believe that an independent statutory position would better serve the role of preserving, collecting and making decisions relevant to public documents in Queensland in the future than would placing that position under the Public Service Act. I would find it extremely interesting if the view of archivists has changed in the four years since the honourable member for Moggill was the minister responsible for this role of government. I would be very interested to hear what the minister has to say about that. I believe the member for Moggill has put forward some very powerful suggestions and contentions. I think the minister's motivation and what he has done generally with the bill before the House today are extremely good and he needs to be commended. I know it largely reflects what has happened previously and I think his intentions are genuine. But I think any failure today to pass this amendment, which ensures that the position of State Archivist is an independent position, weakens the strength of the bill and the modern process which we are seeking to put in place through the Public Records Bill. Mr LUCAS: The amendments proposed by the member for Moggill and supported by the member for Southern Downs do not reinforce the independence of the State Archivist. The independence and accountability of the State Archivist are strengthened by the arrangements in the bill as it presently stands by having the State Archivist employed as a public servant. As I said to the member for Southern Downs before, if he thinks that a term appointment of itself necessarily gives security of tenure and freedom from interference, I suggest he ask the Queensland Public Sector Union whether it prefers its members to be on term contracts or whether it prefers its members to be tenured public servants. I know what the answer will be, because it has certainly made that clear many times. The member should talk to Commissioner Ray Dempsey of the Industrial Relations Commission, who was appointed to a seven-year term and was knocked off when his term expired—for no reason—by Santo Santoro. With an executive council appointment, no reason for dismissal is required—off you go. I think Ray Dempsey would also say that he does not think a term appointment was any guarantee at all in terms of his independence or his security of tenure. I said in my contribution to the second reading debate that the Archives is core government business. One of the real strengths of the Archivist—and I know that she is doing this already—is the fact that she will be working with government agencies in relation to records management policies and the like. Those activities are clearly standard government business. Her employees are standard public servants. It is a standard departmental role that she performs as State Archivist, except in one area, that being independence in disposal decisions. That is still provided for in the bill. That is the critical aspect here. The Archivist still has the critical level of 17 Apr 2002 Public Records Bill 1115 independence when it comes to decisions on the disposal of archives. That is enshrined in clause 27 of the bill. The primary reason for retaining the State Archivist as a public servant but with strength and independence in decision making is to preserve and enhance the security of the person performing the role through tenured employment. There is no need to create a separate corporate bureaucracy when managing public records is an administrative and regulatory function of the government. I am advised that all the other State Archivists are also public servants. So Queensland is not out of step with the rest of the country when it comes to this. Further, in relation to public servants, as both members opposite would know, in the case of unfair or inappropriate dismissal, clear statutory alternatives can be taken. Far from—as the member for Moggill indicates—this being legislation that reduces the independence of the Archivist, it strengthens it. Dr WATSON: With all due respect to the minister, the argument is somewhat flawed. Why is the Director of Public Prosecutions a statutory officer? Why is the Parliamentary Counsel a statutory officer? They are appointed in that manner to make it more difficult to remove the officer except under quite explicit circumstances. It gives those officers independence while they hold the position because they make decisions knowing that they cannot be removed unless they violate sections of the act under which they were appointed. We have outlined three reasons why an Archivist could be removed. They are definite. They are things that everyone would understand—if someone commits an indictable offence, if someone has committed official misconduct or if somebody is no longer capable of carrying out the functions. Those reasons are quite specific. They are the kinds of reasons justifying the removal of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Parliamentary Counsel or the Public Trustee. The process is designed to make it difficult for a government to remove the officer on a whim. The minister might say that the Public Service Act gives them guarantees. Under the Public Service Act, I believe an officer can be made redundant with six months' notice or can be redeployed quite legitimately at the direction of a minister or a director-general—somebody in a more senior position in the department. Those are subtle ways of applying pressure to an individual officer if the minister wants them to do his bidding. That cannot be done in the case of a statutory officer. They may not be reappointed in the longer term, but for the period that a person holds the position of Archivist, Public Trustee or whatever, they will be guaranteed independence. The other issue that is worthy of trying to get a handle on here is why the status of the position changed. The change did not occur when Labor first came to government; it changed between the last parliament and this parliament. Why did the previous minister follow the same model followed by the coalition government? Why was the argument that the minister has raised not put to Terry Mackenroth? I have a great deal of difficulty believing that, in this short period, the position of officers in the department and the Archivist has changed that dramatically. People are entitled to believe that there is another reason. There has been a lot of discussion of an event which occurred in the early nineties. I will not return to that particular affair. However, one of the things that has allowed that set of circumstances to continue is the perception that there was a problem with independence. The minister is trying to ensure that there is no possibility of a perception that the Archivist can be put under pressure by the minister or the department head. He is trying to assure the public that that is the position. The minister might be an honourable person, but this bill will apply long after he ceases to be the responsible minister. This parliament is trying to ensure that the position of Archivist is independent irrespective of who the minister is. That is what this amendment aims to achieve. Mr SPRINGBORG: I have listened to the explanation provided to the committee by the minister. It has not assuaged the concerns I hold. He contended that we should ask any public servant whether they would prefer to be employed under the Public Service Act or would like to be on tenured employment, that is, a contract. Whilst it is true that many public servants—such as teachers in my electorate—who are contracted for six months or 12 months would prefer stable employment and would like to be made permanent, I do not think that that argument is directly applicable to the tenured employment of the heads of statutory authorities or statutory officers. The positions which come to mind readily are the Auditor-General, the Parliamentary Counsel, the Public Trustee and the Director of Public Prosecutions. 1116 Public Records Bill 17 Apr 2002

There is a well-established foundation across government in Queensland that we believe statutory appointment provides greater independence to those people who are heading up these processes of government that are carried out at arm's length. The Public Trustee has a particular job to do. The Auditor-General has a particular job to do. The Director of Public Prosecutions has a particular job to do. Those positions cannot be seen to be compromised or under the influence of executive government. Whilst it is true that most of the work Parliamentary Counsel does is for executive government, it should not be influenced. That office has a job to do on behalf of the parliament of Queensland. It is the same for any independent or statutory officer in Queensland. Is the minister saying here today that everything we have been led to believe over some decades in Queensland with regard to the independence which comes from heading up a statutory authority or being a statutory officer is wrong, that now it is considered that they are far more secure if they are employed under the Public Service Act? I do not believe that. The minister may genuinely believe what he says and he may have feeling for that, but I do not share that particular feeling because I go back to what I have been told in this place, even by members of the government in the previous term, including the former Attorney-General, as they have stood up and talked about the importance of the independence of statutory office-holders. There are very important reasons for this amendment. The member for Moggill proposes a term of appointment for the State Archivist of five years. In Queensland we have terms of appointment for statutory officers of five years, seven years or whatever the case may be. At the end of that time they may be re-appointed. They may not be re-appointed. Generally I think they are re-appointed. The government has to think very carefully if it is going to decide to antagonise, be seen to interfere with or even be in conflict with these people. These people are given another guarantee—I believe it is a subtle guarantee—for another term. That is, the government does not want to be seen to be in conflict with what is an independent statutory officer because they have a credibility within the community, in the other arms of government and in the media that actually goes with that position. That is a protection in itself. That protection is not afforded by the Public Service Act, notwithstanding all of the sorts of processes with regard to unfair dismissal and so on. As the member for Moggill said a moment ago, a person can be dismissed or moved sideways. There are subtle influences that can be brought to bear, notwithstanding other protections that may exist in the Public Records Bill. By making this a full, independent statutory position we remove the likelihood of those particular subtleties being brought to bear on the State Archivist. Time expired. Mr LUCAS: I will not repeat everything I have said, other than to make these points. I am instructed that no State Archivist is other than a public servant. In relation to term appointments, at the end of a term appointment someone can be refused re-appointment for no reason. Ray Dempsey's treatment under the former coalition government is a prime example of that. Clause 27 guarantees the independence of the Archivist. That is a fundamental clause of the bill. Clause 56 of the bill provides for the Archivist to make an annual report. The bill also has provision for a Public Records Review Committee. I do not doubt the motives of either of the honourable members in terms of their views about protecting the independence of the Archivist, but the government disagrees. We believe that the bill as it stands is the most appropriate way to protect the independence of the Archivist. More so, one realises that the Archivist will be someone who is there essentially for a long time—not someone who is there for a term but for a long time as a tenured public servant. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 18—Bell, Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Kingston, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Quinn, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Springborg, Copeland NOES, 60—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Hollis, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves Resolved in the negative. Clause 22, as read, agreed to. Clauses 23 to 25, as read, agreed to. 17 Apr 2002 Public Records Bill 1117

Clause 26— Mr LUCAS (5.23 p.m.): I move amendment No. 6— 6. Clause 26— At page 17, after line 22— insert— '(3) To remove any doubt, it is declared that the registrar or other officer of a court with responsibility for official records of the court may apply for or consent to the disposal of the court's records.'. This amendment is proposed in order to clarify that certain court officials may apply for or consent to the disposal of court records. Our courts are variously described as courts of record, so it becomes somewhat problematic for them to dispose of some of their records. This amendment recognises that certain court records, particularly those of an administrative nature, may not be deemed to be of permanent retention value. It will continue to be the case that court records will not be able to be disposed of without the consent of the State Archivist. State Archives will work with the courts to explore the reappraisal of court records and to assist in developing an appropriate standard for retaining and disposing of court records. In fact, the volume of court records as a proportion of archives material is one-third. So it is quite an important issue to address. Stakeholders in the legal community and the historic research community will be consulted as part of any proposed changes to the retention of court records. Prior to formulating the amendment it was communicated to the Chief Justice, the Chief Judge of the District Court and the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate, all of whom have no difficulty with the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 26, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 27 to 52, as read, agreed to. Clause 53— Mr LUCAS (5.25 p.m.): I move amendment No. 7— 7. Clause 53— At page 27, line 8, after 'archives'— insert— 'under a requirement of this Act'. This amendment has arisen from a review of comments made on the bill by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee and makes it clear that a person who supplies a record to a public authority, including Queensland State Archives, is not subject to actions for defamation or breach of confidence. It is important to note, however, that this clause does not extend protection to the author of a public record should the content of the record be regarded as defamatory. Amendment agreed to. Clause 53, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 54 to 60, as read, agreed to. Clause 61— Mr LUCAS (5.26 p.m.): I move amendment No. 8— 8. Clause 61— At page 29, lines 6 to 9— omit, insert— '(1) This section applies to a notice (the "original notice") given by a public authority under the repealed Libraries Act 1943, or the Libraries and Archives Regulation 1990, section 23, that— (a) imposes prohibitions, conditions or restrictions on access to, and inspection of, the public authority's public records given to the archives; and (b) is in force immediately before the commencement of this section.'. This amendment recognises notices issued under the repealed Libraries Act 1943 in relation to access to certain public records. There are presently a number of existing notices issued by public authorities under the repealed act. The bill as it presently stands only preserves certain notices issued under the Libraries and Archives Regulations 1990, that is, the subsequent legislation. This amendment will remove any doubt as to the validity of certain existing written notices about access to public records given under previous legislation. This will mean that where existing written 1118 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 17 Apr 2002 notices about access to public records are in alignment with the access regime contained in clauses 16 and 18 of the bill they are taken to be valid for the purposes of this new legislation. Amendment agreed to. Clause 61, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 62 and 63, as read, agreed to. Schedule 1— Mr LUCAS (5.27 p.m.): I move amendment Nos 9 and 10— 9. Schedule 1— At page 32, lines 1 to 4— omit. 10. Schedule 1— At page 33, lines 1 to 3— omit. Proposed amendment No. 9 removes consequential amendments to the Crime Commission Act 1997, as this act has been repealed since the introduction of the Public Records Bill. Proposed amendment No. 10 removes consequential amendments to the Electricity Amendment Act (No. 3) 1997, as this act has been repealed since the introduction of the Public Records Bill. Amendments agreed to. Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to. Schedule 2— Mr LUCAS (5.28 p.m.): I move amendment Nos 11 and 12— 11. Schedule 2— At page 39, after line 14— insert— ' "court" includes— (a) a court of record; and (b) any other entity established by an Act as a court of record.'. 12. Schedule 2— At page 40, line 6, 'dealing with'— omit, insert— 'with responsibility for'. The first amendment inserts a definition for the term 'court' to support the amendment which I moved earlier to clause 26. This amendment, together with the amendment to clause 26, assists in removing doubt about the application of the legislation to the records of the courts and thereby provides a framework for the management of court records of enduring value. Amendment No. 12 is related to the last amendment regarding the definition of the term 'court' and provides clarity as to who has responsibility for court records. Amendments agreed to. Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Lucas, by leave, read a third time.

LAND PROTECTION (PEST AND STOCK ROUTE MANAGEMENT) BILL Resumption of Committee Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) in charge of the bill. Resumed from 10 April (see p. 815) on clause 78— Mr SEENEY (5.33 p.m.): I move amendment No. 5A— 5A. Clause 78— At page 51, after line 7— 17 Apr 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 1119 insert— '(aa)the issuing entity is satisfied the animal or plant— (i)is an animal or plant commonly recognised as a pest; and (ii)is likely to have an adverse economic, environmental or social impact in the State; and'. This amendment seeks to amend subclause 3 of clause 78, which the previous amendment also sought to amend. I have moved this amendment following the failure of our previous amendment. Subclause 3 allows an issuing authority to issue a pest control notice for environmental purposes on animal and plant species that are not declared pests. As I said previously, section 3 has caused a great deal of concern not just to me but to a range of stakeholders in terms of the inherent dangers it allows in the hands of an overzealous officer or someone who wants to interpret it literally for their own purposes. Subclause 3 allows a pest control notice to be issued, as I said, for an animal or plant species that is not a declared pest if that animal or plant species exists on land adjacent to or in an environmentally significant area. It is necessary to make absolutely certain what this clause allows for. In some of the public debate and media reports during consideration of this bill it became obvious that either deliberately or by default a false impression was being promulgated about what this clause does. It does not just allow for the declaration of these non-pest species or for the targeting of these non-test species by a pest control notice on an environmentally significant area. I have seen reported that it allows for these pests to be controlled in environmentally significant areas such as national parks or the range of environmentally significant areas listed in the definition. The critical issue and the whole basis of my objection is that this clause allows those pest control notices to be issued against those non-pest species on private land. So, a land-holder who has as the basis or part of his business a pasture plant, for example, on their private land can have a pest control notice issued against that pasture plant simply because, as this clause provides, it is or is likely to, is affecting or is likely to affect, the so-called capacity of the environmentally significant area to sustain natural processes. For the benefit of members—because this debate has been truncated—the previous amendment sought to remove this clause altogether, because we considered it not necessary to be part of the act and dangerous if included in the act. That previous amendment was unsuccessful. With this amendment I intend to limit the use of those powers to plant and animal species recognised as pests. We need very carefully to differentiate between declared pests under the categories of this act—and that will be done by regulation—but we all know that that will include the plant and animal species at the upper echelons of the range of pests in Queensland. There will be another range of pest species which are not bad enough to be declared category 1, 2 or 3 but which are recognised as pests in that they are not a commercial plant or animal species. They are a recognised pest in the area even though they are not included in the declarations under the act. This amendment will mean that those powers encapsulated in clause 78 (3) will be limited to those types of plant and animal species. It will take away the possibility of the pest control notice being issued against plant and animal species that are of commercial value, that are the basis of a commercial business. This is, if you like, a compromise situation between the way the bill has been written and presented to this committee and the previous amendment I introduced. The previous amendment sought to remove that power altogether. This amendment seeks to find a halfway point—a compromise. It is crucially important that everyone on this committee and everyone involved in this debate recognises that this section applies to private land. As such, it presents huge dangers for private land-holders when issuing authorities, or authorised people can issue these pest control notices for commercial species of plants and animals on private land simply because they believe they are or are likely to affect the area's capacity to sustain natural processes, which as I pointed out in the previous debate is incredibly broad. I commend this amendment to the committee and to the minister as a genuine attempt to overcome some of the concerns in the general community, to find some middle ground, to provide a way forward—recognising the reasons why this clause was inserted in this act—and to provide a way that removes some of the inherent dangers in accepting and passing the bill into law as written. I commend the amendment to the committee and to the minister as a very genuine attempt to do that. 1120 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 17 Apr 2002

Mr ROBERTSON: I do not doubt the genuine intent behind the honourable member's amendment, but it will not be accepted by the government for most of the reasons that we have already outlined in terms of the debate on the previous amendment where the honourable member sought to delete virtually the whole of that subclause, if I recall rightly. I ask the member to please not take this the wrong way, but the problem with the amendment is that it is not properly constructed. We are taking action against the incursion of a pest, but the member wants to limit it to a declared pest. In fact, the amendment is doing twice what is already provided for by subclause (a). The member's amendment is trying to treat a pest but is then saying that we only require action to be taken against a pest if it is declared a pest. There is a repetition. Once again, I can only say that the purpose behind the provisions that have been put in the bill at this point is to take an area based approach. I have used the case of buffel grass, because that is an example that has been put to me on numerous occasions. By itself, buffel grass is not a pest, but in certain circumstances, in terms of its incursion into some environmentally significant areas, buffel grass is required to be cleaned up. Will that occur in all circumstances? The answer is no. A reasonableness test must always be applied. As I said, I do not doubt the genuineness of the honourable member in moving this amendment, but for the reasons I have just outlined and which I have outlined previously, it will not be accepted. Mr SEENEY: I thought that I made the point well enough in my first attempt, but the minister has chosen to ignore it. In this amendment we are not talking about pests that are declared under the legislation. As I said in my initial address, I am trying to make the differentiation between plant and animal species that have a commercial value to a private land-holder and those that do not but probably do not fall within the definitions or the regulations that will define them as declared pests under this legislation. So there is a very distinct difference. I reject totally the minister's suggestion that the amendment seeks to double up. The other point the minister made was that the intent of this amendment was somehow covered by subclause (a). I think the minister might have meant subclause (b), which states that the issuing entity is satisfied that the plant or animal is threatening or likely to threaten. The minister makes the point that that threat could be presented by one of these commercial species. I think that goes to the heart of the confusion that has been probably deliberately created in the community. If those environmental values are threatened by some such plant or animal species that does have a commercial value, that threat will be within the environmentally significant area. It will be within the reserved area. This clause allows the pest control notice to be issued not just within that area but on an adjacent private land-holder's property. That is the problem. I do not doubt for a moment that the example that the minister used of buffel grass encroaching into an environmentally sensitive area, such as a national park, or luceana or some other commercial pasture species invading an environmentally sensitive national park is the reason why this clause was written into the legislation. But this provision goes a lot further than that. It does not just allow for the control of that pest in that environmentally sensitive situation; it allows for the pest control notice to be exercised on that species on private land. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I suggest to the member for Callide that I have heard that argument on clause 78 about 10 times today. I know that the member is entitled to use the time, but he is not entitled to keep repeating himself. If he searched Hansard, he would see that he has used that argument as the reason for objecting to clause 78 about 10 or 12 times. I suggest that the member also used the same argument when he spoke to previous amendments. I know that you get three chances to speak for 10 minutes, five minutes and another five minutes, but I suggest that you try to use it in the interests of the parliament, not just to use your time. Mr SEENEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I also thank you for a fair go. I think the minister— The CHAIRMAN: If that is a reflection on the chair I will sit you down straightaway. I will listen to you for another minute. Mr SEENEY: When I moved the amendment, I made a number of points to justify the amendment. The minister then stood up and, in his mind at least, sought to refute those points. Mr Chairman, I am suggesting to you, the minister and to the parliament that the minister never addressed the points that I raised. The CHAIRMAN: That does not excuse you repeating them. Mr SEENEY: I ask the minister to address the issue that is causing concern in the community, which is the fact that these pest control notices can be issued and exercised on 17 Apr 2002 Corporate Assistance Grants 1121 commercial species on private land. In the previous debate I asked the minister to give an example where he considered that that might be appropriate. Perhaps he can do that now in an attempt to give me some indication of how he believes this legislation is going to be used. I can think of a range of scenarios where it can be used in circumstances that I believe would be entirely inappropriate. Perhaps he could give me an example of where he believes it may be appropriate. Mr ROBERTSON: Just to finalise my comments, I am not going to stand here and give example after example. I have said repeatedly in this place and during previous debates on clauses that the workings of this clause of this legislation will be subject to the construction of a standard operating procedure. The reasonableness test that underpins this clause will be enunciated to officers of a range of departments. That will be developed in consultation with industry groups such as Agforce and will be monitored regularly by the new pest management council, on which industry groups will have representation. Rather than give examples of how it may apply, I think it is in everyone's interests to pass this bill, have it enacted, and should there be problems in the operation of it, they will be identified and dealt with through the consultative processes that I have outlined. Dr KINGSTON: I have some reservations about that clause. May I put a practical question to the minister? With species such as siratro and stylos, which have a very high percentage of hard seed, a land-holder could comply with a notice to eradicate but that seed will continue to germinate for five years. That has been shown by practical experience. Will the reasonableness test include the fact that species such as those two that I have named, despite the land-holder's best efforts, will continue to germinate in that place? Mr ROBERTSON: I would expect the reasonableness test to apply in circumstances such as or similar to that. It should be understood that the officers engaged in this work are themselves, by nature and often by background, people of the land. I am sure that if a land-holder pointed out the difficulties of multiple germination or germination after a significant period of time, that would be taken into account. Should it not be taken into account, it would be caught up in terms of discussion through the pest management council, et cetera. Mr SEENEY: I would like to explore this issue of a reasonableness test which the minister has just introduced into the debate. I have not heard about this before and I cannot see any reference to it in the bill. Perhaps the minister could explain what he means by a reasonableness test? Why is it not in the legislation? If he is relying on it to make the legislation work in a fair way, why is it not in the legislation? Mr ROBERTSON: I direct the member's attention to line 4 of page 51 and the words 'stated reasonable action'. That is where a reasonableness test is contemplated. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 19—Bell, Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Kingston, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Quinn, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Copeland, Springborg NOES, 58—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Edmond, Fenlon, Foley, Hayward, Hollis, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, Robertson, Rodgers, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Purcell Resolved in the negative. Progress reported.

CORPORATE ASSISTANCE GRANTS Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.58 p.m.): I move— That this House condemns the government's policy of hiding behind commercial-in-confidence provisions to keep corporate assistance grants secret and calls on the government to provide the people of Queensland with full accountability for government departments and government owned corporations. This very important debate goes right to the heart of democracy and accountable government and, particularly in the post-Fitzgerald era, right to the heart of informing the public of how their money is being spent, what it is buying and whether or not that is being done in compliance with the guidelines for the allocation of those funds. This government is already a victim of its own incompetence and folly. For confirmation of this fact we need only look at page 75 of the Auditor-General's report tabled in the House this 1122 Corporate Assistance Grants 17 Apr 2002 morning. It states that some ministers do not know what public entities they are responsible for. It further states— Section 75 of the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977 requires the appropriate minister to give the Auditor- General written notice about the establishment of a public sector entity or the fact that an entity has become a public sector entity. In addition, the minister is required to provide any information requested by the Auditor- General in relation to those entities. The Audit Office has become aware of instances where ministers are not being advised of entities now captured by the definition of 'public sector entity' as a result of recent amendments. Consequently, they are not in all instances in a position to provide the advice required by the act to the Auditor-General. In some cases the Auditor-General becomes aware of the existence of these newly-deemed public sector entities only in the course of the annual audit process of the controlling entity. The Auditor-General's latest report states that, because of this, a paragraph has been inserted in QAO engagement letters including a request that the relevant entities establish the necessary arrangements to enable ministers to discharge their obligations under section 75. I commend the Auditor-General for his recommendation in the report to both the Treasurer and Premier, and I suggest to them that before they proclaim their excellence and expertise in government, they first make sure they have done their job properly. The real substance of the debate tonight is this: full accountability means performance must be above standard and must be above the benchmark. That is why hiding behind commercial-in- confidence provisions to keep the expenditures under corporate assistant grants hidden is wrong. That is why we call on the government to provide the people of Queensland with full accountability for government departments and government owned corporations. That is why the policy of the National Party is that commercial-in-confidence provisions are fine while the deal is being done, but when that deal has been done, the financial and administrative deals should be disclosed to the people of Queensland for judgment, scrutiny and monitoring. Tonight I announce that the National Party good government policy will do away with these commercial-in-confidence provisions after a deal is concluded and a grant has been given, because we want to see proper accountability so that those judgments can be made. Again, the Auditor-General provides very clear direction on what should be done if the government is interested in being open and accountable, if it is really interested in playing within the rules and acting in the public interest. In Audit Report No. 2 2000-01—yes, it was that long ago—the Auditor-General reviewed aspects of commercial-in-confidence arrangements in Queensland. The report recommended greater disclosure and accountability with due regard to issues of commercial-in-confidence. Table 7.1 on page 79 of Report No. 3 2001-02 repeats the message and states— The policy of increased disclosure should promote greater accountability, transparency and public trust and confidence in the process and the outcomes achieved and inherently in the State's public sector institutions themselves. This government promises openness but delivers secrecy. It promises accountability and then slams the door on scrutiny. The government has forgotten that it is the people's money it is playing with. It is saying, 'Trust us.' People are saying, 'Show us why we should trust you,' and they are not shown anything. Let us get to the real issues. If a grant—taxpayers' money—is provided to an industry, along with that grant mandatory statutory guidelines have to be met. In recent weeks, this government has been lackadaisical in the way it assesses grants. We heard the Premier say that it was just commonsense. He should ask people in industries in the state potentially affected by another industry receiving a grant or assistance to relocate to Queensland how they feel about taxpayers' money being handed out if the grant has not been scrutinised to ensure that it will not be to the detriment of existing business. We should know how much money is being given out and who got it. The parliament and the public should know the guidelines surrounding that money and the benefits that have to be accrued to the state or the targets that have to be met by the organisation that received this money gratis. What did they have to do at the end of the day? How many jobs do they have to create? What were the payroll deductions for? What equipment did they have to put in place? What exports did they have to attract? How many people would they be employing? What imports are to be replaced? The public has to know all of that to make a judgment. If the government does this right by being open and non-secretive about it, it will have nothing to fear; that is what modern, open and accountable government is about. 17 Apr 2002 Corporate Assistance Grants 1123

No-one knows how much the funding for Virgin Airlines was and no-one doubts the benefits of Virgin Airlines to our tourism industry. But are we able to make a judgment about what contribution that had to the demise of Ansett? Are we able to make a judgment about what effect that has had on the coach industries of Queensland? The cheaper airfares between capital cities has meant that coach industries have to look at picking up people in outback or rural towns to try to make a living. Have we really looked at that? Have we looked at the effects of grants provided in the meat industry overall across the state? CMG in Rockhampton has closed down, with over 1,000 employees affected. That happened for a number of reasons, including the competitiveness in the cattle industry. Have other firms been advantaged because of the grants they have received? Are they able to use those grants to the disadvantage of other firms? We all agree with providing assistance to industries, but we have to be able to make an accurate and honest judgment and assessment of how much has been given, whether it will disadvantage other firms in the industry and whether it will have a detrimental effect overall. This is just one of the areas where we see this government, with its secret state mentality and its massive jackboot majority, doing anything it likes. FOI charges have been introduced to stop the opposition or other interested parties from accessing FOI material that they should be able to access under modern and accountable government. Truck loads of material have been wheeled through cabinet just to give it exclusivity from the FOI rules. Chief executive officers are another area where there should be more accountability. We should know what their targets are. Has the director-general of Families been given a target to get the waiting list for young children needing assessment down to a certain level, under a certain number or time? If so, did he achieve it? Was he paid the bonus? That is the sort of thing we should know, because it is the people's money. We are members of parliament. We are supposed to scrutinise whether the money is being spent properly. In respect of government owned corporations, how many ministers at Estimates hide behind the veil of commercial-in-confidence and say they cannot tell us what this or that GOC is doing? Surely if the board the shareholding minister puts in place is doing things properly the government has nothing to fear. Does Goprint have to worry about competition? That is absolutely ridiculous. This is about accountability and confidence and removing any possibility for corruption to exist in our system in Queensland; so that everybody knows how much is given and why and everybody can say, 'That group gave a donation to that party. This is the grant they got. That is fair; it was all open and accountable. They had to produce certain things and they did so.' Doubts arise when there is darkness and secrecy and when nobody knows anything. Tonight we are about opening up government in Queensland. The Nationals have a policy of getting rid of commercial-in-confidence. It will be open and accountable. We will be able to make a judgment and people will be able to know what is happening with their money. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (6.08 p.m.): Tonight I rise to second the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. This government maintains that it has standards and is open and accountable. I suggest that it has two standards—double standards. The Leader of the Opposition has identified that this evening. This government has been notorious for its secrecy in relation to the real level of assistance provided to the private sector and the criteria for the performance bonuses paid to permanent government heads. It is not just the opposition on behalf of the taxpayer that believes it has a right to know the real level of assistance provided to enterprises; this information is vital if we are to be assured that the assistance is warranted in the first instance. It is quite simple to understand that other enterprises feel that it is unfair to have taxpayer money being spent to their disadvantage by assisting their opposition. Does anyone really know, as the Opposition Leader just said, what the deal with Virgin Airlines is? All I know is that the face of commercial aviation has changed forever as a result of Virgin's entry into the marketplace. The opposition brought to attention the deal with Berri and the concerns of local producers that they were being disadvantaged by the government. Mr Barton: Oh! Mr JOHNSON: I can hear the honourable minister scoffing. If he would be honest and up front, he would have more credibility. I hasten to point out that this concern is not restricted to the opposition. The other group that has concern about the government's action is the workers. I saw Bill Ludwig walk into this place tonight. I wonder what he thinks about the real issues when it comes to workers. Does the government really care about the workers? I say not. It seems to 1124 Corporate Assistance Grants 17 Apr 2002 many that this government will not provide appropriate assistance to Queenslanders when they need it, be they sugar farmers, patients in the health system or victims of crime. It is a different story, though, if you are an overseas billionaire or a multinational; then you can get the attention of this government. The opposition understands the need for commercial sensitivity during the negotiating stage of dealings with the private sector, but once the deal has been done, it should be open and accountable. That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition is pushing for in this motion. That way, other competitors can be assured that they have not been dudded. Those with a more suspicious mind can check on subsequent political donations to ensure that this assistance package has not been used to channel funds to political campaigns, for example. Once we know the level of benefit being provided, we can accurately assess the supposed benefits and judge whether it has been achieved or not. This is also the point of the opposition's reservations in relation to the payment of performance bonuses to senior public servants. The Premier seems to think that because the quantum of the bonus is paid, the problem of accountability is solved. It is not. These performance bonus payments are not the issue. It is the performance that is the issue. That is something about which we have been asking questions for a long time, and the taxpayers of Queensland are entitled to know the answers. But this government, which claims to be a transparent, open and accountable government, does not in reality know the meaning of the word. Without knowing what the performance goals are, these bonus payments are just a pay-off. It is only when the payment can be judged against the performance that accountability can be achieved. So it is with corporate assistance grants. Unless the quantum of the support and the performance criteria are known, they are fertile grounds for the peddling of influence and corruption. The current flawed reliance upon so-called commercial-in-confidence is fostering a climate for the playing off of one state against the other. It is putting government in the position of playing favourites, it is discriminating against those who have already developed enterprise without government assistance and it is jeopardising jobs. I heard the Leader of the Opposition mention subsidies to other companies, whether it be McCaffertys delivering services to western Queensland or whatever. We have to bear in mind that some of those subsidies are worth while. It is about looking after Queensland icons. It is about looking after Queensland jobs and creating productivity in areas where we do not have assistance in terms of public transport or other infrastructure. Those companies are providing very good assistance to businesses throughout the state. I compliment the government for putting that subsidy in place, but at the same time the other deals that we are talking about this evening should be made known to the general public. Time expired. Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for State Development) (6.13 p.m.): I move the following amendment— That all words after 'this House' be deleted and the following words be inserted in their place— Congratulates the government for its success in attracting development and new businesses in Queensland through its business incentives programs and acknowledges that commercial-in-confidence provisions are an integral part of those business incentives processes; Congratulates the government on the level of accountability for government departments and government owned corporations that it provides to the people of Queensland. It is about time some sanity was injected into this debate. It is a very firm Queensland government policy to treat details of incentives packages as commercial-in-confidence, and for very good reasons. There is a standard clause to this effect in all QIIS and financial assistance agreements entered into between the state and the investing companies. I might also make the point that most of those grants do not go to the Virgins or the Qantases or the Berris; they go to small businesses operating around regional Queensland. I am signing them off nearly every week. They are going to businesses that in the main would normally support the National Party or Liberal Party. The policies that we adopt in this state are in line with the policies in virtually every other Australian state. The main reason for the importance of withholding details of specific packages is to protect the state's interest and, by extension, the taxpayers' interest. There is a tendency by multinational companies to use known levels of incentives as benchmarks to negotiate even higher packages with governments. Companies have even tried this tactic with the Queensland 17 Apr 2002 Corporate Assistance Grants 1125 government based on rumoured levels of past packages. I have had that happen to me as a minister. Another reason for confidentiality is to ensure that companies do not use the incentives package as an expression of government support for the purposes of capital raising or negotiating debt funding arrangements. If third party investors were to be attracted to the project on the basis of state financial support, the government could be subject to legal proceedings in the event of failure of a project. The main purpose of financial incentives is to convince companies that Queensland is an ideal investment location with a supportive government. It is well known that companies are reticent about dealing with governments where details of their financial plans and their financial arrangements could be made public. From the point of view of the government's overall job creation goals, abandonment of its commercial-in-confidence policy on incentives would be extremely counterproductive and against community interests. At the same time, there is a competing need which we recognise to keep the public informed about outlays on industry assistance programs and investment attraction incentives programs. This is provided by the full listing in the department's annual report of all companies receiving incentives throughout each year and the publishing in the annual budget papers of total outlays on incentives for each given year. This latest arrangement was agreed with the Auditor-General in early 2001 and implemented in the department's annual report for 2000-01. I might read it for the benefit of members opposite. It states— The Department of State Development has already committed to disclose in the Annual Report— The general elements (eg training assistance, payroll tax rebates, relocation assistance) of each financial assistance package; The performance milestones required of the grantee including details of job targets and capital investment associated with the development; The grantee's accountability framework in the form of security provisions (eg unconditional bank guarantee) required in order to safeguard the State in the event that performance milestones are not attained; and The total aggregate value of financial incentives offered and paid out in a particular year. There are also very clear guidelines that the department follows with regard to every package. I would read them in but I am about to run out of time. They are in my annual report. A few companies have been mentioned already in this debate. Virgin has created over 1,000 jobs in this state. Berri has created 155 jobs in this state, with minimal support from this government. Most grants go to small businesses, not to the big people. Time expired. Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (6.18 p.m.): I rise to second the amendment moved by the Honourable Minister for State Development. In doing so, I wish to concentrate on that part of the original motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition relating to government owned corporations. The key issue here is how governments strike a balance between, on the one hand, the release of commercially sensitive information and, on the other, public accountability. Accountability to the public and to customers of government owned corporations is achieved in many ways. Simply releasing commercially sensitive information may make some people feel good that they have wrenched some sort of state secret from an entity, but it may have the effect of harming the commercial operations and service capacity of the entity that supplies it. I will speak in some detail about my own experience as a shareholding minister of SunWater. Before doing so, I think it is important to place on the record that the person who seconded this motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Gregory, for two years was a shareholding minister in a number of government owned corporations. One would have been Queensland Rail. Then there would have been a host of ports corporations right throughout Queensland. During the period of great enlightenment in which the honourable member was Minister for Transport, did we see the opening up of the books of these government owned corporations? No. Did we see new levels of accountability with respect to the commercial dealings of these corporations? No. How have we come to this new period of enlightenment that the opposition now seeks to impose on the government? The answer is simply that it is unrealistic to expect full disclosure of commercial dealings of government owned corporations. As I said, as a shareholding minister of SunWater— Mr Horan interjected. 1126 Corporate Assistance Grants 17 Apr 2002

Mr ROBERTSON: If those opposite were actually interested in how SunWater operates, it would be very easy for them to find out. Here I have the annual report of SunWater. If those opposite went through this annual report they would find a whole range of commercial activities by SunWater. The provisions of this motion would, if passed, jeopardise the growth of this very important business. For example, SunWater was successful in tendering for the supply of water to the ACT. Did it do that in a competitive environment? Yes, it did. Would it have succeeded if its tender had been subject to full public disclosure? Of course not, because every competitor tendering for the supply of water services to the Australian Capital Territory would have looked at the books of SunWater and said, 'Gotcha. We will undercut you every time.' When SunWater starts growing its business internationally, competing with some of the big water corporations across the world, should it be tied to the extent that it should disclose how it tenders for jobs internationally? Of course not, because every time it puts its hands up for a tender internationally it will be done over because of the disclosure of commercial-in-confidence provisions. This motion is completely unrealistic. It demonstrates a complete lack of corporate knowledge on the part of the opposition. If it were to succeed it would spell absolute disaster for a range of government owned corporations in this state. A couple of weeks ago we put up with a bit of lunacy on the part of the member for Callide, who talked about SunWater's move to new premises. We outlined to this House the savings SunWater has made as a result of that move. Were we able to give full disclosure as to the final deal? No. Why not? In terms of engaging with the corporate sector to gain office accommodation, it is a requirement that there be no disclosure of the final deal in terms of any special arrangement that goes below the advertised amount. Why is that? It is good corporate business. If a deal could be negotiated below the level at which a lease was advertised, one would think members opposite would actually congratulate the government owned corporation for saving taxpayers' or stakeholders' money. But, no. What do they go on with? They raise some sort of suspicion and allegation that in fact there is increased— Time expired. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (6.23 p.m.): I rise to support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition and to deplore the amendment subsequently moved by the government. It is interesting to note the two ministers who have moved and seconded the amendment—two ministers who encapsulate the hypocrisy of this Labor government. Here again tonight we have a great example of one thing happening in the community and ministers coming into the parliament, standing up with enormous hypocrisy and telling the people of Queensland that something else altogether is happening. Both of these ministers have consistently refused to answer questions I have put on notice, seeking the very details that they come into the House tonight and say are available. They should look at the questions I have put on notice. They should look at the public record and realise just how hypocritical this amendment is. This motion is about accountability. It is about ensuring that the people of Queensland are able to be informed about what their elected government is doing with their money. This motion condemns the government's policy of hiding behind so-called commercial-in-confidence arguments as an excuse not to be accountable for the taxpayers' money that it spends giving financial assistance grants to corporations. That is what this is about. This motion seeks to protect a basic tenet of democracy. People who elect the government need to be informed about the actions of the government so that they can make a judgment about those actions. It is possible to argue quite logically that corporate assistance grants are a legitimate area of public expenditure. However, it is an unfortunate fact that some corporations are able to threaten to close down their operations or to locate them somewhere else unless the government hands over money—money that could well be spent on roads, hospitals, schools or any other area of government expenditure. Each government has to decide its own priorities and it has to be able to defend those priorities. It has to be able to justify that expenditure to the people who elect them. How can the people of Queensland make a judgment about whether this expenditure is justified or even appropriate? How can they judge whether this expenditure is of higher priority than other areas of government expenditure? They simply cannot if this information is not available to them. While these grants remain secret it will always be a legitimate concern for competing corporations that they have been disadvantaged by assistance given to their competitors. It is 17 Apr 2002 Corporate Assistance Grants 1127 easy to understand that any corporation that knows or suspects that their competitors have received assistance from the state government would be concerned about the degree to which the government assistance to their competitors has made it more difficult for them to compete. That is why there is an inherent responsibility on every government to ensure that they do not use public money to disadvantage existing Queensland businesses. That is and always should be a mandatory requirement for corporate assistance schemes. It would be reasonable to expect, if this government had observed those mandatory requirements, that there would be records of cost-benefit analyses and consultation with other industry stakeholders to properly determine compliance with the criteria. In a growing list of examples there appears to be no such evidence that the government can produce. Regrettably, in a number of examples there is no evidence at all that the current Beattie Labor government has paid any heed to the mandatory criteria. Rather, the Premier has spoken about a commonsense approach that justifies ignoring those mandatory criteria. In the cases of the Berri fruit juice plant at Lytton and the National Foods plant at Logan, public money has been paid to corporations to establish industries without any regard for the effect that those industries have on other businesses in the state. There is an increasing body of evidence in both of those examples that the establishment of both of those businesses has impacted on Queensland businesses elsewhere. In the case of the abattoirs at Cannon Hill and Ipswich, public money has been used to maintain those industries when they otherwise would have shut down. There is an increasing body of evidence that the tragic situation meatworkers in Rockhampton find themselves in can be traced back to the payment of those government assistance grants. It is impossible to properly examine these arguments because the information— Mr Purcell interjected. Mr SEENEY: It was all about protecting the member for Bulimba, was it not? It was all about protecting Labor seats. It was all about establishing these plants in Labor seats. Unless we have access to the information there is no chance for us to examine that. It was all about protecting the member for Bulimba, the member for Logan and the member for Lytton. It was all about establishing industry in Labor seats. Time expired. Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (6.28 p.m.): Tonight we are witnessing another sorry attempt by the Leader of the Opposition and opposition members to create an issue where none exists. The leader is attempting to make a case that the government is using commercial sensitivity as an excuse for failure to disclose to the parliament and the public details of various government transactions. Well, we all know that on the issue of accountability the Leader of the Opposition has absolutely no credibility. I believe that common decency should dictate that the National Party of Queensland should comply with a 20-year self-imposed moratorium on ever raising matters of public accountability in this place or outside it. Let us be reminded once again that while the rest of Australia in the 1970s and 1980s was enacting parliamentary reform and while other parliaments in Australia at that time were bringing in freedom of information laws, what were the Leader of the Opposition and his mates doing when they were in government? They refused to introduce the laws. The members for Moggill or Robina might want to tell us why the coalition split in the 1980s. It was because the National Party refused to establish a Public Accounts Committee in this parliament. Who was it that used the Connolly-Ryan inquiry to shut down scrutiny of government actions when there were inquiries into their memorandum of understanding with the Police Union? Who was it who told absolute untruths about the innocent brother of the Premier to score points on accountability issues and then called them tactical? Mr Seeney interjected. Mrs LAVARCH: I rest my case. Not even the most forgiving of souls can listen to the National Party talk about accountability and good standards in public administration without feeling absolutely embarrassed by their sheer hypocrisy. Having said that, it is important for good public administration that government operate in an open way and be subject to proper examination by the Auditor-General, the parliament through the Public Accounts Committee and estimates committees, the public through freedom of information laws and the media informing the public by reporting and investigating government actions. Of course, good standards of public administration are followed by the Beattie Labor 1128 Corporate Assistance Grants 17 Apr 2002 government. There are few absolutes in public administration. Openness of process and decision making is balanced by the rights of the individual to have his or her privacy protected, and that applies to corporations as well. Public and parliamentary scrutiny of financial transactions are balanced against the commercial interests of those dealing with the government. The operation of policing and security agencies must be accountable, but legitimate concerns of national security and safeguarding individual operations mitigate against complete and immediate disclosure. What all interests and stakeholders will chant in such a debate is their own particular viewpoint and then call that public interest. We have seen that happen in tonight's debate. As I have remarked on other occasions in this House, public interest is an illusive concept and its assertion by a player in the debate is often really driven just by self-interest. There is an inclination in all executive governments towards defining widely the scope of matters which should be kept secret. The starting point for all oppositions will be that all matters are to be made public—not because of some genuine view of the public interest but because of the political interest of the opposition. The media, of course, always favour a complete disclosure regime, not because of the public interest but because of the opportunity for good stories. The beauty of our system is that the self-interests of all engaged in such debates will generally result in an outcome which actually does serve the public interest—namely, an accountable executive government which does, on the proper occasions, hold information away from full public disclosure. The system becomes distorted if one player in the debate becomes indifferent to balancing interests, such as when the National Party was in government during the pre-Fitzgerald era. The Beattie government has a very good record on accountability. Ms Keech: That's for sure. Mrs LAVARCH: I thank the member for Albert. From community cabinets to the electoral reforms— Time expired. Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (6.33 p.m.): I support the opposition's motion that this House condemns the government's policy of hiding behind commercial-in-confidence provisions to keep corporate assistance grants secret and also calls on the government to provide the people of Queensland with full accountability for government departments and government owned corporations. I support the National Party's announcement of a good government policy which will ban secret deals with regard to government incentives to the private sector and overhaul the commercial-in-confidence provisions that have been abused by this government. Governments should attract businesses which are in the public interest and use incentives under careful guidelines, but those guidelines must be changed so that secrecy over government incentives is removed because taxpayers have the right to know if they are getting value for money. I do not think that the Premier knows what value for money is after today's performance when he tried to justify more than doubling the size of his departmental bureaucracy. But the question here is whether Premier Beattie trusts the people of Queensland to make a judgment about whether these government incentives are good value for money. The answer to that question is that the Premier does not think Queenslanders can be trusted to make that assessment. This is the arrogance of a Premier who should have more faith and trust in the Queensland public and an understanding of true, accountable and democratic processes. As Ernest Titterton said, democracy cannot flourish unless people are properly informed. For people to be properly informed, they have a right to information about how government uses their money. This is the money of Queenslanders. Shouldn't they have a right to know what the government is doing with it? I have listened to members opposite who have contorted and twisted the values of secrecy, yet they are talking about suppressing information about the money that this government is taking out of the taxpayers' purse and providing to certain businesses. I think that the government has got its concepts of accountability to the public completely wrong, as I believe Queenslanders can be trusted and have a right to know this information. There is another accountability issue which my colleagues have alluded to. How does one know if political parties in government, such as the Labor Party, are giving incentives to people who are giving donations to them? One does not. The register of donations to political parties does not show the other side of the ledger of government donations to businesses by way of incentive packages. That is kept secret. That has to change. That is bad policy. That is what we are calling on the government to change tonight. 17 Apr 2002 Corporate Assistance Grants 1129

Another area of secrecy which needs to be fixed relates to the secret bonuses and performance criteria of departmental heads and senior staff. The opposition has asked questions about how much extra this government is paying to departmental heads—the chief executive officers—in bonus payments. The Beattie government has refused to answer these questions, only revealing a lump sum of more than $420,000. How much does the director-general of Health receive and how is his performance judged? We have seen the long waiting lists in hospitals. They are basically category 3 surgeries—the never-never list. We have seen situations at the Cairns Hospital, the Nambour Hospital and a range of other hospitals where in accident and emergency people are waiting unacceptably long periods of time because they are finding that there are not enough doctors, nurses and funded beds to get access to timely treatment. When it comes to assessing how effectively the director-general of Health is doing his job, Queenslanders do not have the right to know the criteria that this government judges his performance on. However, if we were to look at what is happening in hospitals, I think that the public would say that it does have a right to know, because it is not satisfied with what it is currently seeing, and that is the fault of the minister as well. Queenslanders are not allowed to have this information about the rich bonuses going to directors-general. How much does the director-general of Families get in bonuses? What are the criteria and targets there? We currently know that there are about 3,000 children at risk awaiting assessment and that children who should have received more timely assessment and follow-up care from the department have died. But the bonuses to that departmental head are a secret, as are the performance criteria. The public—Queenslanders—do not have the right to know under this government. Then there is the issue of freedom of information. This government has brought in a regime where it did not even consult with many stakeholders, including its own departmental people who administer this area— Time expired. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (6.38 p.m.): I rise to support the minister's amendment. Last financial year the Department of State Development's investment division attracted some 27 international and interstate companies to Queensland. This has generated more than 5,000 jobs and about $417 million worth of investment. I will repeat that for the benefit of the House. This has generated more than 5,000 jobs and about $417 million worth of investment—a significant amount of money and a significant amount of jobs. Highlights over the last three years include the attraction of high profile aviation operations including Australia's now second domestic airline Virgin Blue; the Qantas 767 heavy maintenance facility at Brisbane Airport; the Qantas new leisure airline Australian Airlines at Cairns; Smith's Aerospace; and EADS from Europe. There are the significant customer call centre operations of international companies such as IBM, Citibank and Macquarie Bank. There is the outsourcing of software development by IT companies such as IBM and Oracle. We have also sought to secure investments in the state from important home-grown companies such as EGR Plastics, which is now a significant global supplier of auto accessories. Australia TradeCoast, which is part of my electorate, has also racked up success beyond all expectations. More than $1 billion of new investments have been attracted to TradeCoast, which is definitely on track to becoming the major global trade and industry hub on the east coast of Australia. For members opposite, it may be helpful to touch on a number of projects and jobs that the DSD Investment Division has been involved in attracting since 2000. The Beattie government is working to create jobs in this state for all Queenslanders and it is a government I am proud to be a part of. I shall provide a snapshot of the major deals the Department of State Development's Investment Attraction Division has been involved with from 2000 to the current time. Projects for 2000-01 include: NRMA back office, 70 jobs; Placer Dome Australia headquarters, 25 jobs; Qantas Food (flight catering), 230 jobs; Alphapharm Manufacturing Facility and Global Biotech, 142 jobs; Budget Direct (call centre), 188 jobs; GE Medical (remote diagnostic unit), 70 jobs; Cummins Diesel (Swagman Motorhomes and marine/houseboat manufacturers)—a great company to attract here—117 jobs; Woolworths (expansion distribution centre), 100 jobs; Bendigo Bank, 80 jobs; AEMS—a microelectronics manufacturing company—111 jobs; Cutting Edge Post Pty Ltd (digital recording for film industry), 100 jobs—and a lot more to come with that industry; EGR Plastics, 500 jobs; Jetcare maintenance facility, 92 jobs; New Product Developments (health food supplement manufacture), 83 jobs, Macquarie Bank, 190 jobs; Luxury Paints, 60 jobs; Smiths Industries Aerospace, 60 jobs; Fauldings, 147 jobs; Arnotts expansion, 135 jobs; Suncorp Metway call centre, 250 jobs; and Salomon Smith Barney, 50 jobs. 1130 Corporate Assistance Grants 17 Apr 2002

The project description for 2001-02 is—ERA Consulting (biotech AP headquarters)—not a lot of jobs but a very important company to have—six jobs; National Jets maintenance facility, 70 jobs; EADS Australia Aerospace, 130 jobs; Intelliwhere national headquarters, 60 jobs; Qantas (Australian Airlines), 350 jobs; Singapore Airlines Learjet training facility, 25 jobs; and the list goes on. In my electorate we are working closely with companies such as Metroplex for a project being developed by Pradella. Companies such as Fisher & Paykel, which has a major distribution centre in my electorate, and Filtronic, which I know has expanded from eight to about 200 jobs, will continue to employ people. For far too long Queensland governments have had to fight for jobs and compete with other states with one hand tied behind their backs. With the arrival of the Beattie government, the playing fields were put on an equal footing with the other states. For too long, jobs and investment have disappeared over the border. We did not compete equally. As I said before, Queensland is creating more jobs than all other states combined. Fifty per cent of jobs in Australia are created in Queensland. I refer to the member for Callide's comment about meatworks. The National Party had a plan to close every meatworks in south-east Queensland. When we came into government, Cannon Hill, the Ipswich meatworks and those operated by the state government were going to close. All of their suppliers would have had to go over the border to get their meat killed. How would members opposite have looked after their constituents in such circumstances? Time expired. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (6.45 p.m.): Since the Beattie government took office, a creeping veil of secrecy has gradually been drawn over every government department. I refer to specific programs such as the Queensland Meat Processing Development Initiative announced on 27 October 1998. According to the Minister for State Development, the purpose of this initiative was to assist in the revitalisation of the meat processing industry through supporting sustainable, export-orientated or import replacement value-adding meat processing activities. The QMPDI was backed by $20 million in taxpayers' money. It has been administered by the so-called Food and Meat Industry Task Force, which purports to provide a single point of entry to meat processors for state government assistance. But no terms of reference for this scheme are readily available, nor, it seems, are any details available about the $20 million public fund. The Queensland Nationals made a series of attempts as long ago as 1999 to identify which companies received assistance under the QMPDI scheme, for what purpose they received the assistance and on what criteria, the latest attempt being in a question on notice to the Minister for State Development who has carriage of the QMPDI. The minister advised that, to date, 94 processors and industry bodies were assisted but, more significantly, the minister refused to provide any further details 'due to commercially sensitive information surrounding each project'. That in itself is a ridiculous proposal and an affront to the taxpayer. How can it possibly be commercially sensitive to reveal the names, at the very least, of the companies which have received taxpayer-funded assistance under this incentive? The minister's argument is even more flawed if one considers the Beattie government's previous action because, while the minister refused to reveal any names at all, when it was politically expedient for the Beattie government to do so the minister, in answer to my question, made various, isolated announcements regarding some of the grants. The government has previously announced assistance to companies such as AMH, Darling Downs Bacon, Hans Continental Smallgoods, Listyard, Tender Plus, Western Exporters, Kilcoy Pastoral and Murgon meatworks. What hypocrisy! The Queensland Nationals have obvious and very serious concerns about the lack of transparency regarding the grants made under QMPDI. However, the highly sensitive publication of certain grants is completely inconsistent with the minister's own jaundiced reasoning in answer to my question. The Queensland meat industry is highly competitive. It is an industry that has faced enormous international competition. It is an industry that operates on tight margins where controlling costs, particularly labour and capital costs, are paramount. There has been overcapacity in the meat industry. Meatworks have closed and jobs have been lost. CMG at Rockhampton is the latest example. The QMPDI was supposed to be about assisting processors to increase their value adding to improve their viability. It should not have been about adding to the problems of overcapacity. 17 Apr 2002 Corporate Assistance Grants 1131

But with the secret state rules of the Beattie government, how are taxpayers to know that their money has been invested for the overall good of the meat industry and the state? How can individual processors have any confidence that their taxes are not being used to their disadvantage to give one of their competitors a leg up? How can livestock producers have any confidence that the government is not playing favourites as far as meatworks are concerned? That competition has not been taken out of the marketplace because certain companies have been given government assistance. Time expired. Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (6.49 p.m.): Tonight I rise to oppose the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition and to strongly support that amended motion moved by Minister Barton. The original motion is indicative of a desperate opposition indeed. It is trying desperately to rain on our parade. The parade of the Beattie government, in terms of increasing business for Queensland, growing existing businesses and expanding new businesses into Queensland, is indeed a fine and growing parade—one of which we should be absolutely proud. I must say that I am amazed by this motion moved by the National Party team. It is worthy of a scratch of the head. Who do they think of their constituency would support this motion? Not business—not small, not medium and not big business. Those businesses are doing business with this government and are happily doing so, because it is in their interests to not only expand their own businesses and to increase their profit line but also to provide jobs. Those jobs are welcome in the broader community. So are the people who are benefiting from this initiative by gaining jobs and by growing their businesses going to support the National Party? Not at all! They are supporting this government for the initiatives taken by the Premier and other ministers. It is interesting to note that one of the three Liberal members of this parliament was listed to participate in the debate, but apparently he changed his mind. Instead, all of the contributions from the members opposite have come from five National Party members. It will surely be of some interest not only to those present but also those in the press gallery and in the constituencies to see just how the Liberal Party vote on this motion. They know and they cannot pretend to be naive that business will be happy if all of their commercial-in-confidence arrangements and all of their business competitive details are released to the public. How could Liberal Party members, who are supposed to be the supporters of business, vote for such a motion? If this motion was passed by this parliament and then all the details of all arrangements that any government—not just a Labor Party government—made with small business all the way through to big business were made public, what would happen? There would be no deals! There would be no business expansions! There would be absolutely no new companies moving to this state! Instead, they would choose to go to New South Wales and Victoria. If the commercial-in- confidence details were published, would Virgin be operating in Queensland? No, it would not! Would Qantas's new airlines subsidiary be coming to Cairns? No, it would not! The National Party can be accused of naivety or idiocy, but the Liberal Party at least should know better. This arrangement not only has never been put in place by a National-Liberal Party coalition in this state but also, in reality, it never would be—not that we intend to give them the chance, because this government is parading very finely in terms of the excellent contributions that it is making to the taxpayers of this state. I forget which of the members opposite it was who said, 'Well, it is all about performance and the people of Queensland are entitled to know the benefits,' but I can tell the member that the people know that the benefits are jobs. People who are unemployed in Cairns received hope through the various initiatives, but particularly through the Australian Airlines initiative. All of the businesses in Cairns are gearing up already to benefit from that initiative. Those people and those businesses know the benefits. The member for Callide, in the middle of his contribution, actually said something sensible. It was that this is all about performance. That is the issue. I agree with the member absolutely. I say to him to go to Cairns, if he dares, and admit what he said in his contribution and the questions that he asked. Businesses in Cairns will tell him, 'This is performance.' This is the kind of government performance that businesses want. Would they rather have Australian Airlines coming to Cairns with all of its benefits and not know the details of the training arrangements but know that there are training arrangements, to not know the details of the marketing arrangements and benefits that the government will provide with Australian Airlines, but still have them? I bet to a man and to a woman that they will say that, because the benefits flow on so dramatically throughout the community. There will be 350,000 extra tourists to Cairns and 350,000 extra jobs for Cairns. If commercial-in-confidence means that we do not know the absolute details of the 1132 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 17 Apr 2002 training arrangements, or the marketing arrangements, we say 'Hooray, good deal, do some more, Minister Barton and Premier Beattie,' because this is the way in which businesses can expand. All of the small businesses that go through our Office of State Development say, 'Do some more.' Time expired. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 58—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Purcell NOES, 17—Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Kingston, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Quinn, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Springborg, Copeland Resolved in the affirmative. Question—That the motion as amended be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 59—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Purcell NOES, 17—Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Kingston, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Quinn, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Springborg, Copeland Resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 7.04 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.

ELECTORAL (FRAUDULENT ACTIONS) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 28 November 2001 (see p. 3996). Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (8.30 p.m.): I am pleased to respond on behalf of the government to the private member's bill before the House, the Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill. I say at the outset that the government will be opposing the bill. I do not think that comes as a surprise to the shadow minister or to other Opposition members. Frankly, this debate ought to be relatively short because if this bill were passed, it simply would not take effect due to its inconsistency with Commonwealth law. Under section 109 of the Constitution of Australia, the bill would immediately be ruled invalid insofar as it purports to create offences affecting the Commonwealth electoral roll and, therefore, it cannot take effect. There are other arguments against the bill which I will be happy to outline in a moment. However, in a nutshell, that is the beginning and the end of the matter. As well-intentioned as the propositions in the bill may be on the part of the opposition, the fact is that this bill—to use a colloquial description—does not have a feather to fly with. The shadow minister has indicated that the bill is designed to create an offence which will serve as a catch-all provision to apply where no other specific offences exist, irrespective of the application of other offence provisions under state or Commonwealth law. There are four grounds on which I suggest to members of the House, including the opposition, that the bill should not proceed, and they are as follows. First is the issue of constitutional invalidity by virtue of this bill purporting to extend the operation of state laws beyond the state's capacity to make those laws effective. Second, the Parliamentary Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee has reviewed the bill and has recommended against its proceeding in any form. Third, the conduct proscribed by the bill's principal provision, new section 160A, is covered by a range of existing offences under the existing law, including—and this is my fourth point—the substantial amendments to the battery of offences that now exist both in the Electoral Act and in the Criminal Code as a result of the substantial electoral reforms passed by this House in the last couple of days. On those four grounds, I believe that the arguments against the bill proceeding are fatal to the bill. Subject to the opposition wishing to pursue associated arguments which are not directly 17 Apr 2002 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 1133 related to this particular bill but which are, perhaps, related to their views on other electoral issues that they want to canvass in this debate, the fact of the matter is that this bill cannot survive. I will turn now to those four arguments specifically and elaborate briefly. Firstly, the offences proposed relate to filling in or lodging enrolment forms. Any offences of that kind arising out of the joint electoral roll arrangement with the Commonwealth must be prosecuted under Commonwealth legislation. The lodgment of applications for enrolment on the roll are governed by the Commonwealth laws affecting the Commonwealth electoral roll. There is simply no scope for the operation of state laws for offences in connection with the enrolment of voters on the electoral roll except, perhaps, for that small class of cases where a person may be eligible to be enrolled on a state roll but, for technical reasons, is ineligible to enrol on the federal or Commonwealth electoral roll. Secondly, the parliamentary committee has recommended against parliament proceeding with this bill. The parliamentary committee notes that a substantial proportion of the bill would be constitutionally invalid because of section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution. Two principles apply under section 109. Firstly, the principle of direct inconsistency. The Crown Solicitor has advised that the new section 160A is, arguably, directly inconsistent with Commonwealth legislation. It proscribes conduct which is already proscribed by section 137.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, which deals with false and misleading information. Apart from that direct inconsistency, it seems abundantly clear to me and to the parliamentary committee that what this legislation proposes to cover is already covered by the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the Commonwealth Criminal Code. In that regard, the second principle of section 109 of the Constitution applies; namely, that Commonwealth law intends to cover the field. The courts now have a well-established view that if Commonwealth legislation—regardless of whether it is directly inconsistent with a specific Commonwealth provision—is intended to cover the field in relation to a particular issue, then state legislation is thereby made invalid. The third argument is that the conduct proscribed by the new section 160A(2), which creates the specific offence within the general offence of subsection (1), is covered by a range of existing offences under our current state law. For example, section 151 of our state Electoral Act deals with false or fictitious names and addresses on the electoral roll. Section 153 deals with false or misleading statements. Section 154 deals with false, misleading or incomplete documents. Section 159 deals with forging or uttering electoral papers. The only difference between the existing offences under the state Electoral Act and this proposed specific offence is that an essential element of the offence in this bill is proof of an intent to fraudulently influence the outcome of an election. In effect, proving an offence under this bill would be more difficult than proving the existing specific offences under the existing Electoral Act because none of those offences require the additional element of intent to be proved for the offences to be made out. The proposition that the offences proposed in the bill have a catch-all effect is thrown into question by the fact that it requires proof of matters that existing laws do not require so far as existing offences are concerned. The bill attempts to deal with some of the issues raised by the parliamentary committee. For example, deeming the offence a misdemeanour will overcome the 12 month limitation period for the commencement of prosecutions. I certainly understand what is intended and, as a matter of principle, I do not oppose it. However, the offences have to be effected and the result achieved by Commonwealth legislation, not state legislation. That is why many months ago the previous Attorney wrote to the Commonwealth government urging it to change its electoral enrolment offences to ensure that that 12 month limitation no longer applies. The second amendment addresses the proposition that somehow the specific offence is unfair, and the bill proposes a mandatory minimum penalty in that regard. The opposition knows that, as a matter of principle, we do not support random minimum penalties. The bill really proposes a piecemeal reform to the legislation. We believe the comprehensive reforms we introduced yesterday satisfy all the requirements that this bill seeks to achieve. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (8.40 p.m.): I look forward to taking part in this debate tonight, because this private member's bill has been a genuine move by the opposition, through its shadow minister, to bring about a system that prevents electoral fraud—something we all detest—and to stop the sorts of actions within the Labor Party that led to the Shepherdson inquiry. 1134 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 17 Apr 2002

The objectives of this bill are to amend the Electoral Act 1992 by inserting a new section making it an offence to fraudulently do any act with intent to influence the outcome of an election held pursuant to the Electoral Act. It sets a maximum three-year penalty for acts committed in contravention of the bill and, importantly, there is a three-month minimum mandatory jail sentence for those who seek to falsely enrol themselves or others. That is our objective; it is quite the opposite of what the Attorney-General stated were the principles of the government and the Labor Party. We believe there should be a minimum mandatory jail sentence so that there is a salutary example that prevents people from rorting elections by falsely enrolling and engaging in other fraudulent acts. These objectives will be achieved by ensuring that those who conduct any fraudulent act with intent to influence the outcome of an election held under the Electoral Act are punished for their actions. That is the reason for the mandatory minimum jail sentence. This is being done to ensure that any act is punishable, irrespective of the application of other offence provisions under either state laws or the Commonwealth laws relating to the joint electoral rolls, and to ensure that where there is no other specific offence provision the fraudulent actions of those who intend to influence the outcome of an election are punished—in other words, the catch-all provision. In bringing down his findings, Commissioner Shepherdson noted that the statute of limitations of 12 months tied his hands in making recommendations for the prosecution of a number of the matters before him, even though the evidence presented to the commission of inquiry was strong. It is possible that some people escaped by the skin of their teeth because of the statute of limitations. Electoral fraud is an affront to our democracy. Serving the people of this state is an honour. Public office must be held in high esteem. If over time some office holders have been less than honourable, that is a tragedy. But we should ensure that every step along the path of getting into public office is taken in an honest and accountable system. The holding of public office must always remain an honourable principle. The holders of public office must be worthy of being regarded as honourable. We must all strive to be principled, ethical, sincere and honest. The people of this state must have the utmost confidence in their system of government, because the system in the end belongs to the people. It is not a plaything for people to manipulate in their efforts to seek power just for the sake of power. That is one reason this bill is a good one. It endeavours to make the system as honest and accountable as possible. The revelations unfolded at the Shepherdson inquiry cast serious doubts on the cleanliness and truth of our democratic system which we hold precious. While Labor Party members were the perpetrators of gross electoral rorting and daily we witnessed an unenviable display of how Labor apparatchiks had turned cheating into an art form, the perception in the broader community was that the whole system was corrupt. How often have we heard the old Labor adage 'vote early and vote often'? That was probably the basis of many of the complaints and investigations in the Shepherdson inquiry. The only perpetrators of electoral corruption were Labor Party members and their AWU cronies, but their shoddy cheating actions besmirched the whole democratic system and voters were left feeling disenchanted and disfranchised. The Labor Party ruined people's confidence in the voting system and government. Adding to voter disenchantment has been the slowness of the Premier in delivering on his promises to clean up the system. Many honourable members will remember the Premier time and time again saying things like, 'I'll not accept in my party or in this government anyone who breaks the law. They will go to jail.' That is what this bill is about. If you break the law, you will go to jail. Members will also remember the Premier's comment delivered on 17 October 2000 that 'anyone who breaks the law and is found guilty will go to jail, jail, jail and jail'. That is what we are ensuring. The government's legislation does not do that. We are delivering on this. What a hollow promise that turned out to be. The Premier knew it was unlikely that anyone could be charged. The existing statute of limitations of 12 months tied Commissioner Shepherdson's hands in making recommendations for prosecution. Once again, we saw another stunt. People are getting sick of stunts, particularly when no substance is coming to the surface. This bill is a sincere attempt to provide the people of Queensland with some substance. It attempts to restore some of the faith which took a battering during the Shepherdson inquiry. It is unfortunate that the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee recommended that the parliament not proceed with the bill without providing the member with the opportunity to make amendments which would have clarified certain matters identified by that review committee. 17 Apr 2002 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 1135

The Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee decided by only four votes to three not to recommend the passage of this bill. However, it is noted in the dissenting report that the majority recognise that such amendments would overcome many of the committee's concerns but considered the issue of potential constitutional validity as the critical factor in recommending that the parliament not proceed with the bill. Tonight the Attorney-General has spoken about that. But this should be subjective; it should be left to the courts to decide. The High Court is the adjudicator of constitutional validity. The parliament should not be putting itself in a position of presupposing the court's decision on this issue. It is probably timely to remember the separation of powers—the legislature makes the laws, the executive administers or applies the laws, and the judiciary construes or adjudicates on those laws. Contrary to LCARC recommendation, the parliament should proceed with the bill and, as a consequence, I am pleased to be here speaking to and supporting it. I wish to make some further comments on the report of the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee. It was obvious from the committee's report that it agreed fully with the sentiments of the bill; that electoral fraud is unacceptable and that the sorts of rorts perpetrated by many members of the Labor Party had to be wiped out forever. That it was in agreement with that gives us some heart. However, it had all sorts of fundamental concerns with the bill. As I said, most of them can be dealt with in amendments that the shadow minister has in the event that the bill proceeds past the second reading stage. I wish to refer to the dissenting report by the member for Maroochydore, the member for Gladstone and the member for Nanango. They expressed extreme disappointment that the Attorney-General introduced a bill implementing the electoral reforms announced by the Premier in Barcaldine, that is, the Electoral and Other Acts Amendment Bill, prior to the committee reporting on this bill. There was a good bipartisan spirit in referring this bill to the committee. The government could have at least waited until its report came in before introducing the Electoral and Other Acts Amendment Bill, which went through the House this week. This was contrary to the Attorney's express statement in the House that he was aiming to introduce his reform bill as soon as possible after the committee reported. His actions have been contemptuous of the committee's inquiry process. Again, the report stated that electoral fraud is an affront to our democratic system. It spoke about the catch-all offence provision that would ensure that, where there was no other specific offence provision, the fraudulent actions of those who intend to influence the outcome of an election are punished. In other words, the proposed provision provides an important safety net to underpin fair and free elections. The dissenting report noted that an amendment could be made to clarify what constitutes an election outcome. That is still possible if this bill passes the second reading stage. Our shadow minister has indicated that he intends to introduce an amendment to overcome the time limitation of one year on prosecuting offences under the proposed offence provision. It was recognised that such amendments would overcome many of the concerns. The majority report also recognised that. However, the dissenting report stated that it did not believe the risk of the bill being challenged was such that the parliament should not proceed with the bill; that the High Court is the adjudicator of constitutional validity and the parliament should not presuppose the decision of the court on this issue. I am pleased to support this bill. It will go a long way towards stopping rorting in the future. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): I call the member for Hervey Bay and advise members that I am in an extremely good and very generous mood tonight. Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (8.51 p.m.): I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will listen favourably to my arguments in view of the courtesy I have extended him. I rise to oppose the Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 2001. I understand the intent of the honourable member for Southern Downs in bringing this legislation to the House. We all want fair elections, and I have a strong distaste for the rorters who caused so much harm to my party by their actions in nearly derailing the fine efforts of the first Beattie government. But the bill before the House attempts to crack the nut not with a sledgehammer but with a nuclear bomb. I would like to raise some problems which I see with the consequences of this bill being passed and ask the member for Southern Downs and the Leader of the Opposition to reconsider whether or not this bill is not fatally flawed. I endorse the comments of the Attorney-General regarding the potential constitutional invalidity pursuant to section 109. I will say no more on that point; it has been well covered. I ask the honourable member to more broadly consider the 1136 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 17 Apr 2002 potential for injustice in the application of mandatory sentencing in these matters, particularly when combined with the removal of any statute bar or time limit on prosecutions. The bill provides a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment of three months for someone found guilty of, for example, enrolling in the wrong electorate or attempting to enrol someone else in the wrong electorate if the person is aware that they are not entitled to be enrolled in that electoral district. The problem with mandatory sentences is that they take away a court's power to consider the facts of an offence and also act as a severe disincentive to accused persons pleading guilty. Just think of the case of a young person aged 18 or 19 influenced by someone older to get on the roll somewhere. Twenty years later, this comes out. By then they may have a family, a career, a life. They may not only be blameless in every other way but could indeed have contributed substantially to the good of their community over some 20 years or more. No court in this land would send someone to prison for three months for a youthful indiscretion that did not involve physical harm to another person and which came to light after the passage of so many otherwise good years. But pass this bill and that is what will happen. Do we want to see children deprived of parents for errors of judgment committed long ago? Honourable members will know that these examples are only barely hypothetical. I have spent enough time in court rooms to know that every case is different, and our judges and magistrates think very carefully about the circumstances that lead to the commission of an offence and the culpability of any guilty person. One of the furphies that underpins the push for mandatory sentencing in general is the demonstrable untruth that all offenders get off with a so-called slap on the wrist. The reality, as the Minister for Police and Corrective Services and the Treasurer know all too well, is that, in the last five years of the 20th century, Queensland's prison population doubled. We went from having around 2,500 people in prison to having over 5,000 incarcerated in just five years, and yet some people will try to tell you that no-one is ever sent to jail in this state. Judges and magistrates do not need mandatory sentencing legislation in order to send people to jail. They do it every day, but they do it after considering all the circumstances, as required by the Penalties and Sentences Act, the Criminal Code and, in these matters, the Electoral Act. I suggest that it may not be in the interests of our society as a whole to, say, send a single mother of three children to prison for three months for an offence committed long ago. It may not be in the interests of our society for children to have to go into care or for families to lose their breadwinner. The issue of whether imprisonment is the right sentencing option should be left to the judge or magistrate who hears the facts and any relevant submissions. We have fines, probation, community service orders and intensive correction orders as alternatives to imprisonment. Judges have a discretion in sentencing, and that is how it should stay. Apart from my objection to the principle of mandatory sentencing, I also suggest that this bill creates an unwise type of strict liability offence, in that it deems a person to have acted with intent to fraudulently influence the outcome of an election if they enrol in a district and are aware that they are not entitled to be enrolled in that district. I suggest there are many individuals around this state who will find themselves on very dangerous ground if this bill were to be passed, although they have no actual intention to fraudulently influence the outcome of an election. There are many people who split their time between two homes—who work, for example, in Brisbane four days a week and spend three days a week up the coast or on places like Fraser Island at a beachside home. In their hearts, they may believe that home is the place where they actually spend less time and enrol at that address. They could do so in anticipation of retiring shortly, or for any number of reasons which might be legally or technically wrong but are certainly not part of any deliberate attempt to fraudulently influence the outcome of an election. This bill, if it were law, would send people to jail for making a mistake, for an error of judgment, regardless of whether they had any interest in the electoral process at all. It deems intent, thereby effectively reversing the onus of proof. That is the effect of proposed amendment 2. This is particularly dangerous when set against some very vague language. I suggest that the wording 'an act to fraudulently influence the outcome of an election' is horribly vague and dangerously wide in its scope. I suggest the wording allows for letters to the editor which contain an untruth to be caught by this legislation. All members know how annoying it is to see letters in our local papers falsely claiming that we did or did not do, or do or do not support, some thing or proposition which is demonstrably untrue and urging people not to vote for us because of that reason. They might be annoying, but do we really want to start jailing those colourful characters in our electorates who march to the beat of a different drum? Some are malicious; some are just plain silly; some are sufferers from mental illness. I do not want to jail them when they urge people not to vote for me because they write 17 Apr 2002 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 1137 that I have called for the River Heads barge to be closed—which I have not—or that I receive instructions on how to vote via a silicon chip in my head put there by aliens from the Planet Bufuntox—which I do not. What about the dreadful fraud of standing as an Independent or a member of a party and then jumping ship soon after the election? Is that not fraudulently influencing the outcome of an election? Bring me a bill that perhaps considers incarcerating people who do that and I will be interested. I will have a very close look at that one. I am sure the members of One Nation might be interested! But the wording of this bill is just too wide. It would fill our courts with people who go over the top in the lead-up to every election. No-one likes electoral fraud. It is repugnant. But people make mistakes. Fraud is a crime that requires mens rea—intention. Any legislation that sets up mandatory sentences in a fraud offence but then weakens the requirement for proof of intention, that says someone is taken to have done an act with intent to fraudulently affect an election outcome, is bad law. Finally, let me ask what we hope to achieve by this. Does anyone really think that this sort of over-the-top penalty will stop silly or misguided people doing these things? How many 18-year- olds can name the penalty range for any offence? I am not a big believer in tough penalties being a deterrent—otherwise, I would suggest, there would be nobody on death row in America. Political parties have an obligation to keep their noses clean, and I am proud of the response by the Premier and the ALP to the problems which we had. But consider this: the people who were involved in these matters are no longer members of this House. Notwithstanding that there was a statute bar on prosecution, they have lost their positions because of the political reality of their transgressions. I suggest that this amendment bill is unnecessary. Worse, it carries terrible consequences for freedom of speech and political discourse in this state. I think the scale of the penalty is by and large out of all proportion to the penalties applied to other offences under our criminal law. The legislation we passed yesterday cleans up our electoral system and makes this bill redundant. The Electoral and Other Acts Amendment Bill provides for the Electoral Commission to randomly audit candidate selections, set jail terms of up to 10 years for electoral rorters and ban convicted rorters from joining parties and standing for public office. I suggest that is enough. In all the circumstances, while being in sympathy with the desire of the member for Southern Downs to promote a clean electoral system, the government has delivered on this issue. The Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 2001 should not be voted for. It should be voted down, unless of course the member for Southern Downs has thought better of it and has chosen to withdraw this unfortunate and clumsy amendment bill. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (9.00 p.m.): I rise in support of the Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill, introduced by my colleague the member for Southern Downs. The member for Southern Downs did not introduce this piece of legislation lightly. He gave a lot of thought to it in the light of the outcome of the Shepherdson inquiry and in the light of rorting we have witnessed by members of parliament. Following the passing of the Electoral and Other Acts Amendment Bill yesterday the minister rushed out and claimed that the bill had introduced tough penalties, including jail, for forging ballot papers and electoral bribery. As usual with this government, it pays to examine anything its members say. Usually it is more important to understand what is not being said. Those of us who were members of this House before the last election would remember the Premier saying that anybody who rorted the system would go to jail, jail, jail. That is precisely what the member for Southern Downs is trying to achieve with this piece of legislation. I ask everyone to think back to 17 October 2000. The rorters on the other side of the House were ducking for cover and blaming one another when the shameful and systematic abuse of the electoral system by the highest levels of government came to light. I remind the House of what the Premier said on that occasion. When speaking about the Shepherdson inquiry he said that anyone who had broken the law should go to jail, jail, jail. How many times did we hear that? We heard it day after day, week after week. An unfortunate thing is that people who were probably very good members of the government lost their seats through sheer stupidity. I reflect on what the member for Hervey Bay said. The member for Hervey Bay made reference to mandatory sentencing. This bill seeks to impose a mandatory sentence of three months. I believe that if any member of parliament or anyone else knew that they would go to jail for three months for carrying out these fraudulent actions they would make certain they were not going to break the law. At the end of the day, the member— 1138 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 17 Apr 2002

Mr English interjected. Mr JOHNSON: The member should just hang on a second. He is pretty quick to criticise. He should just listen for a second. The member for Hervey Bay made reference to a lady who is the mother of three little kids. We are not talking about somebody like that. We are talking about the parliamentary system. We are talking about democracy. I think the member for Southern Downs has got it absolutely right by including in this bill a maximum of three years jail and a mandatory three months in jail. If people do the wrong thing they will cop three months in jail. No-one in here wants to cop three months mandatory imprisonment. I believe this is a very responsible piece of legislation that will act as a deterrent. It will make members of parliament even better representatives through enforcing sheer honesty and delivering integrity. We know that the statute of limitations saved a number of people who occupied the front benches in earlier years from going to jail. The purpose of this bill, together with amendments proposed by the shadow minister, is to give effect to the promise of the Premier for jail terms for those who in the future deliberately set out to strike at the very heart of democracy and to cheat the electoral process. With the government's legislation in unison with this piece of legislation, people will be hesitant about doing the wrong thing. I will refrain from much other comment on these matters. Members will be aware that I am restrained by respect for due process and the legal system in our state. Suffice to say, the opposition does not agree that the provisions included in the bill passed by the House yesterday go far enough. This bill is to address those shortcomings. I should follow up some of the comments made in this House this morning in my absence in relation to the so-called misappropriation, often referred to incorrectly as a gerrymander. To set the record straight I need to remind those on the other side of the House that this, too, was introduced by the Australian Labor Party. Mr Cummins: And you kept it. Mr JOHNSON: We have not had a chance to do much about it. Members opposite talk about bipartisanship. I believe that this piece of legislation has been overlapped by the Barcaldine statement. At the same time, if we are to be fair dinkum about ensuring the integrity of members of parliament we have to listen to what each other has to say. We have heard what the government has had to say. I think it is only fair that others listen to what the shadow minister and member for Southern Downs is trying to say with this piece of legislation. I believe that the Shepherdson inquiry was stifled somewhat in its findings. It came to a grinding halt. The government has put in place its legislation as a result of the Barcaldine statement, but I believe it is paramount that members of the government look at the issue the member for Southern Downs has raised in relation to jail terms. I believe it will be the one deterrent to all members of parliament that will give credibility to this institution. It will preserve democracy in the way we believe it should be preserved. At the same time, it will make people think twice about breaking the law. I support the legislation introduced by the member for Southern Downs. I urge all members of this parliament to do the same. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (9.07 p.m.): In rising to speak to the Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill I find myself agreeing in part with the member for Gregory. I think it is important on these sorts of issues that we listen to what each other has to say. I think it is important that we take on board useful and productive suggestions. I have read the bill, I have read the explanatory notes, I have read the amendments and I have read and re-read the second reading speech. I still have problems with this bill. My problems with the bill relate to, first, the very real potential for a principle of mandatory sentencing to find its way into our electoral process. I think we all agree that if people break the law they have to be punished. I do not think there is anyone who disagrees with that notion. I think, though, I speak for most of my constituents when I say that, if people break the law and seek to defraud the electoral system, the people we want to catch, jail and punish are not the minnows that get sucked in; it is the ring-leaders. A situation in which there is absolutely no room for the judiciary to move will create a situation where there is no benefit for those people who perhaps through, as the member for Hervey Bay suggested— Mr Johnson interjected. 17 Apr 2002 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 1139

Mr LEE: As the member for Hervey Bay said, if people are young, foolish and naive but then later seek to make amends for what they have done and admit to what they have done, we do not want to see the situation that there is no benefit and incentive for them to dob in the people who caused those actions to occur in the first place. I do not believe as a principle that mandatory sentencing provides the outcomes that perhaps members of the National Party feel it does. There are significant numbers of people on death row in the United States of America. I do not think we can get more serious about wanting to punish people than to tell them that if they commit certain crimes they will be killed—that is, the government saying, 'If you commit this crime, we'll kill you.' One would imagine that, as a matter of principle, if mandatory sentencing worked, people would say, 'Well, we just won't kill people.' That has not been the case. There are murders going on all over the place in the United States, and they go on whether or not there is fairly punitive mandatory sentencing. As a principle, I do not agree with that. As a member of the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee I had problems in examining the bill in that I believe that it would pose some constitutional problems, but these are points that will be dealt with by other speakers in this debate. I also have to say that I have noticed that many members are talking about electoral fraud as relating to the mechanics of how you fill in an enrolment form. I feel that perhaps a broadening should take place. There is a situation in South Australia where an Independent elected to the parliament, some say on the grounds that he was a Liberal-supporting Independent, has found himself Speaker. In the process of a fairly close election, he supported a Labor government for South Australia, and it will be a great Labor government under the new Premier. The net result was that elements in the Liberal Party in South Australia said, 'He's defrauded the public.' Mr McNamara: They reckon it's fraud. Mr LEE: I take that interjection from the member for Hervey Bay. The Liberals in South Australia reckon he defrauded the public by suggesting that he was a Liberal-supporting Independent and that subsequently supporting a Labor government is fraud. That is not something that has been addressed in this bill and it is something that I think is a great cause for concern. It is a cause for concern, too, because we have had a number of instances in the term of this parliament where people who represented themselves to the electorate, rightly or wrongly, as being Independent or members of the One Nation Party have subsequently decided that they have changed their minds and, as a result, one is now an Independent and one is now—you guessed it—a National Party frontbencher. In the interests of fairness, we ought to not just point the finger at other people. There has been talk of Shepherdson and all sorts of things. If we are going to be fair, just and proper about this, we ought to get our own houses in order. We have done that on this side of the House. I would suggest that the other side could perhaps look at doing it, too. I was absolutely delighted to hear the member for Gregory suggest that the Shepherdson inquiry did not go far enough. I happen to agree with that. I thought the Shepherdson inquiry could have had a good hard look at the Ryan Liberal Party. I want to say very briefly in conclusion that I am very happy with the reforms introduced by the Attorney-General. It is important when looking at electoral fraud to look at perhaps one of the greatest electoral frauds—that is, having fraudulent electoral boundaries and unfair electoral boundaries. We had to deal with that in Queensland under the National Party for quite a good number of years. I conclude by saying that the way to solve so many of these problems is by educating the public as to the importance of a free, open and democratic system in this country. We are exceptionally lucky to live in a country where governments can change by people casting a vote rather than by people pointing a gun. That is something that I am exceptionally proud of and it makes me very proud to be a citizen of Australia. In the interests of promoting these sorts of values, I encourage schoolchildren in my electorate to visit the web sites of both the Queensland Electoral Commission and the Australian Electoral Commission, which have useful information about the conduct of free, fair and open elections. In order to make that simpler for some of the students in my constituency, I have made sure that my personal web site has links both to the QEC and the AEC. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (9.15 p.m.): I rise to support the Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill introduced by my colleague the shadow Attorney-General and shadow minister for justice. It has been interesting to sit here tonight and listen to some of the sanctimonious speeches by some new Labor members. It is worthy to note that most members who have spoken since I have been in the chamber were not part of this parliament before the last election. They were not here when the electoral rorts affair was a very pertinent subject in this parliament. 1140 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 17 Apr 2002

They did not hear the Premier stand up in this House day after day after day and promise and say that exactly what this bill is proposing would be his favoured response to the electoral rorts affair. That is what happened. Day after day after day we saw the Premier stand up over there and give that assurance to the people of Queensland. All members who have made sanctimonious speeches on this legislation since I have been in this House tonight owe the fact that they are here simply to the reality that the people of Queensland believed what the Premier said. The reason the member for Hervey Bay, the member for Indooroopilly and all the rest of them are here is because the people of Queensland believed the Premier when he stood up over there and said, 'Anyone who's found guilty of electoral rorting will go to jail, jail, jail.' He used to say 'jail, jail, jail, jail and jail' time and time again. Mr McNamara interjected. Mr SEENEY: That is the reason the member for Hervey Bay is here, and that is the reason the member for Indooroopilly is here. That is the reason that so many others of these hopeless, ineffectual backbenchers got swept in here on the tide. That is why they are here. Those members opposite who were here at the time know that that is the truth. That is the absolute truth. I can see the member for Townsville laughing and nodding, because he was here and he knows what happened. It used to amuse me to sit here and watch the Premier respond to these questions— Mr REYNOLDS: I rise to a point of order. What the member has just said is an untruth: I was laughing at him, but I definitely was not nodding. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): Order! There is no point of order. Mr SEENEY: It used to amuse me to sit over here and watch the Premier respond to questions we used to ask him about what he thought should happen to electoral rorters. Every time he said that they should go to 'jail, jail, jail' I used to watch the faces of those on the backbench. You could see the people go white. You could see the people go pale. You could see the ones who used to try to slide down under the desk and disappear into the seat, and you knew darn well which ones had the problem. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SEENEY: Absolutely. They used to slide down and hide behind the seat. The member for Lytton is not here. It is a shame the member for Lytton is not here, because he is the only bloke I have ever seen who could disappear behind that desk every time the question was asked. He would disappear down behind the desk. His response to the Premier's comments was a good indication of the trouble he was in. So I think I have heard enough of the sanctimonious dribble from the brand-new backbenchers who got swept in here on the tide generated by those assurances the Premier gave this House over and over again. In that regard, this legislation is a test of the Premier's credibility and should be seen in that light. Those members who stood up in this House tonight and said that they will vote against this legislation that attempts to do what the Premier said should be done should take a moment to reflect on why they are here and why they are destroying the credibility that got them into this place in the first place. The primary objective of this legislation is to ensure that those individuals who commit any fraudulent act that attempts to influence the outcome of an election held under the Electoral Act will be punished for their actions. As the shadow minister said, a number of acts can serve to influence the outcome of an election, some of which are specifically punishable under Commonwealth laws due to the joint electoral rolls. Mr Reeves: You're filibustering now. You are repeating what he said. Mr SEENEY: I would love to take the member's interjection. I just wish the member had one clever enough for me to respond to. It is a bit hard when one would like to respond to an interjection but one cannot get one worth responding to. I would appreciate it if the member could make his interjections good enough to respond to. I reiterate that this legislation has been put forward to ensure that any act is punishable, irrespective of the application of other offence provisions under either state or Commonwealth laws relating to the joint electoral rolls. The amendment seeks to insert a new section 160A, and without limitation a person will have been taken to have done an act with intent to fraudulently influence the outcome of an election if the act is done with the intent to have a person, whether it be the person doing the act 17 Apr 2002 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 1141 or somebody else, enrolled in an electoral district where that person is aware that he or she is not entitled to be enrolled under the relevant electoral laws. This is exactly the situation we saw exposed so many times in the last parliament. It is a matter of history, but it has been happening for a number of years. In the last parliament we saw that situation exposed again and again with respect to members of the then government. It was those very actions that caused the Premier over and again to say that anyone found guilty of that offence should go to jail. I remember asking the Deputy Premier at the time, a person for whom I used to have a bit of respect and with whom I used to enjoy engaging in intellectual discourse in the parliament, Mr Elder— An honourable member interjected. Mr SEENEY: My friend the member for Kawana was not here. In defence of the former Deputy Premier, the member for Kawana will be here for a heck of a long time before he gets as good as the former Deputy Premier. The member for Logan nods and supports me in that statement, because he knows that the former Deputy Premier, Mr Elder, was a pretty handy operator in this parliament. I can remember asking Mr Elder whether he agreed with the Premier's assurances about going to jail, bearing in mind that at that time not one of us realised that he had a particular problem in that regard. Mr Elder went a funny shade of pale as well, stood up, said, 'Yes,' and sat down again. That was something that I will remember as a pretty significant moment in terms of— An honourable member interjected. Mr SEENEY: He was. I will remember that as a pretty significant moment in this parliament. I also remember the member for Townsville having similar bad mornings in terms of some of the questions asked in here. The Premier was able to convince the people of Queensland that he was confident that everyone found guilty of this offence should go to jail. This is exactly what this legislation sets out to achieve. It is worth noting that this bill and its key amendment are subsequent to the recommendations of the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee. One such recommendation was— The committee has some reservations about the reliance on substantial jail terms ... In accordance with the principles in the Penalties and Sentences Act, imprisonment should only be imposed as a last resort and a sentence that allows the offender to stay in the community is preferable. How does one reconcile that recommendation by the Labor-dominated committee with the comments the Premier made over and again? Perhaps those members of the government who serve on that committee could stand up in this House before this debate concludes and explain how we can reconcile that statement with the Premier's statements. That would be a very— Ms Struthers interjected. Mr SEENEY: The real issue that members of the committee should explain is how they reconcile their recommendations with the Premier's statements. I am sure there is room on the speaking list for the members of that committee to do so. I look forward to hearing that explanation. It is a shame that the committee's decisions, based on party lines, one, failed to back up— Time expired. Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (9.25 p.m.): Like all members in this House, I agree that electoral rorters must feel the full force of law. Firm action has to be taken and is being taken. The Beattie government has introduced what I think is one of the most substantial pieces of legislation this House has seen in a long time, that is, the Electoral and Other Acts Amendment Bill. This bill, introduced by the member for Southern Downs, is flawed in law. The bill is bad law, but members opposite persist with a substandard product because they do not have much else to offer in this House. They know that the Labor Party introduced excellent laws, that we really tackled this issue head on, yet they persist with a very weak, substandard product. To the great credit of the Attorney-General and the Premier, Peter Beattie, our legislation is far-reaching, powerful and contains some of the toughest penalties of any jurisdiction in Australia. We do hear from members opposite about how good that is. Members opposite still want to persist with their substandard weak effort. Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. It is the Premier's suggestion that we are trying to put into law; it is not our suggestion. 1142 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 17 Apr 2002

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): Order! There is no point of order. Ms STRUTHERS: The member for Southern Downs has good intentions. He has presented his private member's bill to the parliament, but it does smack of being rushed and, consequently, is very ill-conceived and flawed in law. I am very proud to chair LCARC. The member for Callide was keen for me to get to my feet to explain LCARC's position. I am very keen to do that tonight. LCARC invited submissions on Mr Springborg's bill in order to assist its analysis of the bill. The committee undertook a comprehensive review. LCARC recommended that, as there is a strong likelihood a substantial proportion of the bill is invalid under section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution, the parliament should not proceed with the bill in any form—amendments, no amendments, no form at all. The bill does not have any form. The committee also received convincing submissions against mandatory minimum sentencing provisions and definition problems with the bill. Fundamental principles of law are breached in this bill, but members opposite still want to proudly bring it into this House and defend it. Let us look at some of the comments and submissions presented to LCARC. Graeme Orr, law lecturer and researcher in electoral law at Griffith University, said— The bill is flawed in several significant respects. It manages both to miss its mark in part yet also to be significantly over-reaching. It is not well focused. It also distorts penalty relativities. Mr Orr recommended that this bill not be passed. Mr Orr also made some very important comments in relation to the outcome of an election and the definition of such. He submitted that— ...on a literal reading...the meaning of 'outcome' of an election—the bill might have a very wide application including deliberate misstatements made during election campaign. Mr Orr submitted that— A politician who knowingly publicised factual misrepresentations on a topic central to an election campaign would prima facie be guilty of an 'act with intent to fraudulently influence the outcome of an election'. Further— Allegations were raised at the 2001 federal election that government ministers may have knowingly and for political advantage made incorrect claims about asylum seekers throwing their children into the water. ... Under a literal reading of sub-clause 160A(1), this sort of allegation would be a matter for police consideration and not just political discourse. This can hardly be the Bill's intention. That quote is from Mr Orr, an eminent and respected law lecturer. Mr Purcell: Would Howard get jail? That is what I want to know. Ms STRUTHERS: Will Reith go to jail? That is the sort of interpretation that could be made of this flawed bill. In my view, those statements about children being thrown overboard influenced the outcome of the election. In many ways, they were immoral—some would say criminal statements and criminal actions. They swayed public opinion in favour of Mr Howard. They certainly swayed public opinion in relation to asylum seekers and fostered a lot of racism and fear—very immoral actions. Would Mr Springborg be suggesting that Mr Reith go to jail, jail, jail? Many of us would see that as sweet justice, justice, justice. But is Mr Reith likely to go to jail, jail, jail? No, they are getting away with these immoral acts. But under that clause within Mr Springborg's bill, that is the sort of interpretation that could be made. Gerard Carney, an Associate Professor of Law at the School of Law at Bond University had this to say— First, the wording of the proposed s160A, "fraudulently influence the outcome of an election", is in such wide and general terms that it may give rise to prosecutions in circumstances which would not normally be the subject of a criminal offence. In the absence of more specific prescribed conduct, it leaves individuals vulnerable to intimidation by threatened or instigated prosecutions. Although conviction depends on establishing fraud, the risk of intimidation, particularly in the political realm, remains a matter of concern. On the issue of constitutional validity, Mr Carney said— In conclusion, while the general offence of s160A(1) is not rendered wholly ineffective by s109, a substantial part of the operation of subs (2) suffers that fate. Although that is a bit convoluted, it is very clear: this is likely to be invalid under section 109 of the Constitution. Clearly, these people who have professional expertise in this area know better than probably any of us in this House. A lot of people are saying that it is flawed in law, a lot of people are saying that the mandatory minimum sentence provisions are also wrong in law. 17 Apr 2002 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 1143

Colin Hughes, a professor, stated— ... whilst advocating the extension and stiffening of sanctions to discourage enrolment fraud, I would strongly oppose bringing mandatory minimum sentences into the Act. Mr Justice Paul de Jersey stated— ... in cases of minimum penalties, this one could result in the imposition of imprisonment on a person in circumstances in which such punishment would be grossly unfair and disproportionate to penalties imposed for other similar offences. Are we to go against the opinions of these sorts of eminent people? This is the flawed legislation that those members opposite are trying to put up a defence to tonight. Even if Mr Springborg removed the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions from this bill and specified the definition of an election outcome in new section 160A, the bill is still at risk of being invalid due to section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution. With respect, I also reject the claim in the dissenting report to the LCARC report on this bill lodged by the members for Maroochydore, Gladstone and Nanango. The honourable members support the passage of this bill and state that this parliament should not presuppose the High Court's decision on the issue of constitutional validity. In the face of a convincing argument on the likely invalidity of the provisions of this bill from people with substantial expertise, the members are advocating that this parliament take the risk and see what happens in the High Court. This is not Play School. We are not here to play legal games at the risk of wasting legal and judicial resources and our own time in this parliament. We have eminent people advising us against the passage of this bill. We ought to take notice of that. If members want to talk about arrogance, it is the arrogance of those members opposite who are disregarding those sorts of legal opinions. The Attorney-General introduced good legislation into the parliament. We should all support that. Why are we playing around with a private member's bill that has been superseded, a private member's bill that is significantly flawed? Members have no obligation to be grateful to Mr Springborg by allowing the passage of his flawed bill. But I think that is what the members for Gladstone, Maroochydore and Nanango were doing—feeling grateful, feeling obligated. We all share the objective that underlies this bill to be tough on electoral rorts and abuses. We are doing that through the government's bill that was passed in this House recently. I commend Mr Springborg's effort, but the responsible action is to reject outright the Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill. I encourage all members to reject this bill. Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (9.35 p.m.): Once again I refer to the committee system and say that I am disappointed to see what is going on in this parliament. I speak as a member who has been a member of parliament since 1983 and who has seen the use of the committee system. This government has referred a bill, which it obviously sees some commonsense in and it obviously sees a need for, to a government committee, LCARC, which it knows full well is dominated by government members. Without going into the whole strategy, let me say that at present the members who are sitting opposite on the back bench are enjoying the ecstasy that other members enjoyed in 1982- 83. They never thought that they would ever get beaten. Unfortunately, politics swings. I think that those backbenchers on the government side should look at what is happening with the government's committee system. A previous Premier always said that he would never have committees, because they would develop a massive bureaucracy—and I defy anyone to say that that is not happening in the Queensland parliament; that they would incur massive costs in administration and travel costs as they travel all around Queensland, Australia and sometimes all around the world; and that they would not look at the actual topics that were particularly relevant to this parliament. There is no doubt that if a backbencher opposite is really thinking seriously and they are a member of the PAC or the PWC, they know full well that that happens, because within the committee system there is a chance for the government members to say, 'We are not going to look at this because this is particularly controversial and it is not something that we want to look at.' That is happening in the present parliament. It was also said that the parliament would be overrun by committees. I know full well that since 1982-83 the role of a member of parliament has changed. This parliament was set up for parliamentarians to come and do their job, and do their job correctly. But this parliament is completely overrun by bureaucrats. In terms of the committee system, more rooms are being built upstairs in the annexe. This parliament has changed completely since 1982-83, simply because 1144 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 17 Apr 2002 of the committee system. Those members opposite who are sitting on the back bench are in ecstasy now because they are in government and they can do whatever they like. They can treat a bill such as this as though it is frivolous. They can refer it to LCARC and ask the committee to provide a decision on it. That decision could stand at three all and the committee chairman would vote against it. Therefore, the members opposite can stand in this parliament and say that LCARC voted against this bill 4-3. That is completely wrong. Sooner or later—and regardless of how many years it takes—some of the government members will be sitting in opposition and they will regard the committee system with exactly the same exasperation as I, a member who said originally that the committee system will never work, that it will be used by the government. We have seen that occur in relation to back flow and we see it here tonight. Once again, a bill has been referred to a committee. Tonight, a number of members have said that it was rejected by LCARC, with the decision standing at four votes to three. Those members have said that the bill is flawed. Three ALP members on that committee voted against the three opposition members and, obviously, the chairman had the casting vote. Now if that is a rejection of a bill, then I believe there is something wrong. It is quite obvious that the committee system of this parliament is not working. Committees such as the Parliamentary Service Commission— Mr Fouras interjected. Mr LINGARD: I hear the former Speaker on the other side of the House starting to interject. He knows full well that some committees—one being the Parliamentary Service Commission—were completely rejected by this government. It slowly disappeared; it just dropped out. It was never voted against by this parliament, but it was not used. I agreed with that. I am not saying it was wrong. However, I do not think it was ever a successful committee. Regardless of whether or not members like the Speaker's rulings, it is better for that person to say, 'This is what is going on in the parliament.' At this stage, unfortunately, the committee system is being abused by the government in power. I am not saying it would not be abused by our party if we were in power. Nevertheless, there is something wrong with the committee system, and unless it is corrected, in 10 or even 20 years time we will still have this ridiculous situation in which a bill such as this one which has some merit and some worth—which government members themselves accept—can be rejected by LCARC. Members are standing up tonight and saying, 'LCARC says that this bill should not go ahead.' That is absolutely ridiculous. Government members know that it is ridiculous and they know that they are abusing the power of this parliament. It is a very important topic which needs to be considered by the parliament. It is all about a fair and honest democracy in Queensland. The problem with the current legislation is one that occurs with a lot of legislation: people find loopholes. The loopholes need to be closed, and that is what the opposition is trying to do. Government members know that that is what the opposition is trying to do; they know that that is the merit of this bill. They are embarrassed that people on their own side have taken advantage of the loopholes. Those loopholes need to be closed. There is specific legislation in place, but some people actively seek loopholes. If they discover one, they exploit it to its fullest extent to their own advantage. That has been happening with this particular legislation and that is what the member for Southern Downs has tried to stop. All members would know that this has been happening for years. It has been happening with electoral legislation and it has been happening with taxation legislation. People have found a loophole in the current legislation and they have been exploiting it in order to influence the outcome of an election to their own advantage or to meet their own desires. This is not what democracy is about. A democratic election process should be fair and free from such intervention. This legislation will help to do that, and it will ensure that those who do interfere with our democratic system will be punished for it. I have been approached by a member of my electorate who is in support of this bill. In a letter to LCARC he states— Consequently this submission supports the principle behind the Amendment and recommends the Committee in turn recommends it to the House. However there is a query surrounding the use of the word 'fraudulently'. Would it not be possible to commit an offence within the wording of the Amendment but not in a fraudulent manner. Consider this. A person is charged in accordance with the Amendment and brought before a court. The accused would admit the offence and deny it was in any way a fraudulent act. On the contrary he could claim it was committed from the highest possible motive. The accused could then allege that in his opinion and in the interests of good Government of the State, party 'A' had to become the Government and party 'B' had to become the 17 Apr 2002 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 1145

Opposition. It was to bring this about the offence was committed. This could well be accepted by the Court as a genuine plea in mitigation or may even result in the action being struck out and the accused dismissed. Therefore this submission recommends the word 'fraudulently' be examined very closely and if thought possible to be deleted. A further query would be just how the Amendment would operate in practice. Would it be the prerogative of the person being influenced to initiate the proceedings. Could a charge be laid with that same person being the sole witness. If additional witnesses were required would they be difficult—if not impossible—to obtain. There would be the classic 'syndrome' of not wanting to become involved. At what stage would the Police or the office of the Public Prosecutor be brought in, or would it become the subject of a C.J.C. inquiry as the initial step. Then there is the fourth possible problem of How to Vote Cards. Quite honestly, this is another issue that we parliamentarians try to push aside. Should people be handing out how-to-vote cards? Is it even necessary? Or are we just going to sit here and say that it is something that we do not want to become involved in, that it is too hard? There is no doubt that the handing out of how-to-vote cards is causing concern and controversy and that many people want it abolished and replaced by a system in which the how-to-vote card is placed in the booth. But a lot of us are just sitting back saying 'No, too hard.' Further, the letter states— The mere act of handing a person a How to Vote Card is an attempt to influence the vote and by extension the outcome of the election. Yet it could hardly be called a 'fraudulent' act, yet it could be classed as an offence within the wording of the Amendment. Many people would consider it an offence but not fraudulent. I ask all members to be honest with themselves about exactly what is happening with the committee system that we have in this parliament. Hon. J. FOURAS (Ashgrove—ALP) (9.45 p.m.): Government members have tonight totally demolished the fundamentals of this bill. As the member for Algester said, it is flawed. The Attorney-General, of course, argued that because lodgment of applications for enrolment is covered by Commonwealth law under section 109 of the Constitution, this legislation is therefore inconsistent with federal law and therefore it would be unconstitutional. The Labor Party, having noted this, actually wrote to the Commonwealth Attorney-General requesting that the particular clause about the year should be fixed up by Commonwealth law. There is no doubt that there are good intentions behind this private member's bill. It tries to be all things to all people but, basically, as the Attorney-General said, the relevant matters are covered by existing provisions in the Electoral Act. I would not at any stage, as a member on this side of the parliament, support mandatory sentencing. Labor will always oppose mandatory sentencing. I would like to refer to some of the statements made by members opposite. The member for Gregory said that we are talking about democracy. In his second reading speech the member for Southern Downs said that the bill is designed to address the fact that many people who commit acts with the intent to influence or cheat election outcomes are not punished for their actions. Members opposite want to punish people who actually have the 'intent to influence or cheat election outcomes'. I have been a member of this House for a long time. In 1977, when I stood for the seat of South Brisbane, there was a redistribution. After the appeal process, the boundaries were changed. At City Hall one night one of the redistribution commissioners came up to me, patted me on the shoulder and said, 'We looked after you, Mr Fouras. We looked after you.' They wanted to get rid of Colin Lamont, who was a member of the ginger group. That was my first inkling that there was something rotten in the state of Queensland under Bjelke-Petersen and the gerrymander. Of course, since then we have had the publication of a book by Don Lane—shady Don—titled Trial & Error. In that book he talks about the 1985 distribution. 'A decision was taken'—by Don Lane, of course—'to recommend abolition of the seat of South Brisbane ... held by Labor's Jim Fouras'. 'A decision was taken', he says. He goes on: 'To amalgamate these seats'—that is, the seats of South Brisbane and Kurilpa—'would obviously bring about a bitter contest for endorsement.' That is what they were trying to do. In fact, Don Lane told someone—who reported it to me—that the whole idea was to 'get rid of Jim Fouras out of parliament'. In fact, in their application they took the boundaries of the seat of Brisbane Central across the river. It was the first time a seat had crossed the river. They did not take a slab across the river; they actually took a sliver, which included the part of the electorate where my branch members were located. Don Lane's book states further— This was discussed with Sir Robert Sparkes, and it was decided we should go ahead ... 1146 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 17 Apr 2002

It mentions the fact that they had to decrease the quotas and states— The approach was to isolate the Labor votes in seats where we had no hope of winning the seat ... that is we corralled the Labor Party vote into safe Labor seats. Today Mr Quinn spoke about electoral fairness. They could not have done this without the Liberal Party giving them the numbers in this parliament. In 1978 in my maiden speech I said that the Liberal Party was hopeless and had no influence on the decisions made here. I said that they were so hopeless that they might as well have been sitting on the opposition benches. They agreed to that redistribution. What happened after the 1985 redistribution? The book further states that Sir William Knox, the then leader of the party was asked about this on Channel 9's Today show, where he stated— The propaganda by the Labor Party that this is the worst gerrymander in the world is just a lot of nonsense. That is ALP propaganda. What was the result of the election? The National Party won a majority of seats—49 seats out of 89—with 30 per cent of the vote, such was the extent of the gerrymander. The member for Southern Downs stated that many people who do acts with intent to influence or cheat election outcomes are not punished for their actions. These people were not punished. Don Lane skites that, five years later, after the 1985 redistribution, the commission chairman congratulated the National Party and stated that he 'was surprised by the thoroughness of the National Party's submission which was by far the most thoroughly documented submission'. EARC wanted to see whether the maps submitted by the National Party were similar to the final outcome. Hour after hour, they sat in a room behind the red chamber at Parliament House putting this together. Don Lane said that he took his working copies of maps and stored them away at home— later to be amused by the witch-hunt by EARC to locate a filing cabinet missing from the Premier's Department that was said to contain the originals. No one thought to ask for the rough copies. There is no doubt that they drew the boundaries and corralled the Labor Party vote. And members opposite are saying that electoral fraud is unacceptable! I went before the Shepherdson inquiry. When asked what I thought about the 1986 plebiscite in South Brisbane, I said that it was set up to create mischief in the Labor Party, but that the issue we should be discussing was not that one, which was serious enough, but the more serious issue of the rorting of electoral boundaries. There were no independent commissioners. There was nothing independent at all about that process. Joh Bjelke-Petersen would have lunch with the commissioners. They got the boundaries they wanted. Don Lane called this a witch-hunt. EARC tried to match their maps with the maps issued by the electoral commissioners. Imagine if they had found the maps Don Lane had in his drawer. I was told by a colleague, a friend of mine who was a member of the National Party, that the seat of Brisbane Central would come across the river in 1986. I could not believe it. That had never happened before. Mr Mickel: Tell them about Wujal Wujal. Mr FOURAS: We do not have time now. Don Lane stated in his book that the National Party enjoyed a significant advantage over many years from the five-zone system. Members opposite who talk about fraud should look at the fraud that led to the corruption of the fundamentals of the state. An electoral commissioner tapped me on the shoulder and said that they looked after me because they wanted to get rid of Colin Lamont because he was a member of the ginger group. I was the beneficiary of that. Because a member was getting underneath their skin in the parliament and also to create some mischief, they changed the boundaries. Had they not redrawn the boundaries and brought Brisbane Central across the river, there would have been two Labor Party seats there, and Anne Warner and I could have each had a seat. Don Lane said, 'We decided the seat of South Brisbane should be abolished. We thought it would be a great idea to amalgamate these seats and create a bitter contest. We knew it would advantage us.' I have great regard for the member for Southern Downs, and he knows that. I do not think he would be a party to those sorts of things in government or in opposition. I do not want these comments to be taken personally by him. Although these catch-all phrases are well intentioned, I think he is missing the ball game totally. Secondly, members on this side of the chamber will never support mandatory sentencing. The member's best intentions are flawed. Unfortunately for his good intentions, we on this side of the chamber must reject his private member's bill. Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (9.55 p.m.): I, too, rise to oppose the Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill brought to this House by the alternative leader of the National Party, 17 Apr 2002 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 1147

Lawrence Springborg. As I said in the House last week, I am appalled by electoral rorting. However, I do oppose this bill. This bill is an extremely lightweight effort to deal with the serious issue of electoral fraud in Queensland. For two years now, members of the National Party have with perfectly straight faces feigned moral outrage at the electoral fraud revealed at the Shepherdson inquiry. Coming from the National Party, a party infamous for its institutionalisation of electoral dishonesty, this moral outrage has seemed more than a bit ironic. Now, after all of the feigned moral outrage and all of the substantive recommendations of the Shepherdson inquiry, the greatest contribution the National Party can make to electoral reform is a one-clause bill. After all these years the National Party still does not grasp the fundamental principles of democracy and is still not genuinely interested in the protection of that democracy. This bill, which seeks to deal only with punishing electoral rorters, pales in comparison to the comprehensive body of electoral reforms passed in this parliament last week. However, even within this narrow focus the bill is seriously flawed. While Mr Springborg has made it clear that the bill is a response to the rorting revealed by the Shepherdson inquiry, there is considerable doubt as to whether it could successfully do so. Proposed section 168 seeks to punish those who act with intent to fraudulently influence the outcome of an election. While this is indeed a noble aim, it appears obscure in light of the fact that the Shepherdson inquiry saw no evidence of fraudulent acts which intended to or actually influenced the outcome of an election in even a single electorate. There is no doubt that the practices revealed were dishonest in the extreme, but it is possible, given that these actions were designed to support family members or to influence preselections, that the actions reveal that the Shepherdson inquiry findings would not be picked up by this bill. On the other hand, experts have expressed real concerns that the bill with its current wording may actually cast the net more widely than Mr Springborg's stated intention. LCARC considered that the bill may be interpreted to include as fraudulent actions intended to influence the outcome of an election political shiftiness in the form of deliberate misstatements made during the course of an election campaign. I would be interested to know where Mr Springborg would stand if his bill was interpreted to include his colleague the member for Darling Downs, who told the voters he was a committed Independent during the election campaign—a statement which undoubtedly influenced the result—only to abandon that independence 10 months later. If the severe ambiguity of the bill's coverage is not enough, there is also serious concern about its constitutionality. As the LCARC report points out, with the joint electoral roll Commonwealth legislation regarding enrolment applies in Queensland and indeed takes precedence. This legislation is inconsistent with the Commonwealth legislation and is therefore highly likely to be invalid. Most importantly, I absolutely condemn the introduction to this House of a bill that proposes a mandatory prison sentence. I will tell members a story as to why. When I lived in the Northern Territory a couple of years ago, a young man was convicted and sent to jail for a relatively minor offence—I think it was a break-in. On the face of it, I am sure that a jail sentence for a break-in reflected community expectation, as the Northern Territory government had intended. While I do not remember all the details, it turned out that the boy was deaf and intellectually impaired. He was an Aboriginal boy from a remote community and, when sent to jail, he was taken away from any support he had—all for a relatively minor crime. In sentencing, the magistrate indicated that he did not want to send the boy to jail for so long, but he had to because that was the law. We are all different. We come from different backgrounds, have different abilities and have different opportunities in life. Mandatory sentencing reflects none of that. It cuts at the very heart of the separation of powers and, in doing so, it reveals the reasons why we have them. In the Northern Territory under mandatory sentencing, the whole judicial system began to fail. Not everybody supported mandatory sentencing, so police would ask victims of crime if, knowing that if someone was caught they would be convicted regardless of circumstances, they wanted their crimes investigated. It meant that for those people who opposed mandatory sentences, crimes were not even investigated. The justice system began to fall apart and offenders got off purely because of the divisive nature of the policy. In the territory, the application of mandatory sentencing to only some crimes, just as is proposed here, created serious inconsistency, with real criminals virtually getting off while misguided kids ended up in jail. There is real concern in the community about the adequacy of sentences, but for the National Party to propose mandatory sentencing as a solution to that is real knuckle-dragging stuff. Why can't the National Party come up with an approach to these real issues that does not 1148 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 17 Apr 2002 seek to politicise the justice system or send people who really should not be there to get bashed up in jail? We should be genuinely looking at ways to improve community involvement in the justice process. We should be ensuring that victims are heard. We should be extending community conferencing. And we should be looking at the state more often appealing inadequate sentences. It is not necessary to turn the justice system upside down to achieve these ends. To come in here and propose mandatory sentencing reveals a fundamental failure to understand our democratic and judicial processes. But then, that is the National Party all over. Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (10.02 p.m.): It is my great pleasure to speak strongly against the Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill. No-one would disagree with the principle of supporting honest and fair electoral systems, except those who wish to return to the gerrymander of the National Party days. To accept at face value the genuineness and seriousness of the sentiment underlying this bill, no-one would disagree with the principle of ensuring that the electoral system operates honestly and fairly. This bill—and if I am generous for a moment, I will assume it is a well-intended step to address a genuinely perceived problem—was introduced late last year in an attempt to amend the existing Electoral Act 1992. In the explanatory notes to the bill, the member for Southern Downs states that the principal objective of the legislation is to ensure that those who do any fraudulent act with the intent to influence the outcome of an election held under the Electoral Act 1992 are punished for their actions. This amendment bill has been the subject of considerable examination by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee and by the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee, of which I am proud to say I was a member in my first term. Mr McNamara: It's a great committee. Mr WILSON: It is a great committee. It has produced an excellent report with very concise analysis and commentary upon the strengths and weaknesses of this amending bill. In the meantime, the Electoral and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2002 was introduced and passed recently by this parliament. That legislation was passed by this parliament in the fulfilment of an election promise made by the Beattie Labor government prior to the February 2001 election. It is the fulfilment of a mandate and it reinforces the Premier's immense credibility in the electorate. The issues that arose during the Shepherdson inquiry and other issues that have been revealed regarding wrongful electoral enrolment and fraudulent behaviour have been extremely well addressed. The LCARC report relies upon a range of experts who have examined the issue. There are two very good statements in the report and I want to refer to both of them. Firstly, on page 4 of the report, there is an extract from the Australian Electoral Commission's submission to the Commonwealth parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. It states— Since 1984, a parliamentary inquiry has been held into the conduct of every federal election. At each of these inquiries the possibility of fraudulent enrolment and voting has been investigated, and each time it has been concluded that no evidence was available to support allegations that widespread and organised electoral fraud had occurred to such an extent that the result of any of those elections was in doubt. I then go to page 6 of the report and refer to an extract from the Shepherdson inquiry, which reported in part— The information gathered during the inquiry clearly established that the practice of making consensual false enrolments to bolster the chances of specific candidates in preselections was regarded by some Party members as a legitimate campaign tactic. No evidence, however, was revealed indicating that the tactic had been generally used to influence the outcome of public elections. Where it was found to have been used in public elections, the practice appeared to be opportunistic or related to the family circumstances of particular candidates rather than systemic or widespread. LCARC concluded that the bill can be said in part to be unnecessary because the proposed amendments that have since become law in the government's bill have already, in conjunction with the Electoral Act 1992, addressed a substantial range of issues. Secondly, certain wording in the very small amendment bill that LCARC examined was of such a level of uncertainty and vagueness that the committee believed it would be unsafe to proceed. Above everything else, LCARC found considerable constitutional impediments to the enactment of this legislation. Other members in the debate tonight have canvassed the expertise and the particular individual experts who have contributed to the LCARC report. I want to endorse their comments, because I think it is one of the most thorough reports that has come out of LCARC on an issue 17 Apr 2002 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 1149 like this. In my mind, it is very hard to disagree with the conclusion of the LCARC report. Yet three members of that committee elected—as they are entitled to do—to dissent from that report. I want to correct the misunderstanding that the member for Beaudesert seems to have that the committee comprises six members and that only three government members voted in support of the report and three non-government members voted against it. A cursory reading of the report—it is actually about page 1—shows that there are seven members on the committee and that four are Labor members and three are non-government members. The dissenting members were the members for Maroochydore, Gladstone and Nanango. It is disappointing that the member for Maroochydore has not made herself available to be in the House while this debate is being conducted tonight. It appears that she does not intend to contribute to the debate to advocate the position of the dissenters. The committee's report comprised 17 pages, with all of the detail indicated previously. The dissenting report comprised one page and four lines. The dissenting report states in part— We express our disagreement with the report of the majority of the committee of members. This is an extremely poor dissenting report. It does not identify each and every issue that the committee took its time to examine or identify what the dissenting report considered to be the weaknesses in the majority view so that someone could rationally understand the conclusion the dissenters reached. In a broad brush way they just dismissed the entire report by saying that they disagreed with it. The dissenters do take up a couple of issues, and I will address one of them. That is whether or not there is constitutional invalidity. The Attorney-General addressed that issue extremely well earlier. Despite the clear advice to the committee that there was a likely constitutional invalidity were this bill to be passed, this dissenting report urges the adoption and passage of this bill. It then claims that by not passing this bill this parliament is usurping the constitutional right of the High Court to adjudicate upon the constitutionality of a state in terms of section 109 of the federal Constitution. What piffle! We as a parliament are obliged to act on the best legal advice we can get, and the best legal advice is that the fundamental flaw in this legislation is its likely constitutional invalidity. It would be totally irresponsible of this parliament to pass this bill in defiance of that advice. That is the final straw that breaks the camel's back with this bill. For those reasons, I strenuously oppose it. Mr CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (10.12 p.m.): I think it was C. C. Colton who said, 'We owe almost all our knowledge not to those who have agreed but to those who have differed.' Members of the opposition have the right to differ with the majority of Queensland due to their obvious lack of mandate. I take this opportunity to place on the public record my thanks to the many Australian Labor Party branch members across the Sunshine Coast, and indeed across Queensland, who continue to support our state government's strong commitment to electoral reform. In November or December 2000 I was immensely proud to be preselected as the first ALP member to contest the state seat of Kawana on God's own Sunshine Coast. Many realise that at the same time we were at the height of the Shepherdson inquiry, a low point for the Australian Labor Party indeed. Yesterday this House passed the Electoral and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2002. That bill marked a new era in Queensland politics. It delivers on the commitments made by the Premier in his Barcaldine statement of January last year. It will make Queensland electoral laws the toughest and most democratic in Australia. The bill passed yesterday requires political parties and candidates to meet new standards of honesty and accountability and imposes tough new penalties for electoral fraud. These reforms are aimed at eliminating electoral fraud and restoring confidence in the political process. The bill included the toughest penalties for electoral offences of any jurisdiction in the country. The penalty for supplying false or misleading information was increased from six months imprisonment to seven years imprisonment, the toughest in Australia. The penalty for bribery was increased from two years imprisonment to seven years imprisonment, the toughest in Australia. The penalty for forging or uttering electoral or referendum papers was increased from six months imprisonment to 10 years imprisonment, the toughest in Australia. The penalty for voting if not entitled was increased from six months imprisonment to three years imprisonment, the toughest in Australia. In addition, the bill banned people with convictions for disqualifying electoral offences from nominating as candidates for state or local government elections. This was necessary to maintain public confidence in the honesty and integrity of elected representatives. 1150 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 17 Apr 2002

In his Barcaldine statement Premier Beattie committed to the reform of the membership and conduct of political parties. To achieve those commitments the bill imposed strict new requirements for registration of political parties. Only parties which have constitutions that comply with the standards set out within the bill will be eligible for registration and public funding. This will bring a level of transparency and accountability to political parties never before seen in this great country. Under the bill passed through this House, all political parties' constitutions must contain information about how the party manages its internal affairs, membership rules and election rules for office-bearers and preselection of candidates for state or local government election. It will be interesting to see how Pauline's former party will cope. I have received a letter from a constituent, which states— One Nation is a neurotic reaction uniting all disagreements in ignorance of what it represents. That is why they have no defined policy of their own. We learned today that another member has left the party. That is not surprising, but it is very disappointing for people who have put their faith in a party candidate to see that candidate turn their back on the electorate. We have already seen a supposed Independent elected to this House then turn his back on his people by joining the National Party. The bill excluded people who are not on the Queensland electoral roll from voting in preselection ballots. The constitution of all political parties must also commit the party to conducting preselection ballots in accordance with the principles of free and democratic elections. Mr Mickel: How do you reckon Peter Slipper will go on that one? Mr CUMMINS: He will have a lot of problems, as has been documented in this House. Political parties must exclude people who are not on the Queensland electoral roll from voting in preselection ballots. Their constitutions must prohibit people from becoming or remaining a member of the party for 10 years if convicted of a disqualifying electoral offence. The bill passed yesterday defined 'preselection ballot'. Political parties will be free to adopt whatever form of preselection process they wish, provided the rules are clearly stated within their constitutions. This, I believe, is the way forward for electoral reform. Where the party rules provide for preselection ballots to be conducted as part or whole of the preselection process, new standards of accountability will apply and the ballots will be subject to oversight by the Electoral Commission under the new part 8A. These new rules provide a challenge to all political parties to improve the processes for the selection of candidates for political office. This, in the majority of cases, has given political parties a bad name through the preselection process, vote rorting and so on. The challenge is to follow the lead of the Australian Labor Party and conduct open and accountable preselection processes in which members of the party have a real say. Mr McNamara: Michael Johnson must be mortified by that. Mr CUMMINS: I will be interested to see how the Liberal Party tries to adapt to the hardest legislation in Australia with regard to political reform. The Electoral Commission will be able to inquire into a ballot at any time before, during or after its conduct and act on its own initiative or on a complaint or complaints. This will apply to preselections for both the Legislative Assembly and local government elections. There will, in addition, be an overall random audit of preselection ballots for Legislative Assembly candidates following each general state election. There are new requirements for how-to-vote cards to be lodged in advance with the commission, and we heard the minister speak yesterday of seven days, along with declarations as to any financial contributions received from or on behalf of another political party or candidate. This way everyone will know what the preference arrangements are well before polling day. The lodged cards will be available for public inspection before polling day and as far as is practicable on polling day in each polling booth. It will be illegal for how-to-vote cards which have not been lodged at least seven days before polling day to be distributed on polling day. Queenslanders—in fact, most Australians—are wary and often cynical of politicians per se. All political parties must share the blame for the general public's cynicism, but overall the vast majority who seek public office are more often than not doing it for the right reasons. Yes, one of the beauties of our democracy is the ability to voice our opinion, to put forward our community's beliefs and aspirations, to better our community and to make a difference. Vote rorting, branch 17 Apr 2002 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 1151 stacking and such are not unique to any one political party. These issues were addressed in yesterday's legislation. Therefore, I condemn this bill before the House. Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (10.21 p.m.): I rise to speak against the Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 2001 despite the possible, but not probable, intent of the bill by, as the member for Ipswich said, the alternative Leader of the Opposition. Whilst the shadow minister for justice has probably every good intention, he is a member of the National Party. I have to say that the party's reputation leaves a lot to be desired, especially when it comes to electoral fraud. These proposed jail sentences for electoral fraud far exceed normal sentences, and I can give the House an example. A Townsville man convicted of killing his wife got seven years reduced to three. However, whilst I agree that fraudulent practices need to be punishable by law, it galls me in the extreme that the National Party can take the high moral ground when its track record is so undeniably abysmal and it continues to attract fraudulent members to its team in the hope that building numbers will be the answer to its declining and waning popularity. Let us take the most recent, Ray Hopper, as the party hopper that the National Party has welcomed with open arms. There is no credibility necessary and no real ideology or philosophy necessary, just numbers. Mr Mickel interjected. Ms NELSON-CARR: I take that interjection. Today I dare say that we will see another act of commitment to the people, a promise to the people to stick by them and to honour their promises. And the National Party cannot wait to grab them—when they spit the dummy, it will add them to its cohort in the name of decency, credibility and honour to the people. While I believe that accountability and electoral reform are tantamount to a great government, the Beattie government has already put things in place with real amendments. The Attorney, Rod Welford, has delivered on commitments made before last year's state election to clean up Queensland's electoral system. The Electoral Commission will be given the right to randomly audit candidate selection processes in all parties, with details of the audits published in its annual reports to parliament. The Electoral Commission now also has the right to seize documents and enter premises and will be able to check the details of voters on electoral rolls against other public records. All political parties will be required to produce how-to-vote cards a week before polling day and not be allowed to change cards after that point. Parties must declare any preference deals or financial assistance with campaigns, including loans and gifts. The reforms create the strongest and most transparent electoral system in Australia. But let us look at some history. The members opposite have had 32 years of electoral rorting and tampering. As Peter Beattie has said in the past, those opposite established an inquiry which cost between $11 million and $14 million to destroy a CJC inquiry. Did they openly support an investigation? No, they did not. They set about wasting taxpayers' money to destroy a legitimate inquiry. Did we see an apology? No, we did not. We had 32 years of corruption, and the Leader of the Opposition was a minister in one of those corrupt governments. Have we seen one apology from one National Party Premier over those 32 years for the corruption that we saw? No. Has there been one apology? No. Have they wasted millions of dollars? Yes. How about Terry Lewis? Did National Party members know that Terry Lewis was crooked? Did they know that Russell Hinze was supervising and allowing corruption in the Valley through prostitution? Did they know that half its cabinet should have been in jail? Were they friends of Don Lane? Were they friends of Brian Austin? Did they know the level of corruption? Did they go out and have lunch at taxpayers' expense? Did they know all of those things? Mr Horan: Bill D'Arcy. Ms NELSON-CARR: He was a teacher long before he was a member of parliament. Did those opposite know all of these things I am talking about? Did they see nothing and know nothing? They certainly did nothing. The system we had then was corrupt. Remember South Brisbane and Kurilpa and their amalgamation. Thank goodness for the Fitzgerald inquiry and the EARC report. What about the decision by Justice Ambrose on the appeal on the election result in the infamous Mundingburra electorate? The judgment that was made overrode the intention of the act. This was a flawed decision within the interpretation of the law. I could go on forever about history and about historical corruption, but in the interests of time I will not. However, I have real concerns with the bill. Mandatory prison sentences do not have a place in our wonderful country. They are seriously 1152 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 17 Apr 2002 inconsistent with our democracy. We need honest and fair electoral systems, and this bill does nothing to address that. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (10.26 p.m.): I rise to oppose the bill before the House, and it will not take me long to say what I want to say. The mandatory sentencing of anybody is an abhorrent law. Everybody is an individual and is different from others. To lump everybody together is like saying that the member for Clayfield and I are twins. It is as ludicrous as that. Everybody is different because of their environment, their schooling, how they are brought up, their parentage and a whole host of things. Therefore, we should not try to treat everybody the same and put them into a square box. I find that the most strident of law and order people who want mandatory sentencing are always wanting to jail someone else's son, daughter, grandchild or neighbour but never their own. There are always mitigating circumstances when people come to see me about their son or their daughter, and I understand that. We do not want members of our families jailed and we want to help them and do the best we can for them. But those who want to jail them are those who will scream the loudest if any member of their own family was given a mandatory jail sentence. Because people are different and because we are given different opportunities in how we are brought up and how we react to our environment, all I have to say is: there but for the grace of God go I. Sometimes in my youth I did things that probably might not have been seen by the law at the time to be the right thing to do. But the children and people of today are much better than we were. If my children did what I did when I was a kid, I would flog them to death—fair dinkum. They are very good. It is just not on to put people in jail because they might have filled out an enrolment form incorrectly. I oppose the bill. Mr MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (10.29 p.m.): Tonight we have heard a number of definitions of 'fraud' and we have certainly heard a number of examples of fraud. We heard the honourable member for Ashgrove go through his personal experiences with the electoral fraud that was cast against everybody in 1986. He knows that only too well. The previous contributor mentioned mandatory sentencing and how young people can suffer from that. Let me deal with the previous member for Woodridge. The previous member for Woodridge signed a form when he was a student. Years later, for doing something that would have attracted a $200 fine, he lost his income. I would say that that loss of income is loss enough. Those who attended the parliamentary trip to the prisons recently would realise that that is no penalty for somebody who committed that offence at that age. If one wants to exact any penalty for somebody doing that sort of thing, let him waltz on up to the Logan West Meals on Wheels or the Logan West support services and help out the young families of children with disabilities or adults with disabilities. It is very challenging work that can put something back into the community, if that is what one is about. Let us deal also with electoral fraud. I ask members to cast their minds back all those years ago to the Mundingburra by-election. The seeds of destruction of the Borbidge government were sewn in those days of campaigning in the Mundingburra by-election when that disgraceful document was signed between the Police Union and the National Party. To do what? To get rid of the Police Commissioner and six of the assistant commissioners. This event was not mentioned to anybody. Those concerned did not make it public at the time. It was a sleight of hand. It was an electoral fraud. If one thinks, 'Oh well, that is a bit far-fetched; that was all that happened up there,' does the name Sandy Warren ring any bells for anybody? Who was that lunatic wandering around with the subcontractors? A bit of sleight of hand there, too; another bit of trickery, electoral fraud. Do I hear anybody from the National Party say that Russell Cooper should have gone to jail for that, that Sandy Warren should have gone to jail? What good purpose would that have served? If those people were guilty of such an act, I would much rather they undertake community service. But there are other sorts of fraud. There is the fraud of standing for political office as one party and then, without any explanation to this House, rocking in here one day and saying, 'Oh well, I will jump ship; tough luck.' This is why people in the Darling Downs electorate have no faith in political parties. It is why the Oakey branch of the National Party no longer exists. It cannot get a single office-holder in one of the safest National Party seats. Why? Because of the electoral fraud. This afternoon, without a word of explanation to this House either by the leader or the member concerned, somebody else did the disappearing act. We do not have One Nation anymore. As my good friend on the back bench reminds me, we have two-thirds of a nation, a fragmented nation. But it is an electoral fraud nevertheless. It is a trickery to waltz on into this House without any explanation and just abandon what one has been elected to do. All one has to do is come in here and explain oneself to the people via this parliament. 17 Apr 2002 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 1153

However, I turn to another aspect of accountability and transparency. I refer to the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland, which has a membership of over 900,000 Queenslanders. It has an annual budget of over $180 million, collects $63 million in subscriptions from members and last year made a profit of over $111 million. The club is controlled by a non-executive board of directors, even though they receive remuneration totalling $392,000, an average of $25,000 each. That is not bad for a non-executive director. This week and last week, members of the RACQ have received in the mail the latest edition of the Road Ahead. I am sure many will not even now be aware that the address cover sheet is also the ballot paper for election to the RACQ board. If they threw away the address sheet with the plastic cover, they destroyed their ballot paper. But even if they keep the address sheet, the ballot paper will bewilder them, especially if they are trade union members or even members of race clubs. The secrecy guaranteed in our elections in the union ballots and in many other organisations much smaller than the RACQ simply does not exist in this regard. If one fills in the ballot paper, one must put one's signature right beside the ballot. Anyone counting or checking the ballot will know how one voted. But it gets worse. On the reverse side of the sheet is one's name, address and membership number. Even if one's signature is unreadable, one can be identified clearly on the reverse side. This is an outrageous intrusion on the privacy of members and is contrary to the kind of transparency and accountability demanded of organisations and companies much smaller than the RACQ. But it gets worse. Section 11.18(g) of the constitution states— In the event that the total number of votes cast for the election of any member of the board does not amount in number to 5 per cent or more of the eligible members entitled to vote in that election, then no candidate shall be deemed to be elected to that position, and a casual vacancy shall be deemed to exist for the purposes of clause 14.4. What does clause 14.4 state? It says— A vacancy on the board caused by a failure for any reason to elect a person to replace a board member who has been required to retire in accordance with this constitution shall be deemed to be a casual vacancy and filled in accordance with clause 14.2. Clause 14.2 states— Every casual vacancy on the board may be filled by the board by the appointment of an eligible member qualified to fill the vacancy. In other words, if fewer than five per cent of members do not vote, it does not matter; the election is voided and the person appointed. It is this sort of trickery and fraudulent behaviour that is quite unbecoming of an organisation such as the RACQ. Not only does the RACQ discourage voting by putting the ballot paper on a cover sheet that most people would automatically discard; it also does not provide any secrecy or confidentiality in the voting process. Indeed, it guarantees the very opposite. If not enough members vote, the board fills the positions itself, regardless of the wishes of members. Undoubtedly, the RACQ provides excellent roadside and other services for its members. What a pity it cannot and will not achieve the same standards when it comes to voting and electing its directors. It is time that these archaic practices ended. Tonight, with the full support of the House, I call on the board to end these practices without delay. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (10.39 p.m.): In speaking to this bill I indicate that I will support it. I understand that the mover of this bill, the member for Southern Downs, has attempted to draft a bill to reflect words used by the Premier during the last government. The rest is history, and I understand that the mover of the motion has drafted numerous amendments to address many of the concerns members of the government have raised about the substance and content of the bill. My challenge to members of the government who have participated in the debate is to support this bill so that we can go into the committee stage to allow a full and frank debate on the clauses and the proposed amendments to the bill tabled and circulated by the mover of the motion. A number of members have also referred to the importance of maintaining the separation of powers between parliament and the Queensland courts. My response to that is that parliament passes the Queensland laws and it is left up to the Queensland courts to interpret the intent of parliament and the government of the day. This bill has arisen simply because some people have done the wrong thing. I have no intention of challenging or debating the correctness of the relevant comments made by the two parliamentary committees that have considered the implications of this bill. Suffice it to say that I believe that the mover of the bill, the member for Southern Downs, has attempted to respond to many of the issues raised in opposition to this bill through the amendments that he has 1154 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 17 Apr 2002 circulated. Accordingly, I urge all members to support the bill so that it can move into the committee stage and we can then have a full and frank debate. I commend the bill to the House. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (10.40 p.m.), in reply: I would like to thank all members who contributed to the debate on this private member's bill. There has been a fair bit of interesting debate during the last couple of hours. In a moment I will go through some of the issues that were raised by each member. Before I do that, I would like to indicate to the House the primary motivation for bringing this bill to the parliament. I take honourable members back to the Hansard record of this parliament in 2000-01. As the honourable member for Callide said earlier, many of the members of this parliament—and probably a fair proportion of government members—were not members of this place when we went through the issues surrounding the vote rorting affair, or the vote cheating affair, and the subsequent Shepherdson inquiry. I refer to the Hansard of 17 October 2000. In response to a question by the honourable member for Gregory on the issue of what the Premier knew and the substantive involvement of the Labor Party in trying to stamp out the issue of vote rorting, the Premier stated— I will make the point again: I will not accept in my party or in this Government anyone who breaks the law, and they will go to jail. I have said it before. Anyone who breaks the law and who is found guilty will go to jail, jail, jail, jail, jail and jail. Further, on 9 November 2000, in answer to another question, the Premier said— All we want to do is to be treated fairly and equally. Labor Party rorters should go to jail, National Party rorters should go to jail and Liberal Party rorters should go to jail. Let us clean it up once and for all. Further, on 15 June 2001, on ABC Radio news—and this is a direct quote; it is not just something attributed to the Premier, because I heard it myself and I got the transcript of it—the Premier said— I would hope that the committee would take up the recommendations that were made by the Queensland government to increase penalties for electoral fraud. We want people to go to jail. We won't compromise on it. I don't care which party they're in. People who get involved in electoral fraud should go to jail and there shouldn't be a 12-month exemption. The Premier was talking about the actions of those people who have been exposed to being involved in electoral cheating. He was talking about it in direct response to the issues that were exposed prior to and at the Shepherdson inquiry. There is no doubt about that. The honourable member for Nicklin sat in this place when the Premier said it. Many other members here tonight sat in this place when the Premier said it. What did the Premier mean? He meant that those people who cheat the electoral system in Queensland should go to jail. Tonight all we have seen is government members trying to justify why they should not go to jail. They have not even touched on the fact that the Premier has made a promise, a commitment—and has said it over and over in this parliament—to find ways in which we might be able to achieve that objective. The members opposite found all sorts of ways to say that there might be a subjective unconstitutionality of the electoral bill that I have introduced to this parliament. I have an amendment that I hope to be able to move, but I gather from the Attorney- General's opposition to my private member's bill and what the other honourable members opposite have said tonight that we are not going to get to the committee stage. When the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee said that there was an issue as to whether my private member's bill lifted the statute bar that said that prosecutions could not happen if the offence was more than 12 months old, I said that I would move an amendment. That amendment would simply classify such an act as a misdemeanour and that would remove the statute bar. There is no question that that amendment would not address that particular deficiency quite properly identified by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. Another couple of matters were raised by the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee in its report and also picked up and endorsed by the members who produced the dissenting report. Basically, they said that this catch-all provision is a little bit broad and that there could be people who may not have deliberately intended to defraud; nevertheless, under the broad ambit of the legislation, may have done so. I have drafted an amendment that establishes in modern legislative parlance that there must have been a prima facie intent to defraud. A moment ago the honourable member for Bulimba referred to somebody who innocently wrongly filled out an electoral enrolment. Through this amendment, that person would not be picked up. In terms of the other issues of ensuring a better definition of the type of offence that would be covered, I have also drafted an amendment that I hope to move in the committee stage that 17 Apr 2002 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 1155 addresses that. If that is not an attempt to try to legislate in response to legitimate and acknowledged issues raised by a committee, I do not know what is. All the government members have done is try to find any reason that they possibly can to oppose this bill. Basically, they have stood up and mouthed platitudes about this bill being a good idea, a genuine attempt, showing genuine motivation—all of those sorts of things—but, but, but, but, but. There is this issue of constitutional invalidity. As I said in my second reading speech, the Queensland parliament has power plenary and ample to pass its own laws. Sure, there are issues of constitutionality if we have a law that is seen to be or is in conflict with another Commonwealth law, because the Commonwealth law is the supreme law. As a consequence, anything that the state would do would be deemed to be invalid by the High Court. However, on reading the propositions put forward by Professor Gerard Carney in his submission to the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee, I am not convinced that it is as clear as has been made out that it is unconstitutional. Certainly there are some issues of subjectivity. It terms of some aspects of it, he said probably not; in other aspects, he said maybe. From time to time a whole range of matters are adjudicated by the High Court on the issue of constitutionality. The best legal brains in Queensland have never been able to second-guess that. In actual fact, a whole range of regimes has been put in place—such as the state's cross-vesting laws that existed for over a decade—which at the time of passing them through this parliament, at the time of signing these cooperative agreements, we thought would stand constitutionally. But they did not. They depended on the conservative or more progressive interpretation of the High Court, which depended on the make-up of the bench. We know that from time to time such issues arise. I acknowledge that there could be a potential difficulty, but it is not as clear cut as the members of the government make out. I have read that comment from Professor Gerard Carney and I think that the jury is certainly still out on it. I also think that there is an issue of arguable inconsistency rather than an issue of established inconsistency. Some members asked why the bill contained a catch-all provision. That is not inconsistent with the law in Queensland, even criminal law where there are more general provisions that pick up something where there may not be a definite offence. That is what that catch-all provision is about. I have raised the issue of moving an amendment at the committee stage to address some of those concerns. My response to that issue of constitutionality to which I referred—the catch-all provision—is directly in response to the Attorney-General. Also in response to the Attorney-General, the classification of the offence as a misdemeanour enables the Attorney-General to remove that statute bar, which was an issue. Importantly, LCARC said—and the Attorney-General touched on this—that it is possible to amend it but the committee chose not to come forward with constructive amendments because the government members on that committee had in mind that they would not be supporting it. Basically it was a matter of finding a justifiable excuse, one way or another, not to support it. The Attorney-General said that the government was principally opposed to mandatory jail sentences. There is the issue of mandatory jail and there is the issue of minimum penalties, and there is a differentiation, however subtle it may be. The Northern Territory legislature has said that if a person commits a particular crime of a particular magnitude, they will go to jail, for a certain amount of time for a first offence, for a certain amount of time for a second offence, and for a certain amount of time for a third offence. Our amendment bill provides that if a person commits an offence against these amendments, they will go to jail for a minimum of three months or a maximum of three years. There is a minimum. The problem with the existing legislation in Queensland and with the government's approach to it is that it is fine to raise the high bar and to give the community the impression that we have all these wonderful maximums, but the maximums are never reached. The penalties imposed never even come close to them. There were old penalty provisions of two years jail in Queensland legislation that nobody even came close to. Nobody even came close to them. Those sentences were suspended. What is there to say that the Queensland judiciary will vary its consideration in any future penalties that they hand down? Absolutely nothing! This is about giving the impression that the government is doing something when it is not. The Attorney-General and other government members chose to skirt around—or did not even touch on—how their opposition to minimum jail penalties accords with the Premier's proposition in this parliament day after day after day of jail, jail, jail, jail and jail for electoral rorters. 1156 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 17 Apr 2002

Do they contradict each other? They contradict each other significantly. Nobody has even tried to argue that. Nobody has even tried to get into the mind of the Premier and find out what he meant. The Premier has not even come into the House himself to try to explain how his promise, which did strike a chord with the people of Queensland, is not now the position which his government is espousing. The member for Toowoomba South, the Leader of the Opposition, succinctly outlined the genuine intentions of the bill and I am very grateful and thankful to him for that. Mr Cummins: The present Leader of the Opposition. Mr SPRINGBORG: He understood the bill, unlike the member for Kawana, who did not understand it and talked about another bill. The member for Toowoomba South reinforced the value of open democracy and the need to preserve and uphold those particular principles. The member for Hervey Bay made a very considered contribution, as he did in last weeks's debate on the honourable member for Nanango's bill. Once again, I disagree with his contention and he would disagree with mine. Some platitudes and nice words were spoken with regard to the intention of the bill, et cetera, and he indicated his concerns about mandatory sentences. This is a matter of what members personally agree or disagree with. I am not saying the member for Hervey Bay is right and I am wrong. It is what I believe; it is what he believes. Once again, I contrast that with what the Premier has actually said. The member also talked about the size of our jails and how Queensland jails are filling up or are filled up. In view of the number of prosecutions we have seen in Queensland for electoral offences, I doubt that we will fill Queensland jails with electoral fraudsters. I doubt they would constitute any great percentage of the prison population, so I do not know if that is an issue. Turning to the matter of qualifying fraud, importantly, my amendment provided for establishing the issue of prima facie intent. Writing letters and saying silly things that upset people in the electorate or which seek to mislead them is not the intent of the bill. If members thought that was the intent of the bill, it was a very, very long bow to draw. The amendments also take care of that. Maximum jail terms are not imposed under this bill, so why talk about the 10 years the government is providing in the Electoral Act. The bill does not impact on freedom of speech. People can continue to say all the silliest things they want to say—as they do—in letters to the editor. Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: They can even say it in Hansard, as the honourable member for Southport does from time to time. They can have their words printed in the newspaper; they can say things on the radio; they can say things wherever they like. He mentioned the point of who knows the penalty regimes in the state; do young people know what the penalties are? Well, that is true. Who does know the penalty regimes? There are a lot of people who do not know what the penalty regimes are. They know that certain things are right and certain things are wrong and that people can go to jail for doing certain things. That is the nature of our criminal law. The Attorney-General, as learned as he is, would not be able to stand up in here tonight and say what the maximum penalties are for all the provisions of the Criminal Code. He could not. He might be able to tell us a lot. That is no affront to the Attorney- General; that is the simple reality. It is the same for a whole range of ministers who are responsible for managing and overseeing a range of statutes in this place. The honourable member for Gregory, in his very genuine way—as he normally is—once again raised the issue of jail, jail, jail as espoused by the Premier and genuinely commented on the principles of the bill and his understanding of it. The honourable member for Indooroopilly espoused the notion of punishment, which people understand, and the need for punishment. We disagree on how that punishment is imposed and the significance and the relativity of it. Some people say, 'People do these things and maybe they did not mean it.' I do not subscribe to the view that we should be making excuses for wrongdoing. The other differentiation—I have made the point before—is that mandatory sentencing is not necessarily absolutely the same as a minimum sentencing regime. We talked about the death penalty. I think that is a silly argument. Sure some people are never going to be deterred by the death penalty in the United States, but it has no relevance to this debate. Even in the United States it is not mandatory, although it can be imposed. In certain cases it is a maximum penalty 17 Apr 2002 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 1157 that is applied other there. Death row is not mandatory sentencing. I just think that these sorts of arguments are probably silly in the debate we are having here today. Earlier in the debate the honourable member for Bulimba was talking about how Mother Scholastica at his college used to dish out six of the best on a regular basis. Mr Purcell: Only if you deserved it. Mr SPRINGBORG: And the member conceded that he did and he conceded earlier on that he is a better man for it. However, some people learnt from that and some people did not. When I was at school and the cane was still around, there were kids who wore it as a badge of honour, but there were a few others who were terrified of it and very rarely put a foot wrong as a consequence. Some people will be deterred by a penalty regime; other people will not be deterred by a penalty regime. We have to concede that fact. I will make this broad statement because a whole raft of honourable members opposite got up with their hearts on their sleeves talking about their opposition to mandatory sentencing because it actually imposes a restriction on judicial discretion. Mrs Reilly: It doesn't work and you know it. Mr SPRINGBORG: Does the member oppose mandatory life for murder? Mrs Reilly: I oppose mandatory sentencing of any kind—any mandatory sentencing. Mr SPRINGBORG: So everyone on that side opposes mandatory life imprisonment for murder? Mrs Reilly: 'Mandatory'. It is up to the judges to make those decisions. Mr SPRINGBORG: So the member opposes mandatory sentencing for murder? Mrs Reilly: Absolutely! Mr SPRINGBORG: She does! The Criminal Code of Queensland has mandatory sentencing for murder. When the Attorney-General of the day, Dean Wells, was looking at a review of the Criminal Code, it contained the old provision of mandatory life for murder—as it does for treason. Members opposite are hypocrites when it comes to that because they are prepared to stand up and say they oppose it, but they will support it in some circumstances. Mr Quinn interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: They are comfortable with their ignorance, as the honourable member for Robina says. Mrs Reilly interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: Now, that is also the case for treason. Do members opposite oppose mandatory jail for third-time drink-driving offenders? Do they oppose that? That is in Queensland's Transport regulations. Mr Cummins: Through the Speaker, if you don't mind. You have been here long enough. Mr SPRINGBORG: My contribution is through the Speaker, unlike what the member for Kawana does when he carries on here. We have heard a whole lot of hypocrisy tonight about what members actually do and do not support with regard to mandatory sentences. We have also got the Minister for Police talking about the issue of mandatory confiscation of hoons' vehicles. He says, 'Oh well, one is jail and the other one is taking something away.' It is still the notion of a mandatory penalty, and that is something which the government is debating and which the executive seems very supportive of. Government members cannot have it both ways. We have also heard nebulous arguments about fraud in South Australia with the actions of an Independent down there. Somebody said, 'Oh, follow the Labor Party. The Labor Party has done a great job.' Well if it was not for the Labor Party, we would not have been putting electoral legislation through parliament and we would not be debating this bill tonight. I think most parties have their house in order and it is good to see that government members have the commitment to do that, but they have been scratching around for reasons to oppose this bill. Debate, on motion of Mr Springborg, adjourned. 1158 Adjournment 17 Apr 2002

ADJOURNMENT Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (11.00 p.m.): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

Youth Community Conferencing; Drug Courts Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (11.00 p.m.): The Sunshine Coast is one of the fastest- growing regions in Australia and this growth also brings with it the unfortunate aspects of youth crime. The current traditional methods of responding to youth crime on the Sunshine Coast simply are not working as effectively as we would like. At the same time, we know how the youth community conferencing and drug courts trialled at Woodridge and Logan are delivering positive results for the community and the people involved in them. As a result of the reported success of these programs, I am very keen to see them extended to the Sunshine Coast region. I recently wrote to the Premier requesting that recurrent funding be provided in this year's budget to enable these two programs to be extended to the greater Sunshine Coast region. My call this morning is for all ministers to support that request. I believe that by introducing these new intervention programs on the Sunshine Coast our crime fighters and community workers will have another tool available to them to hopefully prevent young people who are committing minor crimes from developing into hardened criminals. One of the successes of the conferencing program is that it requires young people to face their victims and understand the personal impacts that their acts have had on their lives. I understand there have been a number of instances in which young offenders have reformed their ways as a result of attending these conferences where more traditional methods have failed. Making them face their victims, talk to their victims and apologise for their past actions has on occasions delivered positive results for all involved. Many times, parents of young offenders throw up their hands in frustration and tell social workers that they just cannot cope—passing the buck to the state. But when these parents actively participate in these structured conferences with their children, they can often see a way through their problems. There are many more benefits to be gained for the youth of the Sunshine Coast from these programs, but time this evening is too limited for me to expand further. Therefore, I once again urge all ministers to support the extension of these two programs to the greater Sunshine Coast region and ensure that appropriate funds are allocated in this year's budget to fund these programs.

Victoria Point Sharks; Years Ahead Program Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (11.02 p.m.): Conflict is common in this House. However, last Saturday night I had the unfortunate experience of sitting at home watching the Brisbane Lions playing Essendon and undergoing a high level of emotional conflict. I felt I had to barrack for the home team, the victorious Brisbane Lions. I congratulate Leigh Matthews and his gallant team, particularly captain Michael Voss, who was injured during the game, on their outstanding 50 point victory. However, I did have conflicting emotions, as Essendon has signed a sister agreement with my local Australian Football Club, the Victoria Point Sharks. This sister club agreement was the result of positive work by Mal Cochrane, football manager Harry, and development officers Luke, also known as 'Silky', and Bernadette. I congratulate Kevin Sheedy and the Bombers on their foresight in signing this agreement. The agreement will result in Essendon developing a support base in Brisbane. I compliment Kevin Sheedy and his players for coming down to Sharks at Victoria Point early Sunday morning. These players were tired, sore and feeling somewhat dejected after the result on Saturday night. However, they got on the bus and made the trip down to Victoria Point all in the name of promoting Australian Rules Football. During a discussion I had with Kevin Sheedy on the morning, he said, 'This is about the kids.' I compliment Kevin Sheedy for this attitude. Kevin Sheedy was down there promoting Australian Rules Football, not necessarily Essendon. His players took part in a coaching clinic. A lot of the kids taking part in the coaching clinic were wearing jerseys from other teams, including Essendon, the Lions, the Western Bulldogs and a range of other clubs. The players and coach Kevin Sheedy were down there to support the game and the kids. While the kids are out kicking around a footie they are not doing drugs or 17 Apr 2002 Adjournment 1159 breaking into houses. I compliment Kevin Sheedy and Essendon on their foresight and their support for AFL and the kids of Queensland. I wish the Lions the best of luck this weekend against the Western Bulldogs, as there is no such conflict now. Go the Lions! Recently, the RACQ has been developing a seniors driving program called the Years Ahead program. I compliment the RACQ on developing this program and certainly the involvement of Ernie Harrison, OAM, from the Donald Simpson Centre, in the development of this program. As people grow older they undergo significant changes in their physical stature. They have less mobility in their head and neck. They have less peripheral vision and need to change their driving habits as they get older. The RACQ has developed this program. I am proud to announce that I am sponsoring a course in my electorate to be run on 23 April at the Redland Bay Community Hall at Weinham Street, Redland Bay. Ms Male: Good to see you supporting all the members of your community. Mr ENGLISH: I agree; it is an important program. Bill Benson has agreed to facilitate this course. He is a member of the Older People Speak Out organisation. Bill is extremely active in the Redlands area in educating on and advocating for senior citizens causes. I recommend that other honourable members have a look at the Years Ahead program, as I believe it has a significant number of things to offer older citizens.

Milk Prices; National Foods Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (11.06 p.m.): Once again, I wish to speak about the ACCC's ruling that dairy farmers can collectively bargain. I believe this is the first move towards farmers taking the earning of a living into their own hands. As I have stated, National Foods immediately lodged an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It is a perfect example of greed by our processors. This morning I asked a question in the House of the Minister for Primary Industries about what the Labor government will do regarding asking National Foods to withdraw the appeal. The Beattie Labor government has been extremely kind to National Foods, welcoming it to Queensland and helping it create jobs, jobs, jobs. However, the electorate offices in Brisbane are not visited by the broken down, broken-hearted dairy farmers who are losing their farms because of the competition from another major processor in Queensland. A media release from 30 September 1998 by the Hon. Jim Elder states— National Foods is Australia's largest milk, dairy foods and juice company and the new milk processing plant will support the company's entry into the Queensland milk market next year. The market will be deregulated from 1 January. ... The company is a major Australian food processor and will be a significant employer in Queensland— jobs, jobs, jobs. What about the dairy farmers we have lost? It states further— Their commitment to Queensland demonstrates the importance of our State as a growing market for our national companies ... The Government is keen to encourage private sector investment into the State in pursuit of our goal of creating new employment opportunities for Queenslanders. The new plant, which will cost $26 million, will be developed on a site consisting of two adjoining allotments in Magnesium Drive in the Marsden Industrial Estate, Crestmead. Existing factory premises are being purchased from a private vendor and an adjacent vacant allotment was today acquired from the Queensland Government. That is exactly what tonight's 6 o'clock motion was about. We cannot find out how much that block of land was sold to National Foods for. The press release states further— I thank the Queensland Government for its strong support for our entry into the market. Strong support by the Queensland government! Where is the support now that National Foods has launched this appeal because for the first time the ACCC has brought in a ruling whereby our farmers can collectively bargain and force up the price of milk? Our government will not help us out. I stand strong and I call on this Beattie Labor government to put pressure on National Foods and ask it to withdraw its appeal immediately for the sake of our Queensland dairy farmers. The Woolworths contract is coming up very soon. Last year, that contract was taken on by the Dairy Farmers cooperative at an undercut price and that forced down the price of farm gate milk in Queensland. That same contract will come up again, and the same thing will happen. The ACCC ruling now provides farmers with the ability to take their living into their own hands, and it is being destroyed. 1160 Adjournment 17 Apr 2002

Mrs L. Gordon-Lewis; Maleny Community Forum Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (11.09 p.m.): I rise tonight to speak about one of our fantastic athletic heroes from the Sunshine Coast, Lyn Gordon-Lewis. Lyn came in this morning to be presented with a certificate by the Deputy Premier and Minister for Sport for her amazing feat over the weekend. Lyn is a runner as well as a race-walker. Over the weekend she went to Victoria and competed in the Australian Centurion event. During that event, she completed 100 miles in less than 24 hours' race-walking. Mr Lawlor: Fantastic effort. Ms MALE: It is a fantastic achievement by a magnificent athlete. It certainly requires a lot of dedication to her sport and also a lot of mental ability to be able to get through all those hours constantly keeping the pace. It is also a credit to her support crew, who were with her every step of the way. Lyn certainly put a lot of effort into it. I found out this morning that not only did she do the 100 miles—which she did in 22 hours and 50 minutes—but she then spent the next hour and 10 minutes continuing to walk around the track so that she would still be able to beat the other people who had managed to do it as well. So she actually walked for the entire 24 hours, completing much more than the 100 miles. Lyn is the first Queensland woman to be a Centurion, which is fantastic. She is also the first Australian woman to not only have walked 100 miles in under 24 hours but to also have run 100 miles in under 24 hours in a different event. She is the first Australian woman to have achieved that double. She is certainly an inspiration to all the athletes on the coast and indeed around Queensland. She is a fine, upstanding representative of the sporting community that we have. Lyn has been running up and down mountains for years in training. She also has five children. She helps out with her husband's business. Ms Keech: She's a superwoman. Ms MALE: She is a superwoman. She helps out with sport in the local area as well. On behalf of the people of Caboolture and Wamuran, I am so proud of Lyn's achievement. Other members have also been very complimentary about her fantastic achievement. I want to talk very briefly about the Maleny Community Forum, which is a group of people in Maleny who have gotten together to enhance the community's ability to involve itself in decision making and to also cut across all levels of government and to try to make sure everyone is involved and that we have a chance to discuss all the issues. They support individuals and different groups in their electorate. On the weekend we had a summit at which we discussed things like web portals, the Maleny water petition and Barung Landcare's innovative application to use council land to provide an ecologically sustainable environment and an education centre at the same place. We talked about many events. It was a chance for us all to get together, share information, cut across all the government areas and work out the best way to help the Maleny community. I congratulate that group on its foresight and its ability to get the community involved. There were over 100 people at the summit on a Sunday morning to talk about issues affecting Maleny. It is certainly a fine community with fine community-minded members in it.

Sugar Industry Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (11.12 p.m.): The Australian sugar industry is facing a major crisis brought about by a number of factors, but most predominantly and more recently by a collapse in international sugar prices. This will have grave implications not only for the future of the industry but also for many regional communities and the economy at large. The cane-growing industry is vital to the prosperity of major towns and cities along the east coast of Queensland and northern New South Wales and, of course, to the national economy. The sugar industry is responsible for the direct generation of revenue up to $1.8 billion annually for Australia, and it is crucial that the productive structure of this major rural export industry is preserved. Only a few short months ago, the 2002-03 Queensland sugar season was being touted as the beginning of a long overdue period of recovery within the industry following four very difficult and trying years of low world sugar prices and crops that were decimated by adverse weather, pests and diseases. It was envisaged that the output was expected to be the best for some years, and the world sugar prices, if not overly profitable, were at minimal reasonable levels for efficient producers. As members would be aware, since January the world sugar price has plummeted in anticipation of a huge increase in Brazil's sugar output. Indeed, its cane crop increase this year is 17 Apr 2002 Adjournment 1161 expected to exceed Australia's total sugar production. Given that there is little prospect of any significant improvement in that scenario, or with US farm protection, the short-term outlook for the industry is grim. It is a fact of life that many growers now have depleted their financial reserves in a desperate bid to maximise production to take advantage of improved seasonal conditions and what is expected to be a more favourable price scenario. The recent steep fall in the world sugar price has shattered the confidence of many growers. If expected low prices do eventuate, the economic chaos in the industry will be devastating. It is imperative that strategies be put in place now for the future industry structure—strategies that will enable this industry to survive with the extent of exposure it has to the world market. Indeed, it is very important that the Queensland government recognises the plight of the sugar industry, not just that of farmers themselves but the potential effects on communities throughout rural Queensland which rely very heavily on it. It is imperative that we look very carefully at how we will manage the industry over the next few years.

Kalwun HACC Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (11.15 p.m.): Kalwun Home and Community Care provides a range of services to the aged and to people with disabilities in the Gold Coast hinterland. These include counselling, transport, home care, social relief, meals, health checks, recreation and much more. The services are fully inclusive and available to both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community members. Since December last year, these services have been provided and coordinated through the Kalwun Respite Centre at Bonogin in the electorate of Mudgeeraba, a refurbished property which was purchased by Kalwun with the assistance of state government funding. This unique centre is in many ways the realisation of a dream, in particular a dream of one extraordinary woman. Coordinator Denise Lewis first started running programs for local aged people 10 years ago, when she cooked meals at her own home, loaded them into a ute and delivered them to the Nerang Respite Centre once a week. When funding came through for a six-seater Starwagon, she cooked the meals, picked up the clients herself and took them to respite care. Having identified a clear need for support and respite care for the aged and frail residents of Mudgeeraba, Tallai and Bonogin, Denise and her colleagues at Kalwun decided to open a centre in the hinterland, and after a long search settled on a property on Bonogin Road. Mr Lawlor: A great lady. Mrs REILLY: Absolutely. Through sheer hard work and determination and the cooperation, enthusiasm and commitment of all involved, a run-down, ramshackle property was transformed into this functional and attractive centre that now has 170 clients and operates five days a week. Clients take part in recreational activities, have a busy arts and crafts room and pleasant gardens and surrounds to enjoy. On the day I visited two weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to meet a couple, Richard and Joan Andrews, who visit the centre each week and will be celebrating their 70th wedding anniversary next week. They and the other clients on the day sang the praises of the centre and its staff. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate them on reaching this very significant milestone. These wonderful facilities are also used for training programs for indigenous people. Kalwun Home and Community Care is the only indigenous HACC service on the Gold Coast, and arguably provides one of the broadest services to the broadest client group. Kalwun deserves to be commended for its vision and drive. I feel special mention must be made of Kalwun elder Graham Dillon; HACC coordinator Denise Lewis; caretaker, driver and general all-rounder Barry Hennessey; Home Care Manager Jean Edwards; Kalwun director and cook Betty Shackle; and the many other staff who work very hard at this great facility. The genuine love and care these individuals and all at Kalwun Home and Community Care give to their clients is obvious to anyone who visits the centre. I congratulate them and I thank them wholeheartedly for providing this valuable service to the people of Mudgeeraba.

Health Funding Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (11.18 p.m.): Premier Beattie can more than double his department staffing levels, but critical areas requiring doctors, nurses and other allied health resources are left struggling while sick people wait longer for care. The Premier uses the 1162 Adjournment 17 Apr 2002 taxpayers' purse to fund his PR machine; the hospitals are left wanting. I think that the Beattie government has its priorities wrong and that it is not very smart. For example, at Cairns Base Hospital, after public protests expressing grave concerns about bed shortages and cancelled surgery as well as other resourcing issues, the Health Department sent in one of its bureaucrats to manage the fallout with an internal review. There was a lot of scepticism about the independence of this review, and since the report's results became public recently, that scepticism has proved to be justified. The internal Queensland Health review tries to sell the line that the hospital is overfunded by $4 million or, in bureaucracy speak, that it has a $4.143 million 'inefficiency quantum'. This is an insult to the medical and nursing staff who are desperate for the funding issues to be addressed in good faith. I call on the Health Minister not to use this atrocious excuse of the Health Department to cut the Cairns Hospital budget or to hamstring the hospital's genuine need for improved funding to overcome some serious issues in the upcoming budget. What is the department going to propose should be cut to improve so-called inefficiency at Cairns Base Hospital? We can well wonder. I have to ask whether the Health Minister agrees with this Health Department review that the hospital is overfunded by $4 million or, in bureaucracy speak, is carrying an inefficiency quantum of over $4 million. The Nambour Hospital is experiencing dire problems also. A recent Health Department report identified a number of issues in regard to the problems faced by its accident and emergency section. I call on the Health Minister to release this report publicly and to table her response to the issues raised. However, it is public knowledge that the lack of available funded beds at Nambour Hospital is causing problems now, with surgery routinely being cancelled as a result and people waiting longer than they should in accident and emergency before admission. The hospital is running at about 95 per cent occupancy and higher, and winter is looming. Traditionally there is a higher medical caseload in winter. Where are these patients going to go? There is a desperate need to reopen and fund beds. I call on the Health Minister to address these issues—not to abuse the staff and not to criticise the doctors and the allied staff who are speaking up but to fund these issues, to release these reports publicly and to address the valid concerns that patients are not receiving care as a result of blow-outs in wait times. I have mentioned before so-called surgery on time. People cannot get access to outpatient clinics and the category 3 surgery— Time expired.

Caboolture Lifeline Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (11.21 p.m.): Caboolture Lifeline currently has one state government funded program, which is a child-centred family-focused counselling program. Whilst it is based in Caboolture, it outreaches to Redcliffe, Deception Bay and Strathpine. The balance of the services provided by Caboolture Lifeline are funded via its recycled clothing and furniture outlets dotted around the area. The income earned through those stores pays for a 24-hour telephone counselling service, which currently reaches into five shires, a face- to-face counselling service and day-to-day running expenses. The inevitable increase in expenses and the growing demand for Lifeline services have sent the staff and volunteers outside their own bounds to seek ongoing financial support. For the first time last month Lifeline actively sought the participation of the local community to ensure the addition of future new programs. Community leaders, service clubs and businessmen and women were invited to participate in a sleep-out. This served a dual purpose. Not only was it to raise funds; it was also to raise awareness of the homeless and the sometime consequence of that—suicide, a subject with which Lifeline counsellors are all too familiar. Valued North Point TAFE student Emma Nugent, Lifeline coordinator Sheena Kealy and Lifeline's general manager, Carla Pearse, got together and organised the sleep-out. The participants raised approximately $7,000. The money will be used to support the programs which will directly benefit the local community. The sleep-out was a rather creative fundraiser, but this is certainly nothing new to Carla Pearse, who I got to know through her other voluntary efforts in the community. In fact, she helped me out a few years ago by becoming the honorary secretary of Caboolture Drug Awareness Team Inc., of which I have been the president for the past 12 years and which still provides drug prevention programs for the primary school children in the Caboolture shire. 17 Apr 2002 Adjournment 1163

I must confess that I piked some time after midnight, but I am told that Councillor Lynette Devereaux, member for Glass House Carolyn Male, and Bribie Island Crest Club members Zita Czigany, Kerrianne Hickman and Janet Johns stole the show and were among the few people who stayed all night. They all have T-shirts to prove it. I, along with others, vowed to last longer next time. I congratulate Caboolture Lifeline and wish them well in their future endeavours.

University of Southern Queensland Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (11.24 p.m.): I rise tonight to set the record straight in regard to an article, printed in the Courier-Mail yesterday, which reports on a growing fear of insolvency amongst Australian universities. The article names the University of Southern Queensland as one of 10 universities across the nation that fell into the red in 2000 and consequently infers that USQ may be experiencing liquidity problems. It is a fact that USQ did record an operating loss for the year 2000. However, I unequivocally state to the chamber that any implication that USQ might have liquidity problems is absolutely untrue and totally misleading. I will quote some passages from a letter written by the Vice- Chancellor of USQ, Professor Peter Swannell, responding to the article. I note that part of this letter was published in the Courier-Mail today. The letter clearly states USQ's secure financial situation and assures the continued safety of this situation into the future. The letter states— USQ's deficit in 2000 was a managed outcome with planned significant investments in information and capital infrastructure, as well as the introduction of the USQ Agreed Workplace arrangements. It posted an operating surplus of $304,000 for the year 2001 and forecasts a further surplus in 2002. USQ had, and has, no liquidity problems. In 2000, it had more than sufficient cash reserves to cover any funding shortfall and, in fact, it had a current ratio of 1.8 at 31st December 2000. According to the Higher Education Report the sector ratio for that same period was significantly lower at 1.5, with two universities having a current ratio of less than 1. USQ's liquidity has improved further to 1.9 by the end of 2001, consistent with its financial strategic plan. USQ employs sound financial management principles, underpinned by appropriately conservative accounting policies, to ensure its financial health. This University has operated for over a decade with the lowest funding per Equivalent Full Time Student Unit in the sector, but has nonetheless effectively and pro-actively managed the provision of high quality programs whilst maintaining a solid financial position. I trust that Professor Swannell's reassurance leaves no-one in doubt over the rock solid financial future of the university and dispels any implications of problems with liquidity. I take this opportunity to praise Professor Swannell for his continued outstanding leadership of the University of Southern Queensland. USQ possesses a world-class academic staff and consequently provides world-renowned quality education for students from across the globe. Frequently we hear in this chamber of amazing advances in technology, research and education developed by USQ, and it is without a doubt currently one of the world's fastest progressing universities. USQ's significant advancement speaks volumes of Peter Swannell's guidance and management over the past six years. It gives me immense pride to have the USQ as part of my electorate of Cunningham, and I look forward with much anticipation to witnessing its continued rapid growth and expansion.

Gold Coast Turf Club Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (11.27 p.m.): As some members would be aware, I am the deputy chairman of the Gold Coast Turf Club. I draw to the attention of the House the running of the 2002 Conrad Jupiters Prime Minister's Cup race day on Saturday, 11 May. After three decades virtually hidden in a mid-week slot, the cup has been launched into the limelight as a standalone Saturday event for the very first time. This year will see it establish itself as a true addition to the Gold Coast major event calendar and a more than worthy winter equivalent of January's Conrad Jupiters Magic Millions race day. The decision to assign the Prime Minister's Cup meeting as a standalone day is a vote of confidence in the Gold Coast racing product and its ability to conduct a metropolitan-type meeting. With a total prize money of $800,000, the meeting will be equal to a Saturday metropolitan meeting anywhere in Australia, even Brisbane. The meeting will feature the $300,000 group 2 Conrad Jupiters Prime Minister's Cup, the $200,000 group 2 Norco/Pauls Milk AD Hollindale Stakes, the $100,000 Hayden Harvey Gold Coast Guineas and the $100,000 Culpans Electrical Ken Russell Memorial Classic. With the backdrop of one of world racing's most 1164 Adjournment 17 Apr 2002 picturesque skylines, the event is set to be the highlight of this year's Queensland Winter Racing Carnival and is certain to attract interstate and international interest. The energetic and vibrant Gold Coast City, which stands alone as the preferred holiday destination for almost four million domestic and overseas visitors each year, will now add the Gold Coast Jupiters Prime Minister's Cup to the list of world-renowned events, including the annual Honda Indy 300 motor race, the Gold Coast Marathon and the Australian Surf Life Saving titles. One factor sets the Gold Coast Turf Club apart: it is the only Gold Coast venue that provides live sporting entertainment of a national standard every Saturday afternoon. The first Prime Minister's Cup was run in 1974, only three years after the Southport Turf Club amalgamated with the Oxenford Turf Club to form the Gold Coast Turf Club and entered the Saturday weekly racing circuit. The club is now a leader in the sports leisure market. With the recent opening of the 600-seat Dome function facility and the state-of-the-art Pat Murray Equine Complex stabling facility, together with the bold expansion plans for the future, that reputation is set to be enhanced. Wherever and whenever horses race there is excitement in the air. That is certainly the case at the Gold Coast, where racing is colourful, fast paced, fashionable and fun. The Gold Coast Turf Club is set to kick up its heels and launch the 2002 Conrad Jupiters Prime Minister's Cup into the limelight as a standalone Saturday event. The events which make up the carnival atmosphere for this event include the barrier draw, the ladies lunch at Jupiters Casino on the Wednesday, breakfast with the stars and a cocktail party on the Thursday, the Ken Russell Memorial Classic golf day on the Friday, and the Conrad Jupiters Prime Minister's Cup meeting on Saturday, 11 May. Members should mark 11 May in their diary and get down to the Gold Coast Turf Club for the Conrad Jupiters Prime Minister's Cup. It is their chance to be part of a true Queensland racing and entertainment success story. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.