PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

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

51ST PARLIAMENT

Subject CONTENTS Page Wednesday, 29 September 2004

HON. K. HAYWARD MP ...... 2459 MOTION OF CONDOLENCE ...... 2459 Death of Honourable Sir Walter Campbell AC, QC ...... 2459 PETITIONS ...... 2462 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2462 Energex, Board of Directors ...... 2462 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2462 Government Owned Corporations ...... 2462 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2463 Queensland Exports ...... 2463 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2464 Integrity Commissioner, Annual Report ...... 2464 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2464 Water ...... 2464 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2465 Smoking Bans ...... 2465 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2466 Task Force Argos ...... 2466 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2467 Queensland Multicultural Festival ...... 2467 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2467 Queensland Exports ...... 2467 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2468 Premier's Export Awards ...... 2468 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2468 Multicultural Assistance Program ...... 2468 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2469 Terrorism ...... 2469 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2470 ICT Companies ...... 2470 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2470

BY AUTHORITY L.J. OSMOND, ACTING CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER—2004 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 29 September 2004

Toowoomba Carnival of Flowers ...... 2470 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2471 Office of the Governor, Review ...... 2471 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2471 Vocational Education and Training ...... 2471 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2472 SmartVET Industry Training Partnerships ...... 2472 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2472 Meat Processing Industry ...... 2472 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2473 Smoking Bans ...... 2473 SITTING HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 2474 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ...... 2474 Report ...... 2474 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 2474 Health Services ...... 2474 PRIVATE MEMBER'S STATEMENT ...... 2474 Energex; Mr G. Maddock ...... 2474 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 2475 Energex, Briefing Note ...... 2475 Energex, Briefing Note ...... 2475 Unemployment ...... 2476 Energex; Mr G. Maddock ...... 2477 Water Desalination Plant, Dalby ...... 2478 Directors-General, Contracts ...... 2478 PRIVILEGE ...... 2479 Mr G. Maddock; Documentation Tabled by Premier ...... 2479 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 2479 Papua New Guinea Gas Pipeline ...... 2479 Energex; Mr P. Turnbull ...... 2480 Electricity Outages, Role of the Media ...... 2480 Liquor Licensing ...... 2481 Film Production ...... 2481 Prep Year Trial, Teacher Aides ...... 2482 PRIVILEGE ...... 2482 Energex; Answer to Question ...... 2482 TABLING OF DOCUMENTS ...... 2483 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 2483 Year of the International Tourist ...... 2483 Energex; Mr R. Dunning ...... 2484 Administration of Parliament ...... 2484 Hospital Emergency Departments ...... 2485 PETROLEUM AND GAS (PRODUCTION AND SAFETY) BILL AND PETROLEUM AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 2485 Second Reading (Cognate Debate) ...... 2485 PRIVILEGE ...... 2487 Energex; Documentation Tabled by Premier ...... 2487 PETROLEUM AND GAS (PRODUCTION AND SAFETY) BILL PETROLEUM AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ... 2487 Second Reading (Cognate Debate) ...... 2487 Consideration in Detail ...... 2492 Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Bill ...... 2492 Petroleum and Other Legislation Amendment Bill ...... 2492 Third Reading ...... 2492 PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND FISHERIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 2493 Second Reading ...... 2493 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2512 Energex, Mr G. Jardine ...... 2512 PRIVILEGE ...... 2513 Energex, Release of Document ...... 2513 PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND FISHERIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 2513 Second Reading ...... 2513 HEALTH SERVICES ...... 2530 ADJOURNMENT ...... 2540 Kickstart to Literacy Program ...... 2540 Star Care Principles ...... 2541 Extreme Youth and Young Adults Outreach Team ...... 2541 Cycling Safety ...... 2542 Power Supply, Innisfail ...... 2542 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 29 September 2004

Police Remembrance Day ...... 2543 Public Hospitals, Cardiovascular Treatment ...... 2543 Liberal Party ...... 2544 Prep Year Trial, Teacher Aides ...... 2544 Member for Burnett ...... 2545 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 29 September 2004 29 Sep 2004 Legislative Assembly 2459 WEDNESDAY, 29 SEPTEMBER 2004

Legislative Assembly Mr SPEAKER (Hon. R.K. Hollis, Redcliffe) read prayers and took the chair at 9.43 a.m.

HON. K. HAYWARD MP Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.44 a.m.): Mr Speaker, before I move the motion of condolence, I think that most members would be aware that Ken Hayward had a minor health scare this morning. I understand that he is fine. I thank the member for Moggill for his assistance. Mr SPEAKER: Hear, hear! Honourable members: Hear, hear! Mr BEATTIE: Our thoughts are with Ken and I know that he will be back on duty as quickly as possible.

MOTION OF CONDOLENCE

Death of the Honourable Sir Walter Campbell AC, QC Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.45 a.m.): I move— That this House desires to place on record its appreciation of the services rendered to this state by the late former Governor of the state, the Honourable Sir Walter Benjamin Campbell AC QC; and That Mr Speaker be requested to convey to the family of the deceased gentleman the above resolution, together with an expression of the profound sympathy and sorrow of the members of the parliament of Queensland for the loss they have sustained. The Honourable Sir Walter Benjamin Campbell AC, QC was born in Burringbar in the Northern Rivers district of New South Wales on 4 March 1921. Sir Walter was educated at Downlands College in Toowoomba where he was a popular student, being elected school captain. He demonstrated his considerable academic talent early by topping the state in Latin and by winning an open scholarship to the University of Queensland. Sir Walter completed a Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Laws with Honours and Master of Arts at the University of Queensland. Sir Walter was a gifted and talented scholar. Sir Walter retained strong links with the University of Queensland throughout his life, becoming a member of the University of Queensland Senate from 1963 to 1985 and Chancellor from 1977 to 1985. In 1980, the University of Queensland awarded Sir Walter with the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws in recognition of his contributions to the university, the law and public affairs. Sir Walter was also awarded other honorary degrees from James Cook University, the Queensland University of Technology and Griffith University. In 1941, Sir Walter's university studies were interrupted by his service in the Second World War as a pilot from 1941 to 1946. He attained the rank of flight lieutenant and was later awarded the Australian Service Medal for his role in flying personnel around who were involved in the supervision of Japanese surrenders and the repatriation of prisoners of war and casualties after the war ended. In 1948 Sir Walter was admitted to the Queensland bar, which was to be the beginning of a brilliant and distinguished career in the legal profession, culminating in his appointment as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland from 1967 to 1985, during which time he was appointed Chief Justice from 1982 to 1985. Sir Walter's legal career was marked by numerous achievements, so much so that it is indeed difficult to determine those to highlight. Some of these achievements include the taking of silk in 1960, numerous High Court appearances, a Privy Council appearance, and becoming president of the Queensland and Australian Bar Associations, the chairman of the Law Reform Commission and the chairman of the Commonwealth Remuneration Tribunal. Overall, Sir Walter's contribution to the law, be it in his capacity as a barrister-at-law or as Chief Justice, was indeed great. In recognition of his service and commitment, he was knighted in 1979 for his service to government, law and education. Sir Walter was appointed Governor of Queensland on 22 July 1985 and performed this role for seven years until his retirement on 27 July 1992. Sir Walter's service as Governor was carried out with great commitment and integrity to the state of Queensland. Difficult constitutional decisions arose during this time and Sir Walter applied his considerable intellect, tenacity and courage in determining the appropriate response. 2460 Motion of Condolence 29 Sep 2004

Aside from the many and great professional achievements in Sir Walter's life, he demonstrated that he was a man of the people through his patronage of the humanities and the arts. His patronages included service as director of the Churchill Trust from 1969 to 1980, president of the Queensland Branch of the Australian Institute of International Affairs from 1962 to 1965, deputy chairman of the Queensland Theatre Company from 1969 to 1978 and chairman of the board of governors of the Utah Foundation. Sir Walter was also a keen fisherman and golfer and was a member of the Queensland Club and the Royal Queensland Golf Club. Sir Walter's achievements and contributions to this state denote that he was truly a great Queenslander. His contributions to government, the legal profession, the judiciary, education and the humanities and arts ensure Sir Walter's deserved place in Queensland history. Sir Walter is survived by his wife, Lady Georgina, whom he married on 18 June 1942, his children Wallace and Deborah, their spouses Heather and David, and his grandchildren Georgia, Lydia, Benjamin and Andrew. In conclusion, I think that Sir Walter's most significant contribution during his time as Governor was, in fact, the constitutional crisis, if I can use that in the broadest possible terms, that occurred in the 1987 period when Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen was the Premier of the state and had lost the confidence of his parliamentary party. At that time, the National Party members of parliament had signed a petition, with one or two exceptions—I forget the detail now—supporting the new incumbent leader, Mike Ahern. There was an issue as to whose advice and what processes the Governor would take in terms of determining the then premiership and, of course, the government of Queensland. It is widely recognised that Sir Walter handled that situation with not only the appropriate legal approach but also handled it with a sensitivity that was necessary to provide for the appropriate transition of power at that time. It would be remiss of me if I did not acknowledge that as one of his most significant contributions as Governor. I extend my deepest sympathy and that of this House to Sir Walter's family. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (9.50 a.m.): Walter Benjamin Campbell was born in Burringbar, northern New South Wales, on 4 March 1921—a new member of the Campbell clan. He was educated at Downlands College in Toowoomba where he was school captain and dux in his final year. He won an open scholarship to the University of Queensland. Walter Campbell's studies were interrupted in 1941 when he became a flight lieutenant pilot and flying instructor in the Royal Australian Air Force. In 1942 he married Georgina Pearce and they had two children. After war service he returned to the university and graduated with a Master of Arts in 1947, followed by first-class honours in law. In 1948 he was admitted to the Queensland bar, taking silk 12 years later. He continued to teach law part time at the university, and in 1954 he was appointed to the law faculty's board. In 1963 he was elected to the university senate. Between 1965 and 1967, Walter Campbell was president of the Queensland Bar Association and also held the position of president of the Australian Bar Association until he was appointed to the Supreme Court at the age of 46. Walter Campbell was appointed chancellor of the University of Queensland in 1978. In the same year he was knighted for services to government, the law and education. Outside his busy business and professional life he found time to engage in a busy public life as well. Other positions Sir Walter Campbell held included president of the Queensland branch of the Australian Institute of International Affairs; chairman of the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust's Queensland selection committee; chairman of the Queensland Law Reform Commission; and president of the Utah Foundation. Sir Walter Campbell served as the state's chief justice from 1982 to 1985 before becoming governor—a position he held from 1985 to 1992. Sir Walter was a very popular governor. He and Lady Campbell travelled the length and breadth of the state many times, and their charm and personalities enabled them to communicate easily and serenely with people from all walks of life. Sir Walter Campbell was a talented and dedicated man. In his eulogy at Sir Walter's funeral, Chief Justice Paul de Jersey reflected on Sir Walter's 'remarkable legal talent, his brilliant intellect, and his rare capacity to influence and inspire others'. The Chief Justice described Sir Walter Campbell as 'a great judge and a great chief justice'. I would like to add that Sir Walter Campbell was a great governor and a man of great honour. As a proud member of the Campbell clan, Sir Walter upheld its motto—strive to do right— throughout his 83 years. On behalf of my parliamentary colleagues I extend the Nationals' deepest sympathy to Lady Campbell and all of her family. Over my time in this place I had the opportunity to meet and get to know Sir Walter and Lady Campbell and a number of members of the family. They are people of absolute integrity. When I told my wife of Sir Walter's passing, she was very personally traumatised by it. She reflected upon our first meeting with Sir Walter and described him as an extremely dignified and kind gentleman. I think that is the very fond recollection many Queenslanders will continue to have of Sir Walter Campbell. 29 Sep 2004 Motion of Condolence 2461

Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (9.54 a.m.): By any measure, Sir Walter Benjamin Campbell was an outstanding individual. He was a great Queenslander. He served with distinction in World War II, giving great service to his country. After that he was admitted to the Queensland bar, ultimately becoming a judge and the chief justice of Queensland. He had an outstanding legal intellect, one which served him well in the late 1980s when there was a constitutional crisis in the government in Queensland. He was Queensland's governor for seven years and was well loved and well respected by all people around Queensland. He toured Queensland extensively. One of the great enduring things I remember about Sir Walter Campbell occurred on election night in 1989, when I was elected to parliament. I saw on the television the then Premier elect, Wayne Goss, telling members of the Labor Party to go home and take a cold shower and that he was going up to Walty's place. Everyone in Queensland knew what 'going up to Walty's place' meant, so loved was this governor—so well respected and well known throughout the length and breadth of this state. There is no doubt that Sir Walter Campbell was an outstanding individual. I met him only once, at Government House after my swearing-in ceremony. He struck me as someone people immediately warmed to. He had an immense power to draw people to him through his intellect and his knowledge of arts and a whole range of issues that impacted upon Queensland. Right throughout his life that stood him in good stead. That was a hallmark of his life—his immense likability, his intellect, his willingness to become involved in the everyday minutiae of Queensland life. He had an extensive and diverse range of interests throughout his life. He served Queensland exceptionally well. He was a proud and heroic Queenslander. Not only that, he also was a proud member of the Campbell clan, as those who went to his funeral will attest. All of those things went to make up an outstanding individual who served this state well over his entire life. On behalf of the members of the Liberal Party, I pass on to his wife, family and friends our sincere condolences. Hon. A.M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education and the Arts) (9.56 a.m.): I respectfully join with earlier speakers in paying tribute to the honourable Sir Walter Benjamin Campbell, AC QC, former governor of Queensland, chief justice, Supreme Court judge and University of Queensland chancellor. I would like to express my condolences to Lady Campbell and to members of the Campbell family. Without doubt, Sir Walter was a great Queenslander. He was a highly-respected lawyer and had a wide involvement in universities as a scholar, teacher and patron. He also gave outstanding public service to the arts. Among his many contributions to public life, he served as chief justice of Queensland. As Acting Attorney-General, I wish to place on record his outstanding contribution to the legal profession in this state. Sir Walter was born in 1921 and was educated at Downlands College and the University of Queensland, where he completed a Bachelor of Arts, a Bachelor of Laws with honours and a Master of Arts. His career as a lawyer was delayed by war service between 1941 and 1946 and began in 1948 when he was admitted to the Queensland bar. Sir Walter's practice at the bar and his intellectual brilliance can be shown with his appointment as Queen's Counsel in 1960, after only 12 years in practice. His practice at the bar followed a distinguished term in the Royal Australian Air Force, which he had joined voluntarily. Not surprisingly then, one of his special interests was aviation law. Those who knew him well recall that in his barrister's and later judge's chambers he displayed a large model of a Fokker aircraft bearing the registration number WBC-QC. Sir Walter was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court in 1967. He served with great distinction and was appointed chief justice in 1982. Three years later he resigned to take up his appointment as governor of Queensland. Those who knew him recall him as a cheerful man, tactful, diplomatic and well liked. Those who worked with Sir Walter say that he introduced a number of initiatives to the Supreme Court. These included measures to streamline the allocation of cases, reducing delays, increasing efficiency and leading the court into the modern era. He had an extremely distinguished legal career. He chaired the Commonwealth Remuneration Tribunal, was involved in the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration and chaired the Queensland Law Reform Commission for four years, from 1969 to 1973. He made an outstanding judicial contribution to Queensland, and for that we should be eternally grateful. I take a moment as Education Minister to also formally acknowledge the contribution Sir Walter made to the development of higher education in Queensland, including 22 years as a member of the senate of the University of Queensland, eight of those years as chancellor of that university. I join with the Premier and other members of the House in extending my deepest sympathy and that of this House to his family. Motion agreed to, honourable members standing in silence. 2462 Ministerial Statement 29 Sep 2004

PETITIONS

The following honourable members have lodged paper petitions for presentation—

Ambulance Levy Mr Wellington from 6 petitioners requesting the House to find a more equitable way to charge every person ambulance cover not just those receiving electricity accounts. State Forest Fire Trails, South East Queensland Mr Wellington from 70 petitioners requesting the House to make provision in the proposed new tenure for Forest Reserves in South East Queensland State Forests to have the already existing fire trails and tracks set aside as Conservation Park Corridors.

Juvenile Justice Act Mr Mulherin from 36 petitioners requesting the House to regulate for the change of a provision which exists within the Juvenile Justice Act the practice of dealing with young people under the age of 18 years as adults within the Queensland criminal justice system.

Imprisonment of Young Offenders Mr Mulherin from 164 petitioners requesting the House to make changes to how under 18 year olds are imprisoned.

Residential Development, Coolangatta Special School Site Mrs Stuckey from 2,883 petitioners requesting the House to commit to thorough community consultation, to act upon the community's strong disapproval of another residential development and to preserve the site of the Coolangatta Special School, scheduled to relocate during the 2005-06 financial year, for the benefit of the community.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Energex, Board of Directors Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.01 a.m.): In order to keep the House fully apprised of developments regarding the Energex board, I advise that I have accepted the resignation of Ms Sally Pitkin as an Energex board director. Ms Pitkin sent a letter of resignation to Energex chair, Ross Dunning, yesterday and had a copy delivered to Under Treasurer Gerard Bradley. Ms Pitkin, who I understand is travelling overseas, gave no reasons for her resignation. Ms Pitkin provided comments during an interview as part of the Under Treasurer's investigation, which I tabled in the House yesterday. She later qualified those comments after discussion with the then chair, Mr Don Nissen, and then director, Mr Brian Kilmartin. This is outlined in page 17 of the Under Treasurer's report, which I tabled yesterday. I stress there were no adverse findings regarding Ms Pitkin. She was first appointed as an Energex director on 1 July 1999 and was reappointed on 3 July 2003. She is experienced in banking, law and financial transactions and has experience as a director on a number of boards and as a member of industry groups. I table for the information of the House Ms Pitkin's resignation. I should advise that the resignation contained the private address of Ms Pitkin, and I have removed that from the resignation. That is the only change there has been. I think she is entitled to that level of privacy.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Government Owned Corporations Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.03 a.m.): I want to make some comments about the appropriateness of the behaviour of GOCs. I want to make it very clear that my government will not walk away from the need for high standards of public accountability for our government owned corporations. These corporations, after all, are owned by the people of Queensland. They are public utilities. They are run commercially, and so should they be. Many are monopolies, such as the electricity distribution system. We cannot just go out and build another electricity network, as we know. In a situation of public ownership and commercial operation, there has to be responsibility. For companies like Energex it means adhering to Corporations Law and the Government Owned Corporations Act. That means high standards of commercial and public accountability, and that is the reality. It is a tough ask, but it is the reality. If I could repeat a section of the statement I made yesterday, the Crown Solicitor notes that the chair should have had— ... an understanding of the position of Energex as a corporation owned by the State, and the requirements on him to report to the Board and to shareholding Ministers. The Under Treasurer's report also noted there were standards attached to the fact that the corporation was a public entity. Quite rightfully, the Auditor-General is the appointed auditor of the 29 Sep 2004 Ministerial Statement 2463 government owned corporations. They are handling the public's money. Because of this, there are special responsibilities which might not apply to companies in the private sector. This does result in a need for rigour. I take this opportunity to underline my expectation, and the expectation of the government, that every director on every GOC board lives up to the standards outlined in the cabinet guidelines.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Queensland Exports Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.05 a.m.): There are a number of matters that I would like to report to the parliament on. I want to draw the attention of all members to the first Queensland export statement which measures our progress against the rest of Australia and sharpens Queensland focus on jobs generation through exports. I am delighted that the export statement reveals that my government's plan to create thousands of new jobs by doubling our exports of education and training services is on track. It shows the value of international exports has grown from less than $200 million in 1992-93 to more than $800 million in 2002-03. This is a remarkable achievement which has flowed from a partnership between the state government and the education industry. At the end of 1999 the state government commissioned a major study of education exports which showed that, while we had first-class products, the export push by universities and colleges had been fragmented. As a result, I announced the creation of the Queensland education and training export strategy and the partnership with the industry. It created the Queensland Education and Training Export Board in 2001 to market our services overseas, and I created a special unit of six people in my department to drive the expansion. The figures then available showed that we were earning $500 million a year from these exports, with most of that money gained from the sale of education places to international students and from their spending on goods and services while they were here. That supported about 5,000 jobs. The export strategy shown to members today shows that by the end of the 2003-03 financial year we have increased the earnings to $800 million. Those earnings support about 8,000 jobs. I table that report—the first of its kind—for all members of the parliament. Copies will be distributed to all members. I seek leave to have the remainder of my ministerial statement about the success of our exports incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. We have been working with Queensland companies to diversify our export base, to increase the number of companies exporting, to encourage traditional industries to adopt Smart State solutions and to have more knowledge-intensive or 'smart' exports. I have placed a major emphasis on the need to develop our high technology industries such as biotechnology and information and communication technology because they are going to play a major role in our future prosperity. I am, therefore, delighted to see that Queensland's high and medium-high technology manufactured exports have grown by more than 50% in nominal terms between 1997-98 and 2003-04, to $1.2 billion. Queensland's trend unemployment rate of 5.6% is the lowest on record because of our focus on job creation, such as our trade strategy Export Solutions. Importantly, one in five jobs depends on exports, a figure that rises to one in four in the regions. The valuable contribution that Queensland's exports make to achieving strong economic growth, job creation and a higher quality of life for all Queenslanders cannot be underestimated. Our total trade (exports and imports) in 2002-03 amounted to $93.8 billion or more than 70% of Queensland's Gross State Product. Our total trade flows during this period comprised $50 billion in overseas trade and $43.8 billion in interstate trade. Significantly, in the five years to 2002-03, Queensland outperformed the rest of Australia in terms of overseas merchandise exports, with the State recording 29% growth in overseas merchandise exports, compared with 18% for the rest of Australia. I also draw Members attention to: Queensland's traditional tourism-related services exports grew 16% in volume terms and 50% in value terms over the decade to 2002-03, with overseas tourism exports valued at $1.9 billion in 2002-03. Non-tourism related overseas services exports increased by a remarkable 75% in volume terms and more than doubled in value to $3.7 billion over the last decade, reflecting the ongoing diversification of the State's trade sector. The value of Queensland's exports of manufactured goods increased by almost 200%, from less than $600 million per year a decade ago to more than $1.7 billion per year during the last five years. We are eager to continue striving for export excellence and with this in mind are introducing a number of new measures building on the success and momentum of the Queensland Government's trade strategy—Export Solutions. These initiatives include: The development of market action plans for a number of key markets including China, India, South-East Asia, and the United States of America; The establishment of Export Sub-Committees in the Regional Managers Coordination Network to co-ordinate regional export development activities; 2464 Ministerial Statement 29 Sep 2004

The launching of Export Week for the first time this year in conjunction with a number of annual export events, including the Queensland Government Trade and Investment Office Commissioners annual conference, and the Premier of Queensland's Export Awards; The establishment of a new Queensland Government Trade and Investment Office in Bangalore, India; The appointment of a Queensland Government Trade Representative in Doha, Qatar.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Integrity Commissioner, Annual Report Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.07 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House the annual report of the Integrity Commissioner for the year ended 30 June 2004. I am not required to table this report, but I do so as part of the government's commitment to openness and full accountability. The government created the position of Integrity Commissioner to reinforce our accountability. The Integrity Commissioner provides an annual report. The 2003-04 report mentions 21 requests for advice. The commissioner also recommends that legislation should be amended to deal with public servants entering into contracts or agreements involving the Public Service. This recommendation will be considered. I table it, and members will also receive a copy.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Water Resources Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.08 a.m.): I want to put on record the many initiatives this government has undertaken or has in train to harness, conserve and use water in the most economical and environmentally responsible way. This is an important ministerial statement which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. I urge members to read it. Water is one of the biggest problems confronting this nation. We have solutions but we need everyone to be supportive. Leave granted. In 2000 this Government introduced Queensland's new Water Act. Scientifically-based water resource plans appeared for the first time. With them came proper environmental flows, separation of water providers from natural resource managers, water trading, greater security for water users, price reform, water metering and rights to compensation for water users if a water allocation is reduced during the life of a water resource plan. Our water resource plans are supported in the new Water Act by Resource Operations Plans. Eleven water resource plans have been finalised in Queensland, with these planning activities covering 91% of the State. Three resource operations plans have been finalised with another two recently released. 31% of the State is covered by these plans. By 30 June 2007 it is anticipated that 20 Water Resource Plans and 16 Resource Operations Plans will be finalised. The South East Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy is considering the future growth needs of SEQ with particular attention on Toowoomba and the Gold Coast. It is nearing the end of Stage 1. It is complemented by a draft central Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy and one for North Queensland. All are being conducted in conjunction with local authorities. The Queensland Government recently approved a policy to allow the use of grey water and when the legislation is amended next year, homeowners in sewered areas will be able to water their gardens with waste water from laundry and bathrooms, even in times of severe water restriction. This will reduce demand on our potable water supplies. Water recycling is high on the Government's agenda. The Environmental Protection Agency's WaterWise program has invested more than $3M across 20 water recycling demonstration projects, including investigations into the large scale introduction of rainwater tanks. The EPA has also undertaken a least cost planning study in Gladstone and Cairns to identify a mix of demand and supply side options that will meet the future water needs for these communities at the least cost to both the governments and taxpayers of Queensland. Additionally, 11 Queensland businesses were recently awarded $211,000 under the Water Wise industry grants scheme to support the adoption of innovative technologies that significantly improve water efficiency. The WaterWise school education program has provided in-school water conservation lessons to some 40,000 primary school students in 15 shires throughout Queensland. This popular state government initiative has been adopted by Brisbane, Toowoomba, Gold Coast, Maroochy, Caloundra and Townsville councils who now employ their own WaterWise educators. In June 2004, the EPA launched it's $2M ecoBiz program, a support program which encourages improved resource efficiency in Queensland business through a combination of extension services, financial incentives, recognition and education. This program 29 Sep 2004 Ministerial Statement 2465 recognises the interdependencies between energy, water and materials use and offers an integrated approach to their conservation to improve both environmental and financial performance. The DPI is undertaking research into a range of water re-use applications using effluent and water efficiency measures in feedlots, aquaculture, field crops and horticulture. DSD is working with the Townsville, Toowoomba and Mackay City Councils to treat and deliver recycled water from sewerage plants to a range of industrial and rural users. Water efficiency measures being trialled in a number of places in the State will reduce the high levels of evaporation and seepage that annually reduce the quantity of water available to users significantly. But our measures are not just focused on demand side management. This Government is building and will build new water infrastructure such as dams and weirs to improve water supply and security, but these projects must be sustainable. For example, the Burnett River Dam and the Eidsvold Weir are well advanced. These will make available an additional 200,000 mega litres of water to the local area. In the case of the Capricorn Coast a pipeline from the Fitzroy Barrage was included in the list of projects submitted to the National Water Initiative. Far North Queensland planning studies have identified significant opportunities for using 50,000 mega litres of unused entitlements from Tinaroo Falls Dam and unallocated water from the Barron River. The proposed raising of Lenthall's Dam on the Burrum River and demand management strategies could meet demands in Hervey Bay until at least 2025. But we will not build dams for the sake of building dams. In his budget reply speech this year the Opposition Leader committed the National Party to a $1 billion policy that promises dams, dams and more dams without any regard to the impacts on our rivers, our farmers and our communities. We will not build dams on a political whim and leave the community and the environment pay the price for decades to come. Rather, our water policies will blend policies of new dams with better recycling, efficiency and planning to give Queensland the best overall outcome.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Smoking Bans Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.08 a.m.): I am delighted that the Queensland government's plan to protect people's health by introducing widespread smoking bans has been welcomed by the vast majority. I ask people to work with the government on this. The Health Minister will have more to say about this this morning. Smoking is killing more than 3,400 Queenslanders every year and causing more than 30,000 hospital admissions each year. Studies show that passive smoking is also a major health risk, and my government is tackling it head on. I seek leave to have the full details of my ministerial statement incorporated in Hansard Leave granted. As a responsible Government we must do everything we can to limit the effects of smoking on people's health. The new tobacco laws will begin coming into effect on January 1, next year. They will be reinforced by new laws restricting the display of tobacco products at point-of-sale—which will come into effect on December 31 next year. These are the toughest anti-smoking measures anywhere in Australia. They include proposals that are not yet being considered by other states in their plans to introduce further tobacco bans. The proposed changes mean that smoking will be banned: • on all patrolled beaches; • within 10 metres of children's playgrounds; • while standing within four metres of all building entrances; and • at all sporting venues administered by the Major Sports Facility Authority including Suncorp Stadium, the Gabba, the Queensland Sport and Athletics Centre (formerly QEII Sports Centre and ANZ Stadium), the Sleeman Centre, the Brisbane Entertainment Centre, and Dairy Farmers Stadium, Townsville. From December 31, 2005 there will be bans on: • the advertising of all tobacco products in retail outlets including tobacconists and duty-free stores and • the introduction of stronger penalties for retailers selling to children—including for the first time, an automatic suspension from selling. In addition any display of tobacco product names and prices will be severely restricted. From July 1, 2006 smoking will be banned: • in all indoor areas of liquor licensed premises; and • in all outdoor areas, where food or beverages are served and are contiguous to the operations within a business. Industry, unions and the general public, through more than 1300 submissions to the Government's review of the Act, have showed an overwhelming support for increased bans on tobacco smoking. 2466 Ministerial Statement 29 Sep 2004

Stronger penalties will apply to retailers selling to children. If convicted of selling tobacco products to a minor, a retailer will be banned from supplying tobacco products for six months on a first offence, 12 months for a second offence and three years for any subsequent offence. For the first time in Queensland, it will also be an offence for children to falsely represent their age when purchasing or attempting to purchase a tobacco product, similar to laws relating to the purchase of alcohol. Health Minister Gordon Nuttall will detail the new laws governing display of tobacco products to the House later today. I urge critics to remember that tobacco is a killer, examine the facts and work with the State Government to make the bans work. People should remember that there was opposition to the compulsory wearing of seat belts and to random breath testing. I would imagine that 99% of the population now accepts that wearing seat belts and random breath testing have saved hundreds of lives. The fact is that if these tobacco bans stop people from smoking we are going to save thousands of lives. I have to say to critics of our plans that there was widespread criticism in Ireland before the Irish Government introduced smoking bans on March 29 this year. There were many pessimists who predicted a revolt by pubs and who forecast the death of the pub and club industry. Two months after the bans were introduced the Irish Office of Tobacco Control reported that in 97% of premises inspected no-one was smoking and there was no evidence of anyone having broken the law. Clubs, pubs and restaurants should be heartened by the fact that Irish Government surveys revealed that before the bans 68% of those surveyed said they had visited a pub in the previous fortnight. After the bans, the figure actually rose to 71%. The increase in pub visits was accounted for by an increase in the number of non-smokers while the number of smokers did not drop off. The official surveys showed the number of restaurant visits was virtually unchanged. In Norway about 100,000 smokers managed to break their addiction to nicotine in the period between the announcement of a proposal to ban smoking in all workplaces and the introduction of the legislation. This is a great opportunity for smokers in Queensland to stop using this extremely dangerous drug. There are arguments about how smoking bans should be policed when it comes to beaches and the doorways of buildings. We will consult with local governments about enforcement.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Task Force Argos Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.08 a.m.): I join the Police Minister by urging all members to inform their constituents that Queensland police have produced a booklet, web page and poster to educate parents as part of a campaign to protect children from the threat of Internet paedophilia. The Police Minister, Judy Spence, and I have congratulated detectives from Task Force Argos—from the Sexual Crimes Investigation Unit—for developing this educational material. We believe the Queensland Police Service is leading Australia with the development of the material. I seek leave to have the remainder of my ministerial statement incorporated in Hansard. I table a copy of one of the booklets for the information of the House. Leave granted. All parents should be frightened to learn that internet paedophilia appears to be on the increase, with sex offenders using this technology to contact, exploit and harm our children. All parents should obtain a copy of the guide, which will teach them about the dangers of online chat rooms and give them the information they need to reduce the risk to their children The Task Force Argos detectives are a very dedicated group of people who are to be commended for proactively policing the internet chat rooms and catching sex offenders. Paedophiles are being caught in this way and they are going to jail. The guide draws on Task Force Argos' experience in investigating child sex offenders operating within chat rooms, and from research conducted with international law enforcement agencies involved in internet investigations. Since 2001, when Task Force Argos began conducting covert operations in chat rooms, 44 people have been arrested for using the internet to either procure children for sexual acts, exposing children to indecent material, or distributing child pornography. Intelligence gathered from the investigations in Queensland has been shared with both national and international law enforcement agencies. There is now an increased awareness by internet sex offenders that police are patrolling chat rooms. But detectives posing as children continue to be inundated by paedophiles sending offensive images and seeking to meet them. The guide—titled Who's Chatting to Your Kids?—and accompanying poster should be available at all Queensland police stations or electronically at www.police.qld.gov.au. 29 Sep 2004 Ministerial Statement 2467

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Queensland Multicultural Festival Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.09 a.m.): On Sunday, 10 October the government will host the Queensland Multicultural Festival at Roma Street Parkland, showcasing the cultural excellence that sets the Smart State apart.The festival will offer something for everyone—food, music, dance and children's activities. As well as Paul Kelly and Christine Anu on the concert stage, three other stages throughout the day and evening will offer musical and dance performances and a world percussion event. This is about highlighting our strength in multiculturalism. I seek leave to incorporate details in Hansard. Leave granted. Plus, there will be an Aboriginal fire lighting ceremony around the cliffs and Lake at the Parkland. Special events will include a citizenship ceremony in the morning with 200 people from nearly 50 different countries becoming Australian citizens, and entertainment by the Queensland Police Pipes and Drums. And festival patrons should put on their dancing shoes to join in a dance extravaganza featuring Bollywood, Macedonian/Gypsy and Gujarati Garba dancing. The shortlisted entries in the government's new multicultural photographic competition will be on display, with votes encouraged in a People's Choice award. As well as the new festival at Roma Street and the new photo awards, we are supporting a range of other activities throughout October. In Bundaberg the Rotary Club has received $5000 for a multicultural food and wine festival on 10th October. In Woodridge the Tuvalu Queensland Community received $2,000 towards Independence Day celebrations that will help them present their culture to the broader community on 2nd October. The Japanese Society of the Gold Coast received $5,000 towards an educational multicultural festival featuring a range of ethnic groups, on 10th October. The Sinhala Association of Queensland received $2,000 for a Concert of Sri Lankan dance, music and drama on 23rd October at QUT Gardens Point Theatre in Brisbane And, at Brisbane City Hall the Queensland Cantonese Opera Association will stage a concert and seminar on 24th October, with nearly $2,000 in Government support. As well, my department has provided $2,000 sponsorship for the Multicultural Media Award in the 2004 Queensland Media Awards. I congratulate the shortlisted entrants—Petria Wallace from ABC television, David Kelly and Catriona Mathewson from the Courier-Mail, and Danielle Isdale from Ten News. The media play a crucial role in presenting multicultural and Indigenous issues and my government is happy to encourage and reward responsible reporting on issues like cultural diversity and migrant and refugee experiences.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Queensland Exports Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.09 a.m.): The latest official independent trade figures show the Queensland government's trade strategies are working to boost exports and create jobs for Queenslanders. I seek leave to incorporate the details in Hansard. Leave granted. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that Queensland exported goods worth more than $6 billion in the three months to July. The nominal value of Queensland's overseas merchandise exports rose to $6.1 billion, a 24% increase on the total of $4.9 billion for the three months to July 2003. The nominal value of merchandise exports to North-East Asia rose by 41% to $1.55 billion, Japan was up 39% to $1.75 billion, and South-East Asia rose by 29% to $558 million. The Government is targeting these markets because they include the global growth dynamos of India, China and South-East Asia. If we continue our effective strategies, these regions and countries will be future jobs factories for Queenslanders. Increases were also recorded for June quarter exports to the United Kingdom of 13%, New Zealand 12.5% and the United States of America 2.4%, compared with the same period last year. The government's trade and investment missions, such as the missions I led this year to South and North America, Israel, Europe, China, Thailand, Hong Kong, Japan and India, are part of our strategy of aggressively pursuing export opportunities. One in every five jobs comes from exports, and this rises to one in four jobs in the regions. 2468 Ministerial Statement 29 Sep 2004

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Premier's Export Awards Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.10 a.m.): The Queensland business community has again responded in an outstanding way to the Premier of Queensland Export Awards. This year 176 businesses across the state applied for the awards. A record 149 applicants, or 84 per cent, were received from regional centres. I seek leave to incorporate the details and the winners in Hansard for the information of all members. Leave granted. Nine Regional Export Award presentations and two Bilateral Chamber of Commerce Export Awards were supported by the Trade and International Operations Division in my Department. I had the honour of presenting the state awards at the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre last Thursday. These awards grow in both rivalry and stature each year, and the Smart State continues to outperform all other States and Territories in terms of the numbers nominating for Export Awards. This is no doubt linked to our support for Regional Export Awards, which recognise regional export champions. Exports account for one in five of all jobs, a figure which increases to one in four in the regions. In 2002/03 Queensland exports accounted for about $27 billion, or more than one-fifth, of the Gross State Product. In the three months to July 2004, Queensland exported goods worth $6.1 billion, a 24 percent increase on the $4.9 billion for the three months to July 2003. The winners I announced on Thursday deserve to share in the credit for these results. Eight Mile Plains-based company, Ausenco Limited, is Queensland's Exporter of the Year. It also took out the Services category award. Formed in 1991, Ausenco has become a global supplier of services to the mining industry. Its clients range from junior miners to some of the world's largest mining companies. It has an international reputation for projects in developing countries typified by remote locations with minimal infrastructure and difficult logistics. I congratulate Ausenco—an exporter of knowledge-intensive services. I was also pleased to present my Special Export Award to one of Queensland's best- known international business achievers, the Crocodile Hunter, Steve Irwin from Australia Zoo. He has done a fabulous job in promoting Queensland and our unique wildlife all over the world. Australia Zoo also took out the Tourism category award. Other category winners were: Agribusiness—Botanical Food Company from Palmwoods, Arts & Entertainment—Krome Studios from Fortitude Valley, Education—Griffith University Information & Communications Technology—Redmap Networks from Brisbane, Large Advanced Manufacturer—Alphapharm from Carole Park, Minerals & Energy—BM Alliance Coal Operations (various mines), Small to Medium Manufacturer—Jaden/Kanga Group from Burleigh Heads, Emerging Exporter—NOJA Power Switchgear from Murarrie, and Regional Exporter of the Year—Peanut Company of Australia from Kingaroy. I wish them the best as they prepare to represent the Smart State at the Australian Export Awards at the Gold Coast Exhibition and Convention Centre on 9th December.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Multicultural Assistance Program Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.10 a.m.): This year, through the Multicultural Assistance Program, my government is funding 66 events and projects across the state to promote the benefits of diversity and support multicultural groups and communities. I would urge all members to be supportive. I seek leave to incorporate details in Hansard to assist all members. Leave granted. On the Gold Coast we are supporting a project that will help improve services for young people from Japanese, Bosnian, Filipino, Bahai and Turkish communities, as well as young refugees. Gold Coast Family Connections, a network of 20 community and youth agencies, has employed a community worker with qualifications in social and child and adolescent welfare. The worker is working with young people on the kinds of services they need. 29 Sep 2004 Ministerial Statement 2469

As well as identifying gaps in service delivery, this project is empowering young people by encouraging them to have a say and it is also documenting the contributions of these young people to the local community. The worker, Chris Collins, is producing a report to be provided to the agencies to help them improve their services and create new ones that might be necessary. The report will also be provided to local community leaders and local schools, to ensure the voices of young people from migrant and refugee groups are heard. The project has been overseen by a steering committee comprising the Multicultural Families Organisation, Reconnect Gold Coast and The Smith Family. My government has provided $10,000 funding for the project and I'd like to congratulate the groups and individuals involved. This project is a good investment in the future of young people on the Gold Coast who come from a variety of cultural groups.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Terrorism Preparedness Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.10 a.m.): I want to assure Queenslanders who may be concerned about the threat of terrorism that the Queensland government is doing everything it can to ensure their safety. In fact, we are in the middle of a two-week exercise designed to hone the skills of the Queensland Police Service and other security agencies protecting Queensland from the threat of terrorism. Exercise Line Breaker is the most challenging and extensive tactical response exercise undertaken in Queensland, involving police personnel from across the state, interstate and the Australian Defence Forces. I seek leave to incorporate the full details in Hansard so all members can be informed. Leave granted. The first stage started in Townsville on September 15 and ended on the 18th. The second stage started on Monday September 20 and ended on September 23. Line Breaker was part of the National Counter Terrorism Committee's (NCTC) ongoing exercise program designed to ensure Australia has effective, co-ordinated systems in place to deal with potential terrorist threats. The NCTC met earlier this month to consider security measures in Australia, particularly in relation to surface transport. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Australian Federal Police provided a briefing about the Jakarta bombing on 9 September, the ongoing joint investigation between the AFP and the Indonesian National Police and the current security environment. The NCTC noted that despite the attack in Jakarta, the level of national counter-terrorism alert remains unchanged at medium, as it has since 12 September 2001. The threat environment is constantly monitored to ensure that national security policies and arrangements are appropriate in the circumstances. As on previous occasions the NCTC noted that an informed and vigilant public is an effective preventive mechanism. Members of the public should report any suspicious behaviour or event immediately to the relevant authorities. This might include unusual videotaping or photography of official buildings or other critical infrastructure, suspicious vehicles parked near such buildings, abandoned luggage or unusual purchases of fertiliser, chemicals or explosives. In emergencies, contact should be made with police through 000. Other information should be reported immediately to the 24 hour toll free National Security Hotline—1800 123 400. The NCTC noted advice from the Department of Transport and Regional Services that additional transport security measures have been implemented since the Jakarta bombing, with a focus on air and sea routes to and from Indonesia. More stringent and visible security measures are in place in major airports and ports, including baggage and passenger screening on direct flights to and from Indonesia. The NCTC noted the ongoing efforts of State and Territory Governments to establish and maintain appropriate security measures based on good security planning, incorporating national and international best practice. All jurisdictions confirmed that they are continuing to work closely with the private sector to ensure that Australia's critical infrastructure is protected from terrorist attack, that single points of failure are minimised and rapid and tested recovery arrangements are in place. In particular, governments are discussing risk assessment with owners and operators of critical infrastructure as well as the possible security actions that should be considered if the threat to a particular piece of infrastructure or to an industry sector was to increase. As a nation Australia plays host to range of sporting events and community gatherings. Being able to do so is an important part of the Australian way of life. Recent experience in hosting the Rugby World Cup, the Sydney Olympics and CHOGM means that law enforcement and security agencies have well-tried plans in place for major venues around the country. The NCTC confirmed that all reasonable security measures are in place for major community gatherings and sporting events and they continue to be reviewed, based on the current security environment. 2470 Ministerial Statement 29 Sep 2004

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

ICT Companies Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.11 a.m.): Queensland's smart information and communication technology companies are making excellent progress in the United States, the world's biggest-spending ICT market. I want to keep members informed about this export. I seek leave to incorporate the details in Hansard. Leave granted. The United States is a sought after market by Queensland's ICT sector, but it is not an easy market to break into. So in July 2003, my Government introduced the US ICT Fast Track program to help smart Queensland ICT companies gain entry to the market. The program provides a range of services that pave the way to market entry. These include pitching training, strategic partnering assistance, advice on establishing US sales offices and expert technical assistance from Queensland's American Technology Advisory Council. The services have a variety of methods of delivery, including videoconferencing, individual consultations both here and in the US, as well as workshops and seminars. Since July 2003, this program has helped 17 companies with in-market advice and assistance that has helped them get a foothold in this lucrative market. As examples, Next Generation Videos and the RSPCA Queensland have achieved export sales totalling almost two million dollars with the help of the US ICT Fast Track Program. Next Generation Videos was linked to a US distributor through the program and has achieved orders worth more than $700,000 for its electronic games preview product. It expects another $1.7 million in retail sales over the next 18 months. What makes this achievement all the more remarkable is that prior to participating in the US ICT Fast Track program, this Gold Coast company had never sold directly to the United States. RSPCA Queensland has sold its world-leading pet shelter management system to three pet shelters in the United States this year as a result of participating in the program. Many more orders are expected to follow. We will continue to develop initiatives in this program to make sure that Queensland technology companies are well placed to compete in the world's most lucrative ICT market.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Toowoomba Carnival of Flowers Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.11 a.m.): On Saturday, 18 September, I had the great pleasure of officially opening the 55th Carnival of Flowers in Toowoomba. Again it was an excellent occasion and one deserving to be recognised for what it is. I seek leave to incorporate details in Hansard. I thank the Toowoomba community for their support in their staging of this major event. Leave granted. Every September, Toowoomba becomes the nation's floral "showcase". It bursts into Spring life with the most envied, splendid display of colour. It is no surprise to me that its gardens—both public and private—attract scores of thousands of visitors and envious gardening enthusiasts from across Australia and overseas. The Carnival—centred on The Chronicle's Home Garden Competition—is the longest floral competition of its type in Australia. The day—the Heritage Parade—and the Civic Reception—the formal welcome from soldiers from Oakey and Cabarlah—were all in keeping with the high standards we all know Toowoomba is famous for. I was fortunate to visit one of the city's great treasures—Laurel Bank Park. In 1932 Samuel George Stephens donated 10-acres of land in the city's west—bordering Herries and West streets—to the people of Toowoomba. It is magnificent garden and Mr Stephens would indeed be proud of how the Council keeps it. While in Toowoomba I also presented Toowoomba Mayor Councillor Di Thorley with a Smart State hibiscus marking the Garden City's 100 years. The floral tribute—courtesy of the Hibiscus Society of Queensland—is symbolic of the rest of Queensland recognising Toowoomba and its floral contribution to the State and nation. The Smart State hibiscus is an orange, mauve and yellow double flower. When in bloom it will be about 22.5cm across when in full bloom making it one of the biggest double flower varieties. I want to place on record my thanks to the Hibiscus Society of Queensland President, Mrs Gynith Whatmough, and the man responsible for its grafting and development, retired dentist Fred Westerman, for their generous assistance with the hibiscus. Mr Speaker Toowoomba will officially celebrate its 100th birthday on October 20 with the official civic functions set on October 23 and 24. I wish the Mayor—and indeed all Toowoomba residents—well for this grand occasion. 29 Sep 2004 Ministerial Statement 2471

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Office of the Governor Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.11 a.m.): I would like to advise the House that in consultation with Her Excellency the Governor, Quentin Bryce AC, a review is being undertaken of the governance arrangements for the Office of the Governor. The review is being undertaken to ensure that the Office of the Governor provides quality support to the Governor and reflects contemporary public administration. The terms of reference for the review focus on the office's annual budget and Ministerial Portfolio Statement processes, human resource arrangements, and processes for developing a capital works and maintenance program. Consultations with Her Excellency the Governor have been very positive. The last review of the Office of the Governor was undertaken by the Public Sector Management Commission in late 1993, and 11 years on it is timely to review those operations. This review is not at all unusual for a public office. I want to be very clear that this review is not about the role of the Governor but the administration of the Office of the Governor. The review is being undertaken by former senior public servant Simone Webbe. Simone is uniquely qualified to undertake this review, having served as a senior executive in a contemporary public service environment as well as holding appointment as a clerk of the executive council for almost nine years. Simone has a high level of understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the Governor, and of the relationships between the Governor, the Office of the Governor, and Queensland's executive government. The review commenced in September and a report will be provided in November 2004.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Vocational Education and Training Hon. A.M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education and the Arts) (10.13 a.m.): Our government is committed to implementing our learning and earning agenda. We want to make sure that every young Queenslander has the best possible chance of making a successful transition from school into work, further training or higher education. Vocational education and training is playing an increasingly valuable role in making this a reality. As more young people choose to stay at school, it is important that we make school more relevant to a wider range of students, not only those who intend to go to university. Last month, Minister for Employment and Training, Tom Barton, and I informed schools of improvements to be implemented over the next two years to the way vocational education and training is delivered in Queensland schools. Schools are now being encouraged to deliver qualifications directly from nationally accredited training packages instead of vocational education and training taught through embedded school subjects. This change will give industry greater confidence that students are receiving the highest quality and most up-to-date vocational education and training available. On top of this, our students will be undertaking the same training packages as adult learners so employers can expect more consistency in the skill level of employees. Student work placements will also be reviewed to deliver real value to both students and potential employers. We will be researching what makes up a quality work placement experience and delivering new guidelines to schools by 2006. All these changes are laying the foundation for our new learning or earning laws. From 2006, all young Queenslanders will have to be in education, training or work until they are 17. This fresh approach responds to calls from industry for an overhaul of VET in schools. Industry was telling us that they wanted employees who had completed whole qualifications that meet specific industry standards. At present some students are leaving school with only partially completed qualifications, leaving gaps employers believe they are having to fill. Schools will also be encouraged to develop stronger links with TAFE and private registered training organisations so students can access an even wider range of VET programs. Our new approach to VET will give school leavers greater work readiness and access to higher qualifications. This is in stark contrast to the Howard government's response to the skills shortage. After creating Australia's current skills shortage crisis through neglect, John Howard is now attempting to cobble together a response in the dying days of the current election campaign, as my colleague the member for Waterford, Tom Barton, told the House yesterday. Just as the Howard government's schools policy is a duplication, so too is their plan to create 24 so-called technical specialist schools, duplicating a system already there, and it underlines his contempt for public education and the world-class public TAFE institutions. Regardless of the failures of the Howard government to accept a national approach to this issue, our government remains committed to building world-class skills, especially for young Queenslanders. 2472 Ministerial Statement 29 Sep 2004

With the support of my colleague the Minister for Employment and Training, the strong partnership between the education and training sectors in Queensland will continue to underpin real programs that are well planned and properly funded.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

SmartVET Industry Training Partnerships Hon. T.A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations) (10.16 a.m.): Honourable members will recall that in early August I launched SmartVET— Skilling for the Smart State, a visionary $1 billion skilling and training strategy to encourage Queensland students and workers to develop the technical skills and qualifications needed to build rewarding careers in our industry sectors. Today I am pleased to announce the first three of a series of targeted programs under SmartVET's Industry Training Partnerships Initiative. For the first time, lower-skilled and unqualified workers in key industry sectors—aviation, forestry, biotechnology and manufacturing—can gain formal qualifications through this important industry-government partnership. The $2.5 million initiative aims to create 2,120 new apprenticeships and traineeships during 2004-05 in new and emerging industries and priority industry sectors suffering skills shortages. A feature of the scheme is that it encourages companies to share the cost of programs on a 50-50 basis with government. In forestry, we have signed a three-year training contract with the Forest Industry Training and Education Consortium to train up to 81 workers in areas such as sawmilling processing and timber merchandising. In the aviation sector, up to 40 workers will be trained to certificate II level in aeroskills— a 370-hour course that upgrades the skills of key industry technicians. The Department of Employment and Training has signed a two-year contract with the Queensland Institute for Aviation Engineering to provide this training in regional and urban Queensland. In biotechnology and manufacturing, 55 workers will receive skills training in laboratory operations, chemical plant operations and manufactured mineral production. A three-year contract has been signed with Alan Bartlett Consulting, and the training program will start in Brisbane, Townsville and Cairns, to be eventually expanded to other regions. In coming months the government will roll out more pilot training programs under the SmartVET Industry Training Partnerships Initiative for workers in industry areas such as boat building, information technology and environmental services.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Meat Processing Industry Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for State Development and Innovation) (10.20 a.m.): I would like to highlight the success and expansion of Queensland's meat processing industry and the investment it is attracting to our state. When the Beattie government first came to power in 1998, Queensland made up 38 per cent of the nation's beef processing capacity. Earlier that year, a report to the then Borbidge government predicted that up to 17 meat processing plants would close and 5,000 jobs would be lost by 2003 unless the government worked hand in hand with industry to revitalise meat processing in this state. That is precisely what the Beattie government has done and now, thanks to state government support, our share of beef processing capacity has risen to almost 50 per cent of the national market. We have moved from 38 per cent to 50 per cent despite the predictions that we would lose thousands of jobs. Indeed, the Queensland meat industry has now become our largest primary industry with a combined turnover of $3.9 billion per year. On top of that, we are exporting around 80 per cent of our total meat output to some 80 countries. The good news now is that this growth has created over 14,500 new jobs for Queenslanders. We can certainly expect this trend to continue, thanks to ongoing industry investment. To date, the Beattie government's $20 million Queensland meat processing development initiative has stimulated a massive $200 million worth of investment in new capital and technology upgrades. Further significant investment is currently under way. For example, by the end of this month AMH, which is Australia's biggest abattoir operation, will have spent approximately $10 million at its Toowoomba facility to increase its capacity and in the process create 130 new jobs for the community. Oakey abattoir has also commenced a $50 million, four year expansion project which will double its production and create 500 new jobs. In November, Tender Plus will break the ground on a $7 million new smallgoods plant at Burleigh. This company was also a proud finalist in the agri-business category of the Premier's export awards just last week. They received this recognition for their successful efforts in the Asian meat market. 29 Sep 2004 sitting hours; order of business 2473

But the good news does not stop with these few examples. In recent years Queensland has attracted AMH operations away from New South Wales and the company now operates its meat processing business exclusively in this state. Nippon Meat has also nominated to expand its Queensland operations. OSI International Foods has decided to concentrate all of its Australian activities in Queensland, moving New South Wales jobs and their corporate headquarters here to Queensland. Mr Palaszczuk: Great news. Mr McGRADY: It is great news, Minister for Primary Industries. Discussions are also currently under way with two major meat processors who are interested in relocating to the Smart State. It is really no wonder that Brisbane was chosen to host the world meat conference next year. Indeed, by putting this industry firmly on the agenda, the Beattie government has made Queensland the meat processing capital of Australia. Before I close, can I acknowledge the excellent work done by my ministerial colleague, the Hon. Henry Palaszczuk. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Smoking Bans Hon. G.R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Health) (10.23 a.m.): A central plank to the widespread smoking bans introduced by this government is to protect young Queenslanders. Stringent limits on the display of tobacco products, brand names and prices are a key part of this policy. These changes will complement our comprehensive new smoking bans—the nations toughest—to combat a massive death toll which can be directly attributed to smoking. To make a real difference, smoking needs not only to be banned in the areas already outlined by the government, but reforms are also needed to prevent young people from taking up the habit. As of 31 December next year, proposed reforms introduced by this government will include: allowing only one tobacco product display unit per retail outlet; limiting the size of a tobacco product display unit to one square metre; for tobacconists, limiting the size of a tobacco product display unit to three square metres; banning the display of tobacco product cartons at all retail outlets; reducing the size of tobacco product price tickets from 100mm x 80mm to 80mm x 40mm; reducing the size of tobacco product price boards from one square metre to 0.5 square metres and require that only carton prices be displayed; and banning un-branded tobacco advertising at or near tobacco retailing premises. Currently under Queensland law there is no limit on the size of the display of tobacco products at retail outlets. As a result, tobacco retailers can display more than 1,000 packets of cigarettes, loose tobacco and cigars. Children are exposed, on almost every occasion on which they enter a retail outlet that sells tobacco products, to these power walls. These displays are a powerful advertisement for a product, albeit legal, that claims hundreds of lives across Australia every day. This government is serious about improving the health of Queenslanders. Proposals to reforms to the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act are not about infringing on civil rights or about restricting the profit margins of retailers. This is about public health. In line with the changing expectations of society and the now known ill effects of smoking and passive smoking, this government has a responsibility not only to those who do not smoke but to all Queenslanders. That is why this government has proposed the nation's toughest smoking bans and restrictions—bans and restrictions which, as the Premier said, have been welcomed by an overwhelming majority of Queenslanders. Within weeks I will be proposing to cabinet, after extensive study and consultation with key stakeholders, including local government, the means by which these new smoking bans will be enforced and of the penalties which will apply to those who breach the new legislation. It will then become even clearer that this government is absolutely determined to improve the health of Queenslanders. As I have said time and again, since this government's announcement of a record $5.13 billion health budget earlier this year, prevention is of equal, if not greater importance than cure in relation to health care. There is no doubt that the focus of health care is shifting to more preventative measures, and I have previously issued a challenge to every Queenslander to take more responsibility for their own health and well-being. But in partnership with individuals there also needs to be a responsible government with the courage to make the hard decisions. This government is willing to make the tough calls for the benefit of a healthier Queensland.

SITTING HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. A.M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.26 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing and Sessional Orders, General Business Order of the Day No. 1, Retirement Villages (Proxy Voting) Amendment Bill be postponed until a further Resolution of the House. Motion agreed to. 2474 Private Member's Statement 29 Sep 2004

Hon. A.M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.26 a.m.): I advise honourable members that the adjournment may be moved after the Private Members' Motion today to be followed by a 30 minute adjournment debate.

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Report Mr LIVINGSTONE (Ipswich West—ALP) (10.27 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House the Public Works Committee report No. 86 on its inquiries into the Great Walks of Queensland project. I would like to thank all those who assisted the committee with its inquiries. The committee appreciates the efforts involved in making submissions and appearing before the committee. I thank my fellow committee members for their assistance and support. I also thank the committee staff for their assistance. I commend the report to the House.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Health Services Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (10.27 a.m.): I give notice that I will move— That this House notes the deteriorating access for Queenslanders to urgent public hospital treatment and beds under the Beattie Government in South East Queensland and in particular: (a) the recent increase in the instances of the Emergency Departments going into bypass; (b) the closure of the Robina Oncology Unit due to staff shortages; (c) the deplorable situation of wards being unable to be used to a lack of nursing staff; and immediately calls on the Government to invest the unbudgeted $130m increase in GST receipts into the State public hospital system.

PRIVATE MEMBER'S STATEMENT

Energex; Mr G. Maddock Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.28 a.m.): The statement in parliament yesterday by the Premier on the death of Greg Maddock has left many unanswered questions, questions that must ultimately be resolved before there can be closure of this matter. The following are just some of those unanswered questions: what did Lyn Maddock mean when she said at her husband's funeral that her husband believed that he was about to be targeted in a very deliberate and personal way; who were these people that were targeting Greg Maddock and did they ultimately cause him to suicide? What statement was Greg Maddock making when he chose to take his own life at the Wilston Railway Station? What motivated Treasury to conduct its own investigation of Mr Maddock's expenses at the same time as the Auditor-General? Did Treasury start its investigation of Greg Maddock in retaliation for him raising concerns with the government that they had been advised of the extent of the power system crisis and the impact of the dividend raids, a fact that the government had been previously denying? Why are four former and current ministers for energy and the Treasurer still sitting in cabinet, having been promoted and absolved from responsibility for the power crisis, which the government created, when heads are rolling in the energy GOCs? Why were crucial documents or parts of documents left out of the Premier's statement to parliament yesterday? Why did the Beattie government act with such hypocrisy in launching its own investigation of Greg Maddock during the Auditor-General's investigation into his expense claim anomalies of $31,000 when, in contrast, all the government could do was to ignore and castigate the Auditor-General when he reported on the Beattie government's theft of $150 million in special dividends from Energex, an action that the Auditor-General described as potentially illegal? How is it possible that documents forecasting impending power distribution failures were sent to the Office of Energy and the Office of Government Owned Corporations, yet were not sighted by the responsible ministers— Time expired. 29 Sep 2004 Questions Without Notice 2475

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Energex; Briefing Note Mr SPRINGBORG (10.30 a.m.): My question without notice is to the Premier and follows on from the continuing and ongoing turmoil in Energex with the resignation of Sally Pitkin. Yesterday the Premier told the media that anyone who had any information that would assist in shedding light on the Energex affair should release it. One of the hundreds of documents the Premier blanked out when the opposition asked for information regarding advice from the Energex board was board memorandum No. 12715 dated 25 August 2003, the same date as the briefing note that he tabled yesterday that warned about impending failures in the distribution network. That is these documents here. I ask: will the Premier now practise what he preaches and release those documents to once and for all clean up this matter? Mr BEATTIE: I do not know the particular circumstances or details of the documents that the honourable member referred to. What I said yesterday in this House and what I said to the media was that I had asked for all the relevant documents, and I have now tabled them in the House. Under FOI legislation, if there are commercially sensitive arrangements, they are exempted under the act. That is an act of parliament that has been supported by both sides of politics, including when the Leader of the Opposition was in the ministry. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has asked the question. Mr BEATTIE: I assume that those matters relate to commercial-in-confidence. I have indicated that if there are relevant documents, I am happy to provide them. I will go back and ask for a report from Treasury as to what is their nature. I assume that they would be commercial matters in terms of commercial sensitivities. I do not believe that they will be relevant to this matter. I will examine them. If I believe that they are relevant to the matters that I have tabled before the House and not the normal commercial sensitivities, then I will table them in this House or I will release them publicly. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition's contribution in his three-minute speech and I ask for one thing. The government should be accountable, and I do not move away from that for one minute. I believe it is appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to ask me whatever questions he wants. However, I really would appeal to him and the opposition to be sparing in what they say about Mrs Maddock and the Maddock family. I have gone to great pains to try as much as I can to minimise the hurt that that family is feeling. I do not personally believe it is appropriate for us to be trying to examine in here what Mrs Maddock said at the funeral. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to refrain from doing that. I would ask him to try to— Mr Seeney: He leaked the information to the media. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. That is my final warning. Mr BEATTIE: I ask him to try to deal with the issues. We will be fully accountable on those, but please let us have some courtesy and decency for the Maddock family. Let them try to have some peace as best they can. Energex; Briefing Note Mr SPRINGBORG: I refer the Premier to the briefing note of 25 August 2003 that he tabled in parliament yesterday and which he and his ministers claim was not seen by the responsible ministers, even though it was provided to the Office of Energy and the Office of Government Owned Corporations. I ask: if it can be established that the briefing note had actually been provided to Minister Lucas and Treasurer Mackenroth, will the Premier sack them? Mr BEATTIE: I have indicated to the House and I have indicated publicly that both the ministers concerned were not aware of the briefing note. I have the briefing note with me and I tabled it in the House yesterday because I felt that all relevant material should be provided, and I have done that. I have already given an indication in relation to the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition this morning that if there are matters that need to be provided that are relevant, I will do that as well. This briefing note is part of the normal chatter that takes place between Energex, the Office of Energy, parts of Treasury, GOCs and so on. It is not signed by Greg Maddock, nor is it signed by the chairman. This is part of the ongoing communication that takes place. Communications with the ministers, and that included Paul Lucas and the Treasurer, is done by the chairman of the board. That is the official process. It is not usually done by even the CEO of GOCs, bodies like Energex itself. This document that I have released does not highlight a crisis in the network. While it may outline the high utilisation of the network, the only significant short-term capital spend proposed was in the Brisbane CBD reinforcement project that the government endorsed on 8 July 2004 after receiving a business case in May. There is ongoing communication with Energex. There is a— 2476 Questions Without Notice 29 Sep 2004

Mr SPRINGBORG: I rise to a point of order. My question was simple: if the Premier has been misled by his ministers, will he sack them? That is a very simple question. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. Mr BEATTIE: I trust my ministers and I accept their word. I know that, on the advice that they have been given, they were not aware of this memorandum Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Callide, I have already warned you. I now warn you under standing order 253. Mr BEATTIE: Our honesty in this matter is demonstrated by the fact that we tabled the memorandum in the House. The Leader of the Opposition knows about this because I shared it with the people of Queensland. I have pursued where this was. There is ongoing communication between Energex and the Office of Energy. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. You have asked the question and you will give the Premier the courtesy of answering it. Mr BEATTIE: I have answered the Leader of the Opposition's question here. I have been very specific. I have endeavoured to provide whatever information is required. I have a detailed assessment of the briefing note. I am quite happy to provide this information. I am happy to answer questions in relation to the briefing note. Mr Springborg: What are you hiding? Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. We talk about robust debate in this place, but this is rude debate. I ask you to come to order. Mr BEATTIE: The Leader of the Opposition has asked me a hypothetical question. I have indicated that I have had assurances from my ministers and I trust them. The question that he asked is hypothetical. I am satisfied that they did not receive or did not know, as ministers, about this memorandum. Unemployment Mr REEVES: The Beattie Labor government has never resiled from its effort to cut unemployment in this state. Apart from detailing the state's position, can the Premier detail how we are performing in relation to the rest of the nation and, indeed, how we are contributing to the overall national position? Mr BEATTIE: In 1998 when we were running for election, I promised that we would deliver jobs, jobs, jobs and we have delivered, delivered and delivered. I am sure that every member is delighted that Queensland—as we know, the Smart State, the engine room of Australia—has recorded a trend unemployment rate of 5.6 per cent for August. This is the lowest rate since labour force figures began in their current format in 1978. The Beattie government has now matched the Australian average despite having to cope with a much higher growth in the number of job seekers. For instance, last month our labour force went up by 4,200 people while Australia's went up by only 1,700. The participation rate measures the number of people who want to participate in the job market. Queensland's participation rate rose from 64.7 per cent 12 months ago to 65 per cent last month, the joint highest rate in the country with Western Australia. So we have had to create thousands more jobs just to cope with the increasing number of people looking for work before we could even start to lower the unemployment rate. I just remind everyone that unemployment during part of the previous government—the coalition government, the conservative government—was 9.5 per cent. But look at this: last month alone we created 5,800 jobs while Australia as a whole lost a net 5,400 jobs. Thanks to Queensland, the net result across the country was an increase of 400. If it was not for Queensland, unemployment across the country would have increased. We saved Australia. What this shows is that John Howard's claims that his government is responsible for employment growth are nothing more than nonsense. We have produced employment strategies that work and our industrial relations system is fair for both sides, being designed to solve problems rather than produce confrontation. The strike rate in Queensland is the lowest since the Australian Bureau of Statistics began compiling figures in 1970. Last month we accounted for 6,700 of the 7,100 full-time jobs created in Australia. But this is the heart of my point: what this means is that Queensland was responsible for 94 per cent of all full-time jobs created in Australia last month. How about that, Mr Howard! Over the last 12 months Queensland, with 19 per cent of the population, created 45 per cent of all new full-time jobs—that is, 81,500 of 181,600—and 39 per cent of all jobs—that is, 77,200 of 196,000. Queensland also recorded an annual employment growth of 4.2 per cent, double the national average of 2.1 per cent. We are the undisputed jobs factory of Australia, and we will strive to continue that 29 Sep 2004 Questions Without Notice 2477 reputation so that we can drive our unemployment rate down even further. Queensland also recorded a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 5.5 per cent compared with the national rate of 5.7 per cent. We are the engine room of Australia. Energex; Mr G. Maddock Mr SEENEY: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and I wish the Treasurer were here to answer it because it is a question that the Treasurer should answer in this parliament. Mr SPEAKER: If the Treasurer is not here, who are you addressing the question to? Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker, in the absence of the Treasurer, I will address— Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. That is all we needed. Mr SEENEY: In the absence of the Treasurer, I will address the question to the Premier, and no doubt we will get some more second-rate acting in response. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is that the question or what? Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker— Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is unparliamentary. Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker, my question— Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is unparliamentary. You will withdraw. Mr SEENEY: What is unparliamentary? Mr SPEAKER: You will withdraw those comments. It is unparliamentary, and I will rule the question out of order if you proceed with it. Mr SEENEY: I withdraw. Mr Speaker, my question without notice is to the Premier in the absence of the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer's special investigation team that was set up to investigate the expense claims of Energex CEO Greg Maddock after questions were asked by the Auditor-General. Members will no doubt recall that the Auditor-General also asked a number of far more serious questions about much larger sums of money paid by Energex as special dividends without proper documentation and with doubt about their legality. If any member of the House has forgotten, Mr Speaker— Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will just ask the question. Mr SEENEY: If any member of the House has forgotten, I will table the marked document—that is, the Auditor-General's report. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Ask the question! Mr SEENEY: Premier, no such team of special investigators was set up to investigate that issue. In fact, the Auditor-General was chastised as I remember. Premier, why was the response of the Treasurer to the Auditor-General's questions so much more zealous when it came to responding to questions about the Energex CEO's expenses? Mr BEATTIE: I am the Acting Treasurer and I am happy to answer this question as the Acting Treasurer. The difference is stark and it is clear. The board of directors of Energex approved the dividends. The board of directors did not approve this verbal contract. It is very simple. It is black and white. There is no argument. There is no grey area. It is black and white. Let me move on and say this: cabinet approves guidelines for contracts. It approves necessary standards. In this case, those standards and guidelines were not followed. That is why the Auditor-General appropriately wrote to the shareholding ministers and asked for a report. Let us be really clear about one thing, and I want to clear up a misconception, because the member who asked the question and the Leader of the Opposition have both made the same mistake: they have in some way tried to impugn the reputation of Treasury officers who are simply doing their job. Let me explain the process to them; it is very simple. The Auditor-General, through his normal accounting processes, found that there were some figures that needed to be reported on—that is, the $30,000 figure. He wrote to the shareholding ministers. He wrote to the Treasurer. He asked a whole series of questions, and I tabled in the parliament yesterday the letter that he wrote to the Treasurer and the letter that he wrote to Don Nissen as chairman of the board. How does the shareholding minister and how does the Treasurer respond to the Auditor-General? What they do is this: they set up a process. Under the GOC Act, there are appropriate processes here within the law to actually examine— Mr Seeney interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The member does not want an answer, because I am giving him the answer to his question. The Treasury unit that examined this was doing it to provide information to help answer the Auditor-General. Not only was it appropriate; it was the normal accountability mechanisms that would apply. So what we have is a chain of events. The Auditor-General asked some questions. The Treasury 2478 Questions Without Notice 29 Sep 2004 people are required, under the act, to answer those questions by doing what? By asking Energex to provide answers. People were interviewed. People were then asked to explain circumstances. The culmination of that then came in a report which I received on Monday which I then sent back to the Auditor-General and which I tabled in this House yesterday. The third part of this process is that what happens now is that the Auditor-General will consider all of the material that I have given him and all of the material that I tabled in this House yesterday and he will in turn report to this parliament. That is the process. This is not rocket science. This is the process of how we do it. Let me ask members opposite one question: how else was the Treasurer going to answer the Auditor-General's questions unless he had people in Treasury actually asking Energex to provide the answers? It is very simple. Any fair-minded person would understand that proper and due process has been followed here, painful as it has been. Water Desalination Plant, Dalby Mr SHINE: My question is directed to the Premier. The Premier has visited the Darling Downs twice in the past 10 days. Apart from again opening Toowoomba's 55th Carnival of Flowers in Toowoomba, can he detail what Smart State opportunity he undertook while in Dalby? Mr BEATTIE: I can, and I thank the member for Toowoomba North. Local governments around Australia could benefit from the Dalby Town Council's experience in developing a water desalination plant to suit local needs. Last Tuesday I, along with the Natural Resources Minister, Stephen Robertson, had the great pleasure of visiting Dalby and opening its desalination plant. The Dalby council officers spent 12 months studying existing systems in Australia and the United States before designing a system best suited to the local needs. That is smart—studying the best available in the nation and the United States and then localising it. My government provided more than $1.12 million or 40 per cent of the plant's $2.8 million cost. I understand that it is capable of supplying 500 megalitres of water a year, equivalent to 25 per cent of Dalby's total annual supply, and it can be duplicated. In the three months it has been operating, it has performed slightly ahead of expectations. Put simply, brackish water from underground is pumped to the plant where it is purified, the major impurity being salt. The result is a real credit to the Dalby Town Council and its staff. The development of desalination technologies is part of my government's water reform strategy, and I reported on that in the House this morning and the minister has reported previously on it. That reform strategy, which we are working through with local councils, is to develop new water supply strategies. We need Smart State thinking on this issue throughout Queensland's 1.72 million square kilometres, because so much of that vast area can be subject to the extremes of droughts and floods. Water reform is an essential element in ensuring the social and economic wellbeing of Queensland's regions, a matter which is of paramount importance to my government. On 25 and 26 November the Dalby Town Council will be conducting a water symposium which will be based on the new plant. I understand that there has already been a great deal of interest from councils around Australia. I extend to the Dalby Mayor, Councillor Warwick Geisel, all the best for the symposium's success, and I congratulate the minister and the local council on this initiative. While I was in Dalby, one of the things that I made reference to during my opening address was that cabinet has been advised—and Stephen Robertson has been responsible for a briefing of cabinet— about changes to water patterns, which is also something that the Minister for Primary Industries has been heavily involved in. The reality is that, on the advice that the government has been given, our rainfall will be less and there will be more violent storms. Our weather patterns are changing. Therefore, the strategies of desalination plants and water reform are vitally important. I say to all Queenslanders, whether they live in the bush, the regions, or the city, that we have to protect water and do more with it. Directors-General, Contracts Miss SIMPSON: My question is directed to the Premier. When the Premier took office in 1998, he personally signed off on some contracts for directors-general. In addition to six return flights to and from Melbourne, one of the arrangements that he agreed to allowed the director-general of the Attorney- General's Department rent for their private home for more than 16 months, a television set, a TV stand, two two-and-a-half person sofas, a four-piece bedroom suite and a seven-piece dining set. I ask the Premier: given the need for Don Nissen to resign yesterday because he had not exercised caution in assessing what was personal expenditure, is the Premier not guilty of that failure? Why did the Premier not refer his own judgment to the Crown Solicitor for advice? Mr BEATTIE: I do not recall all the details now of the transitional arrangements for the former director-general of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General to get her to move to Queensland. If I recall correctly, her circumstances were the subject of many questions and debates in this parliament and at the estimates committee. She subsequently returned interstate. There is nothing wrong with incentive programs and assistance to encourage senior people such as the CEO of Energex or the head of the Attorney-General's Department to relocate and move to 29 Sep 2004 Questions Without Notice 2479

Queensland. The difference is very simple: the processes that were followed in relation to the head of the Attorney-General's Department were ticked off through the normal process. They were the subject of considerable public scrutiny, but they were approved appropriately. The difference here is very simple: in terms of Energex, the guidelines approved by cabinet were not followed. No-one can unilaterally make decisions against the guidelines approved in the public interest. That is the difference. Again, it is stark. Again, it is black and white. Interruption.

PRIVILEGE

Mr G. Maddock; Documentation Tabled by Premier Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.52 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. Twenty-four hours ago, the Premier tabled in this parliament a whole range of documentation in relation to the death of Greg Maddock, which he said outlined this issue and substantiated a range of matters. Twenty-four hours later, those documents have still not been copied and they are still not available to any member of parliament—whether that member is a member of the opposition or the government—or to any member of the media who has requested them. Mr SPEAKER: That is not a matter of privilege. Mr SPRINGBORG: Quite frankly, that is ludicrous. This is what we expect in a Third World parliament. It has been 24 hours and still it has not been copied. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of privilege. This is an administrative problem; it is not the Premier's problem. Copies are available on demand by any member. If you request a copy of any item that is tabled in here, you may get it. That is not a matter of privilege; it is a matter of administration. Mr SPRINGBORG: It is a matter of privilege. Mr SPEAKER: No, it is not a matter of privilege. Mr SPRINGBORG: Mr Speaker, you are being misled. I have been informed as recently as a couple of minutes ago that the only documents that are available are selected documents. The whole range of documents, which were tabled yesterday and which have been requested in their entirety, are not available. They have not been copied. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I repeat again that this is an administrative problem that the Clerk will now correct. It is not a matter of privilege in this House. The Clerk has informed me that any document that is tabled in this House can be provided to members at their request. That has happened in the 15 years that I have been here. I have never once had a problem with obtaining items that have been tabled.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Resumed. Papua New Guinea Gas Pipeline Mr WALLACE: I direct a question to the smart minister of the Smart State, the Minister for State Development and Innovation. I ask: can the minister inform the House of the Beattie government's commitment to the PNG gas pipeline and the backflip from the federal Industry Minister, Ian Macfarlane? Mr McGRADY: In July of this year, I was invited by the federal Minister for Industry, Ian Macfarlane, to attend a meeting in his Brisbane office with the major proponents of the PNG gas pipeline. The idea of the meeting was to clarify any problems and to try to make a decision. The minister came into the meeting and said that he had $25 million to $30 million on the table, which would go to QAL to assist it in converting its coal fired steam boilers to gas. The condition of the $25 million or $30 million was that the gas would come from the PNG gas pipeline. He said that there was no demand on the Queensland government to match that, but he would appreciate it if we did. I had discussions with the Premier. The government made a decision that we would match the $25 million to $30 million up to a maximum of $25 million. So we have a situation where the federal government laid on the table $25 million to $30 million and we have the state government saying, 'We will go up to $25 million.' That is reasonable. I understand why the member has asked the question this morning. On Monday of this week, Mr Macfarlane issued a press release with a big fanfare saying that the federal government is prepared to give $10 million on the condition that the $10 million is matched by the state government. I had already telephoned Mr Macfarlane on two occasions to convey the decision of the Queensland government. The real issue is: where is the other $15 million to $20 million? The other night we had 2480 Questions Without Notice 29 Sep 2004

Mr Howard promising $6.9 billion. If the federal government cannot come forward with the $15 million to $25 million, the real question now is: what is going to happen to the $6.9 billion in election promises? This government is firmly behind the PNG pipeline. We are behind that pipeline because it will mean billions of dollars of investment in this state and thousands and thousands of jobs for our people during construction. The members opposite should get on the phone to Mr Anderson and Mr Macfarlane and ask them where the $15 million to $20 million is that Mr Macfarlane committed on this massive project, because once again he has reneged on his promise. Energex; Mr P. Turnbull Mr QUINN: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that Messrs Nissen and Kilmartin have resigned because they failed in their corporate responsibilities to inform the Energex board of the full terms and conditions of the late CEO's salary package, I ask: in light of these spectacular failures, why has Mr Turnbull, General Manager, Legal and Corporate Affairs and Group Company Secretary, been elevated and appointed acting CEO of Energex when the Treasury investigation found that he was aware of the remuneration arrangement and had a responsibility to identify and report this inconsistency with the remuneration guidelines to the chair and the board? Mr BEATTIE: I wonder if the Leader of the Liberal Party could repeat the last part of the question. Mr QUINN: In light of these failures, why has Mr Turnbull, General Manager, Legal and Corporate Affairs and Group Company Secretary, been elevated and appointed acting CEO of Energex when the Treasury investigation found that he was aware of the remuneration arrangement and had a responsibility to identify and report this inconsistency with the remuneration guidelines to the chair and to the board? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for his question. It is a good question. The answer to the second part, as to how he was appointed and why he was appointed, is this: that was a decision made by the then chairman of the board and the then board. That is not a government decision, as the member knows. The way the process works is that the government of the day appoints the chairperson and appoints the directors. Under the various Corporations Law that exists in this country, the board will actually appoint the CEO or, in this case, will appoint the acting CEO. The government was not consulted about the appointment of Peter Turnbull. We had views about that, but it was not our decision; it was a matter for the board. Now that the chairman has been appointed, he will have to consider the report in relation to Mr Turnbull and will then need to make a decision. I do not make any judgment about Mr Turnbull and that part of the debate. That is entirely a matter for the board. I would expect the new chairman, Ross Dunning, who is a very experienced chairperson of GOCs, to take on board what has been contained in the report. He will make a decision. There are two options: he either confirms Peter Turnbull as acting CEO or he finds another acting CEO. Whatever is the case, there will need to be a process gone through by Energex to find a CEO. That would be a normal national or even international process where applications would be called for this position. The minister is confirming that that is the case. That is what will happen from here. I think that is a succinct answer to the question. Electricity Outages, Role of the Media Ms BARRY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Energy. What work is being done to engage with the media to ensure they are actively providing information to customers relating to outages caused by summer storms? Mr MICKEL: In answer to the honourable member for Aspley, it is true that after the storms of February this year it was recognised that we had to upgrade the communications system at Energex. That is occurring. An important part of that strategy has to be recognised as engaging the media. Accordingly, I indicated to the House on the last day of the last sittings that I was to meet with radio executives, and that occurred. I have also, at the instigation of Channel 7 reporter Patrick Condren, initiated discussions with the television stations for the role they might play. Subsequently, we also had a meeting with the print media. These meetings were interesting. It was a good two-way session, hosted by Energex. As I have indicated, I met with the representatives. It has proven to be valuable to the process. We wanted to refine the information to the community in a way that is timely but also in a way that makes sense to the media. I assure the House that we now have a very good system with respect to communications—I am very confident with the upgrades made to it—but, because of the above-ground nature of much of the network, it is a fact of life that if we have a severe storm this summer there will be outages. We are trying to minimise it. One of the things that aggravates people is not knowing how long the outages will last and the reason for them. This is the role the media can play in this. I congratulate Mr Mike Swanston from Energex. We had a storm last week. Mike was sitting in the traffic, heard about the problem, checked with the communications system, rang 4BC and informed 4BC 29 Sep 2004 Questions Without Notice 2481 of the suburb that was to be affected and how long power was to be out. I commend Mike Swanston for that initiative. Anybody who has had a lot to do with him would realise that he is passionate about the organisation and wants to ensure that the information is out there in the public. In the interim, yesterday the Leader of the Liberal Party and the Independents—those who wanted to avail themselves of the opportunity—went up to view the communications system and ask questions about that. I see it as essential that they do that in the interests of informing their constituents about the measures that are available to them. In addition, Energex will provide an alert by email or fax to the media when major storms are imminent or when widespread outages occur. It is also launching a system called Storm Viewer to provide a summary by area identifying the outages, the number of customers affected and the details by suburb of estimated restoration times. It will also display storm activity via the web through Lightning Tracker and provide access to media spokespeople and updates including a post-storm wrap-up with media spokespeople. It is also implementing radio advertising arrangements for safety ads, for example 'stay away from fallen powerlines'.

Liquor Licensing Mr WELLINGTON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development. Over recent months there appears to have been a concerted push by some alcohol suppliers to significantly increase the number of alcohol outlets in our community, and I ask: does the minister have any concerns with the increasing number of alcohol outlets occurring in our community? If so, what will she do about it? Ms KEECH: I thank the honourable member for the question. My department, particularly the Liquor Licensing Division, takes its responsibilities with respect to investigating applications for liquor outlets very seriously indeed. In fact, recent amendments the Beattie government introduced allow councils and the police to have input into applications for licences for outlets such as bottle shops. In fact, local members of parliament regularly write to the Liquor Licensing Division to indicate the concerns of their constituents with respect to allocations of locations for liquor licensing. I say to the honourable member that there are very strict provisions and criteria in place. We do take community sentiment into account and take that very seriously indeed. We recognise the input of local members such as the honourable member. Film Production Mr HOOLIHAN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and the Arts. Minister, a major new feature film was announced to begin shooting in outback Queensland next month. Who is involved in the production and what does it mean for Queensland's film and television industry? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. I am delighted to see someone interested in the film industry in Queensland. It is an industry that employs literally thousands of Queenslanders. I could not be more pleased to advise the House that Winton, one of Australia's best- known outback towns and the birthplace of Banjo Paterson's Waltzing Matilda in the electorate of Mount Isa, will provide the backdrop for a major new feature film called The Proposition. It will be an Australia- UK co-production, and it will provide a boon for the 1,200-resident town. No doubt the local member will be very pleased to know that all accommodation in town is booked out for the eight weeks of filming. Mr Beattie interjected. Ms BLIGH: Not since the community cabinet meeting in Winton has that occurred, perhaps. The Proposition is slated to be shot entirely in Queensland. Filming will start in Winton on 11 October. Film buffs are starting to describe Winton as the potential 'Winniewood' of Australia. The Queensland government, through the PFTC, has invested $450,000 in production funding for the project and will also provide a rebate for every Queenslander employed as cast and crew. The film expects to employ about 120 crew, the majority of them from Queensland, and 30 actors to work on the film. The Proposition is an epic turn-of-the-century drama. It is an original screenplay. Members will be interested to know that it was written by Australian underground music icon Nick Cave. It is being described as a gothic western. It will be directed by John Hillcoat, who directed Cave's only other film, Ghosts of the Civil Dead. Producers include well-known Queenslander Chris Brown, who is best known for his work on Blurred and Under the Radar, and Sydney based Jackie O'Sullivan with UK partners Cat Villiers and Chiara Menage. The Proposition will be a great boost for the Australian film and television industry. It comes hot on the heels of recent TV projects including an SBS independent television series. RAN—Remote Area Nurse—recently commenced production in the Torres Strait. This will provide great spin-offs for indigenous people up there. 2482 Tabling of Documents 29 Sep 2004

More than $18 million in film production has been confirmed for Queensland so far in 2004-05. An Australian TV miniseries, Through My Eyes, wrapped up recently and will screen on the Seven Network next month. I would encourage members to watch that very carefully. They may recognise some familiar settings, because the Darwin courtroom scenes were shot in this building, when the Legislative Council chamber was transformed for filming of that miniseries. This miniseries spent $7 million in Queensland and will inject at least triple that into the Queensland economy. I am pleased to advise the House that I expect to be in a position soon to confirm production of two feature films at Warner Roadshow Studios later this year. It is pleasing to see that prospects are looking up for the Queensland film industry. It has gone through a very serious downturn, and I look forward to it continuing to rise. Prep Year Trial, Teacher Aides Mr MESSENGER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education. I refer to a recent incident at a prep year trial school that resulted in a stranger accosting a prep student when the student was on a solo trip to the toilets and left vulnerable due to the lack of supervision. Is it not correct that the minister received a briefing note from her department in 2003 outlining dangers such as this as a result of her policy of not allocating sufficient teacher aide time in the prep year? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. As he would be aware, as would many members who have taken an interest in the government's prep year implementation, there are many questions about how this prep year will be rolled out, and that is precisely why we are trialling the schedule so that we can get all the aspects of it right. There are questions about the curriculum, there are questions about the appropriate number of teacher aide hours, there are questions about the facilities, and we are working our way through every one of those. As the trial has been rolled out, yes, I have been advised on a number of occasions about concerns that people have about various aspects of the proposal. In fact, there has been an open and independent evaluation carried out which is available on the web site and which I have made available to the House. So any suggestion that this issue has been unknown to me is completely fanciful. In relation to the number of teacher aide hours, the 2003 prep schools were provided with an additional 15 hours of teacher aide time. This year, precisely because those concerns were raised, we made the rules more flexible and allowed this year's prep trial schools, from their general allocation of teacher aide hours, to supplement the designated prep year hours. Some schools have chosen to supplement the teacher aide hours and some schools have not. I received a preliminary report about how that was going in first semester. I look forward to seeing the overall report in second semester this year. These are matters which the government will take into account as we finalise all of the arrangements for the prep year. It is a very big undertaking. We do not for one minute claim that we have all of it right yet. That is precisely why the government nominated 2007 as the implementation year. We believe this is a very important part of the schooling experience in which to invest substantial funds. We are committed to getting it right. I look forward to continuing to work with all of the relevant stakeholders to make this prep experience one of the best that can be experienced anywhere in the country. Interruption.

PRIVILEGE

Energex; Answer to Question Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (11.12 a.m.): To assist the House in relation to a question asked of me by Bob Quinn, I am advised that the board has considered the position of acting CEO and will be providing a recommendation to shareholding ministers shortly. The government would be expected to have a view on this. We cannot announce the name before Executive Council approval anyway, but the process that I signalled before is now being followed.

TABLING OF DOCUMENTS Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I refer to the Leader of the Opposition's complaint earlier that documents tabled yesterday by the Premier were not available. I repeat again: copies of any document tabled in the House are available to members on request to the Table Office staff. As members are aware, the Premier tabled a large quantity of documents yesterday. Some of those documents were particularly lengthy. I am advised by the Clerk that the documents tabled yesterday have been available for viewing and copying since that time. Copies of some of those documents were provided on request yesterday. 29 Sep 2004 Questions Without Notice 2483

This morning three requests for complete copies of all those documents were received. One of these requests was from the office of the opposition, but it was indicated by the opposition officer that there was no rush for that material. Table Office staff indicated that it would take some time to copy some of the larger documents and that they would be provided as soon as possible. Otherwise, the documents were available for viewing. I table emails between the opposition office and the Table Office regarding this request. I reiterate: the documents are available for inspection at the Table Office and copies will be made. However, multiple copies of documents are not necessarily kept in advance, and requests for copies must be made within a reasonable time frame. I suggest that should members have difficulties with the administrative arrangements in the future they seek the assistance of the Clerk. I table those emails for the benefit of the House. Mr BEATTIE: I know there is nothing within the standing orders that would require this, but I believe that the Leader of the Opposition owes an apology to the Clerk and an apology to the parliamentary staff, and I invite him to do so.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Resumed from p. 2482. Year of the International Tourist Ms JARRATT: My question is directed to the Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development. I know that the Premier earlier this year declared 2004 Queensland's Year of the International Tourist. Can she advise the House if Queensland is reaping the benefits from this declaration? Ms KEECH: I thank the honourable member not only for the question but also for her absolute passion for the tourism industry in her electorate. On a recent trip last week to the Whitsundays I learned she is acknowledged by the tourism industry for her incredible work. In fact, she is known throughout the length and breadth of the Whitsundays as 'a hardworking Jan Jarratt'. It is all good news when it comes to the Queensland tourism industry because again the industry is booming. 2004 is proving to be an absolutely fantastic year, both with international and domestic numbers. Results released this month show a tremendous increase in international tourists coming to Queensland, with a 20 per cent increase on last year. Almost 160,000 international visitors have visited Queensland in July alone. We are way above the 13.6 per cent boost recorded across the nation. Early this year, as the member indicated, the Premier announced 2004 as the Year of the International Tourist, and the Beattie government has been working very hard with Tourism Queensland and industry partners to attract visitors from overseas. We have had some great increases in international air access to Queensland. In the last two quarters there has been a 20 per cent increase. That means more than 10,500 extra seats per week. More flights mean more tourists and this means more jobs, particularly for the regions. This year has seen the launch of non-stop Qantas flights from Los Angeles to Brisbane and expanded services out of Asia with Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific. Tourism Queensland recently announced a strategic realignment, with a greater focus on attracting high-yield international markets. TQ has implemented a new organisational structure to allow greater emphasis on priority niche markets such as ecotourism, indigenous tourism, backpackers—a particular issue for the Whitsundays which the member is working very well with—and food and wine tourism, another area which I am passionate about. TQ is determined to maintain its position as Australia's leading state tourism organisation and keep Queensland as Australia's No. 1 holiday state. It has certainly been a challenging year over the past few years for the Queensland tourism industry facing the effects of terrorist attacks in the USA and Bali, the Iraq war and the SARS outbreaks, but the news is good: international numbers are up and so are domestic numbers. In fact, in our regions, Brisbane recorded an amazing 13 per cent growth in visitor numbers. Visitor numbers were up nearly three per cent in tropical north Queensland, up more than six per cent on the Gold Coast and up more than eight per cent on the Sunshine Coast. Well done! The Beattie government knows the value of tourism, and we will continue to work to ensure the entire state enjoys the benefits of a strong tourism industry.

Energex; Mr R. Dunning Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: My question is directed to the Premier. The Premier announced yesterday that Mr Ross Dunning will assume the position of chairman of the board of Energex. While Ross is a very competent person, he already has a number of responsibilities, including chairing the Brisbane Port Authority and the Gladstone Port Authority, which is now renamed. Given that the Premier 2484 Questions Without Notice 29 Sep 2004 created a stand-alone portfolio for Energy recently, will Mr Dunning have sufficient time to give to this important and currently very sensitive role as chair of the Energex board? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Gladstone for her question. It is a good question. It is one that the Minister for Energy, John Mickel, and I spent some time agonising over. The member is right. Ross Dunning is not just the current chairman of Energex; he is also the chairman of the port of Brisbane authority and Gladstone. A government member: Central Queensland. Mr BEATTIE: Central Queensland Port Authority. I acknowledge the name change. As the member knows, that was an interesting issue locally. The reality is that Ross Dunning is our most gifted chairman, and he has enormous capacity. I believe—and I discussed this issue with him, as did John Mickel—that he is capable of doing the three jobs at the moment. The appointment period is until the end of June 2005. I have given him an understanding that we will review his position at that point. I have also indicated to Mr Dunning that if, along the way, he believes the work load is such that he is having difficulty doing any one of those other jobs, then we are obviously prepared to re-evaluate that and talk that through with him. To overcome the member for Gladstone's concerns, we have put in place, if you like, a review process amongst us to consider Ross Dunning's work load, but he is confident that he can handle the positions—at least until 30 June 2005. What happens beyond that remains to be considered. There are many things that will unfold here that we do not know—how the work load will be, what will happen, the CEO in place, all those things. I believe that he can cope with those positions. I give this undertaking to the member. The Minister for Energy will be only too happy to keep the member briefed. If she has any matters of concern in relation to local port issues, then I invite the member for Gladstone not only to talk to Ross but also to talk to the Minister for Transport, Paul Lucas, who is the key minister involved here, or if there are energy issues to talk specifically to John Mickel. I think that answers the member's question. We did address this issue prior to the appointment because we are mindful of the importance of the member for Gladstone's port and the Brisbane port. The member's port is one of the best performing ports in the world, not just in Australia. On my recent visit to Japan, when I had informal discussions at the state reception with coal purchasers from Queensland they acknowledged that our ports are in fact amongst the best in the world. It gives us a competitive advantage, whether it is Hay Point, Dalrymple Bay or Gladstone. We need to ensure that that competitive edge is maintained. We take this issue seriously, and we will be keeping a very close eye on it. Administration of Parliament Ms NOLAN: My question is to the Leader of the House. Can the minister advise the House if she has ever experienced any difficulties in the administration of the parliament or the circulation of documents or papers? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question, because it gives me an opportunity to put some things on the record that I think need to be put on the record in light of certain aspersions that have been cast this morning. I am very pleased to rise this morning and answer that question with the most resounding and unequivocal no. I have never experienced any problems in dealing with any officers of this parliament— the Clerk's office, the Hansard office, the Table Office or any officer in relation to the requests that I make of them. I know from discussions I have with other members from both sides of this chamber that that is something which has always enjoyed bipartisan support. To see the attack made upon them this morning I think is another step down in a spiral of negative politics. In my position I often have to call upon the officers of this parliament at short notice for documents that are urgently required. In most respects I do not think people appreciate what happens to run this place. Until people have had an opportunity to see the workings behind and outside of this chamber I do not think they realise what it takes to keep it churning over every day, and to do it effectively and efficiently on behalf of the elected members of the parliament. I want to take the opportunity, on behalf of all decent members of this parliament, to thank the officers for the work that they do. In light of this, it is absolutely astounding to me that the opposition would use their position this morning to make this attack. But I have to say that what is even more astounding is the circumstances that led up to it. What has become clear as a result of the point of privilege taken by the Leader of the Opposition—which may go down as one of the great own goals of all time—is that when the Premier tabled all of those documents yesterday about an issue of critical public importance in this state the opposition made no request for them. They sat there all day in the Papers and Table Office with no request that they be copied. I would have thought that the people of Queensland would expect the opposition to have spent the day and the night poring over those documents. The Premier is required to administer this 29 Sep 2004 Petroleum, Gas and Other Legislation Bills 2485 government transparently. Transparency is only as good as the people who bother to read the documents. It is the fundamental job of an opposition—it is their core duty—to scrutinise a government. It is the opposition's job description 101. The members opposite did not read the documents. They did not ask for the documents. They failed the test. This is without doubt the laziest opposition in the country. What other opposition would have failed to ask for the documents and then got up here and complained about not having them? Hospital Emergency Departments Dr FLEGG: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. In the past fortnight the emergency departments of several major public hospitals in south-east Queensland have been overstretched to such an extent that the departments have gone into bypass. Given that ambulances have been turned away from the PA, Logan, Gold Coast, Nambour and Noosa hospitals, with some Queensland patients ending up as far afield as Lismore in New South Wales, I ask: if Queensland's state public hospitals are appropriately funded and resourced by the minister's government—as he and the Premier repeatedly claim—why are our emergency departments increasingly unable to cope with Queensland's normal seasonal peak in urgent serious medical cases? Mr NUTTALL: Firstly, in relation to the question asked by the honourable member for Moggill, can I say that he really should not rely on newspaper reports to get his facts. Neither the Gold Coast Hospital, the Logan Hospital, nor any of the Brisbane hospitals that were referred to in the Gold Coast Bulletin last week were on bypass. Hospitals were busy. Some, of course, were at near capacity, but none were on bypass. Seriously ill patients are not turned away from our emergency departments. There is more respiratory illness at the moment, especially the flu, which has unusually coincided with school holidays. Many people who are unable to find a bulk-billing GP, as a result of regressive federal government policy, have been turning up at the Gold Coast Hospital for diagnosis and treatment. In any hospital bed demands fluctuate, and the Gold Coast Hospital has processes in place to deal with this when demand is high. The member for Moggill raised a number of issues in relation to our emergency departments. Let me go through our commitment in relation to emergency departments in this state. We have allocated $2.2 million to employ additional emergency department doctors and 20 additional nurses at some of our busiest emergency departments. There will be upgrades at the following five state hospitals: Gympie Hospital, $1 million; Logan Hospital, $3.3 million; Redcliffe Hospital, $800,000; Redlands Hospital, $1.3 million; and over the next two years, at a cost of some $9 million, we are upgrading the Robina Hospital so it has a brand new emergency department. We want four new GP bulk-billing clinics near our public hospitals. Can I say that we are being hamstrung by the federal government, because it is playing politics with the health of all Queenslanders. The federal government has agreed to a clinic at Redcliffe. The state government wants additional GP bulk-billing clinics at Toowoomba, the Gold Coast and Redland Public Hospitals. We cannot get that support from the Commonwealth government. In addition to that we are about to spend $77 million on the Prince Charles Hospital redevelopment and that will contain a new full-scale emergency department, four new operating theatres, 120 new beds, additional renal dialysis facilities and a new high-tech critical care unit. The government is well aware that hospitals are extraordinarily busy places, but from the government's perspective we have plans to address that.

PETROLEUM AND GAS (PRODUCTION AND SAFETY) BILL PETROLEUM AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading (Cognate Debate)

Petroleum, Gas and Other Legislation Bills Resumed from 28 September (see p. 2452). Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (11.30 a.m.): It is a pleasure to speak on these cognate bills in relation to the petroleum industry. The legislation before the House is comprehensive in its nature. I congratulate the minister and his department for the immense amount of work that has been carried out in the preparation of these bills for the consideration of the House. Petroleum is an expanding industry and, of course, is of critical importance not only to the economy of this state, but to the economy of Australia itself. Considering that the bill is not to be opposed, and hence is non-controversial in that sense, I will make some general comments. The Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Bill will result in a new act which will regulate petroleum exploration, production activity, pipeline licensing and manage safety issues. Some of the key elements 2486 Petroleum, Gas and Other Legislation Bills 29 Sep 2004 of the act address the grant and management of petroleum authorities, coal seam gas, underground storage, safety and land-holder issues, including compensation. This bill has been developed in accordance with the Council of Australian Governments' agreement on free and fair trade in natural gas, the Upstream Issues Working Group recommendations on acreage management, best practice safety management principles, which are identifying and managing risks, natural justice principles—that is, reviews and appeals, rights to compensation—and, finally, the coal seam gas regime, which was approved by cabinet in November 2002. The bill, of course, complies with the requirements of national competition policy legislation and reform. There are some important provisions with respect to the bill that I would like to touch on. First of all the bill provides a competitive regime for the awarding of all exploration tender—that is authority to prospect—and provides for strict compliance with conditions of the tenures. The holder of an authority to prospect can retain access to a discovery for a total of 15 years and the right to the grant of a production tenure or petroleum lease is preserved. The new bill implements the government's coal seam gas policy by including a specific chapter in the bill in this regard. The bill clearly defines the rights, obligations and priority for each type of tenure ensuring the optimum development of the state's coal and coal seam gas resource. Water, precious as we all know it is, is covered by the bill. Water is necessarily produced as a part of the production of petroleum. The petroleum tender holder's right to take and deal with water has been clearly defined and amendments to the Water Act are included. A new type of pipeline licence has also been introduced in the legislation to allow for the construction of pipelines in an area. This type of pipeline licence will enable a petroleum producer to link scattered production tenures under a single licence. As I mentioned earlier, safety is one of the most important issues and the regulation of safety in this bill has been transformed from the previous prescriptive approach to one where the industry itself must demonstrate safe working policy and performance. The bill, of course, provides for compensation where the land-holder's concerns are affected. This will provide for a uniform set of compensation provisions for the petroleum and mining industries in this state. It is very important that we do have that conformity. In summary, this particular bill will provide certainty and clarity for the future development of the industry in this state. With respect to the Petroleum and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004, the main feature of this bill is with respect to the avoidance of problems concerning native title. This bill provides the criteria to identify those tenures that are to continue under the Petroleum Act 1923 and those that are to become converted tenures under the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Bill 2004. The basis for the selection of the tenures is in relation to the need to address native title. The amendment to the 1923 Petroleum Act has been carefully structured to ensure that the amendments, although implementing the policy and administrative framework in the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Bill 2004, do not affect the rights that are afforded to petroleum tenure holders under the act. The failure to preserve existing rights for the continuing petroleum tenure holders may require the holders of those tenures to address native title issues and thereby negate the purpose of keeping the tenures under the Petroleum Act 1923. It is pleasing to see that there has been extensive consultation. The bill is not to be opposed. I commend the remarks of various members from both sides of the House, in particular the member for Surfers Paradise who, in summary, referred to the bills before the House as striking a reasonable balance between the need for further industry in Queensland—a very important point—and creating, on the other hand, a cleaner, more sustainable approach to industry and its relationship with the environment. I congratulate the minister and his department for the enormous amount of work that has gone into the preparation of these two bills before the House. I commend the bills to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (11.38 a.m.): I rise to speak in this cognate debate to raise a couple of issues that are of concern in my electorate. There has been a fair amount of comment in relation to gas conversion at Queensland Alumina in the current election campaign. Queensland Alumina have put on record that it is not interested in getting involved in politics in the run-up to an election, but it is my understanding that it has certainly not stepped back from its goal in terms of gas firing. Many projects in relation to gas may be assisted by this bill, in particular the PNG gas pipeline. There has been talk about many of the projects in my electorate converting to gas as a cleaner energy fuel and, indeed, one of the new projects that was looking to start up as a gas-fired project had to convert to coal because the PNG gas pipeline had not gone ahead. I believe the proponents are still very keen to see the PNG gas line project proceed, but they are seeking a sound customer base. For many people, access to cleaner fuel sources is something that they wish to see attained by as many industries as possible. In my electorate we have a lot of problems in relation to fine coal dust that enters people's homes. Irrespective of how astute they are in terms of trying to keep the house clean, 29 Sep 2004 Petroleum, Gas and Other Legislation Bills 2487 the dust gets in. As a community we are certainly supportive of finding better fuel sources for heavy industry. The second reading speech on the Petroleum and Other Legislation Amendment Bill states that to implement the Beattie government's coal seam gas regime some changes and restrictions have had to be introduced, including the restriction on the grant of a petroleum lease under section 40 of the Petroleum Act 1923 where an authority to prospect overlaps a coal or oil shale mining tenement. From the minister's perspective, will that element of the legislation have any effect on the shale oil project up my way? There are still a lot of problems with the plant itself as QERL is now winding down for mothballing. It is still causing a lot of problems for residents. I received a letter this morning from a resident in Targinie who said that their health was impacted on because of the acrid emissions from the site yesterday. I would be interested to know whether this legislation will have an immediate or short- term impact on the oil shale reserves in my area. It also states that this legislation will result in native title having to be addressed where the area of overlap is non-exclusive possession land. I would be interested in the minister's comments in relation to the amount of delay that would be expected for that process to be finalised. That is not a criticism of the process, but I am interested in how long a proponent of any type and in any geographical area may have to face if the native title process has to be overlaid onto the other processes in relation to the granting of a lease. I look forward to the minister's response to those issues. Interruption.

PRIVILEGE

Energex; Documentation Tabled by Premier Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.43 a.m.): I rise on a matter suddenly arising relating to issues I raised in Parliament this morning about the copying of documents. By way of explanation, yesterday morning when the documents were tabled a senior person from my office requested a copy of that document. He was advised that it would be available late yesterday. Following that, yesterday he accessed the documents and took selected copies. It is true that this morning another officer from my office sent an email requesting two further copies of those documents and did advise that there was no rush in that particular circumstance. It is not true to assert that we did not seek a full copy yesterday. It is not true to say that at that stage we were not guaranteed or it was not indicated to us that those documents would not have been available late yesterday afternoon. We were told that. That was not subsequently the case. That is where the confusion has arisen. I apologise to any officer who may have felt personally affronted, but yesterday morning we did request verbally a full copy of those documents from a parliamentary attendant and we did then copy selected documents to assist us in our investigations during the day.

PETROLEUM AND GAS (PRODUCTION AND SAFETY) BILL PETROLEUM AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading (Cognate Debate)

Petroleum, Gas and Other Legislation Bills Resumed. Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (11.43 a.m.): I support the opportunity for development in rural and regional Queensland and recognise that this bill has the potential to ensure continued development in many areas. The electorate of Charters Towers is rich in minerals and supports other important industries such as grazing, farming, education and tourism. Moranbah and the towns and surrounding districts produce more than $6 billion gross revenue in coal a year. At present in my electorate there is a $61 million Moranbah gas project located in the Bowen Basin approximately 400 kilometres south of Townsville and 170 kilometres west of Mackay. Moranbah is the site of several large coalmining projects owned by BHP Coal and Anglo Coal. CH4 holds petroleum leases over an area north of Moranbah township. The Moranbah gas project is a joint venture with BHP Coal and has a large gas resource capable of producing base loads for over 20 years. They are utilising innovative drilling and gas extraction techniques that increase gas yields, while leaving the coal resources undamaged. The ability for this project to provide low-cost natural gas for electricity production for the north Queensland region is enhanced by the growth in employment opportunities for many employees in the Bowen Basin. I agree with the member for Callide that there is a positive step being taken to ensure a 2488 Petroleum, Gas and Other Legislation Bills 29 Sep 2004 more modern, efficient and flexible framework for the exploration and production of petroleum in Queensland, including coal seam gas, and the construction and operation of upstream pipelines. While companies involved with the Moranbah gas project are committed to the communities they work from and are assisting in the development of the infrastructure of the area, it is vital that governments commit also to the communities to ensure that the infrastructure necessary for growth is provided. Moranbah is a perfect example. Here we have a community that is contributing millions of dollars of revenue to the economy and has a $61 million gas project, yet the whole region is running out of water. Water infrastructure is a huge concern. Currently the town is on extremely strict water restrictions. Previously, Moranbah has relied upon the good grace of BMA to supply water to the town. BMA is hoping to double its coking coal production over the next 10 years and, with the added coal line project and the massive revenue boost to the state government in terms of royalty payments and freight profits, the region desperately needs water infrastructure. The residents of Moranbah also need to have some of that returned to them in the form of a secure water supply and other town infrastructures. However, I am also pleased that landowners' rights to compensation provisions have been rewritten so that they align with the principles of compensation under the Mineral Resources Act. I support the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Bill 2004 and commend the bills to the House. Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (11.47 p.m.): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on these two very important pieces of legislation. From my perspective, as my electorate is on the coast one could assume that I would have no interest in coalmines. In fact, quite a large part of my electorate is in the operational area of some fairly significant coalmines. The port of Hay Point, which is currently the largest coal port in the world, is in my electorate so I believe I can speak with some authority on this legislation. Firstly, I congratulate the government on putting together legislation that is timely and, indeed, very necessary for the ongoing expansion not only of the coalmines but also the methane gas production for consumption in industries throughout north Queensland. Particularly in terms of the extraction of gas from the methane beds, this issue has been an ongoing and very difficult saga. The minister and previous ministers would be well aware of that. The protocols that have had to be put in place or negotiated have been very difficult and I finally see that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. We have been talking about methane gas, which has been a problem in coalmines for many years. Indeed, the most significant danger in coalmining is methane gas and the production of coal out of the coalfields in the Bowen Basin is no exception. The vent bores that are drilled into the coalfields to release the methane gas are significant. In fact, I have had communication from people in that area that boreholes are emitting something like 2,000 cubic feet of gas a second. That indicates that there is a very significant amount of gas emanating from the coalfields into the atmosphere, and I imagine that that would be adding very significantly to the degrading of the ozone layer in terms of the greenhouse gas effect. Utilising that gas in a meaningful way and putting it to productive use as an additional source of energy is sorely required. As we speak in the House today, the price of oil has gone through the $50 psychological barrier and it appears that it will stay that way for some time. We can all expect to be paying well over $1 a litre for fuel throughout Queensland. Those of us who are lucky enough to live away from the commercial centre of Queensland in Brisbane, particularly those who live in the western part of Queensland, will probably be paying in excess of $1.20 or $1.30 a litre. Therefore, whatever energy we can save, particularly methane gas, and utilise in some way will be a godsend. Although it is not directly related to this debate, many members on both sides of the House have spoken about ethanol, and I want to make some comments about that at a later stage. The first stage of building a 350-kilometre gas pipeline to Townsville and the infrastructure being built at Moranbah for the compressors and the cleaning operation are of major significance. As I understand, that is coming close to the testing stage. The utilisation of the gas at Yabulu with QNI is a significant step forward. That obviously will have benefits for other areas such as Townsville and hopefully closer to Mackay, so that is also a significant step forward. The amount of money being poured into the expansion and development of coalmines in the Mackay district is significant and possibly extraordinary. Two years ago Rio Tinto invested well over $500 million to develop the Hail Creek coalmine. Hail Creek is a very significant coalmine with over one billion tonnes of reserve coal at the site, and that augurs well for a long production period. Significant other mines are being developed in the area which are too numerous to mention. However, the expansion of BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata, the company that has taken over MIM in the Newlands area, are pouring money into coalmines like it is going out of fashion. They are very targeted projects and very commercialised. An offshoot of that situation is that it is almost impossible to hire a person who has any experience in boiler making or fitting, electrical trades or hydraulics in Mackay. There is a real problem in creating training opportunities for young people, because what is happening is that they might start an apprenticeship at a fairly low rate of pay. There are opportunities for them to go to the mines and drive shovels or coal haulers at fairly significant rates of pay—probably in the vicinity of $700 or $800 per week. Therefore, they are inclined to give up their apprenticeships and 29 Sep 2004 Petroleum, Gas and Other Legislation Bills 2489 enjoy the lifestyle and the high pay that is available to them working four days on, four days off in the mines. That is creating a huge concern for employers in the Mackay district and those people servicing the mines in terms of maintenance in that it is hard to get employees who are trained and able to do the necessary work. There are huge opportunities for growth in servicing the mining industry. I am not sure that people are aware, but if one ever travels by air to Mackay and looks out to the right they will see the many ships that are anchored off Hay Point. At any given time, there are up to 40 ships waiting to be loaded with coal. Queensland and Australia are at a very opportune time in that we are able to produce the amounts of coal that are necessary to supply the demanding industries in China and other parts of the world. This creates a huge opportunity. Unfortunately, we are falling behind in training our young people to take up the jobs that are available. There needs to be a huge push in that area. We need to be able to pay our young people a better rate of pay or lock them into their apprenticeships so that they can ultimately take up the jobs that are available. The only way to resolve this problem—it does not relate to the bill in particular, but it certainly relates to the ongoing efficiency of the coal industry—is to import jobs from overseas. I would be the last person to advocate that. But unfortunately it is getting to that stage and many people are realising that, possibly too late. Having Hay Point, the biggest coal port in the world, on the Queensland coast is very significant, because it creates an opportunity for that area to become a significant tourist destination. There is an opportunity for smart-minded people with government support for a tourist destination to be developed to reflect that status. Other members of the House who have participated in this debate have mentioned the ethanol industry, and we could certainly talk for quite some time about that. I reflect on Desley Boyle's comments about the ethanol road show, and I was totally supportive of it of course. It highlighted to many people the reality that ethanol is indeed a fuel that can be used safely and effectively, and that has been done all over the world. Most people do not even realise it, but between 1942 and 1956 ethanol was added to petrol in Queensland. It was only in 1956 that that practice was discontinued. In actual fact, it was hydrous ethanol—that is, 95 per cent ethanol and five per cent water. One of the problems with that was that it had the propensity to corrode fuel lines and fuel tanks, so there was a problem with it. Now we have anhydrous ethanol and therefore do not have those problems. It is also worth while to think about the ethanol industry in America, and just recently a second state has mandated its use. America does not have a total mandate on ethanol. Hawaii has just mandated 10 per cent and one other state also has a mandate. Every other state has done it by declaring a percentage of oxygenate in their fuel by creating specific blending recommendations for their fuel. By declaring a percentage of oxygenate, they are able to enforce a level of ethanol in their fuel. So the whole argument about mandating is not necessarily about making everybody use ethanol. It can be done by blending specifications. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fraser): Order! I refer the member for Mirani to the ruling that was made last night about reasonably anticipating debate. I have allowed the member some latitude in speaking about ethanol, but this bill actually deals with the tenure and safety of petroleum production. The Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill sits at No. 2 in general business on the Notice Paper, so I ask the member to contain his remarks to these bills. Mr MALONE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you very much for your support in regard to this matter. The fact remains that we are debating a fuel bill. If you really look at the situation, it allows us the opportunity to speak about all sorts of fuel. I will return to the bills. From my perspective—from a land-holder's point of view—the early development of coalmines left a lot to be desired. Back in the 1960s, exploration, drilling and even the very early preliminary stage of mining had huge impacts on farming and grazing land. Indeed, even when underground mining took place on the fertile blacksoil plains, galleries were left underground. When the coal was taken out, there was a slump between the galleries. These beautiful, flat blacksoil plains became undulating countryside which was virtually unusable for agriculture. These bills also contain provisions relating to water supply. In some of the areas that I am familiar with, I know that the mining companies, by dewatering their mines, are also dewatering the surface water and the shallow bores, creating some difficulties for grazing properties. I know that there can be third-party access to the water, but unfortunately some of the water is unusable for stock. That will continue to create problems. The availability of water from the mine site is a step in the right direction, but certainly there will need to be some treatment processes put in place to enable that water to be usable for stock and irrigation. In some cases, we are talking about very significant amounts of water. When the coal seams move through aquifers, there can be a very significant dewatering of the countryside. The methane gas exploration bores and the pipelines that go with them will also have a significant impact on grazing land, but probably more so on farming land. I hope that these issues are able to be addressed in a reasonable manner by this legislation. I would also like to congratulate all of those operators, particularly the ones that I am involved with. Their corporate responsibility is held in high esteem. They work well with the community. They are 2490 Petroleum, Gas and Other Legislation Bills 29 Sep 2004 keen to invest in the community. Certainly, in my region if it were not for the coal industry the unemployment level would be significantly higher and people's lifestyle would be far worse. I commend the bills to the House. Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Mines) (12.03 p.m.), in reply: Firstly, I thank the opposition for its support of this legislation. I thank all speakers who participated in this debate. When I introduced these two bills, which are being debated in cognate, I mentioned that they represented a significant leap forward for Queensland's vital petroleum and gas industries. These bills represent the first comprehensive reworking of petroleum laws—in many cases in more than 80 years in Queensland—and marks a new phase in the way in which our petroleum resources are developed, managed and regulated. For example, these bills will for the first time introduce full competition when awarding petroleum exploration tenure, encouraging an open and more responsible management of our land and resources. That will also result in the safer production, transportation and use of petroleum for all Queenslanders. The industry will receive a major boost from these laws not only through full competition when awarding exploration tenure but also through the benefits to our rapidly growing coal seam gas industry as they implement the Beattie government's coal seam gas regime, which will define clearly the legal rights, obligation and priorities for developing coexisting petroleum coal and coal seam gas resources. This is the first legislation of its kind in Australia. It is innovative legislation for an innovative industry. As I informed honourable members in this place last year—and it has been mentioned by a number of speakers during this debate—coal seam gas is a fuel source for the 21st century. Already, more than 27 per cent of Queensland's gas is supplied by coal seam gas—a massive increase from the 1998 level of four per cent. That percentage will only increase over time. Townsville's refitted gas fired power station will soon be operational and it will be powered by coal seam methane captured by CH4 in the Moranbah gas fields. Mr Wallace: Thuringowa's power station. Mr ROBERTSON: Sorry, I stand corrected; Thuringowa's power station. You cannot take the boy out of north Queensland. I will talk more about coal seam methane later in my reply. The member for Callide mentioned—and gave some implied criticism, I thought—the outcomes of the Fraser Institute study. He called for an increase in geological data spending and reflected on that call by the QRC. I can assure the honourable member that the Queensland Resources Council, the Minister for State Development and Innovation, and I are currently working on this issue, which I can assure all members we take very seriously. However, it is worth pointing out that there was a bit of selective commentary by the member for Callide. That is not unusual. That same Fraser Institute worldwide mining survey ranked Queensland as the 12th highest investment attraction destination in the world. In Australia, in terms of Queensland's attractiveness to mining investors, we ranked second only to Western Australia. Currently, Queensland's share of national exploration expenditure is around about 17.5 per cent. One of our top priorities for exploration is the ongoing development of the QDEX digital system to make exploration company reports available over the Internet. Already around 2,500 users access this system every month—a number that is anticipated to grow. Of course, part of our $9.2 million commitment to attract exploration is streamlining native title processes and funding expanded programs to acquire, interpret and distribute comprehensive geoscience data sets that will be dedicated to new data for the Bowen Basin, the Mount Isa district and the Georgetown region to enhance the prospectivity of these mineral-rich provinces. That indicates that we are committed to ensuring that we have a very vigorous exploration sector in this state. Over the last couple of years, we have seen a remarkable turnaround in exploration, principally because of our reforms to native title legislation, which allows explorers to get back out on the ground doing what they do best: finding Queensland's next generation of mines. Some comments that were received from industry related to a concern about the ability under this legislation for my department and, ultimately, myself as minister to call for altered development plans by explorers and developers of permits. I need to put on the record that two avenues of appeal exist on this issue: either through judicial review or through the Land and Resources Tribunal. The reason for this provision is that we want to ensure that all development is conducted on a sound basis and that the coal seam is not sterilised by unsuitable methods used by coal seam gas operators. The member for Gladstone mentioned the Stuart shale oil plant. The restriction in clause 40 will apply to any authority to prospect that overlaps with any old oil shale tenure. That will invoke coal seam gas provisions and the benefits that that delivers to the people of Queensland by fully developing resources. In terms of native title delays, when native title has to be addressed it is acknowledged that there may well be delays. That is why we promote and encourage negotiated agreements and indigenous land use agreements between traditional owners and our mining companies—a process that has been very successful. As I mentioned earlier, over the past couple of years, due to the reform of native title legislation in this state by adopting the Commonwealth right to negotiate process, we now see a remarkable number of agreements being reached through those expedited procedures—a 29 Sep 2004 Petroleum, Gas and Other Legislation Bills 2491 process that we want to see continue. As I have done on a number of occasions, I must congratulate both the industry and particularly the Queensland Indigenous Working Group for their commitment to that workable system that is in place. I will deal with a couple of features of the bill. I have mentioned the competitive tender process. That competitive tender process provides an open and transparent process for the awarding of an exploration tenure or authority to prospect. Potential commercial areas in an authority to prospect provide for the first time a mechanism for the holder to retain access to a discovery that may be commercial within 15 years. The specification of relinquishment conditions in the legislation ensures there is consistent turnover of land, enabling ongoing competition of exploration acreage through the tender process. The ongoing competition for exploration is expected to result in increased competition in the supply of gas to the benefit of all consumers. I will deal with the issue of water. Many members have spoken in this debate about the changes we will put in place with this legislation to the access to and management of water extracted, particularly during the process of coal seam methane exploration and development. The member for Mirani talked about the opportunity for the potential use of that water by land-holders. That is something I am very keen to see. That is why we have put these provisions in the bill. In relation to the member's specific issue, we have followed that up with a study into the use of coal seam water, which I am releasing today. The report, entitled Coal seam gas water management study, provides an overview of the number of uses that water produced as a result of coal seam methane operations can be put to. It also highlights—the member mentioned a couple of points—that the quality of the water provides challenges as to how it may be used. The member mentioned stock. That is what this report actually scopes, if you like. It looks at all of the issues that are exercising people's minds about the ability to use that water and provides, I think, some useful ideas, for example in terms of aquaculture. In some parts, particularly in the Surat Basin, which this study concentrated its efforts on, it has found that there may in fact be opportunities for aquaculture development using the water extracted from the process of coal seam methane extraction. Of course, further studies need to be carried out in terms of appropriate land on which such a storage might be placed, the quality of the water, et cetera. I assure the member that we are on top of that issue. In fact, today I will be releasing that report publicly. Because the member for Mirani is interested, I will send a copy of the report to him. I hope that it is picked up by land-holders, not just in the Surat but also further north, in the Bowen Basin and elsewhere. I think it will be a very useful tool. I think it is worth while reiterating some matters contained in this legislation. As I said earlier, the legislation implements the Beattie government's coal seam gas regime to enable coal seam gas and coal exploration production to occur safely and efficiently in the same area. The regime addresses issues of access, safety and rights to the coal and petroleum resources to ensure both can be safely and efficiently developed. Current mining and petroleum legislation does not contemplate the use of coal seam gas or accessing different resources in the same location under the different legislation. The new regime places great importance on encouraging consultation and negotiation to reach commercial agreements about the coordinated development of the two resources. The new legislation will require mining and petroleum lease applicants and holders to provide development plans for approval. These plans must consider the interests of the other party so as to optimise the safe and efficient production of both resources. The bills encourage the coordinated development of both resources but will provide certainty for current and future investment where this is not possible. Ensuring that petroleum activities will not affect the safety of current and future mining of coal is a key feature of the regime. I turn to the transitional arrangements and affected ATPs. The transitional provisions for all current petroleum authorities are provided in the Petroleum and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. The transitional provisions have been drafted to protect existing rights while at the same time bringing as many of these petroleum authorities under the new legislation as possible. Only four authorities to prospect have been adversely affected as a consequence. The existing rights of the holders of all petroleum leases have been preserved. The four authorities to prospect are affected to the extent that their right to the grant of a petroleum lease has been restricted in the area of a coal or oil shale mining tenement. The Petroleum and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 also amends the Petroleum Act 1923. The amendments will ensure uniformity in relation to the future administration of an authority to prospect or petroleum lease, irrespective of whether they remain under the Petroleum Act 1923 or the new legislation. The tenures that continue under the Petroleum Act 1923 will be able to be renewed under that act until 21 November 2021. That is 17 years away. The member for Callide expressed some concern about that date. One would expect that new arrangements could be put in place over such an extended period of time before all holders would be brought under the same legislative or regulatory framework. 2492 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Sep 2004

I turn to the issue of property and land-holders' rights. A key element in the development of the new legislation has been the protection of owners and occupiers of land. The new compensation provisions provide for the principles of compensation in the Mineral Resources Act to be adopted and incorporated into the new legislation. There will now be no difference between the legislative provisions under these acts and those contained in the Mineral Resources Act. That is, in my view, a win for land- holders. It is a practical demonstration of the protection of property rights put in place by this government. The incorporation of the principles for compensation expands the basis for the assessment of compensation and provides a uniform compensation regime for the petroleum and mining industries. The adoption of the current principles is beneficial, as legal interpretations already exist and there is no need for the development of case law if new provisions were to apply. The legislation updates the entry onto both private and public land and provides owners and occupiers with greater certainty in relation to when activities will be undertaken. Obligations and requirements in relation to the undertaking of authorised activities have been stated for the first time. The issue of land-holders' rights has been an issue of concern to me over the close to four years that I have been minister responsible for both Natural Resources and Mines. I have listened to the concerns and sometimes remained concerned about the impact of mining operations—petroleum and gas operations—on land-holders in relation to the communication that occurs between those companies and the land-holders. I think that is something we will continue to pay attention to. A whole range of different circumstances have been brought to my attention. Recently when I was out in the Surat Basin a land-holder told me how he had not been advised by the coal seam gas operator that pipes were going to be moved from one area to another. If I recall correctly, it actually resulted in an accident on a motorcycle by I think the land-holder's son, because they did not know that the pipes had been moved from one area to the next. To me, that shows a lack of communication by the company. I think that is an area to which the industry has to pay much greater attention. It is accessing other people's lands, whether it be state land or privately owned land. I think it has a responsibility to ensure that communication with land-holders and cooperation with land-holders receives greater attention in some cases than perhaps has been the case in the past. Finally, I thank my department. A number of members have mentioned that this legislation has been five years in gestation. Many officers in my department have worked tirelessly and with great patience on developing legislation of some 800 pages. Whilst I am not suggesting for one moment that size does matter, they are nevertheless impressive pieces of legislation—ones that update fundamentally important legislation, in some cases for the first time since 1923. My congratulations go to all of them. Whilst I envisage that with legislation as complex as this I may be back on my feet in this House in the near future with some amendments, nevertheless, to get to this stage is a great effort, and I congratulate my department on the work that it has done. I commend the bills to the House. Motion agreed to. Consideration in Detail

Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Bill Clauses 1 to 993, as read, agreed to. Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Petroleum and Other Legislation Amendment Bill Clauses 1 to 275, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Bill read a third time.

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND FISHERIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 19 August (see p. 2006). Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (12.22 p.m.): I rise to support the Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill. This is an omnibus bill amending a number of pieces of 29 Sep 2004 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2493 legislation. I will deal with the changes to the Fisheries Act 1994 in particular, amendments to the definition of 'obstruct' and the amendment required under national competition policy to remove the need for approval to transfer authorities and quotas specifically. In relation to the definition of 'obstruct' under the Fisheries Act 1994, the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol undertakes surveillance, inspection and enforcement operations to protect Queensland's fisheries and fish habitats. These operations occur under the powers of the Fisheries Act 1994 and subordinate legislation such as the coral reef fin fish management plan and the east coast trawl management plan. Currently, the Fisheries Act 1994 provides that it is an offence to obstruct, hinder or resist an inspector unless the person has a reasonable excuse. However, the Fisheries Act does not define the term 'obstruct'. Therefore, it is not currently clear when it is an offence to obstruct a Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol inspector. This lack of definition has resulted in some enforcement difficulties in recent times where patrol officers have been threatened and assaulted. This clearly has implications for workplace health and safety of patrol officers and needs to be rectified to ensure a safer working environment. This amendment makes it clear that the term 'obstruct' includes assaulting or attempting or threatening to obstruct an inspector. In defining 'obstruct' through this amendment to the Fisheries Act, consistency will be provided to patrol officers in relation to the protection afforded to other enforcement officers under other environmental and primary industries legislation. Further, the amendment to the Fisheries Act will be underpinned by a standard operating procedure that will indicate how the patrol must deal with a matter where a situation of assault or obstruction has occurred. The SOP will ensure that the matter is independently reviewed by an officer from a district external to where the situation occurred. In addition, the SOP will identify matters appropriate for patrol officers to investigate and those that must be referred to the Queensland Police Service. For example, serious matters such as physical assault of patrol officers will be investigated by the Queensland Police Service under the Queensland Criminal Code. There is a clear obligation for patrol staff to be provided with a safe working environment. This includes that appropriate powers exist in legislation to protect officers from harassment, assault, intimidation and abuse. However, it should be noted that this amendment to the term 'obstruct' does not provide patrol officers with an increase in their powers of enforcement. Officers of the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol have a good understanding of Queensland Fisheries resources and their genuine commitment to their responsibilities. This amendment to the Fisheries Act will help to ensure they are provided with a safe working environment while undertaking these important duties. The key objective of the national competition policy amendment to the Fisheries Act 1994 is to develop a more open and integrated market that limits anticompetitive conduct unless such conduct can be justified in the public interest. The state, as part of its commitment under the national competition policy, undertook to review and change legislation that restricts competition that is not in the public interest. In 2003 the National Competition Council reported that certain aspects of the fisheries management did not fully meet the requirements of this policy. One of these aspects was the requirement for fishers to gain approval from the chief executive of the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries prior to the transfer of authorities and fishery quotas. The amendment to the Fisheries Act requires that the prior approval of the fisheries executive be removed and substituted with a process of transfer registration. This process will require the transferee and the transferrer to notify the chief executive of the detail so that changes can be made to the registrar of authorities. Therefore, the amendment removes the discretion of the chief executive to approve or refuse the transfer of an authority or fishing quota—as such, the discretion deemed to potentially constitute anticompetitive conduct. Notwithstanding this, a transfer cannot occur if a regulation or management plan prevents the transfer of an authority or provides conditions in relation to the transfer of quota. For example, a person cannot transfer reef line quota units to another licence if that other licence does not have the relevant reef line fishery assembled. The current application process for transfers will essentially remain the same and is necessary to ensure that the conveyance of authorities is both auditable and secure. This amendment to the Fisheries Act will further contribute to the Queensland government's requirements under the national competition policy and its commitments to reviewing legislation that restricts competition that is not in the public interest. I commend the bill to the House. Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (12.27 p.m.): Unfortunately, lifts in this place are not as good as they should be, and we were caught out a little bit in respect of the last bill. The shadow minister is currently in Toowoomba at a police remembrance service, and he will be back shortly. The Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill is a SLMP bill and ties up quite a significant number of issues in terms of primary industries. This has to happen from time to time. It is important with primary industries that we are able to keep up to speed and to bring into this House in a reasonable period of time legislation to rectify some issues. However, sometimes it seems to take some 2494 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Sep 2004 time because I notice that the Sawmills Licensing Act 1936 has been in effect for quite some time. The national competition policy has been in place for quite some time. It was signed off by Keating quite a number of years ago, yet we are finding that this act does not comply and there have to be some changes to the Sawmills Licensing Act to enable it to continue. Sawmills in my area are under a fair bit of strain. That they are having problems accessing timber from the Department of Natural Resources is becoming a significant lifestyle curtailing event. The opportunity for the supply of good sawmill timber into the housing industry, as most people would be aware, is of huge concern to all of us. Houses are expensive enough to build without depleting our sawmill industry. One aspect of the sawmill industry is that timber-getters have now been forced not to harvest timber growing close to streams. As most people would realise, all the better timber comes from creek flats or river flats that are part of the river stream. Therefore, the sawmills and the timber-getters are forced to take second-grade timber that is away from that environment. That is having a huge impact on the quality of the timber that is being supplied and, as a necessity, the price of timber is rising. The amount of timber that is going on the market is lessening, therefore there is a huge impact on the cost of putting timber into a house. It appears that Timber Queensland does not have any concerns about the repeal of this legislation. Certainly, there are some cost savings in terms of maintaining the licence registry, et cetera. In terms of the Stock Act and the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act, from a primary industries point of view this is of most significance to all producers of livestock. We have been very fortunate in Australia—and particularly in Queensland because of our closeness to our northern neighbours—that we have not had a significant outbreak of exotic disease in our livestock, particularly in our cattle industry. Our cattle industry continues to prosper and continues to expand. It is a very significant income earner to Australia. The prices in saleyards—even during the drought—are very good, very strong and very healthy. Indeed, the acquisition of livestock into the feedlots is becoming very expensive. Our live trade industry into South-East Asia and other parts of the world is diminishing because we are having problems supplying enough livestock into the feedlot industry. If we take our eye off the ball in terms of exotic disease, the future is too bad to even contemplate. Most of us here who are aware of the cattle and beef industry know that an outbreak of any sort of disease, whether it be BSE or foot-and-mouth, would be devastating to the industry. The costs involved would be horrendous. The future of the industry would be at stake. The exclusion of American beef from overseas markets is having a very detrimental effect on the industry in America. In some ways the Australian beef market has been able to piggyback on the misfortunes of America in terms of the export industry. In terms of marketing grain, the arrangements that have been put in place under the act are significant. The grain industry, even though it is having problems supplying good crops of grain because of the drought, is a very significant part of our economy. From my perspective in primary industry, it is important that we keep up to date with the act. It is important that we move quickly, particularly with exotic diseases. The changes that have to take place quickly to enable us to face and be ahead of our competitors are significant. Primary industries are very competitive industries. We compete on an equal footing with the rest of the world. We compete in a world where there is unequal marketing—bias marketing—where subsidies are paid to producers not to produce, where there is a low cost of production because minimal wages are being paid to employees, where their workplace health and safety issues are not nearly as significant as they are in Australia, where there is a decision by governments to support their primary industries because they are a significant employer of the work force or of the people living in that country, and we are competing with countries that basically rely on primary industry for their economic wellbeing. I think we do quite well to be able to compete under those circumstances with the high costs that are put on us in terms of fuel and oil, and the inputs that we have to put into our primary produce to get it onto a boat to ship it overseas or to put it on the table for our consumers in Australia. With those few words I commend the bill to the House. Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (12.35 p.m.): I rise to support this bill. The Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 is a miscellaneous amendment bill which will repeal an old act and make amendments to five primary industry acts and a related act. More specifically, the Sawmills Licensing Act is to be repealed to meet the Queensland government's obligations under the national competition policy. Amendments to the Fisheries Act will also meet this government's requirement under national competition policy, clarify terms used in the act in relation to possible workplace health and safety issues for Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol staff, and allow for exchange of information between enforcement agencies. The Food Production (Safety) Act will be amended to clarify that game meat harvesting falls within the ambit of the legislation, as was initially intended. Amendments to the Grain Industry (Restructuring) Act focus on changing the review provisions to require a state review only if the federal 29 Sep 2004 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2495 government takes action to dismantle the national single desk marketing arrangement for wheat exports. The changes to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act will ensure that police officers are able to respond to animal welfare incidents as effectively as other authorised persons under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. It is important that members are aware of changes to the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act 1918 and the Stock Act 1915 which are intended to enhance and clarify the appeal process under each of these acts. A recent District Court decision highlighted that the Stock Act did not expressly provide for further rights of appeal for decisions made under the provisions of the act. Under the Stock Act provisions exist for the stock owner to be paid compensation for stock that has been destroyed to eradicate disease. The act also provides stock owners with a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court which can be exercised in relation to the calculation of compensation payable for disease eradication. Utilising these appeal provisions, the recent court case resulted in further compensation in excess of $3 million being awarded to the owner. When the state appealed the Magistrates Court decision to the District Court, it was found that the Stock Act did not expressly provide for such an appeal. Although it was later found in a subsequent action to the Court of Appeal that there was a right of appeal from the Magistrates Court to the District Court, these amendments to the Stock Act will expressly clarify appeal rights to put the issue beyond any doubt. This will provide legal certainty for all potential future appellants. The proposed amendments provide for another level of appeal beyond the Magistrates Court in the case of the Stock Act and the District Court in the case of the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act. The amendments will also change the first level of appeal in compensation matters from the Magistrates Court to the District Court in the case of the Stock Act. It is usually outside the realm of the Magistrates Court's jurisdiction to have a role in determining matters involving large amounts of money. Given the potentially high values involved with compensation claims of this nature, an appeal should be referred to the District Court to ensure that the court has the necessary competency to decide the appeal. This is very important in the context of possible compensation claims against the state in the event of destruction of stock during a major disease episode where many millions of dollars could be at stake. It is essential to ensure transparency and accountability in government processes. In that regard, these additional appeal provisions clearly set out an appropriate review process. It is important to note that these amendments will not apply retrospectively. These amendments form part of the Queensland government's overall approach to animal biosecurity. This is an issue the government takes very seriously, and it needs to. One has only to consider the devastating impacts in the UK and the USA arising from the recent foot-and-mouth disease and BSE incidents. Queensland is now in a much stronger position to handle an outbreak of any emergency animal disease, not just foot- and-mouth and bovine spongiform encephalopathy, otherwise known as BSE or mad cow disease. The FMD-BSE enhancement initiative commenced in 2002 when there was national agreement on the need to improve Australia's level of preparedness for these potentially devastating animal diseases. Queensland hosted Exercise Minotaur in September 2002 which simulated an outbreak of FMD in southern Queensland. This exercise was internationally acclaimed as a test of high-level government communications during an outbreak and management of a state disease control headquarters. At the same time, it highlighted many areas for improvement which are now being addressed and which include: staff training in emergency response roles, with the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries staff becoming part of the national rapid response team to develop their skills in various roles required to effectively manage disease control activities; cross-agency working groups led by the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries have progressed development of plans for implementation of important operations designed to control disease spread; Queensland has contributed to investigations of technological solutions to allow effective recording of details of surveillance, quarantine, disease control and recovery operations related to disease outbreaks and to enhance communications within disease control centres; Queensland's diagnostic laboratories are now better able to detect exotic diseases following employment of additional scientific staff, training of key staff in specialised diagnostic techniques and the purchase of new equipment; and surveillance methods targeting remote areas of Queensland are being investigated in collaboration with Meat and Livestock Australia and the Australian Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre. The Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries has also allocated almost $500,000 for Queensland's contribution to the establishment of a new FMD vaccine bank to be established off shore which will supply vaccine if it is needed to control an FMD outbreak. In addition, development of the National Livestock Identification System to improve livestock identification and traceability is being advanced for implementation from 1 July 2005. 2496 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Sep 2004

The amendments before the House make a small but significant contribution to the government's preparedness to deal with such serious challenges as they arise. I commend both the minister and departmental staff for the bill that is before the House today. I commend the bill to the House. Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (12.42 p.m.): Let me firstly thank the minister for allowing our shadow minister to speak for an hour when he returns. We would all have loved to have been at the police remembrance day today. Mr Horan has attended the service on behalf of all members. This is a miscellaneous bill that repeals a current act and amends a number of other acts. It repeals the Sawmills Licensing Act 1936. This act, through which sawmills and veneer and plywood mills have been licensed, has been assessed as not complying with national competition policy and as unnecessary. There are two sawmills in the Jandowae area, as the minister would be aware. I have worked very closely with one of those mill owners. Recently I met with members of the timber board who are concerned that the 20-year life span of the timber that they were told a little while ago was available may well be cut back. In saying that, let me commend the minister once again on his recent idea of farmers planting their own plantations. I have written to various ministers on this issue. Timber is being planted around the Kingaroy area. The area on the Darling Downs from Bell towards Jandowae and the surrounding regions is country that is extremely capable of growing good hardwood timber. The DPI needs to do some assessment tests in that area. Many farmers are very interested in this proposal. It is the vision of the government that in the future all timber will come off plantations. It is necessary to ensure that there are adequate plantations. Country has to be accessed around those sawmills where that timber can be grown. It will also provide an income for those farmers; it can be paid on a yearly basis and go up in line with the CPI. A serious look has to be taken at those areas in and around Jandowae for the purpose of hardwood plantations. Timber Queensland has been consulted and has no concerns with this bill. The repeal will result in some revenue loss for the government through loss of annual licence fees; however, this loss is less than the cost of maintaining the licence registry, according to the bill's explanatory notes. It also amends the Stock Act and Exotic Diseases in Animals Act. We are all aware of the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth and the scare in relation to citrus canker and the involvement of the Department of Primary Industries in that situation. Along with my colleagues from the Darling Downs—Howard Hobbs, Mike Horan and Lawrence Springborg—I was invited to do a tour of the Toowoomba DPI. We were briefed for about four hours that morning. During that tour I had the pleasure of looking at what had been put in place in terms of the room they have to deal with exotic disease outbreaks. The staff at the Toowoomba DPI are excited about this and believe they can cope. It was quite good to see what was put in place. They recently had a scare with some chickens when a farmer contacted the office and said he had a problem. Officers of the department conducted an inspection and in a matter of no time assessed the problem. It was not a dangerous disease; however, it looked bad. The officers were very pleased with the facilities that they had access to. They assured us that they could quite adequately cope if a situation arose. It is extremely important for our primary industries in all areas that we have these controlled laboratories in place in case there is a scare. One of Queensland's greatest exports is beef. At the moment our beef prices are probably better than they have ever been, and it is about time. The amendment arose from a claim by an owner of a cattle property seeking compensation against the state for destocking large numbers of cattle under the Stock Act. He discovered that there was no express reference to further rights of appeal after Magistrates Court decisions. The amendment clarifies this. The bill amends the Food Safety Act to ensure that commercial game meat harvesting is not excluded from the act. Recently an abattoir was set up in Crows Nest for wild game harvesting. Not that long ago my wife and I drove through the Gympie area, down through the Mary Valley—I was meeting with a few dairy farmers there—and a bunch of deer ran across the road in front of us in the middle of the day. They hopped over the fence. They roam wherever they want. Deer numbers, from Crows Nest through to the Mary Valley, are immense. Many farmers have problems with the number of deer in that area. Mr Palaszczuk: Do they get ticks? Mr HOPPER: That is another major concern. I will take the member's interjection. Farmers are extremely concerned about tick-carrying deer. Surveys have been done— Mr Palaszczuk: Just ask Russell Cooper. Mr HOPPER: Russell Cooper has done a lot of work. I have a file a foot deep on deer with ticks. It is a big concern. The tick line runs right across Crows Nest. We will not go into that area today, as we have done before. If this abattoir could start processing wild deer as well, I think it would be very, very profitable. 29 Sep 2004 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2497

This bill amends the Grain Industry Act which provides for a Queensland review of the wheat marketing arrangements following a national review of the wheat single desk. It is my view that, for the protection of the wheat industry, we must never lose that single desk. I believe that the Darling Downs is the agricultural belt of Queensland. We produce more wheat on the downs in central Queensland than anywhere else. There is the ethanol plant being constructed at Dalby where sorghum can be accessed. That is going to put a base price on the price of sorghum for those farmers. Farmers will obtain an average farm gate price, I would say, of about $150 a tonne. There are great positives in the construction of the plant. The single desk is very important. It is a good thing that it will only come under review if the federal government has plans to dismantle it. If it ever did, we would fight it bitterly. The legislation amends the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 to allow the police to respond to animal welfare issues and more closely applies to those inspectors appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act. While there are many good hobby farmers, a lot of people buy blocks of land thinking that they can run big mobs of cattle or horses. This amendment to the bill could overcome the problems relating to animals that are in distress because an unknowledgeable person owns them. We all have a responsibility to the animals or pets that we own. However, that does not address the problems that can arise in times of drought. In 1991 we had to import hay from Victorian and cottonseed from Bourke. We had poor cattle. Cattle were dying and we could not access feed. It was an horrific drought. The farmers in that area did all they could, but we still lost cattle. Dire situations such as that must be taken into account. The legislation makes a lot of amendments to the Fisheries Act. My parliamentary colleague the member for Toowoomba South will be covering that in his speech. We have pleasure in supporting the bill. Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (12.50 p.m.): I will take great pleasure in supporting the Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation and Amendment Bill when it is voted on a little later today. The bill makes amendments to a number of pieces of legislation: the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act, the Food Production (Safety) Act, the Grain Industry (Restructuring) Act, the Stock Act, the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act and the Fisheries Act. Obviously I will be supporting all of the amendments in the bill, and they are all important. However, I will confine my comments to the amendments on the Fisheries Act 1994 which resonate more strongly in my electorate of Hervey Bay, which has a very vibrant and important fishing industry that will welcome these amendments. The amendments address three main areas and the first is reducing red tape, which is always important. Like any other industry, the fishing industry relies for its existence on an efficient administrative system that gives certainty of title and ownership, that allows for quick and efficient transfers of deeds and ownership and that is also easy to use. The amendment in this bill will remove the current requirement for a prior administrative approval by the chief executive of the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries before a transfer of an authority, including a quota, can take place. That amendment will be very welcome. It will simplify the process, remove one of the steps or hurdles that is currently in the way, and still leave a system that allows for efficient transfers. After the passage of this bill, the transferee and transferor will have to notify the chief executive of the details of the transfer. After that, the department's business group will make the appropriate changes in the fisheries register to enable the enforcement of the legislation. This process simply removes one step in the process while retaining the integrity of the system. It is a very sensible amendment. It is a great red tape reduction amendment. It ensures the transfers will be made only with the full knowledge of all the parties who have an interest in the authority to be transferred and those whose rights are impacted on. It is a sensible and timely amendment. The second amendment attacks crime. Regretfully, crime is a rising issue of concern in the fishing industry. I know a lot of great fishers and their families, and they are good honest hardworking people. I know that they want crime out of the fishing industry. Unfortunately, it is true that there is growing evidence that fisheries related crime is on the rise and that there is illegal harvesting, transporting and trading of high value fish stocks. This amendment will allow the sharing of intelligence between different jurisdictions such as interstate fishery services, the Commonwealth fishery service, the Australian Tax Office and state and federal police. It is very welcome. It is proposed to establish a communications framework underpinned by legislative authority that assures that the appropriate provision of evidence to the relevant entities is undertaken. Finally, the third amendment is also extremely welcome as it protects employees. As a government it is vital that we support the employees in the fisheries service who are doing their job. There has been some difficulty in relation to what constitutes an obstruction in relation to fisheries staff. The lack of a clear definition in the legislation has resulted in some enforcement difficulties in certain incidents in recent times where boating and fisheries patrol officers have been threatened and assaulted. Those officers deserve and need to be protected. They need to be sure of the legislation that they are enforcing. They need to know that they are issuing a caution on the basis of a clear understanding of the law. Accordingly, it is very welcome. I congratulate the minister for this worthwhile bill. I commend it to the House. 2498 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Sep 2004

Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (12.55 p.m.): In rising to speak on the Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill, I wish to raise a number of issues. I shall start with the sawmilling industry because it has offered support for the legislation. This industry is extremely important throughout Queensland, and I would like to encapsulate some issues that are quite important in my part of the world. Pentarch Pty Ltd has successfully tendered to log a forest area of some 11,000 hectares. Currently, they have access to some three million cubic metres over 15 years in a plantation that includes areas of Mackay, Kuranda, Cardwell and Ingham. Recently I met with the group and we went extensively over the process that they are undertaking. It was extremely interesting to learn about the technology that they are using to harvest logs. People came up from Victoria with some great equipment. The way that they are going about handling the forest itself, prioritising certain grades of logs and so on, demonstrates quite clearly that they are a very professional group. We need to expand that forest because one of the major problems that we have had is that the plantation forest was not big enough to attract major interests such as Boral and CSR when tenders were first called. Some of the first plantings were too close together and the trees were very thin and tall. Of course, Pentarch had to go into those areas and work them to take out the first amounts of timber. As I said, the grading process that they go through is extremely Interesting. We went to Mourilyan Harbour to explore the issue of the shipping of the wood material. Up to 50 per cent of material that comes out of plantations may be chipped. Of course, we need a close harbour to take the wood chips to where we can put them through some sort of mechanism to load onto ships. The ships that carry the chips away are quite tall. They are almost like silos. One thing that we considered was putting the wood chips through the conveyor system used by the sugar terminal. A number of aspects have to be considered and, currently, that is being done by Pentarch and the sugar industry. Our meeting included people from QSL who are involved directly in the loading of the ships, as well as miller and grower representatives. There was a degree of goodwill exhibited in an endeavour to find a way for Pentarch to take chips into the Mourilyan Harbour area and then load them onto the ships. There had been some issues about the height of the conveyor and how they could decontaminate it after the wood chips had gone through. Of course, we are not putting crystalised white sugar through that terminal but only brown sugar, and therefore the health requirements are not quite so stringent for the countries that the sugar is going to. However, we have to be very careful that we do not do anything detrimental to the quality of the sugar product. We also looked at the issue of pellets. They are producing a lot of material for pellets, which go into Townsville. That production has been enhanced by the stacking procedures for logs, so that suitable sizes and lengths of logs for pellet making can be accessed. I move now to issues involving the Stock Act and the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act. What concerns me is the following, and I quote from the Explanatory Notes— The Stock Act did not expressly refer to further rights of appeal. The District Court found that the State had no right of appeal from the Magistrates Court ... We have heard some of the reasons as to why this happened, but I am concerned that we could get to the point where, unfortunately, the appeal process might be very stringent. It could take up quite a bit of the capital of a person who has to contest an appeal. Very often people involved in primary industries are in pretty tight situations and they may be forced into a situation where cost will be an inhibiting factor in mounting an appeal once it has gone through the District Court process and the Magistrates Court process. I am concerned about that aspect. The Food Production (Safety) Act excludes all game meat harvesting, including commercial harvesting, and the consequences of that are quite important. Sitting suspended from 1.01 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (2.00 p.m.): Before speaking on the Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill, I want to thank the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries and the House for the courtesies extended to allow me to speak for more than 20 minutes if required as the shadow minister as I had to attend a police memorial service this morning. It meant a lot for me to attend because of my father's service and awards, so I really do appreciate that courtesy. This is a miscellaneous bill that repeals an old act and amends a number of acts. For a start, it repeals the Sawmills Licensing Act 1936. This act, which has licensed sawmillers, veneer and plywood mills, has been assessed as not complying with the national competition policy and as unnecessary, so therefore it has been repealed. Timber Queensland has been consulted and apparently Timber Queensland has no particular concerns. The repeal will result in some revenue loss for the government through the loss of annual licence fees, but that loss is expected to be offset because there will be a lesser cost of maintaining the licence registry and other costs associated with it. This bill also amends the Stock Act 1915 and the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act 1981 in particular to clarify the appeals process. It provides for another level of appeal beyond the Magistrates 29 Sep 2004 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2499

Court in the case of the Stock Act and the District Court in the case of the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act. Whilst it may not necessarily be associated—it is associated in some way—with these acts, I asked a question in parliament a couple of weeks ago of the minister regarding the longevity of the court case that the government was undertaking in litigation against the people associated with Bindaree Beef in the Kingaroy court. The question that I asked related in particular to why that court was picked, because there is a travelling system associated with that court and it could well be expected that that case may take a long time to come into play. That is what has happened. It has been some three years since the Department of Primary Industries took action in that court as an agent for the national disease eradication trust account, which is a cattle industry trust account. Some three years has elapsed. The minister came into the parliament and said that the matter was due to the death of a key witness and so forth. With a case like this and the fact that there would be other people in DPI who know about the matter rather than just one person, one would have thought that a matter could have been cleared up in less than three years, because there is the matter of $170,000 owing to the cattle industry of Australia—that is, those people who have contributed through a system of levies and so forth to the national disease eradication trust account. To have something sit in the courts for three years is just beyond the pale. Mr Palaszczuk: Warren Truss gave you all that information. Mr HORAN: No, he did not. Mr Palaszczuk: I was told he did. Mr HORAN: Whoever gave me the information, I would not tell the minister. However, it was not Warren Truss. With regard to the amendments to the Stock Act and the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act, these amendments arose from a claim by an owner of a cattle property seeking compensation against the state for destocking large numbers of cattle under the Stock Act. It was then discovered that there was no express reference within the act to further the rights of appeal after a Magistrates Court decision, so this amendment clarifies this issue. This bill also amends the Food (Production) Safety Act to ensure that commercial game meat harvesting was not excluded from the act. I would ask the minister to give us some assurance that, whilst game meat harvesting is now included in the act, it has to be a practical inclusion, because harvesting of game meat is a difficult process that occurs in the bush. We do want to see safe protocols and systems in place, but it has to be practical and sensible. There are also amendments to the Grain Industry (Restructuring) Act 1991 which provides for a Queensland review of wheat marketing arrangements following a national review of the wheat single desk export arrangement. This amendment ensures state reviews only have to happen if the federal government plans to dismantle the single desk arrangements. The amendments also remove references to the former Queensland grain handling and marketing body, Grainco Ltd, which is no longer a Queensland grower owned and controlled company. While I am on the subject of the issue of the single desk, it is a very important aspect to Queensland. Queensland has about 800,000 hectares of wheat grown annually. Production averages in the order of one million tonnes. Whilst we are not a big wheat producer like Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales, it is worth a large amount of money to our economy with a gross value of production in 2003-04 in the area of $240 million or more. The retention of the single desk is important. With regard to the Australian Wheat Board, there is an overseeing body within the federal legislation that operates to ensure that the Wheat Board is competitive, that it is doing everything possible on behalf of the growers and that it is delivering results. That acts as a safety net to ensure that, whilst it does have single desk status, it is of benefit and of great value to the wheat industry. The single desk system delivers benefits to not only growers but also rural communities and country towns throughout Queensland and Australia. It gets this value through price premiums, reducing the supply chain cost and risk management, and the risk management system is important and gives Australian wheat growers access to two billion consumers in over 50 countries around the world. I have had the opportunity to look at the risk management system that is undertaken by the Wheat Board. It is quite staggering. It is almost like a mini sharemarket with operators there for long hours each and every day and people on call at night to ensure that the prices and the changes in values of currency throughout the world are monitored all the time and any necessary selling arrangements that they make and undertake are to the best possible advantage to the wheat growers. Having one face in international markets ensures price confidentiality and that the Australian growers are not played off against each other in international markets. At the same time, the single desk continues to underpin the market as a buyer of last resort, ensuring that all of Australia's 36,000 wheat farmers have ongoing access to the export market. The Australian Wheat Board Ltd through its wholly owned subsidiary AWBI—or the Australian Wheat Board International Ltd—is in a unique position with its direct line of sight between the international customer and domestic wheat growers to convey emerging market needs to breeders and growers in order to build international demand and capture price premiums. Growers received clear and transparent price signals that were achieved through a very sophisticated payment system, which is called the AWB Golden Awards. A very conservative estimate 2500 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Sep 2004 of these benefits suggest that the single desk arrangement delivers premiums of AUD$13 per tonne or approximately AUD$200 million in benefit to growers. So from those figures members can see the importance of the single desk selling arrangement to the wheat industry in Queensland and in Australia. This bill that we are debating also amends the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 to align more closely the powers of police to respond to animal welfare incidents to those powers of inspectors employed under the Animal Care and Protection Act. That has to be a good thing, because we would like to see police being able to undertake those duties where they have to and in the interests of good and sensible animal welfare. I have a lot of time for the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. I saw it develop when we were in government and its ensuing development occurred under the Labor government. That act has a lot of checks and balances. Generally speaking, the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act gives police sensible ways in which to act. It enables them to go about their job in a good, practical manner. It also includes a number of checks and balances and responsibilities to enable the public to have confidence in what the police are undertaking and to enable the police to know that, if they work within the parameters of their responsibilities, then in terms of their own actions, they are able to exercise their powers in a safe way. The bill also contains a range of amendments to the Fisheries Act 1994, which includes removing the requirement for government approval before a transfer of authority, including a fishing quota, can take place. Those amendments will mean that only notification to the government rather than official approval is required. I ask the minister if he could give us some detailed explanation of that amendment in his reply. The bill also amends the Fisheries Act to provide for a better exchange of information between fisheries enforcement agencies. It proposes the establishment of a communication framework to provide better cooperation between enforcement agencies, but it also balances that with privacy considerations. Further amendments to the Fisheries Act make it an offence to obstruct, hinder or resist the Boating and Fisheries Patrol officers in their investigations. A lack of clear definition has made it difficult for officers who have been threatened and assaulted. This amendment gives Boating and Fisheries Patrol officers the same protection that is given to officers who act under the Animal Care and Protection Act. Similarly, with the powers provided to police under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act, I would like to see our Boating and Fisheries Patrol officers able to act in a practical way to enforce the act and the regulations that they are charged with enforcing. But, like the behaviour of police, we expect courtesy and we expect that those Boating and Fisheries Patrol officers would act in a way that does not inflame any situations. That is the sort of task that the police have. That is the sort of task that our Boating and Fisheries Patrol officers have. In that regard, I conveyed to the department a matter and I am pleased that the minister was able to look into the matter and deal with it. In debating this bill today, I want to raise a number of issues that are of great concern to people who live in rural areas or who are involved in the fishing areas of the state. Firstly, I turn to the issue of fishing. When I consider the plethora of restrictions and close-downs that have been heaped upon the fishing industry of Queensland in recent years, I doubt that there would be one group of hardworking people in this state who have been attacked more than those who work in the fishing industry. Like the farming industry, the vast bulk of the fishing industry is made up of families and there are some fishing companies. These people want a sustainable fishing industry that they can operate in a profitable way and that their families can operate in a profitable way. Because that industry is sustainable, it will continue to enable them to make a living, to invest in the industry, to modernise their equipment and change their techniques as necessary, and also maybe to put something aside for their superannuation—as all people hope to do—to look after themselves and their families in their old age. I want to refer to some of the things that have happened to the fishing industry. First of all, at a Commonwealth level there has been the establishment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, which put in place zones in the Barrier Reef for the protection of the Barrier Reef. I have spoken to a lot of fishing people about this issue. It has been a difficult issue for them to handle, but the one common thing that they say is, 'At least they sat down and consulted in great depth with the fishing industry and the communities along the coast.' Whilst those people might not agree with all the issues surrounding the zones that have been applied and the extent of the zones, they say, 'At last we got a fair go when it came to consultation and endeavouring to put our point of view across.' At a state government level, there have been issues such as the trawl plan, the coral reef line fishing arrangements, and the various close-downs or the cutbacks of individual fishing areas along the coast. More recently, there has been the issue of complementary zones, which was a process that was undertaken by the Department of Environment. That department took this very important matter relating to the fishing industry out of the hands of the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries and out of the hands of the Minister for Primary Industries—although I would hope that he would still stand up in cabinet for this industry that he is supposed to represent. Whilst people have had this massive impost of the complementary zones drawn across them like a blanket, at the same time the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries is about to undertake an inshore line fishing review. So those people are going to be hit with a double whammy. It will hit those complementary zones and the zones immediately adjacent to them. There are also issues such as the Great Sandy Straits Marine Park and a 29 Sep 2004 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2501 whole lot of other issues to do with catching devices and the times during which people are able to fish in particular areas. I want to reiterate that I have attended port meetings, I have met with fishing families, and I have met with people who are involved in various sectors of the industry in both a small and a large way. I am highly impressed by the environmental responsibility of these people. They are like a lot of forestry people whom I know. In my previous position of running the Toowoomba Royal Showgrounds, I had to get a lot of timber for the woodchopping events. I know that the minister has an interest in agricultural shows. The families who got the timber for us in the forestry areas around Crows Nest were third and fourth generation timber farmers. The business had been handed down from father to son or daughter and so forth. All of those people were unbelievably environmentally responsible. They would go to blocks of land and take only particular mature trees that would allow adolescent and other large trees to receive sunlight and achieve their potential. Those people would not return to those blocks—they would not be allowed to return to those blocks—for 40 years, by which time there would be another crop of a few trees in that area that would have grown. That kept the forest healthy. That was probably one of the most environmentally sustainable industries that we could ever get. Surely God gave us trees and timber to build houses and shelters and to do it in a sustainable way. Those families, those workers and those people who were working in the sawmills or driving the timber jinkers or doing all the other associated jobs, such as going into timber areas and marking which trees could be taken and those which could not and so forth, and those small businesses that were involved with chainsaws, trucks and heavy equipment were responsible and knew what they were doing. They are the sorts of people who are being hit by some of these crazy arrangements. The Greens think that they are the only people—and the Labor Party kowtows to the Greens—who care about the environment. No-one cares about the environment more than those people who rely upon it for a living for themselves and their families. They have inherited it from their family before them and they want to pass it on to the next generation. That is what struck me about people who fish sustainably in the fishing industry. I refer to one of the closures by the department around Wolf Rock because of the grey nurse sharks. They are bottom-feeding sharks. They are down there in the sand. The people who had the licence only fished on the top. They had a system of fishing just in the top part of the water. They had not seen a shark, let alone caught a shark, for years and years, yet they were told they could not fish within a radius of some incredible amount from that rock, which meant that they lost about 40 per cent of their income. This is affecting people in their late 50s who are looking towards eventual retirement. Some of the things that are happening to the fishing industry are so wrong. It is not a case that the fishing industry does not want to cooperate. The fishing industry has bent over backwards to cooperate and to maintain sustainability. It wants to do things based on true and honest science. It wants to do things based on the experience and knowledge it has through generations of fishing in these particular areas. No-one knows the habits of the fish, the sea and the tide or just how much fish is available better than these people who have this huge corporate knowledge passed on to them by their families, many of whom have been fishing these waters for 20, 30 and 40 years. I think it is time that governments and government departments in general, and this minister and the current department in particular, started to listen to these people and take real notice. They are good, hardworking working class families who deserve respect not only for what they are doing for their families, their communities and our economy but also for the way they are respecting the environment and for the knowledge they have. I refer to the coral reef line fishing arrangements. The quota of some 4,800 tonnes a year was reduced to 3,600-odd tonnes a year. Science undertaken by the cooperative centre for research in north Queensland showed that that quota was cut by 400 tonnes too much. It could have been 400 tonnes greater and the coral reef fishing industry would have remained absolutely sustainable. In the course of that process people who have undertaken that industry for many, many years have been severely affected. I will read a letter from a fisherman in Mackay who has been severely affected. Everyone has a different story and everyone has been affected by what has happened. I think people would be able to accept it if the cutback was made on a scientific basis. People could accept a cutback knowing that it would leave a sustainable fishery. But to cut it back that much is so disappointing to these particular people. Mr Kris McNamara from Mackay details his particular problem emanating from that plan in a letter written to the Premier about the coral reef fin fish fishery plan. It states— I wish to bring to your attention the consequences of the Plan on long-term participants in the reef line fishery. Under the plan, my family will be allocated 6.4 tonnes of coral trout per year. On average, over the last eight years, we have caught between 16 and 19 tonnes of coral trout per year. We are a family based operation with two families, my parents and myself, my wife and two children. In total, my father and I have a combined history of 60 years in the fishing industry. We have been totally reliant on the reef line fishery for eight years. Prior to this we were involved in reef line, mud crab and netting in some capacity every year. We were issued with a fishery symbol for the reef fishery when the Qld Fish Management Authority first issued them in 1983. Prior to 1993 we owned a fishing vessel, Gentle Ben, and a two dory reef line licence, and this we sold in 1993, as neither was big enough to support my parents and myself. We then bought a three dory licence and began building a new fishing vessel, Holly-J. This vessel was completed and launched in early 1996. We then moved to Mackay and began reef line fishing on the reefs off the 2502 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Sep 2004

Mackay coast in June of that year. When we began building Holly-J in 1993, we had no knowledge that an investment warning would be issued. The QFMA issued a warning in May 1997 that investment in the fishery or increased effort may not be recognised. We observed the investment warning as our investment was completed by June 1996 and our effort in the following years was contingent on the fact that we are a family operation. When it became evident that the live trout market was a lucrative one licences were purchased by foreign owned companies, businessmen and those who had perhaps payouts from other industries and consequently the effort on the reef escalated to an unsustainable level through the increased efforts these operators placed on the reef. These licences changed hands AFTER the investment warning in May 1997 and it would appear that some of these 'new' operators have suffered little loss in their quota allocation because they happened to purchase a licence with good history before 1997. Those long term operators who had been in the industry, some their whole working lives, have been penalised for their conservative fishing practices whilst new operators to the industry have gained through their exploitation of the reef. Under the plan our family will be forced out of an industry that we have been involved in and worked in all of our working lives and through no fault of our own. Foreign owned companies, businessmen and those out to 'make a killing' have been the winners under this plan whilst those of us who have put the long term commitment, and our lives and souls into the fishing industry and have used safe and environmentally friendly practices have been penalised. Company owned boats are the ones who have 'flogged' the reef through their ability (financially) to work the reef continually through the year whilst family operations do not work as much through their family commitments. This man was asking for some recognition, some form of compensation, for those who held their fishing licence prior to May 1997 for losing so much of their quota through no wrongdoing. I have seen the details of how much he was cut back in the coral trout line units, the red throat emperor line units and the other coral reef line units. It was an absolutely dramatic cutback that would have made it almost impossible for him to make a living. I will read a letter from Mr Kris McNamara of Mackay to the manager of the Reef Line Fisheries in DPIF regarding the decision notice that was given to him. It states— Re: Decision Notice—Additional (RQ) Line Units I refer to the above notice dated August 16, 2004. In this notice, the Department has granted our licence QFV11738B, boat mark FXHQ, additional units of CT 522, RTE 854 and OS 532 as additional units granted for being a long term operator under Division 3A of the Plan. Under the Plan long term operators were to receive 80% of the average recorded catch for the years 1994 to 1996. I refer to our telephone conversation in which you informed me that although we were classed as a long term operator, unfortunately under the laws of the Management Plan there is no provision for our particular circumstance. That was that circumstance I read out about constructing the new vessel. The letter continues— I have had many conversations with yourself and other officers at the Department over the past months regarding our allocation of RQ line units and I am unable to accept that after a total of 25 years involvement in the line reef industry for myself and my father, that our family is granted such a low allocation through no wrongdoing of ourselves. It is grossly unfair that because we have not slotted into a 'pigeon hole' within the Plan, our livelihood has been taken from us. The allocation we have received has resulted in my wife returning to work and my parents having to consider applying for Government benefits to survive, as clearly the allocation would not support one family, let alone two. Pre 1996, long before the investment warning, our family put a plan in place to provide for our future (and our children) income by building a reef boat capable of supporting two families, which appears now to have caused our present predicament. He has gone on to ask for assistance in bringing the case to the attention of the minister. He says— Mr Palaszcuk (sic) is quoted in 'The Queensland Fisherman' July 2004 edition on page 9 as saying, in part, 'the Government is determined to ensure the coral reef fin fishery is sustainable. However, we want to ensure the management arrangements as equitable for those long-term operators who heeded effort and investment warnings of the late 1990s.' I think, from reading these letters, these people deserve a fair go. I would be interested to hear what the minister can do. That is just one of a myriad of stories and different circumstances that have arisen out the coral reef issue. To give some other examples of how badly fishing families have been hit, take the Cape Bowling Green area. I spoke before about the complementary zones and the GBRMPA zones. There is GBRMPA coverage of that area, despite the fact that dugong in that area have been protected by the use of particular fishing devices. I understand the record is exemplary in that dugongs are not being caught because of these new devices and other arrangements that have been in place. What will happen with the complementary zones is that they will force many of these fishing people up into the creeks. The Minister for the Environment said that they should go up into the creeks to fish, with no understanding or local knowledge of what these fishing families have. The creeks in the north get hot so they cannot undertake the crabbing that they can undertake in intertidal zones which will be wiped out by the complementary zones. You simply kill mud crabs by fishing in some of those particular areas. In those creeks in that area, and in other areas of north Queensland, there is a plethora of restrictions anyway. For two days a week they are not allowed to net fish in those areas. In addition, there are other days in the week where the running tide means they cannot fish in those creeks. That brings it to a total of about 18 days per month that they are unable to fish in those creeks. On top of that, there is a three-month exclusion on fishing in that area at the latter part of the year every year. So they are left with something like 12 days per month for about nine months of the year to be able to fish, and no-one can make a living out of that. Look at the flow-on effects. I have told of a courier service that used to run from Ayr to Townsville, taking people to the Townsville airport but also carrying light freight and earning in the order of $15,000 to $20,000 a year in the cartage of mud crabs for the Sydney and Melbourne market. There is an 29 Sep 2004 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2503 example of a small business which will lose a crucial part of its business through some of these restrictions. Up and down the coast the story is the same. In the Hervey Bay area there is a need to have sensible arrangements. The fishing industry needs to be listened to with regard to the Great Sandy Straits marine park and the review that will take place by the state government into inshore line fishing. Would you not have thought they would have done that in association with the complementary zones? The fishing industry in coastal areas has been hit with a double whammy. The vast area of that complementary zone is the area between the high and low-water mark. At least 80 per cent of Queensland's mud crab and barramundi fishing takes place in those areas. Large amounts will be knocked out of the ring totally. We lose not only an iconic species in seafood restaurants—something which is important to our industry and for people who enjoy eating seafood—but also all communities up and down the coast are affected. I would have hoped the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries through the minister could have been involved in these discussions and negotiations regarding the complementary zones. I would have hoped there could have been some commonsense in doing it jointly with the inshore line fishing review that will be undertaken. Bear in mind that many of these families have had enough of the non-stop assaults on them. I spoke to a woman who is a fisher at one of the port meetings, and she told me that the pressure on families is unbearable. It is hard enough to be out there on a boat in all weather trying to make a living for yourself and your family, let alone having to make never ending submissions and cases to answer to justify where you can go, what you can do and where you can fish. It is about time governments started to take notice of all these good, decent people who believe in a sustainable environment. Governments need to have a bit of courage to do the right thing by putting on work restrictions through true science and the practical knowledge that resides in the operators of these areas. It should not jump to the tune of some greenies based in Sydney, Melbourne or Canberra. It should start to listen to the people who care about the environment and do the right thing by these people. Through all these restrictions, closures and cutbacks, the concentration of effort is going into ever smaller and smaller areas and is putting unbelievable pressure on the species and those particular areas of the environment. It stands to reason that, if you are trying to force people out of a particular area, they will move to the now limited areas where they can fish and you end up with two or three times as many people in that area. If anything is going to do damage to the environment and to the sustainability of fish stocks, it is that concentration of effort. Many fishing people tell me about that. It is commonsense to most people but not to those who want to continually flog the fishing industry and their families in the obscene chase of green votes without any care for good, honest, hardworking people. I want to talk about the introduction of the national livestock identification system and the disgraceful and pathetic support that is being given by this government to the introduction of that system. One of the great industries in Queensland, particularly with regards to earning export dollars for our state and providing jobs right throughout the beef supply chain, is the Queensland beef industry. It is an industry worth $3 billion a year to the state and it provides jobs not only on beef cattle properties but also in the processing industry, in transport, in saleyards and in the myriad of produce, supply and hardware type organisations producing pumps, steel posts, polypipe, veterinary chemicals and so on. It is a huge industry and it has a huge linkage to small business and to export, whether it be live export, chilled beef export, export of beef to America or export of prime beef to Japan, Korea and other parts of the world. It is a great industry. Export industries are important for our state because they bring in outside money. That is where we get growth and prosperity to be able to do the things that governments want to do. The introduction of the national livestock identification system is a very important thing. As I have said before in this place, it allows us to stay at the forefront of quality assurance, quality control, disease control and customer confidence. The introduction of this scheme was a difficult issue because it was going to add to costs. Anyone running a cattle property knows that, when it costs $3.50 to $3.80 for a device to put into the ears of cattle at branding time or at other times with other classes of cattle, it means extra cost. At the very minimum, it means the cost of the tag as opposed to the normal systems that most people used, which was a tag that cost 75c to $1. Putting that aside, and despite the controversy that has been associated with it—controversy along the line that a number of experienced cattle people have said we have a wonderful system with our brand and tail tag system—look at what has happened in America where 70-odd cattle came in from Canada and one was found to have mad cow disease. Something like 35 of those cattle still have not been found because of inadequate trace systems. Look at the problems that occurred in Britain and Canada. Perhaps more importantly, look at how our beef is sold and marketed—whether we are selling to sophisticated major chains that demand quality assurance and trace back, and whether we are selling to the nations that simply want to use trace back as a bargaining tool as to whether they buy it from us or from others. It does mean that we are at the forefront of marketing, particularly when it comes to export and customer confidence when it is for a local domestic consumer or for export. 2504 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Sep 2004

It is important. It is providing security or customer opportunity not only for those people who grow beef—that is their livelihood—but also for all those people in the chain because members only have to look at what happened when there have been major outbreaks in other countries to see the number of people who would lose jobs. Many of those people could be paying off their house, car and so forth, and to lose work—or lose a number of hours of work a week if you are in a processing plant—could be disastrous for many of those people. It is an industry that is broad, and it runs down the chain. For that reason the implementation of this NLIS system was worthy of reasonable support in its implementation. It means that saleyards and abattoirs have to put in place sophisticated equipment. For example, at saleyards like the ones at Roma, which can have anywhere between 7,000 and 10,000 head of cattle, when cattle are sold hundreds of lines of those cattle go to private buyers or meatworks buyers, et cetera. The frenetic activity is unbelievable. The saleyards have to put in sophisticated rows of turnstile type monitoring equipment to read these tags. If one tag in 100 does not read, how does someone find one beast out of 8,000 and bring it back and run it through again and so forth? It is costly. There would be over 20 major saleyards in Queensland. It is probably going to cost a quarter of a million dollars or half a million dollars to put in the facilities required just at the Roma yards. That is important. Likewise, at meatworks and small processing plants, all this trace back and follow through and sophisticated equipment that goes with the chain has to be put into place. Likewise, on cattle properties reading equipment has to be put in place. Some people who are involved in EU accreditation—EU cattle—do have that in place. For those people who simply breed, brand and sell weaners—a simple operation like that—it is a relatively simple process of tagging their calves at branding time. But in the cattle industry many farmers have different paddocks in different parts of their district. Some farmers have properties elsewhere. Many people are buying cattle, bringing them in, fattening them up and shifting them here and there. Some people are shifting heifers from one place to another place and so on. For all those myriad movements that occur people have to read the tags, so they have to have reading equipment on their crush or they have to have rod type equipment. Some people only have a few head of cattle on a small place. Some old ladies are on a few acres and that is their interest. Other people have little hobby farms and have that as their interest. There are all these varieties of people involved in the industry. For all those reasons there needs to be reasonable support. I always give the example of Indy. There is $11 million a year to help run the Indy car race for this great, wealthy American corporation involved in running it for the prize money that will go to all these overseas drivers and so forth. We are lucky if we have one or two Australian drivers. No-one would begrudge support of Indy because of what it does for tourism in Australia, for how it markets tourism on the Gold Coast through TV and for what it does for the Gold Coast itself. Then look at the $3 billion a year, 365 days of the year cattle industry. It suddenly gets an impost like this. It is a very important one. It is going to have a severe financial impost. In the last few weeks or months the prices in the saleyards have been good but they go up and down, and people are suffering drought. It is not much good if farmers are in a drought area and the prices are good but they are struggling to keep the cows on their feet. This is an industry which is Queensland wide. It has brought in benefits to working people and small businesses throughout the state. It is an industry that deserves something a little bit better than the $690,000 that this government put into the NLIS support system. In the budget the minister spoke about $4.5 million for NLIS. We have been able to expose the fact that the vast bulk of that was money for things which have been done for decades, such as property registration and brands registration. The DPI has always done that, and it has always been funded for that. To stand up in the budget and say that there is money for NLIS when it is money for the normal, everyday ordinary things that the department has done is incorrect. The amount that is available is $690,000. Subsequently, the minister announced $500,000 for extra staffing to support that NLIS system, but it is absolutely pathetic when members look at what has been provided in other states. Queensland is the biggest beef producing state in Australia. We have over 50 per cent of the herd. We have a higher percentage of our cattle exported compared to other states. Some of these states have since increased the support that they are providing, New South Wales in particular. New South Wales is providing $5.4 million for saleyard, feedlot and abattoir infrastructure, a tag subsidy for dairy cows and capping the tag cost at $2.50. Victoria has a $1 per tag subsidy, $1.25 million for infrastructure and $350,000 for communications funding in that year. South Australia has a 70c per tag subsidy during implementation, with up to $450,000 for saleyards and abattoirs, and Western Australia has a tag subsidy of $1 per device up to $1.2 million and over $1 million in abattoir and saleyard infrastructure funding. The minister always talks about, 'Oh, yeah, but they pay beef levies,' and all this sort of thing. Not all those states pay beef levies. In a number of states a subsidy is provided where they do not pay a beef levy. In any case, in all of those states the overall subsidy being provided is far greater than what is being provided in Queensland. It is a shame to think that under the Beattie Labor government a $3 billion industry receives such low priority and such low recognition, particularly for an industry that is so important domestically and so important in the bringing in of export income to our state. I would hope that the minister would take note of what is being said, go to the cabinet table and start to fight for some real dollars for what is one of our 29 Sep 2004 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2505 great industries in Queensland. You almost feel ashamed to think that we lead Australia as the beef state of Australia, and that our assistance is so pitiful compared to the other states of Australia. It really shows where this government's priorities lie. It is easy to get $11 million for Indy and it is easy to get millions for some other projects and so on, but when it comes to a modest amount of funding to support something which is so vital to our export industry—and all the time we are providing free grants to companies who say they are going to develop exports and so on—here is something to sustain, save, preserve and grow our export industry and the amount that is provided under NLIS is an absolute pittance and a disgrace. I want to speak about drought. This is another area where the Beattie Labor government has been found wanting. There has been a campaign by the minister to denigrate at every chance he can what the Commonwealth government does. This is a smokescreen to cover the pitiful support provided by the state government. The drought system is something which has been worked out by the state governments in association with the federal government. The state governments provide drought assistance in each state based on the one in 10 year drought occurrence. That is a strong drought but not as severe as what the federal government has to provide assistance for. When the drought occurrence gets to a one in 20- to 25-year drought, that is when the federal government steps in with the exceptional circumstances program, a program that provides interest subsidy, for example, and provides welfare payments so that families are able to put food on the table and are able to survive. The drought assistance program run by the state government has a couple of elements. One element is a system of loans: the carry-on finance loan and the recovery loan. When those loan systems were implemented the minister said there were over 50,000 properties in Queensland in 111 shires that could benefit from those drought schemes. I ask members to guess how many people have successfully been able to obtain a loan under the carry-on or drought recovery scheme. There have been just over 140; just over 100 in one scheme and just over 40 in the other scheme. Around about one and a half people per shire or 145 properties out of over 50,000 drought affected properties have been able to access the state government drought scheme. The minister announced in parliament this week that the government will extend the drought carry-on finance loan scheme arrangement. It is like so many of the loans, whether it is in the sugar industry or some other industry: these multi million-dollar loan schemes are announced and hardly anyone takes them up. The government announces these schemes because it knows that the restrictions on the loan, the interest rates and the conditions on the loan provide very little, if any, advantage over what can be obtained commercially. The government knows that people in such dire financial circumstances can get into greater debt by taking out further loans after they have been hit by a natural disaster. Under the government's drought declaration system there is a system of freight subsidy on fodder and also a freight subsidy on agisted cattle coming back from agistment. In the last few months we have seen well over 40 drought declared areas of the state having their drought declaration revoked. The minister has made much of the fact that he makes those declarations only after a local drought committee makes the decision. The minister has said that the politics has been taken out of it; it is done by local people. Then the minister has the hide and hypocrisy to stand up in this parliament and criticise the federal government for revoking an exceptional circumstance when that revocation is done by NRAC, the National Rural Advisory Council, which makes the decision. In fact, NRAC goes out and inspects the rural areas. It has inspected areas on the Darling Downs. How difficult is it for NRAC to be able to make a decision about extending exceptional circumstances, for example, on the Darling Downs when the Minister for Primary Industries has revoked drought declarations in shires like Warwick, Pittsworth, Millmerran, Chinchilla and parts of the Wambo shire because the minister has said they are out of the one in 10 year drought, whereas exceptional circumstances is based on the one in 20 to 25 year drought? It is time the minister stopped the hypocrisy of attacking for crass political purposes this process of drought revocation that has been carried out by an independent body when the minister's decisions are made by independent bodies. Mr PALASZCZUK: Point of order. I take exception to those remarks. I am standing up for the 3,500 producers on the Darling Downs who missed out on their drought relief. The four members of the Darling Downs are not. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Order! Is the minister asking the honourable member to withdraw some remark? Mr PALASZCZUK: I am asking the honourable member to withdraw that remark. I find it offensive. Mr HORAN: Whatever particular remark the minister found offensive I will withdraw. The minister has confirmed what I have said. On the basis of independent committees the minister has revoked the drought declaration for shires like Warwick, Pittsworth, Millmerran, Chinchilla and parts of the Wambo 2506 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Sep 2004 shire for a one in 10 year drought—that is the state government's responsibility—and has made it that much more difficult for NRAC, the National Rural Advisory Council, to extend the exceptional circumstances. If NRAC are considering an extension of exceptional circumstances and they see the state government has revoked all their drought declarations on the Darling Downs for a one in 10 year drought, it makes it very difficult to put in place an exceptional circumstances declaration for a one in 20 year drought. Mr PALASZCZUK: I find those remarks offensive. The process and methods of declaring shires and revoking shires in Brisbane have absolutely no relevance at all to what the federal government does. At the last ministerial council meeting, a rollover position was brought in— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr HORAN: The minister cannot argue the case. He is obviously very sensitive to this issue. The minister has been playing politics with it. It has been a hypocritical thing to do. These people need help. The exceptional circumstances declaration on the Darling Downs was for two years, as all exceptional circumstances declarations are. It was extended for 12 months to three years. I understand the only other part of Australia where that has been provided at this stage is in the area around Bourke. It would be wonderful to see—if the guidelines were met—exceptional circumstances extended for further periods. As I have said, when you have an area where the minister and his own committees can obviously see that there has been summer rainfall to the extent that they revoked all those state declarations for a one in 10 year drought, doesn't it make it difficult for NRAC? The minister says he is standing up for the people, yet he has gone and revoked these particular drought declarations. When the minister does the revocation he hides behind his local committees and says it is not him, it is the local committee. When the federal minister does it based on information from the independent NRAC, the minister is critical in order to cover up his own shortcomings. Mr PALASZCZUK: I find those marks offensive. I do not hide behind any local drought committees. The committees make recommendations to me. Unlike the federal government, our drought relief continues for another two years, even though a shire is revoked. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will ask the honourable member to withdraw those remarks. Mr HORAN: The words the minister took offence to were that he hides behind the committees. I will withdraw that. The minister says that the decision was taken by the committee. The minister does not, in the case of federal exceptional circumstances, say that it was taken by the National Rural Advisory Council. It is one rule for the minister, but when it is done the same way by the federal government the minister wants to play politics. I think it is a tragedy. What we should be doing is working together to help these people to get better and practical drought assistance. The Primary Industries Minister in this state continually uses it as a smokescreen to cover up the revocations that have been put in place. I do hope that these three issues of fishing, the NLIS and meaningful drought assistance can be taken notice of, in particular with regard to the state drought assistance. I have given the figures for the low uptake of those loans. We need loans that can be taken up by people who are not involved in the livestock industry. In the livestock industry you can get freight subsidy under a drought declaration and you can bring some fodder in that can be helpful. But if you grow grain or horticultural crops and you spend tens of thousands of dollars planting and you get absolutely nothing in return, that is very difficult compared to someone who has been able to keep their herd alive and they have the wherewithal with which to pursue hopefully an income when the seasons change and turn around. I outlined at the outset the amendments that this bill makes. It is largely a bill to do with machinery matters. The National Party will be supporting this bill. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (2.59 p.m.): I rise in support of the Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. I wish to speak mainly on the amendments to the Fisheries Act 1994 as many people in my electorate are devoted fisher people, including amateurs—my husband Neil loves fishing—and there are a few professional fisher people in my electorate. Like many families of amateur fisher people, we wait ready for the return of the catch of the day, but nine times out of 10 we are disappointed. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mrs MILLER: Yes, today the catch of the day was the opposition. In fact, they shot themselves in the foot time and time again. The minister is well aware of my complaints about my husband not bringing home any fish after his particular exploits. I am pleased to report to the House that after a week on Fraser Island with his mates, Neil returned triumphant with an esky full of tailor so I will be eating tailor for the next month and I will also be eating my words of sarcasm. The first amendment that I would like to talk about in relation to the Fisheries Act is the one that is required for NCP purposes. This removes the current requirement for a prior administrative approval by 29 Sep 2004 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2507 the chief executive of the DPI and Fisheries before the transfer of an authority, which includes a quota, can take place. The legislation will be more streamlined with this amendment. A further amendment will allow the exchange of information between agencies charged with fisheries enforcement and other relevant bodies. This is just commonsense. Crime in fisheries is increasing and it is important that intelligence can be shared. A communications framework will be established. Workplace health and safety issues have also been dealt with in the amendment bill. Currently there is no definition of 'obstruction of an inspector'. It is proposed that 'obstruct' include a specific reference to assault, hinder, resist and attempt or threaten to obstruct. This wording is already in the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. The inspectors should be able to do their jobs in a safe and healthy environment, and not put up with threats and assaults. This type of behaviour is clearly un- Australian and will not be tolerated. As I said before, I have thousands of fisher people in my electorate and I am sure that they would applaud this bill. It would be remiss of me not to mention the local haunt for buying their bait and tackle, Charlton's Tackle and Bait situated on the Ipswich Motorway at Redbank. Mr Charlton is an extremely good person in my electorate. Mr Palaszczuk: It's where all the accidents occur. Mrs MILLER: Yes. All the accidents do occur along the Ipswich Motorway. Mr Livingstone interjected. Mrs MILLER: That is right. They can look at Charlton's Tackle and Bait, which is now painted orange. They can get on their mobile phones and order their bait and tackle requirements as they are stuck in the traffic along the motorway. There has been good consultation in relation to this bill. The Queensland Seafood Industry Association has been consulted. I am pleased that my former union, the Queensland Public Sector Union, has also been consulted on the amendments about defining the word 'obstruct'. On behalf of the wonderful fisher people in my electorate, which includes the Madsen family, the Dance family, the Burrows families and my family, I commend the bill to the House. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (3.05 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. This is another multifunctional piece of legislation amending, as it does, seven separate acts. These are the Sawmills Licensing Act 1936, the Fisheries Act 1994, the Stock Act 1915, the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act 1981, the Food Production (Safety) Act 2000, the Grain Industry (Restructuring) Act 1991 and the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. The Sawmills Licensing Act is being amended to meet the demands of national competition policy. I cannot think of another industry that has suffered as much as the far north's timber industry from the demands of outsiders. The entire north had a once healthy timber industry. There were sawmills in most towns. Logging trails helped to control fires in our forests. Families and communities found a living generation after generation among the tall timbers. All of their activity was monitored and managed by a large, highly experienced and effective forestry department. In fact, the north's timber industry was too well managed, especially environmentally. It was because of the wonderful state in which those forests had been kept and the care and expertise shown in harvesting from them that they were targeted for World Heritage listing, despite much of the area having been continuously logged for a century or more. That listing brought ruin to many families and has crippled many communities, all for the sake of scrapping together a few more green votes for Labor. Today we are looking at more changes, although this time they are at least more benign, brought about to meet the demands of others. In this case it is national competition policy that is driving amendments to the sawmills laws and, indeed, the eventual repeal of the act. It has to be said that national competition policy is about as discredited a theory as one could get as far as rural Queensland is concerned. It is the cause of phenomenal amounts of pain for individuals, families and across communities. The amendments to the Fisheries Act are procedural and, again, are being brought in to satisfy national competition policy. In this instance the amendments will remove the existing requirement for administrative approval of authorities, which include quotas before they can be transferred. Instead, there is to be a process of transfer registration put in place as contained in clause 7 of this bill. There are also new provisions providing a definition of 'obstruction' and allowing the chief executive to disclose certain information. The amendment of section 182 relating to the obstruction of inspectors is technical and simply provides a definition of 'obstruction' so it is clear that the assault, attempted or threatened, is covered. Disclosure of information provisions in clause 14 are presented as applying in circumstances where it is necessary or desirable in the public interest to help other agencies perform compliance 2508 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Sep 2004 functions. Personally, I would have liked to have seen this restricted to police matters and possibly those involving search and rescue or safety issues. As it stands, this is a very sweeping provision with the only safeguard being that the chief executive must personally exercise his power. I note that any disclosure of information under new section 217A would have to be in accord with a policy approved by the chief executive of the entity administering the Fisheries Act. I am not questioning the integrity of the chief executive in any way. However, I do have doubts about a system where the policy governing the release is decided by the same person making the decision based on that policy. Amendments to both the Stock Act 1915 and the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act 1981 clarify respective appeals processes. This is to clarify the appeals process in each case. A legal decision has been handed down by the Court of Appeal clarifying that the state has a further right of appeal beyond the Magistrates Court. However, these amendments will ensure that the appeal rights of both the state and any other party are made very clear. The Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 also amends the Food Production (Safety) Act 2000 and the Grain Industry (Restructuring) Act 1991. The food safety amendments are to bring game meat under the coverage of the act. It is an industry with good potential for growth, especially in export terms, so ensuring that its food safety levels are properly maintained is appropriate. Grain act amendments relate entirely to tightening up the description of what triggers a review of state wheat marketing arrangements. As it stands, whenever the Commonwealth reviews national arrangements, whether there is any resulting alteration to them or not, Queensland must review its marketing arrangements. These amendments to narrow that state review down to only those times when the Commonwealth actually alters its arrangements are simply commonsense. Finally, amendments to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act will allow police officers to better respond to issues of animal welfare. The Queensland Police Service is the primary organisation engaged in enforcing the law of this state, so it is only right that properly trained oath-bound policemen and women do at the very least have all the powers available to the host of inspectors that this government has forced on the people of Queensland. I have spoken in this place before about my opposition to the extensive powers many of these inspectors have. I believe that it is over the top. But I also believe that if the state does choose to create investigative and other powers relating to its laws, then those powers should be fully available to those men and women who have sworn an oath to uphold them. The amendments contained in this bill are acceptable and I will be supporting it. Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (3.08 p.m.): I rise to support the Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. The purpose of this act is to amend seven acts within the Primary Industries portfolio and related legislation. Firstly, the bill will repeal the old and outmoded Sawmills Licensing Act 1936. This act has been due for repeal following a review which found it to be ineffective and anticompetitive. Indeed, national competition policy payments are being withheld until such time as this act is repealed. The other act that needs amendment to ensure Queensland qualifies for NCP payments is the Fisheries Act 1994. The amendment will remove the requirement for administrative approval for quota transfer, and in future these transfers will be done by the transferee and transferor who will notify the chief executive of the details and the appropriate changes will then be made in the fisheries register. The Fisheries Act 1994 will also be amended to allow the exchange of information between state, Commonwealth and territory agencies to enable them to combat fisheries related crime. This amendment provides a balance between the right to privacy and the broader public interest in ensuring compliance with relevant legislation and that the appropriate evidence is provided to other enforcement agencies and in turn that they can receive information which can be used to help rid the commercial fisheries of criminal activities. This communication framework which will be underpinned by legislative authority will ensure the appropriate provision of evidence to prescribed government entities. There are also amendments to the Stock Act 1915 and the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act 1981 to clarify the appeals processes under both of these acts. The Food Production (Safety) Act 2000 will be amended to correct an unintended consequence of a recent amendment which had the effect of excluding all game meat harvesting from the ambit of the act. The Grain Industry (Restructuring) Act 1991 will be amended to only require a state review of wheat marking arrangements if the federal government takes any action to dismantle the national single desk arrangements. There are minor amendments to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 which correct a drafting error and to align the powers of police officers to respond to animal welfare incidents more closely to those of inspectors. These amendments will ensure that the acts that are administered by this government are modern and efficient, and I commend the bill to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.10 p.m.): In rising to speak to this legislation, there are just two or three issues I want to raise. With regard to changes to the fishing industry, I have to concur with the comments of the member for Toowoomba South in that many fishing families have 29 Sep 2004 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2509 expressed concern to me not so much about the fact that changes have occurred but that a lot of changes have occurred over a short period of time. Many of the changes had placed costs on the fishermen themselves with the installation of the newly required equipment—that is, if we take the matters in isolation, turtle excluders, the VMS system and those things. The fishing industry has not opposed in any great measure many of those issues. It has happily put on the TEDs and happily installed the VMS, albeit believing there were assurances that the VMS would achieve certain safety elements. Those were certainly not achieved. In fact, the information given to the fishermen at briefings appears to have been flawed. However, there have been additional closures of six weeks and closures of areas permanently. As I said, I have to concur with the comments of the member for Toowoomba South. Overwhelmingly, a view that has been repeated to me and one that I also hold is this: can we just stop for a while and let all of the changes—the closures, the withholding periods and all of that—settle in in order to determine their effect on the ecology to see whether what was projected to be achieved with some of those closures four and five years ago in terms of fish stocks and so on has been achieved and whether sustainability has been achieved in those areas that have been of concern not just to the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries and the conservation groups but to the fishing industry itself, because it is its future in terms of sustainability. The repeated call that I would pass on to the minister is to ask if we can just stop with the changes for a little while and let them roll through and see how the fisheries improve—that is, how the fish stocks improve, stabilise or change. Let the people in the industry itself—the men and women who work hard to be able to supply us with good quality seafood—take time out to do their job and also time out from having to constantly respond to reviews, investigations and changes to their livelihoods so that they can get on and enjoy their livelihoods. That is a point of view that I would hope the minister would have regard to. The recognition of powers for police officers involved in animal welfare directions—obviously that includes seizures—is also welcomed. It is one of the sad indictments of humanity that there are certain individuals who find absolutely no problem in acting towards animals—pets as well as stock—in a way that is cruel beyond belief. Some of the actions that the RSPCA and police officers get involved in are situations of a lack of understanding or situations of error or omission where people have inadvertently perhaps allowed animals outside in the heat without water. The real problem is those individuals who have no qualms about dealing harshly and inhumanely with animals that usually rely on them for food, drink and comfort. After contact with them, most police officers in my electorate are sensitive to a balance with the needs of the home owner, and authorities like the police and the RSPCA, and have a practical appreciation of how various families can afford to keep animals in terms of the quality and the cost of housing. But nearly every one of us here and nearly every individual can understand the difference between animals that are mistreated and abused versus animals that are perhaps kept in more circumspect or less palatial surroundings. The powers given to the police that reflect the powers given to the RSPCA are certainly welcomed. The only other issue I want to raise with the minister is to commend the correction in relation to the Food Production (Safety) Act. Amendments made last year had inadvertent or unintended consequences for the many people who harvest wild game for their own consumption. This inadvertent oversight has been corrected. For those people who have been affected in a negative way, I am certain that the correction that the minister is making in the legislation today will bring them a great deal of relief. I thank the minister for the opportunity to speak to this legislation. However, I am interested in his feedback either when he sums up the debate or subsequently in relation to the possibility of there being a moratorium on further changes to the fishing industry to allow that industry to recover from significant change and upheaval in order to allow the fishing families who work so very hard for themselves as well as us to be able to settle down and enjoy the industry that they so strongly support. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (3.17 p.m.): I rise to support the bill. The Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 proposes to repeal the Sawmillers Licensing Act 1936 and to make amendments to six other acts. More specifically, the repeal of the Sawmillers Licensing Act is required to meet the Queensland government's obligations under the national competition policy. Amendments to the Stock Act and Exotic Diseases in Animals Act will expressly provide for a better and clearer process outlining rights of appeal for decisions made under these acts. Amendments to the Fisheries Act will also meet the government's requirements under the national competition policy, clarifying terms used in the act in relation to possible workplace health and safety issues and allowing for the exchange of information between enforcement agencies. The Food Safety (Production) Act will be amended to make it clear that game meat harvesting falls within the provisions of the legislation as was the initial policy intent. Amendments to the Grain Industry (Restructuring) Act include changing the review provisions to only require a state review if the federal government takes action to dismantle the national single desk marketing arrangements for wheat export, and it would be a very brave federal government that did that. 2510 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Sep 2004

I want to address in more detail the changes to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 in relation to the government's commitment to animal welfare. These amendments provide clarification of the legislation to allow police officers to respond more effectively to animal welfare incidents. The amendment to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act aligns police animal welfare powers more closely to those of the RSPCA and Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries inspectors under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. It clarifies the original policy intent of the Animal Care and Protection Act that police officers should be able to exercise powers that are very similar to those of other authorised inspectors. The Animal Care and Protection Act is one of the most advanced animal welfare laws in the world with its strong educational emphasis and dramatically increased penalties for cruelty and failure to meet duty of care. For the first time in Queensland's history the legislation provides a duty of care on people in charge of or responsible for animals. The amendment to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act will tighten the legislation to give police officers powers to prevent further harm to animals in cases of neglect and abuse. Under these amendments, police officers will be able to seize animals in an expanded range of situations and issue directions to improve animal welfare. This will lead to quicker action to protect animals as in many cases police officers are often the first to reach a scene of animal abuse and neglect. In particular, police will be able to issue a written animal welfare direction or exercise powers to destroy animals in a situation set out in sections 6O(1), 66(2) (c), 66(2) (d) and 74(1) (h) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. Section 61 deals with the powers of police to remove animals from the road and other places. That is where the animal is in danger and could also endanger other people who use roads or airfields or wherever that animal is where it should not be. Section 66(2) (c) provides powers to the police officer to enter places and seize anything that the officer reasonably suspects as evidence of the commission of an offence involving an animal. That could be left to members' imagination. Ms Jarratt interjected. Mr PURCELL: That could be to do with cockfighting and all sorts of other types - Mr Wallace interjected. Mr PURCELL: Yes. Section 66(2) (d) outlines powers for police seizing an animal considered to be at risk. Section 74(1) (h) sets out police officers' powers under a search warrant to seize things reasonably suspected to be evidence of the commission of an offence. These amendments will more closely align the powers of police to those of other authorised animal welfare inspectors. As well as police officers having powers under animal care and protection legislation, animal welfare inspectors also operate through the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries' stock inspectors and veterinarians to act as inspectors as well as the RSPCA officers. The significance of the Queensland government's commitment to animal care and protection is demonstrated through penalties associated with breaches of the act. For example, a failure to meet duty of care, such as not providing appropriate food, water or accommodation, attracts penalties of up to $22,000 or one year's imprisonment. Together with the implementation of the Animal Care and Protection Act, the government has focused on education as a key strategy in promoting responsible animal care and welfare to the community. The state government established a mobile education unit together with the RSPCA to tour Queensland visiting schools, community functions and other venues to promote animal welfare. The amendments to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act will provide animals in Queensland with greater care and protection. The amendments are part of the Queensland government's proactive approach to reducing the incidents of cruelty and abandonment of animals. I commend the bill to the House. Mr CHRIS FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (3.22 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill. Obviously, this bill is multifaceted. Generally speaking, I agree with most of the bill. However, a number of concerns about this bill have been raised with me by my constituents and I would like to raise them. In the current environment, a number of sawmillers feel very insecure about the ongoing supply of milled timber. Recently, at the request of some of the hardwood growers in the area, I had the opportunity to look at some of the excellent silviculture work that has been done to provide sustainable hardwood logging and, therefore, underpin the viability of sawmilling in the area. One of the major complaints that I have received from my constituents is that there is a lot of misinformation. People are very concerned about the changes to the industry. They feel swamped by the information. Of course, they all get together and talk about it and they can end up totally on the wrong track. So I urge the minister to continue with the education scheme so that people are very, very familiar with the new rules. I have also spoken in this House before about compensation for fishermen. Prior to the regional forest agreement, pole sales by the DPI and Forestry were carried out on an in-house allocation basis. That has been the situation since the mid-1980s. But we have now moved to an allocation and tender system, which both allow only for an extraction of slightly less than 100,000 29 Sep 2004 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2511 lineal metres per annum, which in simple terms equates to about 8,000 power poles. The two major companies in my area are Dale & Meyers and Hynes. When Dale & Meyers entered the pole market in 1991, there were about nine other players in the field. Today, that number is down to only the two that I described. Under the current tender system, there are two purchasers of poles in south-east Queensland from the DPI and Forestry, and they are, as I said, Dale & Meyers and Hynes. Both companies have approximately half their supply from DPI and Forestry. Hynes may have a little bit more than Dale & Meyers, but there are no other purchasers of poles from the DPI and Forestry. However, that situation could change with the next round of tenders. Part of the current regional forest agreement states that all DPI and Forestry blocks will be cut only once for sawlogs during their 25-year term. In terms of the extraction of timber, the block is then closed up forever. Poles and other products are taken at the same time as the sawlogs. So basically that block is then lost to the timber industry. It is common knowledge that DPI and Forestry are finding well in excess of the 100,000 lineal metre per annum of poles in conjunction with harvesting the sawlogs. This excess is further exaggerated by poles from the Monto, Wondai and Yarraman areas, which also come under the South- East Queensland Regional Forest Agreement. It is estimated that currently Hynes and Dale & Meyers have a market for about 24,000 poles per annum and that both companies sell about 12,000 poles per annum to power corporations such as Energex and Ergon. Certainly, those power corporations well and truly want the poles. The size of the poles purchased from DPI and Forestry are more suitable than those from private sources. All the electricity corporations have stated that they would much prefer to use hardwood poles than any other type of product. So we need to ask the minister to consider DPI and Forestry being able to sell surplus poles in conjunction with the sawlog extraction prior to each block being closed. That could be done on a tendering basis similar to the current scheme. I reiterate that hardwood poles are far more economical than any other product in powerline construction. So I ask the minister to look into that matter. I turn now to some of the other concerns raised with me by my constituents. I have been approached by a small grower who has about 1,200 lime trees in the Maryborough area. That crop is based across two properties situated about 14 kilometres from Maryborough. They are surrounded by state forest and one adjoining property growing sugar cane and pineapples. There are two other citrus orchards within the Maryborough area: one north at Burrum and one south at Tiaro. They supply fresh fruit predominantly to the Brisbane markets all year round. My constituent has used the same transport company and agents for the past 10 years and has not introduced any new citrus plant material for over six years. This is a family business and any outside employment that they use is basically friends from the local area who help out. I realise that the DPI considers citrus canker to be highly contagious as it can be spread by windborne rain, animals and birds, moving infected or other exposed plants, and also people carrying infection on their hands, clothing or equipment, but when we consider the location of this particular citrus grower, their orchard management and marketing history, we realise that they are far less likely to have citrus canker on their property than the average gardener has in their backyard. My constituent's orchard is located in an isolated area, they have minimal movement of people and no movement of machinery. They also have a very good knowledge of citrus pests and diseases as that is their business. They have sent the same fruit to the same agent and customers for 10 years with no report of any disease. Currently, in terms of the restrictions imposed by the DPI for growers outside of the quarantine area as listed on the department's web site, fruit can be moved from the place where it is grown if one of these protocols is satisfied: firstly, the orchard where the fruit was grown has been inspected and given area freedom; secondly, the fruit is moved under the conditions of the inspector's approval; and thirdly, the fruit has been treated, packed, inspected and certified in accordance with the prescribed condition. The third option, which has been imposed on this particular grower in my electorate, is a single visit by a qualified DPI inspector to inspect their property and the area and to view their extensive records of orchard practice, transport and marketing. That should prove that that grower could not possibly have any citrus canker. Instead of that, that grower has DPI inspectors in their packing shed every time they pick fruit from the time the fruit reaches the shed to after packing is completed. These people have a very real concern about the lack of relevance of current policies and procedures in terms of their fruit growing. All fruit must be dipped in a chlorine solution of 200ppm at a pH of 6 to 7.5 for two minutes. The role of the inspector is to supervise this procedure and, at the completion of packing, inspect 600 fruit for citrus canker. However, inspectors do not appear to need any experience in growing citrus or any general knowledge of citrus pests and diseases or basic chemistry, as evidenced by the expression of interest and the two inspectors to date. This responsibility primarily is left to the grower. If the ability of the grower to recognise disease and mix chemicals correctly is far superior to the knowledge of the inspector, the presence of inspectors in the packing shed for many hours would appear to be unwieldy and unnecessary. Sometimes that is a very costly 2512 Privilege 29 Sep 2004 exercise and sometimes the inspectors can be antagonistic and downright rude. That makes the grower feel policed or watched. Like many other small growers they are accredited suppliers, which gives access to a wider market, for example Coles, and gives the buyer safe, quality fruit. The accreditation group that they work under is Freshcare, and records of farm practice to market destination are audited on an annual basis. Fruit traceability is very high, and protocols established by the DPI have long been in place with Freshcare. Rather than using already existing processes for traceability, the DPI appears to be reinventing the wheel at huge cost and frustration to the grower. As my constituents are small growers with four dependent children and no government support, they also have day jobs off the property. Prior to the DPI restrictions, the picking and packing, as for large growers and pack houses, could be managed through the week, but new protocols now require the dipping of fruit. As they are unable to operate the machinery, packing now must be done on the weekend, when suitable help is available. Limes are waxed before grading and packing, and high humidity in the morning affects drying, necessitating waxing on Friday night and packing on Saturday. This requires two visits from the inspector for a single consignment. Unlike other citrus, limes pick year round. In October and November the number of trays in a consignment may be only 12, compared to 200 at peak times. Currently the grower in question has a grace period of three months, through to the end of October, in which they are not paying for the DPI inspections, but they have been advised that they will pay $85 an hour, with double time on weekends and travel from the Bundaberg DPI, although the inspectors actually reside in the Maryborough area. I understand that the current policy and procedures are to be in place for the next two years. Small businesses obviously operate by keeping costs down, and these will be costs that growers cannot afford in order to remain viable. It seems crazy to me that someone is being paid to travel down from Bundaberg even though they actually reside in Maryborough. It would be interesting to see what would happen if they were asked to drive up to Bundaberg and then drive back down to Maryborough to do the inspection when they already live there. I ask the minister to clarify that. I will send a copy of this letter to the minister's office. Overall, there is frustration and my constituents are feeling quite a loss of dignity. I realise that citrus canker has created a much bigger problem for the industry and that perhaps this is a situation of a minnow being caught up with the sharks. That is part of the frustration. Having said that—that is a fairly lengthy explanation of those particular concerns—I am in favour of the bill overall. Interruption.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Energex; Mr G. Jardine Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (3.33 p.m.), by leave: This afternoon a special meeting of the Executive Council recommended to the Governor that Gordon Jardine, the chief executive of Powerlink, should be appointed as chief executive of Energex Limited from 29 September 2004—today—until 30 June 2005. In accordance with the provisions of the Government Owned Corporations Act 1993, the board of Energex Limited recommended the appointment of Mr Jardine as chief executive for that period, subject to the terms of his existing employment contract. Mr Jardine will be on secondment from his position of chief executive of Powerlink. This appointment follows a letter the Minister for Energy and I received today from the chair of Energex Limited, Ross Dunning, to say that the board of Energex Limited had met to consider the replacement for the late Greg Maddock as CEO. Mr Dunning told me that the board wished to recommend to shareholding ministers that Mr Jardine be appointed as CEO for the period to 30 June 2005 and that he would bring with him considerable expertise and understanding of the electricity sector in Queensland. I share that view and so does the Minister for Energy. Mr Dunning advised us that the recruitment process for a permanent CEO would start early next year, once an appropriate salary structure had been set. That was approved by Executive Council at 3.15 this afternoon.

PRIVILEGE

Energex; Release of Document Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (3.35 p.m.): Earlier today I told the House that I would seek advice on whether Energex board memorandum 12715 is relevant to the Energex matters I tabled in the House yesterday and whether the document's release 29 Sep 2004 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2513 would be appropriate. I said this morning that, although I did not know the circumstances or details of the document, I assumed it was commercial-in-confidence. Treasury has confirmed that this is the case. Board memorandum 12715 was exempt from a freedom of information request because it is a record of a board resolution and therefore commercial-in-confidence. This is a legitimate and necessary exemption under the Freedom of Information Act and the FOI officer acted appropriately in not releasing this document. I asked Queensland Treasury to review this document, and the advice to me is that the information contained in this memorandum will not damage the commercial operations of Energex at this time. The document is an annual dividend declaration for Energex Limited. Despite the document's being technically exempt from FOI, I have taken into account the unique circumstances and the unprecedented interest surrounding this issue at the current time. Consistent with my commitment to accountability and to releasing all documents relevant to the matter I tabled yesterday, and in light of these very unique circumstances, I now table a full copy of the board memorandum. I would ask, however, that the openness that we are demonstrating here not be abused or taken advantage of by those opposite, who raised this issue this morning. This is not a practice that I intend to continue to follow, but I do believe that in these circumstances the people of Queensland are entitled to have the full information. This is a demonstration and example of our accountability. It is also an indication that we have nothing to hide.

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND FISHERIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from p. 2512. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (3.37 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. Most previous speakers have covered the field, so to speak, with respect to this bill, which amends seven acts—Sawmills Licensing Act, Fisheries Act, Stock Act, Exotic Diseases in Animals Act, Food Production (Safety) Act, Grain Industry (Restructuring) Act and Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. Bearing in mind that other members, including the minister in his second reading speech, have indicated to the House the content of those bills, I will refrain from going over that ground. What I would like to do, however, is take the opportunity to inform the House of activities of the Department of Primary Industries in Toowoomba, at the DPIF Leslie Research Centre and the Tor Street centre. Recently I had the pleasure of being conducted by Dr Rick Ada and other members of the department— Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr SHINE: Until this very minute I was not aware of that. I thank the minister. I had a very valuable, informative morning. This was the second occasion on which I had done the tour, so to speak, of the DPI in my electorate. I know that the honourable member for Toowoomba South, with other members, has recently had the same opportunity to tour. I will mention some of the highlights of that tour. The first thing is work being done by Dr Rebecca Zwart, a plant pathologist, concerning root lesion nematodes. Root lesion nematodes are parasites that feed and reproduce in plant roots, disrupting root function and causing severe yield losses. In cereal crops, estimated losses due to root lesion nematodes are approximately $45 million a year. Yellow spot is a leaf disease caused by a fungus and is estimated to cause an annual loss of $17 million. Biotechnology research is being undertaken to develop molecular markers in order to locate the resistance genes. This project is identifying molecular markers for use in the breeding programs to select resistance gene combinations which will increase the efficiency of breeding wheat for durable resistance to multiple diseases, saving the industry millions of dollars each year. Dr Zwart is a young professional who completed her PhD working on this nematode project as a scholarship holder with the minister's department. I would like to mention the work being done by Dr Emma Colson, another plant pathologist, at the Leslie Research Centre combating emerging and emergent diseases in winter cereal crops in the northern region. The aim of this program is to determine the geographic distribution of plant pathogens of winter cereals in the region and to anticipate potential disease issues, allowing rapid and effective response such as seen during the wheat mosaic virus outbreak. The department's preparedness for an emergency response was well demonstrated in the past 12 months. In April last year wheat streak mosaic virus was identified in Queensland and an emergency response issued. Staff investigated 130 locations. There were nine teams of plant pathologists collecting a total of almost 1,000 samples for testing. In March this year another disease was identified—high plains virus—at the Leslie Research Centre. These two viruses are commonly found together and are spread by the same insect, a wheat curl mite, and have similar symptoms. A brochure on each of the viruses was developed and distributed to over 13,000 wheat growers throughout Queensland. Dr 2514 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Sep 2004

Colson was among the first pathologists to travel to Emerald recently to work on the eradication of citrus canker. A further project being carried out by Dr Nikki Seymour, a senior soil microbiologist, is the identification of soil biotic constraints in contrasting farming systems on vertosols of the northern grains region. This research aims to gain an understanding of the impact of crop growing on soil micro- organisms and the effect of the soil microbial community on productivity. This work is evaluating how growers can take advantage of benefits in manipulating soil microbes and develop guidelines to aid in farm management decisions. Knowledge of the impacts of different cropping options on soil microbes, along with diagnostic tests to quantify indicators of soil and health system benchmarking against computer simulations, will enable the growers and advisers to make better informed management decisions. This scientist, Dr Seymour, has recently completed her PhD. Further work has been done by Dr Mandy Christopher, a senior research scientist in biotechnology, at the Leslie Research Centre. The biotechnology laboratories at this centre use leading- edge technology to discover, validate and implement the use of molecular markers in the wheat, sunflower, sorghum and oats breeding programs. To inform the House, a molecular marker indicates the presence of a particular trait—for example, disease resistance. This research bridges the gap between marker discovery and the application of this technology in the day-to-day breeding program as well as selecting better varieties. The aim is to use these markers to determine which plants have characteristics that will enable a better variety to be bred. The project will lead to pest and disease resistant high-yielding premium quality varieties being available to growers and the industry sooner than would be possible using conventional breeding methods. At the centre at 203 Tor Street—again in my electorate—I was hosted on this occasion by Dr Ada and the assistant director-general, Dr Sandra Baxendell, a person highly regarded in the department and certainly in the Toowoomba-Darling Downs area. The work being done by Dr David Murray, the principal etymologist in plant science, was particularly interesting. He was the scientist who recently won the Seed of Light Award. Dr David Murray and Dr Melina Miles were the recipients of this award for outstanding grains communication research in Queensland and northern New South Wales. They received this award for their work for the innovative area-wide management program which tackled the potentially devastating heliothis threat to the grain and cotton industry in 1988. They acknowledged a cooperative effort between cotton and grain farmers in geographic areas across the Darling Downs to tackle the heliothis threat by coordinated use of management tools. As a result, area-wide management has now been adopted on other parts of the Darling Downs as well as elsewhere in Australia's grain belt, reducing heliothis populations and making best use of natural enemies to control the pest through integrated pest management techniques. The award is clear recognition from industry of the smart science and technology solutions being developed by DPIF to improve the profitability and sustainability of primary industries. Work at Tor Street is also being done by Ray Svensson, the principal inspector of biosecurity, with respect to the National Livestock Identification Scheme. We have heard today mention of that scheme by my colleague the member for Toowoomba South, and I know other members intend to speak on that topic. It is a very important one. The department is taking an active role in the implementation of this system for tagging of cattle. In addition to providing a service for ordering of NLIS devices through DPIF biosecurity stock offices, staff have also established four producer demonstration sites throughout the south region with the generous cooperation of the property owners. These sites are to demonstrate the actual operation of NLIS on a user property to other livestock industry people. Staff are attending producer meetings where the NLIS presentations are made, supporting the benefits of the scheme. World and domestic markets for livestock and livestock product are insisting on full traceability of such commodities. The member for Toowoomba South covered that in the desirability of having a traceback system, and I support his remarks. The scheme is an electronic tagging system where either ear tags or rumen boluses are attached to cattle. These devices are armed with a discrete radio frequency for the specific registered property which allows the animals to be tracked from birth to slaughter. DPIF's biosecurity staff are integral— Mr Malone interjected. Mr SHINE: In their stomachs, yes. Go to the top of the class. DPIF biosecurity staff are integral to the working of the system, verifying the particular property identification code allocated to the individual property against an order for NLIS and ensuring that the correct PIC—property identification code—is recorded in the device for the particular property. Device serial numbers are logged onto a national database, and this allows accurate tracing of every movement of all animals identified with the NLIS tags. This, in turn, allows the full tracing of all cattle from property to property via saleyards and to abattoirs—in fact, all movements. This national system provides clear benefits to industry and the community in securing markets based on product integrity and traceability of product. DPIF biosecurity maintains the agricultural property system. This database holds registration records for all livestock properties registered in Queensland. The APS is a fundamental part of 29 Sep 2004 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2515 biosecurity operations. It provides the identification of properties via a unique numbering process to allow rapid tracing in the event of a serious disease situation, enabling Queensland to respond quickly and effectively to disease outbreaks. I wanted to speak briefly on the Toowoomba Veterinary Laboratory also at Tor Street. A presentation was given on the day that I visited by Wendy Townsend, the manager of the veterinary laboratory. The extension to the Toowoomba Veterinary Laboratory was part of a $1.2 million Queensland government initiative to enhance the state's preparedness in the event of a foot-and-mouth or bovine spongiform encephalopathy—BSE—incursion. The equipment the laboratory will house— some of which has already been purchased—will enable a five-fold increase of the laboratory's capacity to screen for foot-and-mouth, allowing more rapid zoning of infected and free properties and containment of the disease. I congratulate the minister on his continued efforts, demonstrating his concern that this industry, as well as the pork and sheep industries and other industries, is protected in this regard. The tour also included the intensive livestock unit where a device called the olfactometer was inspected. The intensive livestock environmental management staff operate a fully equipped air laboratory, or an olfactometer, for measuring odour concentration. It is primarily used in innovative research into odour issues and air quality enhancement, particularly in relation to piggeries. However, it is also available commercially for odour measurements. DPIF has 10 years experience as a world leader in air quality research in the intensive livestock industries. Finally, in terms of what I want to talk about today, I mention the work being done by Jae Ho Sohn on the microsized electronic nose program. He is a scientist working in the area of intensive livestock environmental management. He is currently applying his expertise and knowledge to developing a microsized electronic nose with a combined sensor array for continuous, real-time measurement of air quality. He is developing artificial neural network algorithms for odour pattern recognition and participating in the design and development of a biofilter to reduce odour emissions from piggeries and other intensive livestock housing facilities. On a prior occasion I have talked about the eye in the sky project, which grabs one's attention. It seems to be very worth while, particularly where we are going to try to conserve as much water as possible and have an efficient application of fertiliser in relation to farming practices. These are a few samples of the work that the minister's department is undertaking in Toowoomba and has been doing for years. It is extremely worth while. These scientists are quiet achievers. Until I was elected as the member I had no idea of the extent of the scientific work that was being done there, but clearly the scientists are doing great work. People's livelihoods in most parts of country Queensland—indeed, Australia—are enhanced by the work that is being done. The minister is to be congratulated, as are the scientists, for their contributions to our state, and I commend what is being done. I know that the minister, because of his frequents visit to that site, is keen to support their ongoing and expanded work in the future. I commend them. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (3.53 p.m.): I, like my fellow National Party parliamentary colleagues, rise to support the Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. I acknowledge that there are a number of enterprises such as beef cattle, sheep, pork, fishing, horticulture, game meat, law enforcement, grain and the timber industry, just to name a few of the areas that will be affected by the bill. I acknowledge the minister's desire for parliamentary efficiency and expediency by rolling the changes to these industries into one amendment bill as opposed to individual and separate amending bills. As I have just indicated, the fishing industry is one of the nine or so industries or enterprises affected by this bill. This amendment comes at a time when the Queensland fishing industry is in massive upheaval and is facing a crisis in confidence. It is timely to remind members of this House that we are discussing legislation that directly affects the employment and livelihood of over 6,000 Queensland professional fishers and indirectly affects over 15,000 Queensland jobs attached to those professional fishers. According to Mr John Olsen, president of the Queensland Seafood Industry Association, the Queensland professional fishing industry is worth approximately $370 million wholesale. Of that, crustaceans contribute about $228 million, including $180 million from prawns, $25 million from crabs and $22 million from lobsters, which includes bugs; fish contribute around $130 million; and molluscs contribute $9 million, which includes $8 million from scallops. The wholesale value of wild-caught seafood is approximately $310 million. Aquaculture contributes around $63 million. To make those figures more relevant to my own electorate of Burnett, figures released by ABARE estimate that for the Wide Bay-Burnett the fishing industry is worth about $30 million to fishers, and it directly employs around 800 fishers and indirectly employs over 2,000 people. Unfortunately, that number is going down, which I will elaborate on shortly. As I mentioned before, this significant Queensland industry is in crisis, and I believe the crisis is government made. Therefore, if that line of logic is followed, governments can unmake this fishing crisis. The Queensland government, through the administration of GBRMPA, complementary zoning and lack of compensation with the complementary zoning, has contributed significantly to this crisis. Once again 2516 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Sep 2004

I reiterate my call—and I made this call earlier in the year in the House—for the scrapping of GBRMPA. I believe that this organisation has shown no respect or consideration for the fishers of the Burnett. I hold that opinion after extensive consultation with both professional and recreational fishers and industry representatives. Any change to legislation, this bill included—the Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2004—which affects the fishing industry is always going to be met with a certain degree of scepticism. The last thing a fisher wants to hear is that the government is going to change the rules again. The overwhelming feeling from fishers is that they want consistency in approach from government and job security for their families. We all want to be able to pay the bills and keep the wolves from the door. Mr Palaszczuk: But QSIA are in favour of these. Mr MESSENGER: Yes, I know that they are in favour of these amendments, Minister— Mr Horan: He is just talking about the fishing industry in general. Mr MESSENGER:—but in general— Mr Palaszczuk: The industry in general. Mr MESSENGER: Yes. Part 3, from clause 5 through to clause 15, promises to remove the need for government approval on the transfer of fishing quota; provide for a better exchange of information between fishery enforcement agencies; and strengthen the law which applies to assisting Boating and Fisheries Patrol officers in their investigations and also in their personal protection while carrying out their duties. I am happy to support this bill, because it is a very small step towards solving the fishing crisis. It does this by taking away red tape—I notice that the member for Hervey Bay commented on that—and a level of bureaucracy, as outlined by the Minister for Primary Industries in his second reading speech as follows— ... this being to remove the current requirement for a prior administrative approval by the chief executive of the Department of Primary Industries before a transfer of an authority—including quota—can take place. The removal of red tape and bureaucracy is always a good thing because Burnett fishers are virtually drowning in red tape. On this particular point, I hope that the minister may expand and provide some more detail as to the fees which are attached and which accompany 'authority to be transferred'. In other words, how much will it cost the fishers to transfer quota, and how are those fees calculated? The other question we always like to ask is: are those fees ever going to go up? Do they require ministerial approval? Mr Palaszczuk: I will give you that answer later on. Mr MESSENGER: Thank you, Minister. Speaking to the subject of quota transfer, many of my fishers have had to be involved in the transfer of quota because of the imposition of GBRMPA's new green zones or no-take zones. They were originally four per cent; they have now been increased over a period of years or negotiation to 33 per cent. Fishers do not mind that 33 per cent, but what they do mind in my area of the Burnett Discovery Coast is the 80 to 90 per cent of green zone that seems to be down our end of the map. I will speak to that shortly. Many fishers have indicated that they will exit the industry completely because of the massive reduction in fishing effort that they have had to cop because of GBRMPA's plan and, might I say too, the Labor's complementary zoning, which is a state government responsibility and has been imposed by the minister and the Premier, Mr Beattie. The traditional fishing areas of the Bundaberg and Burnett pro fishers have been affected by the imposition, as I have said, of that 33 per cent green zone. Effectively the way the maps have been drawn means that many pro and recreational fishers are missing out on 80 to 90 per cent of their reef fishing grounds. I did have a pro fisher in my office who said that on his log books he had an area of about two or three per cent left that he could go fishing when he compared his logbook entries. Might I add that he was quite upset about that. On top of these closures I have just been made aware of more state government closures. I have sighted a document from the Queensland government DPI which confirms that there is now a series of bans on coral reef fin fish for the next five years, including this year, until the year 2008. These bans apply not only to pro fishers but also to all amateur fishers. We are talking about the mums and dads of Queensland. It affects species like coral trout, sweetlip, red emperor, fusiliers, hussars, red jew, parrot and cod, just to name a few. As a result of Peter Beattie's Labor government it will be illegal for mums and dads to have on their boats, if they are north of the Burnett River—that is latitude 24 degrees 50 minutes—fish such as I have mentioned: coral trout, sweetlip, red emperor, fusiliers, hussars, red jew, parrot and cod. It is illegal between 8 October to 16 October, 6 November to 14 November and 6 December to 14 December. Of course, there are other similar dates until 2008. 29 Sep 2004 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2517

The professional fisher who brought these closures to my attention said that he was kept quiet and that he and his family, in order to obtain these additional state closures in writing, literally had to ring and plead with the local DPI every day for two weeks. Why should he be forced to do this? This is not necessary. It is lucky, as he said, the fishers have learnt to roll with the punches. He said that these state closures will have no benefit to the fish stocks; the only thing that they will affect is fishers and the number of them—there will be fewer fishers. The other strange and startling fact is that while this man is moored in his Burnett River marina it is legal for him to have the coral fin fish on board his boat, but the moment he makes his way out of the Burnett River mouth it is illegal because obviously he crosses that border. Then if he sails to those coral outcrops and fishes just north of Fraser and catches those coral reef fin fish, he is not able to off-load those fin fish in Bundaberg because it is illegal when he enters the mouth of the Burnett River. I would appreciate it if the Primary Industries Minister would check those details and look into that. It seems like a craziness and a lunacy has overtaken the DPI, if that is true and correct, and I believe it is. Many fishers will be squeezed into the few areas of reef that are not included in GBRMPA's green zones. As the member for Toowoomba South said, this is going to place tremendous pressure on the environment. As well as the tremendous pressure on the environment, tremendous pressure will be placed on the fishers and also the fishery officers. In this emotionally charged and, frankly, dangerous environment for all, I am sad to say that the fishery officers will have to rely on exceptional interpersonal skills and also the strength and powers that this bill gives to those officers in clauses 11 through to 15 of the Fisheries Act 1994 to effectively carry out their jobs. I convey to the minister the feeling and level of emotion that is within the fishing community along the Burnett Discovery Coast. Fishers are absolutely white hot with anger over the establishment of additional fishing closures. It is affecting their livelihood and their families. I have witnessed grown men literally crying because of the effect that it is having on their livelihood. People who do not recognise this are displaying a dangerous level of arrogance and ignorance about the absolute level of crisis within this industry. I am saddened and also angry by the way fishers have been forced to suffer because of GBRMPA and the Beattie state government's lack of meaningful consultation with fishers and also the slavish devotion to what I describe as the wacky green lobby who, if they had their way, would mean that the only items we would have on our seafood menus would be, as I said last night in my adjournment speech, imported fish, prawns from south-east Asia and tinned crabs. Mr Palaszczuk: When you talk about GBRMPA, you know that the chair of GBRMPA is Virginia Chadwick, who is a former Liberal minister in New South Wales? Mr MESSENGER: I take your point, Minister, but without fear or favour I will comment on any organisation that is causing damage and heartache to my constituents. I commend this bill to the House. Mr WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (4.07 p.m.): I rise to support this bill. The Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 proposes to make a number of amendments to six acts and to repeal the Sawmills Licensing Act 1936. I am going to concentrate on the Sawmills Licensing Act 1936 because my great grandad cut and carted timber in the 1920s and 1930s when this particular bill was made law. I have some family pedigree there. The repeal of the Sawmills Licensing Act is required to meet the Queensland government's obligations under the national competition policy. Members will recall the tight-fisted actions of the Commonwealth Treasurer in announcing the 2003-04 national competition policy payments to the states in December 2003. Indeed, he penalised the Townsville City Council because of its generous actions in supporting local residents who wanted to water their own yards. It really was a tight-fisted, ham-fisted approach to the people of Queensland by the soon-to-be ex-Commonwealth Treasurer. Of the $146 million due to Queensland for progress and implementing national competition policy, only $87.9 million was actually paid and $58 million was not forthcoming. The sawmills legislation forms part of the temporary payment suspensions and the repeal is being progressed now to unlock the funding being so unjustly withheld. Excuse me, I have a case of Cowboy throat so it is a bit difficult at the moment. Although the National Competition Council accepted in its report that the legislation is not presently restricting competition, it assessed that Queensland had yet to meet its NCP obligations because 'the discretion it (the legislation) allows to the chief executive could be administered anti-competitively'. Any excuse for the Commonwealth to hold on to the state's money! Queensland has been working on its NCP obligations and has reviewed this legislation for compliance with NCP principles. This review concluded that the current sawmills licensing system no longer meets the objective of the act, which is to make provision for the stabilisation of the timber industry by the licensing of sawmills and veneer and plywood mills, and for other purposes. As I mentioned, the Sawmills Licensing Act is a very old statute that came into effect in 1936, almost 70 years ago. As one can imagine, the circumstances that surrounded the industry in 1936 are 2518 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Sep 2004 quite different to the situation we experience today. There are about 250 primary timber plants licensed under the legislation paying an annual licence fee of $118.75. A large number of mobile or portable sawmills now in operation do not fall within the provisions and are not required to be licensed. Overall the review found this act to be quite ineffective in playing a role in timber industry development. It noted that the sawmills act has no real capacity to regulate the nature of timber harvesting and other forest management activities that can influence forest productivity. For example, this act was never designed to control the selection of trees to be harvested and retained, or to determine whether harvesting should occur on certain sites. The review recommended that the act be dispensed with. Members would be aware that a wide range of initiatives and controls through all levels of government now apply to the industry and these are not reliant upon the Sawmills Licensing Act. The act has played a limited role in relation to the collection of statistics to provide information on the amount of timber processed. However, for reasons previously outlined, at best this has been quite a partial exercise. Timber Queensland Limited has indicated that it intends to collect information about the operations of its members following the repeal of the sawmills act. An information gathering system will be developed by the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries in conjunction with Timber Queensland Limited. On balance, the decision has been taken to proceed with repealing this act to avoid possible permit penalties being applied by the National Competition Council for not meeting NCP guidelines in a timely manner. While the council does not specify penalties on an act-by-act basis, interstate experience with primary industries legislation shows that where reform does not happen a penalty of $2 million to $5 million per act can apply. It is now timely, especially in the light of the possible penalty to be applied to the Queensland government in the next round of NCP payments, to repeal the Sawmills Licensing Act. Therefore I commend the bill to the House. Mr Palaszczuk: What did you mean by a 'Cowboy throat'? Mr WALLACE: It is a disease sweeping the Thuringowa-Townsville area whereby apparently people were rendered hoarse after the wonderful game of football in which the Cowboys were robbed on Sunday. Mr Palaszczuk: Was it the Queensland primary industries that really gave the north Queensland Cowboys their great form? Mr WALLACE: That is right. Primary industries produce the meat that north Queenslanders consume, as well as the food and sugar that provides energy. DPI is the backbone of the Cowboys. Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (4.12 p.m.): The Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 proposes to repeal the Sawmills Licensing Act 1936 and make amendments to a number of acts in the Primary Industries and Fisheries portfolio. These are the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act 1981, the Fisheries Act 1994, the Food Production (Safety) Act 2001, the Grain Industry (Restructuring) Act 1991 and the Stock Act 1915. The bill proposes to amend both the Stock Act 1915 and the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act to simplify the appeals process under each act and stresses that these amendments will not have retrospective functions. The proposed amendments will involve providing for another level of appeal beyond the Magistrates Court in the case of the Stock Act and the District Court in the case of the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act. When speaking of exotic diseases, I stress that prevention is better than cure. The stock inspector based at Alpha has preventive authority, and the minister would have to agree that preventing an outbreak of animal and other diseases has great importance. Prevention is the best form of eradication and the tick line that extends through the southern and north-western part of my electorate is an effective and efficient method to prevent the spread of cattle tick and other diseases. However, it is of great concern to the primary producers of the area that the position of stock inspector is being replaced by third party providers who do not have the power to deter truckloads of cattle from bypassing the dip, nor are they qualified to monitor and report diseases and stock movement. The prevention of the spread of cattle tick and diseases in western Queensland has an extremely high priority. The minister himself admits that the destruction of the cattle industry during a major disease episode would cost the state millions of dollars. The industry contributes more than $3 billion a year to the state's economy and yet, due to a funding shortfall, the inspector's position at Alpha, which is responsible for dipping on average 25,000 head of cattle per year plus spraying 900 horses a year, is not being filled. This is an insult when one considers that a multi-million dollar industry is being placed in jeopardy because the government is too lousy to provide a stock inspector. Through its neglect, the government is not filling the position of stock inspector and is providing an avenue for an entire industry to be placed in serious jeopardy. There is no doubt who will be responsible for that. This government says that it is committed to biosecurity and the prevention of introduced diseases and pests in 29 Sep 2004 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2519

Queensland and Australian industries. Therefore, a stock inspector at Alpha must be a government priority. With reference to the impending implementation of the National Livestock Identification Scheme, once again we see the government disregarding the needs of the billion-dollar cattle and sheep industries. The Beattie government needs to match the $20 million federal coalition funding pledge to assist the cattle and sheep industries to adopt a National Livestock Identification Scheme. Queensland is by far the biggest beef state in Australia. Despite having half the national beef herd, the government has consistently refused to provide financial help to producers to implement the new electronic tagging system that will become law in Queensland next year. There is not a cent for the producers who will have to comply with the new laws. They are the ones who will have to buy the electronic tags and readers. By committing $20 million, the federal government has thrown down the gauntlet to the Beattie government to provide some real financial support to ensure producers alone are not left to carry the entire burden of introducing this new system. The only state government money allocated to assist the cattle industry was $690,000 to support infrastructure within the industry. However, this will do little to assist Queensland saleyards and abattoirs prepare for the National Livestock Identification Scheme, NLIS. The Roma saleyards alone will have to spend more than $250,000 to prepare for NLIS, so that state support will not go far to assist the dozens of saleyards throughout the state, to say nothing of the huge number of abattoirs that will also need to get ready for NLIS. Australia's national beef herd stands at 24 million head. Queensland has about half the national herd. New South Wales has half Queensland's herd and Victoria has half New South Wales's herd. The Bracks government in Victoria has committed $15 million over five years to implement NLIS in Victoria and the New South Wales government's support package is valued at $6.4 million with $1 million set aside to specifically assist livestock producers buy electronic tags. Can the state afford to ignore the plight of this $3 billion industry and ignore the fact that, while other states are putting their hands into the public coffers to assist primary producers, it continues to promise loose change only? People will be directly and financially seriously disadvantaged by this scheme. In relation to green zones, one thing that needs to be questioned is the severe penalties that have been imposed upon fishermen. We are looking at severe fines of up to $220,000 for individuals and $1.1 million for corporations. My electorate of Charters Towers includes people from places like Moranbah and Hughenden who cannot grasp the concept of or understand the invisible zones. When comparing these fines to much more lenient ones for drug trafficking, I cannot believe that catching a fish is such a serious crime. Both state and federal governments need to look at that issue. Overall, I commend the bill to the House. Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy—ALP) (4.19 p.m.): In rising to support the Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill, I want to focus on that part of the bill which proposes to amend the Stock Act 1915 and the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act 1981. On reading the minister's second reading speech and the explanatory notes, I see that the purpose of the amendments is to clarify some legal uncertainties with regard to the right of appeal highlighted as a result of a recent District Court decision on a matter related to a claim by an owner of a cattle property seeking compensation against the state for destocking of cattle under the Stock Act. The state appealed the decision of the Magistrates Court to the District Court, which ruled that under the legislation the state had no right of appeal. With the risk— and there is always a risk—of exotic disease outbreak, it is important that legislation is appropriate to meet the rights of all stakeholders in a legal process, and the amendment does just that. As the amendment refers to destocking under the requirements of the Stock Act at a time of an exotic disease outbreak, I want to take the opportunity to raise on behalf of cattle producers— constituents in the Fitzroy electorate—the matter of Queensland as from 1 July 2005 joining the National Livestock Identification Scheme, known as NLIS, which I will refer to as electronic ID at times during this contribution to the House today. Honourable members are aware that the minister recently released for consultation and feedback a draft implementation plan for electronic ID prepared by the Queensland National Livestock Identification Scheme Implementation Committee, or QNIC. I would hope that cattle producers took the opportunity to put their concerns to the minister, because there is a high level of concern amongst grassroots beef producers about the ability of NLIS to deliver an efficient, effective, whole-of-life traceback system that meets the expectations of pro-electronic ID lobby groups like Meat and Livestock Australia and meat processors and rural organisations like Agforce. Before I move on to talk about some of the issues, let me make one important point so that members understand where the cattle producers are coming from. NLIS is promoted as a system having the ability to reduce the financial and social impact of disease epidemic due to what is claimed to be its accurate identification and rapid traceability capabilities. The problem with that statement is that there is no ID system operating in this country that has been put to the test to determine its effectiveness, efficiency and reliability in delivering a traceback system that ensures all living cattle can be tracked down in a time of crisis. The grassroots of the cattle industry acknowledge that we as a state 2520 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Sep 2004 and as a nation must continue to seek out new and innovative ways to improve our current paper based traceback system. I have no doubt from the discussions that I have had with cattle producers in my area that they are prepared to take on electronic ID or any other system so long as that system has credibility and so long as it can do the job with limited cost to them. They will support a system that has been proven to be effective and reliable and one that achieves the desired outcomes with minimal cost. We all know that in the event of an exotic disease outbreak such as foot-and-mouth disease or mad cow disease, known as BSE, beef production and export would cease overnight and market access would be withdrawn. Acceptance back into the markets would depend on just how quickly we could isolate those diseased cattle and the properties they have been on and how quickly we could control the disease and prove that our industry was again disease free. Electronic ID, if implemented properly, will speed up the process of traceability for control, but it will not prevent exotic disease outbreak as has been claimed by some people. We must ensure that everyone understands that. We must ensure that everyone understands that an efficient, effective traceback system must be able to withstand a vigorous auditing process under strict monitoring of market participants before our beef will be returned to a disease-free status. Producers are constantly told that our importers of Australian beef are demanding a whole-of-life traceback system for our product. Grassroots producers are asking: where is the evidence to support these claims? They know that Australian beef export processors and traders successfully trade into more than 100 countries. These people compete against themselves for contracts in the global meat trade and with foreign governments. Producers quite rightly ask me: why then if electronic ID has such a market advantage have they not demanded it as a condition of supply when purchasing livestock such as that which guarantees access into the EU markets? One could ask if their strong support for electronic ID is more about using government to force producers to implement a system purely as a marketing tool rather than a system that is truly capable of meeting community expectations for a rapid response and control of a disease outbreak. I want to focus on the issues producers have raised with me, because it is my job as an elected member to make sure that my constituents are heard: issues that have been presented to the minister; issues that have been presented to the Premier through the director-general; issues that have been raised with the NLIS Implementation Committee; issues that have been in correspondence and submissions made to government; issues that have been raised in letters to editors of regional papers, including through electronic media; and issues that have still not been addressed in such a way that gives producers confidence about the system and its ability to deliver what has been promised. For the record, I want to give a brief run-down of those issues. These issues are the ones causing most concern. There is the fact that electronic ID will impose start-up and recurring cost burdens on both production and processing sectors of the beef industry with minimal opportunity for the offsetting of those costs. There are concerns about such things as the cost of tags for producers, applicators, reading wands or permanent readers, computers and associated software, training to use those computers, maintenance of the database, the cost of reading tags at saleyards and at the processing point, and the time taken for compliance over and above that attributed to normal management practices on farm. A creditable cost structure for producers would take a lot of angst out of the producers' concerns, but that has never been demonstrated, although there was a weak attempt to do so. Producers have said that ID tags are lost at one per cent to three per cent annually in ideal conditions. In heavy timber, woody weed country or where sheep netting fences are the norm, annual tag losses could be as high as three per cent to six per cent. Tag failure to read is reported to be between three per cent and eight per cent. So we are talking about a lot of cattle out there or a lot of tags that are registered on a database that will not be able to be tracked down. No-one has adequately explained to producers what will be required when they realise that a number of tags within a herd have failed to read at the time or at the time of a property-to-property transfer or what consideration will be given when dealing with cattle that are registered on the database but cannot be located because they are missing. They are either dead, have been washed away by floods or have been stolen. Some 90 per cent of producers in the central Queensland region will move cattle from property to property because of property management strategies and/or drought conditions. How will property-to- property movements be monitored to ensure that actual movement is recorded? The average age of a Queensland beef producer today is said to be around 60. Many of these producers and indeed many young producers do not have the Internet capability or skills to adequately handle data flows required to support a system that is dependent on whole-of-industry involvement if it is to maintain export integrity. One of the real impediments for a creditable electronic ID system in Queensland is access to a reliable Internet in a state where some producers, because of isolation, do not have access to the Net or, if they do, it is slow or if it fails or breaks down can take seven to 10 days to repair. One of the most important aspects of NLIS is that all cattle movements must be recorded within 48 hours of the event. That is an issue. That is an issue that has been raised in a number of 29 Sep 2004 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2521 representations, but no-one has acknowledged the importance of access to infrastructure, and they need to take this issue seriously. A strong connection with the database is essential for system accountability or industry involvement in NLIS. Producers rightly argue that we have in Queensland what has been for many years world's best practice for livestock traceability. Branding, tail tagging and vendor declarations have ensured that a creditable traceback system has existed. The biggest problem has been human failure—failure to be consistent in following proper process and a lack of regulatory monitoring and auditing of the system to ensure that every link in the structure has been strictly adhered to. This type of scenario has the potential to re-emerge under NLIS if a regulatory framework and resources are not put in place. Members will be aware of reports about the electronic ID system working in Victoria. Those reports are misleading to some extent, because they never acknowledge that all phases of the system are not yet fully implemented as one complete system. The Victorian system has, up until now, and in fact until 1 January next year, not operated as a complete system that can be audited for accuracy and reliability. So we do not have a system working where all aspects of the system have been linked for an extended period of time that would allow for a creditable auditing assessment based on consistency and accuracy of operational performance. Let me say that the Victorian system has now reached a performance level that allows for a much more accurate assessment of performance than, say, that of 12 months ago. I know this because last week I went to Victoria to see for myself how electronic ID was performing. I will be reporting back to producers in CQ so that they are brought up to date with what is happening in Victoria. I travelled some 1,600 kilometres and spoke to many different individuals involved in one or more areas of the beef production chain where electronic ID is playing an important and effective role. I went to a small abattoir, Westside Meats in Bacchus Marsh, and witnessed scanning and software uploads to the database. I visited the Tatura DPI office to discuss regulations and computer activities relevant to producer accounts. I went to Shepparton saleyards to witness the recording of cattle into sale facilities with vendor information being entered into an on-site computer system in preparation for the next day's sale. On sale day, I saw cattle being weighed into sale lots with ID readings by three scanners in races leading on to the weighbridge. The information entered the previous night is tagged against the lot numbers, property identification code—or PIC number—and electronic ID tag numbers, which is then at the end of the sale uploaded to the database. I went to the Wodonga saleyards to see their overhead scanner operating and witness post-sale follow-up of missing tag replacement. On Wednesday, I travelled to the Charlton feedlot to see how a large feedlot manages ear tagging of untagged beasts and the reading of cattle leaving and entering the feedlot. On Thursday, I went to Pakenham and saw how cattle are read with a hand-held reader following the sale of a lot, or pen. As soon as one pen of cattle is sold, the beasts with the tags are read. Those with no tags are required to get one fitted so that it can be read and registered as part of that lot sale. What surprised me here was the speed at which cattle can be read by a hand-held boom scanner. I was told that up to 1,000 reads an hour had been achieved. Scanners and readers are achieving, what I found very interesting after talking to a lot of people in my area, a 99.5 per cent accuracy read with a 100 per cent reading becoming more frequent due to producer compliance, a better designed ear tag and the higher placement of the tag in the ear. So some of the issues being raised by my constituents are being rectified simply through a learning process. In talking to producers, livestock agents, saleyard operators and processors, it was acknowledged that Queensland faces many more challenges than Victoria simply because of the operating environment, the size of herds, the size of properties, the types of movement and the frequency of movement. I have learned from the Victorian experience that for them the system is capable of delivering consistency of readings and that a failure in reads is due to a missing tag rather than a faulty device. The device has been redesigned to reduce the risk of damage when it is being fitted. Failure in the process of tagging can be directly attributed to producer ignorance or laziness. Livestock agents have also been slow in conforming, but many of these issues will be addressed from 1 January next year when cattle will be withdrawn from sale if they are not tagged. That is the only way to do it—one in, all in. That is the way I believe it has to be done. Producers said that they had many of the same concerns as those of Queensland producers, but they now see the benefits and realise that, as small producers with mainly property to sale or slaughter, tagging is just an extra in the management of their herds. On the matter of cost, no-one was prepared to put a figure on the cost as a result of electronic ID. Most producers who are required to do an on-farm read hire in a contractor whose costs take into consideration the time, which reflects the size of the herd read and the distance travelled. The reading of the tags is subsidised at the saleyard or the abattoir and at this time is at no cost to the producer, but that can change in time. When I looked at the Victorian experience of electronic ID and considered where we are in Queensland, two things stood out. I see the MLA in Queensland as failing in its role of selling NLIS to 2522 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Sep 2004 the producers. MLA spokespersons have not answered questions with precision and honesty. I see the MLA as forcing acceptance of the NLIS on producers rather than talking through the issues with them and being honest with their response and taking the industry along as a whole. The other stand-out issue for me is the need for the MLA and the government to commit to a real strategy of the deliberate education of producers so that they understand what is expected of them and the role that they will play in a whole-of-life livestock traceback system. There has to be a genuine, more sincere effort put into addressing the issues as they surface instead of allowing them to ripple across the industry. Producers said that, for them, the change was a pain in the butt. However, they accepted that the system is here to stay, that they are locked into it, and that they must now get on with the job. In Queensland, there are many challenges ahead for our cattle industry. There are many who believe that NLIS is a flawed system, that it cannot deliver the integrity required for a system that is being promoted as one that will ensure that all cattle at some time in the near future will be able to be located in a matter of hours of a trigger event. Despite what I witnessed in Victoria, there are multiple unanswered questions and uncertainties about NLIS in Queensland. I believe that there needs to be more activity in the engagement of producers at the local level. I would like to suggest, for the minister's consideration, that he puts together a team of troubleshooters and that the team should include DPI staff who know and understand the regulatory requirements of NLIS, and people with the technology skills and a working knowledge of the software that will carry NLIS transactions. The team would need to be resourced in such a way that would allow them face-to-face discussion with individuals and small groups of producers about issues. The workshops approach, which we have had here in Queensland, while informative, does not actually do any problem solving because that has never been on the agenda and also there are too many people involved. Every stakeholder has a responsibility to make sure that we get it right. If we took the approach of trying to troubleshoot the issues face to face in small groups, I am sure that we would take a lot of bad feeling out of the industry. Mr Palaszczuk: I will take that on board and I will discuss that with my director-general. Mr PEARCE: I thank the minister very much. That leads me to my conclusion. I wanted to thank the minister, because I believe that he has done a good thing in listening to me and my constituents. I know the minister to be sincere in his endeavours to address the issues that have been raised. I want to put on the record my appreciation for the cooperative support that the minister has given me. The issue is hurting a lot of rural producers, because they are getting worked up about how they are going to deal with it. I have a young man in my electorate who has a family and he carries about 3,000 head of cattle. He has sat down and done his homework on how much he believes the NLIS will cost him. He tells me that he cannot get out of it for less than $16.50 a head. In times when the market is good and the cattle prices are high, he can deal with that; he can manage it. But when the market goes into decline, he will be put into a marginal position. No-one has sat down with that man and said to him, 'The figures that you have put up are wrong. This is why they are wrong.' He said to me, 'If people can prove that I am wrong, I am happy. But no-one can prove that I am wrong yet. No-one has come forward and sat down with me and discussed these issues.' I think that we have to start doing that. We have to start talking to people face to face and getting a real understanding and a real feel for their issues and then having people who know what they are talking about, who understand technology and who understand the regulatory process, talk to them, work them through the issues and then, if there are problems, address them. I support the legislation before the House. I thank the minister for taking the time to listen to my concerns. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (4.37 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. The bill proposes to repeal the Sawmills Licensing Act 1936 and to make amendments to the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act 1981, the Fisheries Act 1994, the Food Production (Safety) Act 1991, the Grain Industry (Restructuring) Act 1991, the Stock Act 1915 and the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. Today, I will speak about the changes that this bill makes to the Fisheries Act 1994, in particular the amendments to allow for the exchange of information between fisheries enforcement agencies and other relevant bodies. The Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol undertakes surveillance, inspection and enforcement operations to protect Queensland fisheries and fish habitats under the powers of the Fisheries Act 1994 and subordinate legislation such as the Coral Reef Fin Fish Management Plan and the East Coast Trawl Management Plan. In addition, a key role of the patrol is to continually assess and review compliance techniques and technologies to maintain an effective deterrence while minimising disruption to fishers, vessel operations and the community. There is growing evidence that fisheries related crime is becoming increasingly more organised, particularly with regard to illegal harvesting, transporting and trading of high-value fish stocks such as abalone, rock lobster and coral reef fin fish. We all know that these are becoming items in great demand, especially in terms of live export. This has been demonstrated by the decision of the Natural 29 Sep 2004 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2523

Resource Management Ministerial Council earlier this year to agree to a national study into the extent of organised crime in fisheries. Mr Palaszczuk: Some of that organised crime is carried out by bikie gangs. Mr FENLON: I take the interjection of the minister. I have seen some publicity on this matter. Mr Palaszczuk: Some people refer to those people as 'I ride and I fish'. Mr FENLON: I appreciate the comment of the minister. It certainly is a very worrying development for those people in the industry in particular. Mr Palaszczuk: Millions of dollars. Mr FENLON: Indeed. It is a massive industry. It is a very valuable one to Australia and, indeed, one which impacts on all parts of the community in the sense of losses of revenue, returns to the government and connections to other illicit activities such as the drug trade. The Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is commissioning the study that I mentioned. The study is a collaborative effort between the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Australian Crime Commission. The scoping study is expected to be completed this year and a final report submitted in late 2005. To complement this national approach to organised crime in fisheries, it is desirable for enforcement agencies to be in a position to share intelligence and provide information collected in the conduct of an investigation to other jurisdictions. The amendment to the Fisheries Act will provide for the exchange of information where that information would help a prescribed enforcement agency to perform its function of investigating and taking action in relation to criminal offences. The amendment allows the chief executive of the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries to disclose personal information about an individual in circumstances where it is considered necessary or desirable in the public interest to assist external agencies to perform compliance functions. These circumstances are where the chief executive is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the information would assist a prescribed government agency to discharge its functions in relation to investigations or action concerning a criminal offence where such an entity requests information in this regard. The disclosure of this information will be confined to government entities with enforcement functions in relation to criminal law. To safeguard the use of this power, disclosure of information will occur through a communication framework that is underpinned by legislative authority. The framework ensures that appropriate provision of evidence to prescribed government entities will be achieved through a balanced assessment of the right to privacy in the broader public interest. The amendment will result in more effective operation of compliance legislation. The chief executive of the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries will develop guidelines for the exchange of information under this framework in consultation with other agencies, including the Department of Justice and Attorney- General. This consultation process will resolve any potential for privacy issues. To further complement this amendment to the Fisheries Act, the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol has been progressively upgrading its capacity to deal with illegal activity. An intelligence analyst has been employed by the patrol for several years and more recently, in response to new management arrangements in the coral reef fishery, specialist investigators have been introduced. In addition, recent amendments to the coral reef plan have increased the patrol's ability to detect illegal activity in relation to coral reef fin fish. These amendments are of considerable importance to the long-term conservation and management of Queensland's fisheries resources. The measures include the use of new technology for quota fishing and fish tracking that will maintain the integrity of the catch quota scheme for the fishery. Automated integrated voice response technology, similar to that used in telephone banking, now allows fishers to report their catch from their boat and provides timely access to quota data for both fishers and inspectors. Fishers are also required to keep records about how they dispose of their fish, and commercial buyers need to keep records about the fish they buy and sell, other than retail sales. This is indeed very important for the tracking of all of the commodities in question. If the full chain—acquisition of catches through to disposal of catches—can be tracked, we have a far better chance of apprehending offenders in this area. The telephone notices will allow quota usage to be monitored, while the records form an audible trail that will be used to detect the possible development of a black market for illegally caught fish. Current measures, such as the approaches detailed above for the coral reef fishery, together with this amendment to the Fisheries Act 1994, will send a strong message to the community that the Queensland government is concerned about the potential for illegal fishing and is actively pursuing strategies to deal with the issue at a range of levels. The approach taken by the Queensland government is further supported through the actions of the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council with respect to organised crime and fisheries. 2524 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Sep 2004

This is a very important piece of legislation not only for the conservation of our fish and seafood stocks but also for good government in this area and for the security and safety of those people involved throughout that industry. I commend this bill to the House. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (4.46 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. This is a miscellaneous bill, involving several different areas, which repeals and amends a number of acts. These acts have effect in several very important primary industries in this state. The bill repeals the Sawmills Licensing Act 1936, which has become obsolete. This act, which has licensed sawmills and veneer and plywood mills, has been assessed as not complying with national competition policy and as such is unnecessary. Timber Queensland has been consulted and I understand that it has no concerns. Sawmillers and timber mill owners are essential business entities and are also a very important industry. Many of these people are feeling at risk. The viability of many of these businesses is under threat, with the life span of natural timber and the availability of timber being impacted upon. The large areas declared under World Heritage have impacted hugely on timber millers, as has the recent timber clearing legislation passed in this parliament. Timber is an essential commodity, and this industry must be preserved and must be given adequate protection. This bill before the House also amends the Stock Act 1915 and the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act 1981 to aid clarification within the appeals process. It provides for a further level of appeal beyond the Magistrates Court in the case of the Stock Act and the District Court in the case of the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act. The introduction of exotic diseases to the country's primary industries—to livestock and to the fruit and vegetable industry—is the single most devastating event that could occur to these industries. With international travel becoming much more popular, this threat becomes more and more serious. The vigilance of Customs and the enormous amount of endeavour on the part of Primary Industries' officers must be applauded. Both areas need the full support of all levels of government. The amendment within this bill to the food safety act ensures that commercial game harvesting is not excluded from the act and allows for the insertion of the words 'by an individual for the individual's own use'. There is also an amendment to the Grain Industry (Restructuring) Act 1991. One of the very real strengths of grain marketing and sugar marketing in this state is the single desk. This is an essential marketing process. Of course, it is extremely important to keep it in place. The amendment to the grain act is to ensure that state reviews of the industry have to happen only if the federal government plans to dismantle the single desk arrangements. The bill also contains an amendment to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 to align the powers of police to respond to animal welfare incidents more closely with those of inspectors appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act and is a very worthwhile addition. Amendments to the Fisheries Act 1994 to strengthen communication and other areas of the fisheries enforcement agencies have genuine relevance and as I understand it also have the support of the fishing industry. Fisheries enforcement agencies are an area of specific concern to the fishing industry and to all the very genuine fishers that we have. There have been huge imposts put upon the fishing industry, and the complementary zoning soon to be introduced by the state government will put the final nail in the coffin of many commercial fishers—in fact, the majority of inshore fishers in the northern area. Further fishing closures will have an enormous impact on communities along the coast. Many residents' livelihoods and lifestyles have already been affected by Commonwealth closures. With the further areas now to be declared exclusion zones for recreational and commercial fishers, as well as the bag limits being imposed, a strong enforcement agency is essential to ensure that this will be enacted. A huge area in my electorate of Burdekin—specifically I refer to the Bowling Green Bay area— has previously attracted an enormous number of both recreational and commercial fishers. There is currently a very real need for fisheries patrol officers in this area of the Burdekin. As it stands, the officers who are available come down from Townsville or come from Bowen. Fishing industry representatives tell me that there is a need for more officers. I have been told of several cases of illegal fishing activities that have been reported to officers in Townsville, and officers in Townsville have been simply unable to send anybody down. There is not sufficient staff available. There are insufficient officers. This means that at the end of the day less regulation occurs in our area, and as a result fishers have the capacity to deplete the waterways. Commercial fishermen are going to be self-regulated. Their fines are so much more incremental than recreational fishers. Not only does it defeat the purpose of the coastal marine park closures; it makes the current proposal more dangerous. By this I mean that it leaves the coastal areas prone to being depleted by illegal fishers while the inspectors are not there. We need permanent Boating and Fisheries Patrol officers in the Burdekin to maintain area management. I am speaking about the Burdekin area because I have knowledge of that area, but I believe that similar needs in other areas along the coast would exist. Boating and Fisheries officers are essential. 29 Sep 2004 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2525

Fishing inspectors ensure the honesty of fishers, and all reasonable amateur and professional fishers welcome their presence. Fishers have said to me that the end product of this will be that a lack of inspectors will drive away the honest, professional fishers and simply leave the illegal fish harvesters. Sadly, there is illegal fishing activity occurring and this lack of officers will only exacerbate the situation. Various representations have been made to the minister on different occasions on this issue from the seafood industry, from the Burdekin Shire Council and I understand from previous local representatives. I seriously urge the minister to acknowledge this situation. There is sufficient housing and office space in the Burdekin to accommodate a permanent Fisheries officer presence, and I believe it would not be a huge cost to the department. The amendments to this bill will be an improvement to the fishing industry by removing some of the bureaucratic processes. I commend the bill to the House. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (4.54 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. At the outset, let me say that I certainly do not intend to repeat many of the matters that have already been raised by members from both sides of the House in their contributions to this debate. However, I would like to put on the record my appreciation to the member for Fitzroy for his very detailed contribution to the bill. It was great to hear the minister take on board some of the suggestions that he made. There are two issues that I wish to briefly touch on. One is the great news in this bill that there will be an exchange of information between the Fisheries officers who are out on the oceans with other appropriate state and federal government agencies. There is no doubt that we have hundreds of kilometres of coastline and there is no doubt that we have increasing attempts to bring illegal drugs into Queensland and Australia. I would hope that, as a result of this amendment in the bill, with the opening of the lines of communication between the Fisheries officers in Queensland, our police in Queensland, and their colleagues interstate and overseas, we may see a better response—an improved response— in stopping illegal activities along our coastline. That is no criticism of the great partnerships that exist at the moment between our various interstate and federal agencies. Recently we heard an announcement of another drug haul, and I am certainly hopeful that this great partnership that is existing between our state agencies and the federal agencies will continue to grow and blossom into a real-life one which works in the interests of Queensland and Australia. No doubt this amendment will play a significant role in assisting the free flow of accurate, reliable information between the appropriate enforcement agencies in Queensland and Australia. The other issue that I wish to touch on briefly is something the minister mentioned in his second reading speech. He spoke about the need to provide better protection to our Boating and Fisheries officers in undertaking their duties. I certainly support our enforcement officers having all the protection and all the power that they need to do their jobs properly, but in dealing with many of the fishers both in my electorate and in adjoining electorates I have had some shocking examples of abuses of power mentioned to me by some officers—and by one officer in particular whom I do not intend to name here in this chamber. But I am not aware of the example of the reprehensible conduct that the minister referred to in his second reading speech, where he said— It is absolutely and totally unacceptable to me, and indeed I hope to each and every member of this House as well, that patrol officers should be exposed to this type of reprehensible conduct without having proper legal redress. I certainly do not condone any action or activities by fishers which will jeopardise the safety of officers who are doing their duties. But can I say in all sincerity to the minister that we need to ensure our enforcement officers are appropriate people who have proper people skills. I have met on a number of occasions over recent years with the fishers on the Sunshine Coast, and some of the examples they have conveyed to me of the attitude of one officer in particular and the undertaking of their duties I believe leaves a lot to be desired. While I certainly commend the minister's attempts to ensure that our officers have all the powers that they need, I urge the minister and the department to ensure our officers have the people skills that are needed in this very important role. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (4.58 p.m.), in reply: I would like to thank all members for their contributions. From what I have heard, there appears to be full agreement on all sides of the House for what the government is proposing. The reason we bring in these primary industries and fisheries legislation amendment bills yearly is to make minor amendments to a number of acts. They are not controversial amendments and they should be accepted by all members of the House. More importantly, it gives all members on both sides of the House an opportunity to speak as widely as they can in relation to all matters relating to primary industries. Of course, that was the case here this afternoon. I will be referring to most of the issues raised by members but I will talk about one particular issue that the honourable member for Toowoomba South mentioned during his contribution, and that was that he referred to the Greens. I think that the National Party is far too preoccupied with the Greens. The only time that the coalition mentioned agriculture in the first half of this current election campaign was when John Anderson called the Greens watermelons. He said, 'Green on the outside and red on the inside.' I am concerned that the National Party has— 2526 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Sep 2004

Mr Fouras: It wasn't even original. Mr PALASZCZUK: It wasn't very original, but I believe that the National Party has an obsession with communism. The leader of the Queensland opposition has his abusive mouse pads and now John Anderson has his watermelons. It is the red inside the watermelon that is its goodness. It is the red flesh of the watermelon that people eat, and the red colouring also signifies the presence of the powerful anti- oxidant lycopene. I suggest to the honourable member that lycopene is a property that he and all males in this House should be concerned about because lycopene helps overcome prostate cancer. The red in the watermelon contains quite a powerful amount of lycopene. Honourable members may not know this, but over the last 20 years or so from time to time Queensland watermelon growers have had to deal with bacterial fruit blotch. In watermelons this disease causes a brown, water soaked blotch on the green rind. I have brought a picture of this blotching into the House for the interest of all honourable members. That is what the blotching looks like on watermelons. The internal fruit symptoms can vary with the age of fruit. However, there is generally a reddish brown discolouration of flesh where infection passes through the rind. I am pleased to say that through industry and the federal government's commitment to Horticulture Australia a project has been conducted to better manage bacterial fruit blotch in Queensland's melons. I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and I would like to thank John Anderson who, on behalf of the federal government, committed funds to ensure that Queensland watermelons are greener on the outside and redder on the inside. Many members raised the issue of the government's fisheries decisions. Some members have referred to the raft of fisheries management reforms introduced by this government. The member for Gladstone indicated that it was not necessarily the decisions but the pace of change that caused her concern. I would like to remind her that it is a generation of inaction that we are addressing now. The member for Gladstone should take the example of the east coast trawl management plan as the display of our government's commitment to fisheries management. The plan was introduced in 1999. Just recently the Premier officially released a discussion paper on the performance of that plan over five years. Successive governments in this state, including the Borbidge government—which the member for Gladstone supported—failed to take the issue of fisheries management seriously. The member for Toowoomba South also made similar criticisms. It was not the member for Toowoomba South who was at fault here, but at the state election in February this year the coalition did not promise to make any changes to fisheries management reforms that our government had introduced. I have a copy of the National Party's election platform on fisheries, which I table for the benefit of all members of the House. I would like to remind all honourable members that the fisheries management changes we make are necessary in terms of sustainability and the fishing future of anglers and commercial operators alike. Unfortunately, however, we need to have plans in place to satisfy federal government demands so that our fishers can get their fishery accredited to export overseas. The case in point now, of course, is the east coast trawl management plan whereby we have introduced some of those devices that the honourable member opposite referred to—the turtle excluder devices and the bycatch reduction devices—which have appeased the American authorities, and America has now allowed the export of our— Mr Horan: They were brought in by Borbidge. Mr PALASZCZUK: They might have spoken about them, but we brought them in. We brought in the regulations. We brought in the east coast trawl management plan five years ago and now we can export our prawns to the US, and I think that is good news. If, at the end of the day, the federal government does not accredit our fisheries exports of Queensland fish would cease overseas. That is our problem. The member for Toowoomba South raised the issue of Kris McNamara. The member read into Hansard two letters from the Mackay region coral reef fin fisher Kris McNamara. I have received advice from the department on those two letters. I have just recently received the letter from Mr McNamara, and the manager of the reef line fisheries will be making a considered response to that letter. However, I have asked for some specific details in Mr McNamara's case, and I will outline to the House what I have been advised. From the second letter from the member for Toowoomba South, Mr McNamara quoted what I was reported to have said in the July 2004 edition of the Queensland Fisherman— The government is determined to ensure that coral reef fin fishery is sustainable. However, we want to ensure the management arrangements are equitable for those long-term operators who heeded effort and investment warnings of the late 1990s. I stand by what I said. If all fishers abided by the effort and investment warnings—and let us remember that the first warning was issued by the Borbidge government in 1997—then there would be no need for a coral reef fin fish management plan and a capped commercial fishing effort. The fact is that in 1997 Kris McNamara's coral trout catch was 8,499 kilograms. His catch increased dramatically to 19,666 kilograms in the year 2000. It was up from 8.5 tonnes to 19.6 tonnes. It reduced slightly to 17.7 tonnes in 2001. His coral trout catch had more than doubled whilst his catch of red throat emperor reduced— 29 Sep 2004 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2527

Mr Horan: He didn't operate fully in those years. He was building a new boat. They didn't fish. That was the point of it all. Mr PALASZCZUK:—from 2,387 kilograms in 1997 to 827 kilograms in 2000 and down again to 350 kilograms in 2001. His catch of other coral reef fish also increased. His catch of other coral reef fish was 2,165 kilograms in 1997, up from 708 kilograms in 1996. Was he building his boat then as well? Mr Horan: Yes. It was about two and a half years— Mr PALASZCZUK: From 1996 to 1997? Mr Horan: The period of building the craft was two and a half years. Mr PALASZCZUK: He must have had the boat built because his catch went up from 2,165 kilograms in 1997. In 2000 his catch of other coral reef fish was 3,016 kilograms and 2,603 kilograms in 2001. As members can see, Mr McNamara's total coral reef fin fish catch—that is coral trout, red throat emperor and other species—was 13.151 tonnes in 1997. In 2000, three years later, his total catch was 23.509 tonnes, an increase of more than 10 tonnes. It is that extra pressure on the fishery from a number of operators that made the coral reef fin fish management plan necessary. The government has tried to assist long-term operators, and we announced extra measures earlier this year. For Mr McNamara there have been benefits under these new measures. In a letter of 16 August this year Mr McNamara was advised by the department that in addition to his original allocation quota of 8.728 tonnes he would receive an extra 1.908 tonnes of quota. I want to place that on the record. Nevertheless, I repeat, the manager of the reef line fisheries will be responding to the latest letter from Mr McNamara on the issue of drought assistance. Mr Horan: Minister, just give him a fair go because, from what I have seen of it, there was a special circumstance of him building the boat and getting that operation going in 1996-97. Mr PALASZCZUK: We do have special circumstances. I have quoted to the member what I have received from the department. I might have a yarn with the member later on about this. In relation to drought assistance on the Darling Downs, I was astonished that the member for Toowoomba South would defend the Howard government's decision to refuse to renew exceptional circumstance assistance for up to 3,500 primary producers on the Darling Downs. This means that producers in the shires of Cambooya, Chinchilla, Clifton, Dalby, Jondaryan, Millmerran, Pittsworth, Toowoomba, Wambo and Warwick as well as the part shires of Murilla, Rosalie and Tara can no longer apply for exceptional circumstance assistance. This is in stark contrast, as I said earlier, to what the Queensland government is doing. If we have a look at Cambooya, Clifton, Jondaryan, Murilla, Rosalie and Wambo shires, they still remain drought declared and are eligible for freight and fodder subsidies. Primary producers in the other Darling Downs shires are eligible to apply for assistance for up to another two years—even if conditions improve dramatically, as we all hope they do. Producers in the other Darling Downs shires can also apply for an individual droughted property declaration under our Queensland government process. Producers in all of the Darling Downs shires are eligible to apply for low-cost drought loans, which are available through QRAA. In terms of exceptional circumstances, whilst it is a Commonwealth program, the state government still contributes money towards the cost of the interest rate subsidy—about 10 per cent. As far as we are concerned, we are ready, willing and able to put our hands into the government's pockets and provide our share of exceptional circumstance funding for the producers on the Darling Downs—if the federal government renews its exceptional circumstance application. Let us get rid of the myth, once and for all, that the members opposite are peddling in relation to our scheme and exceptional circumstance schemes that the declarations are linked. They are not linked. The declarations for revocations for the Queensland government's drought relief assistance scheme and EC are not linked. The Howard government's refusal to renew exceptional circumstance assistance— Mr Horan: But your revocation demonstrated that there had been substantial rain over the summer. That is why you lifted your declaration. Right? Mr PALASZCZUK: Yes. Mr Horan: Then the NRAC people came up to inspect and look at things, and it has been lifted because there has been above average— Mr PALASZCZUK: No. Mr Horan: Better than 10 year— Mr PALASZCZUK: We have lifted it because we have had recommendations from the local drought committees. Mr Horan: Places like Dalby, and so on, had summer rainfall. 2528 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Sep 2004

Mr PALASZCZUK: I will come to that. Mr Horan: That is the point. Mr PALASZCZUK: I will come to that point in a moment. I believe that the member for Toowoomba South does not believe that what the federal government has done to the 3,500 producers on the Darling Downs is outrageous. I believe that it is outrageous and the member should not be out there defending that decision. I give members the example of the 1990s drought, to put an end to this link between our declarations and the federal government's declarations. During the 1990s drought, when all of Queensland was made eligible for drought exceptional circumstance assistance by the Keating Labor government—all of Queensland—less than half of the state was covered by state government drought declarations—less than half. If there is a will in the federal government to give exceptional circumstance assistance to our primary producers, there is always a way—that has been my point. Mr Horan: If the minister wants them to override the NRAC decision— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr Horan: Why doesn't he override— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr Horan: The decision. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Toowoomba South, I have allowed this a bit, but we want to get the business rolling. The minister has indicated that he will meet with the member later about this matter. Mr PALASZCZUK: Well, not on this point. Not on every point. We are not that close! On 11 June 1996, the then federal Minister for Primary Industries, John Anderson, revoked EC for more than 80 Queensland shires. Of the 43 Queensland shires he left on the list, 19 shires and six part shires were not declared under the state government's declarations. On 29 August 1997, Mr Anderson announced that EC had been reinstated for Rosalie shire and parts of Wambo shire on the Darling Downs. At that time, neither Rosalie nor Wambo shires were on the state government's drought declared list, which was maintained by the then Borbidge government. I believe that for up to 3,500 primary producers on the Darling Downs the 9 October federal election and the review of the EC eligibility by the Latham Labor government cannot come quickly enough. I move on to the National Livestock Identification Scheme. Earlier this month, the Premier and I agreed that a mandatory system for traceability would be introduced commencing on 1 July 2005. This agreement for a phased-in approach over the period 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2007 was endorsed by state cabinet on 6 September. Agforce strongly welcomed the government decision. What did Agforce also say? That our government's decision to phase in the National Livestock Identification Scheme would save industry $80 million. Agforce said that our policy would save industry $80 million. I repeat— and it is not the fault of the member for Toowoomba South—that the Queensland National Party did not have a policy on NLIS at the state election and it did not promise any funding whatsoever for the subsidy of tags. In the current federal election campaign, only the Labor Party has committed to providing funding for electronic tags with no strings attached—that is, $10 million. The $20 million that Warren Truss has come out with involves very wishy-washy figures and I do not think any of that money is directly attributed to the subsidy of the tags. I cannot see where the subsidy for the tags will come from. $10 million for the subsidy of the tags is there, in black and white, by the Labor opposition. Moving on to the concerns of the member for Tablelands about the exchange of information between jurisdictions. The member for Greenslopes certainly presented a very good presentation on the issue of fisheries related crime becoming increasingly more organised, particularly in regard to illegal harvesting, transporting and trading of high value fish stocks, such as abalone, rock lobster and coral reef fin fish. It is desirable that enforcement agencies across the country be in a position to share intelligence and to provide information collected in the conduct of an investigation to other jurisdictions. As we all know, the trade of fish goes between states and overseas. Almost without exclusion, the other states, territories and Commonwealth are already in a position to assist Queensland to investigate such criminal behaviour. This amendment addresses the inability— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation. Mr PALASZCZUK: This amendment addresses the inability of Queensland to be able to cooperate with other jurisdictions in order to reduce the criminal exploitation of fisheries resources. In reference to the concerns of the member for Tablelands, I can advise that this provision only deals with criminal behaviour—only criminal behaviour. In accordance with a balanced assessment of the right to privacy and the broader public interest in ensuring compliance with relevant legislation, it is proposed to establish a communication framework, underpinned by legislative authority, that assures the appropriate provision of evidence to prescribed government entities. That is all spelt out in the clauses of the bill. 29 Sep 2004 Primary Industries and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2529

The amendments ensure that the exchange of information only occurs when the chief executive is satisfied that the information will help another enforcement agency to perform its function of investigating, taking action or preventing criminal behaviour. Guidelines to be formulated by the chief executive of the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries on the way that power is to be exercised will ensure that there will be no inappropriate disclosure of personal and private information. In regard to the concern of the member for Tablelands, those guidelines must be signed off by the Department of Justice and Attorney-General. I turn to the inappropriate use of power by the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol. Some members alluded to this and the member for Nicklin spoke about a particular incident in his own electorate in relation to actions taken by a particular Boating and Fisheries Patrol officer. I put on the record that I believe that what the Boating and Fisheries officers in Queensland do is exemplary. Unfortunately, there are times when things do go wrong and we have to accept that. However, in relation to this particular incident, I am more than prepared to sit down and speak with the honourable member to get the details of the case and ascertain what can be done. I will give the honourable member that assurance. Mr Wellington: Thank you. Mr PALASZCZUK: The first thing we have to be sure of is that there is no increase in the powers of Boating and Fisheries Patrol officers as a result of the amendment to define the term 'obstruct'. The provision of a definition in the act is to make it absolutely clear that to assault, hinder or resist a Fisheries inspector in the exercise of their statutory responsibilities or to attempt or threaten to do so is an offence. There have been cases when our Boating and Fisheries Patrol officers have not only been threatened but also pushed and assaulted. We have to stop that. We have to ensure that the meaning of the term 'obstruct' has enough teeth so that Boating and Fisheries Patrol officers will be able to carry out their duties in a far better fashion. Secondly, nothing in the provision will result in serious matters such as physical assault of enforcement officers being investigated and prosecuted by anyone other than the Queensland Police Service or the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions under Queensland's Criminal Code. That is a very important point. As I said earlier, the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes 'obstruction' has resulted in some enforcement difficulties in several incidents in recent times where our Boating and Fisheries Patrol officers have been threatened. The difficulty stems from the fact that, without a definition as to the extent of the offence provision, there has been no clear power for patrol officers to take enforcement action as a result of these incidents, including the ability to issue a formal caution to the individual or individuals involved. This provision provides the necessary certainty for appropriate investigations and for a measured and considered response. Standard operating procedures or SOPs will underpin the amendment and will identify what matters are appropriate for the patrol to investigate and what matters must be passed on to the police to investigate. Additional SOPs will identify how and who within the Boating and Fisheries Patrol will investigate incidents. It will identify how and if investigative aids like tape-recorders can be used, and whether officers from a different patrol base must investigate situations. Quite distinct from the enforcement issues, there is a clear obligation for the Boating and Fisheries Patrol to be provided with a safe working environment, including ensuring that there are appropriate powers in the legislation to protect authorised officers from harassment, assault, intimidation and abuse. It is totally unacceptable to me as minister and, indeed, I hope to every member in this House that patrol officers should be exposed to this type of reprehensible conduct without having proper legal redress. In relation to the issue raised by the honourable member for Burnett, there are many existing fees in fisheries for assessing or transferring licences. The only ways that those fees can be changed is by regulation or by regulatory amendment, which is done with the approval of the Governor in Council. In conclusion, once again I thank all honourable members for their contributions, including the member for Toowoomba North. He certainly gave us a good insight into the great work that is being done by our DPI staff in Toowoomba. I thank the member for Thuringowa for his comprehensive contribution to the House. Mr Reeves: He's a good Cowboy. Mr PALASZCZUK: Yes, certainly. His 'Cowboy throat' comment reminds me of the north Queensland Cowboys team. As Minister For Primary Industries I can only say this: their success is due not only to their coach and to their own ability but also to the great north Queensland food and hospitality that is provided to them. Congratulations north Queensland! Finally, I mention the honourable member for Fitzroy. The issue of national livestock identification has been a difficult issue for the member for Fitzroy. As a grassroots member, he has really worked with his constituency. He has brought delegation after delegation to meet with me and the director-general. He has attended different sessions with the director-general to explain the position of his producers and to try to find answers to the proposal for the introduction of national livestock identification. As the local 2530 Health Services 29 Sep 2004 member, he visited Victoria and viewed the NLIS system at close hand. He has come back with what I believe to be very constructive suggestions to me as minister. As I said in my interjection to the honourable member, I certainly will take on board his suggestions about the issue that he raised. I will certainly correspond with him later. I thank him for his whole-hearted interest in the issue of national livestock identification. In conclusion, I thank all other honourable members for their contributions. Motion agreed to. Debate, on motion of Mr Palaszczuk, adjourned.

HEALTH SERVICES Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (5.30 p.m.): I move— That this House notes the deteriorating access for Queenslanders to urgent public hospital treatment and beds under the Beattie Government in South East Queensland and in particular: (a) the recent increase in the instances of the Emergency Departments going into bypass; (b) the closure of the Robina Oncology Unit due to staff shortages; (c) the deplorable situation of wards being unable to be used due to a lack of nursing staff; and immediately calls on the Government to invest the unbudgeted $130m increase in GST receipts into the State public hospital system. Queenslanders deserve reasonable access to quality public health care. In the past couple of weeks, associated with a normal increase in serious infection that accompanies the annual influenza epidemic that occurs every year in Queensland, many of the major hospitals that Queenslanders rely on have been completely full. There were a couple of occasions last week when not a single bed was available in the Brisbane area. This causes the hospital to go onto what the minister euphemistically refers to as 'capacity alert' or what is generally known as 'ambulance bypass'. In other words, a notification is given that the hospital has no beds and the ambulances are rerouted to other hospitals if, in fact, they are available. The minister can change the terminology all he likes. He will not change the reality that south-east Queensland's public health system and casualty system cannot cope even with a normal seasonal peak. They clearly could not cope with any extraordinary event or disaster if that may strike. Warnings about the situation arising in the Queensland public hospital system have been coming thick and fast from an array of areas, simply to be dismissed by the Premier and his Health Minister. We see a constant attempt to shift blame for their failure onto the federal government and in particular this spurious argument that somehow GPs are to blame because there is a lack of bulk-billing GPs. The expert medical college did detailed research into this matter which this government chose to dismiss which showed that only between five per cent and 15 per cent of people attending public hospitals are potentially GP type patients. But, importantly, this small percentage have quick, easy conditions that do not occupy the time of the casualty. They do not require a hospital bed. They do not lay in a corridor on a trolley for eight hours or more. In fact, it is very insulting to the staff of Queensland's emergency system and to the patients with serious conditions that need ambulance transport and hospital attention to suggest that somehow a small number of minor, quickly attended to illnesses are creating the situation that exists today. Let me tell members what has created the situation that exists today. In the recent redevelopment of the PA and the Royal Brisbane Hospitals, we lost almost 650 beds. Some 650 beds are no longer available to Queenslanders at our largest hospitals in the centre of an area of huge population growth. The minister plays semantics as well with figures in relation to the occupancy of beds in public hospitals. The reality is that the available beds in hospitals in south-east Queensland are frequently 100 per cent full or near 100 per cent full. In fact, at times they exceed 100 per cent with occupancies of 102 per cent where a single bed is used by more than one patient in the same day. The intensive care unit at the Royal Brisbane Hospital is frequently forced to outsource patients to other intensive facilities. Queensland's emergency service, rather than being strained by a small number of quick general practice type patients not requiring admission, is in fact strained by the continued underspending on geriatric and rehabilitation services in Queensland. The Queensland government spends around $200 per capita less on health care than the other states. Much of that underspend relates to geriatric and rehabilitation services. This means that the chronically ill, the elderly and the generally frail are frequently readmitted through casualties and the acute hospital beds when in the other states they would have rehabilitation services available to them. In fact, the readmission rate in Queensland is up to four times that of the other states. Let me tell members a story that I obtained from a reliable first-hand medical source to show the sensitivity of Queensland Health and its unwillingness to allow the public the free knowledge of what is happening in its hospitals. When the present minister was given the Health portfolio and commenced touring hospitals in Queensland, during his first visit to the Royal Brisbane Hospital—our largest hospital 29 Sep 2004 Health Services 2531 complex—the casualty was busy. In fact, the casualty had access block. There were patients lined up in corridors on trolleys unable to obtain a bed. Many of them had been there for hours. Many of them would have expressed their dissatisfaction to the minister. I am reliably told that administrators of the hospital, not wanting the embarrassment of their access block being seen given the decision to reduce the number of beds in the hospital so severely during its recent capital works program, arranged for the opening of a ward which had been closed due to a lack of staff to man it temporarily in order to shift the patients on their trolleys out of the accident and emergency department and make the situation there look more normal for the minister's visit. Perhaps this might go some of the way to explain some of the minister's statements where he seems intent on denying the crisis that everyone who works in health care in south-east Queensland knows exists. This morning the minister told me to stop obtaining information from the newspaper. I have to say that he has not always been able to provide me with the information that I have requested in some of my questions, but I will put the newspapers aside anyway. The College of Emergency Medicine—within medical circles a respected professional body and within medical circles the appropriate place for doctors to voice their concerns given that Queensland Health effectively gags its employees from public comment or even bringing their problems to the notice of their own members of parliament—is the appropriate professional body for doctors to go to when they have a complaint and have that professional body research and present their views to government. That is exactly what the College of Emergency Medicine has done. In fact, the minister referred to the college's report as factually incorrect and out of date and at the same time attacked the college for having failed to provide him with a copy when in fact it had provided a copy to his predecessor and failed to gain a response for a year. But it seems that the minister is going to ignore the advice of people who work at the coalface and who are responsible for looking after these patients. So let us look a little bit further afield. The AMA conducted a survey of its members who work in public hospitals. These are some of the comments from doctors who actually work in these places. One doctor from the Cairns Hospital said, 'Increased access block in the emergency department. Our team had to delay fracture reductions.' A doctor from the Gold Coast Hospital said, 'Unable to find beds on a regular basis, at least two or three patients a week.' Another doctor also from the Gold Coast Hospital said, 'Patients are transferred to Ipswich and northern districts, sometimes leaving their relatives and support services behind.' A doctor from the PA Hospital in Brisbane said, 'Bed block. Patients are treated in corridors routinely.' A doctor from the Sunshine Coast said, 'Patient care and outcomes are impacted daily due to excess waits and overcrowding in our emergency department. Huge stress on medical and nursing staff. Poor care and access block.' Another comment from a different doctor on the Sunshine Coast was, 'Increased wait in emergency for critically ill patients. Increased transfers from hospitals to Brisbane. Early discharges from intensive care. Unable to admit patients to intensive care from operating theatres and wards.' We are all aware of advances in medicine shortening the stays in hospital, but we are equally aware of the booming population of Queensland. We cannot sustain the slashing of the number of hospital beds, and the actual number of medical staff is also chronically undersupplied. The minister chooses to ignore those who are actually at the coalface, to dismiss the most authoritative reports so far prepared, to ignore the surveys of his hospital doctors and to ignore the fact that specialist groups such as anaesthetists and pathologists are voting with their feet because they cannot get any notice taken of their plight any other way, and we continue to hear his lame excuse that there is no problem and it is all due to the decline in bulk-billing. Time expired. Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (5.37 p.m.): I rise to second the motion moved by the member for Moggill tonight. I do so because I am also concerned about the increasing number of reports in major media outlets around the state about the way in which access block is preventing accident and emergency patients from receiving treatment on time. The Gold Coast Bulletin has been running a series of stories about the Gold Coast Hospital over the last couple of weeks. Mr Purcell: The Gold Coast Bulletin! Mr QUINN: It is not only the Gold Coast Bulletin but other newspapers around the state. Honourable members on the other side of the chamber are saying, 'The Gold Coast Bulletin!' and rolling their eyes. This morning the minister said not to believe everything you read in the newspapers, particularly the Gold Coast Bulletin. Here is their chance to get up in this House tonight and refute the claims made in the Gold Coast Bulletin. But what do we see? There is not one Labor Party MP from the Gold Coast on the speaking list to defend the government's actions here tonight—not one. Is it any wonder that they call the Labor members of the Gold Coast the silent six, and their silence here tonight again is deafening! Every time there is an issue in this chamber where Gold Coast issues are raised, an opportunity arises for the Gold Coast members—the member for Burleigh, the member for Southport, the member for Mudgeeraba, the member for Gaven, the member for Broadwater and the member for Albert—to get up on their feet and put the government's case and indicate what the government is doing or where the 2532 Health Services 29 Sep 2004

Gold Coast Bulletin or members on this side are wrong. They fudge it! They dingo it! You cannot see them for dust! They have crawled away somewhere. They are hiding from the issue, and they are not willing to stand up and fight for the Gold Coast. That indicates that these six members are the ALP representatives of the Gold Coast. They are not Gold Coast representatives in this chamber. That is the difference. They run the ALP line. Every time there is an issue to fight for down there, you cannot see them for dust. That is the truth. If it was any other way, their names would be on this speakers' list tonight. The minister can complain about media reports and tell people to not believe newspaper reports, but I can tell members that my office has received a number of calls about the Gold Coast Hospital— genuine cases where people have had to wait for hours in the A and E department, where people have not been admitted and where people have been advised to go to other hospitals. The Robina campus of the Gold Coast Hospital is located in my electorate. The oncology unit there is closed because of a shortage of staff. Beds are not being utilised. People needing cancer treatment are being advised not to go to the Gold Coast Hospital—the major campus at Southport—because they will not be attended to. Instead, they are told that they should bypass the major campus altogether and go to the hospitals at Tweed Heads, Murwillumbah or Brisbane. That is the deplorable state that exists currently on the Gold Coast. Many of these people do not want to talk to newspaper reporters. They do not want to have their names in the paper. They want their issues resolved quickly and quietly so that they can get treatment for themselves or, as in the cases of several people who have come to me about this issue, their loved ones. These people do not want to have a political bunfight, but in many cases they believe that they have no alternative. That is why we are reading reports in the Gold Coast newspaper about this issue. These people are not politicians; they want some action for what they regard as an injustice in the way in which they are being treated with their hospital services on the Gold Coast. Unless we have Labor members of parliament who are willing fight for the Gold Coast—as we have on this side—nothing is going to get done. While ever we have six lamebrain, lazy ALP members representing the Gold Coast, then we are going to get this sort of treatment. They do not have the fortitude to get up in this House and make some statements and fight for the Gold Coast. It is about time that this government started to spend on health some of the GST money that it is getting in bucket loads from the Commonwealth. In terms of the national average of health funding, we are $200 per capita shy. We are getting a windfall of $130 million that this government has not budgeted for. That money should be going straight into the health system and nowhere else. Time expired. Hon. G.R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Health) (5.42 p.m.): I move the following amendment— That all words after 'House' are omitted and the following words inserted— 'notes the positive gains in public health by the Beattie Labor government through a record Health budget for the benefit of all Queenslanders, in particular in the areas of: • reducing elective surgery waiting lists; • easing pressure on hospital emergency departments; and • improving specialist services, including cardiac, renal and cancer prevention.' At the outset, as the Health Minister I want to acknowledge the extraordinarily hard work that all the professionals in Queensland Health do on a daily basis. I know and I appreciate the fact that hospitals are extraordinarily busy places at the best of times. The people who work in those hospitals do an outstanding job. I also repudiate the statements made by the honourable member for Robina about the members on the Gold Coast. They work extraordinarily hard in representing their constituents. That was reflected in the fact that all of them bar one were returned to this parliament. They were returned to this parliament because of the hard work that they do and the way in which they represent their constituencies not only in this parliament but also to the ministers in this government. The members on the Gold Coast constantly visit me and keep me updated about matters relating to health in their electorates. They genuinely represent their constituencies in such a way that I am fully aware of the issues surrounding health matters in their electorates. I want to congratulate them on that and put that on the public record. We have heard a lot today from the Liberal Party about issues surrounding Queensland Health. But I want to talk about a few issues that are happening. We allocated a record $5.13 billion to the Health budget for the 2004-05 year. That is an additional $468 million. There is an allocation of $110 million to treat an extra 18,000 patients and reduce waiting lists for elective surgery. Already, more than 4,790 Queensland patients have undergone additional surgery as part of stage 1 of the elective surgery program. That is possibly the most significant achievement for Queensland Health in the past five years. Not only that, we have another $40 million for the second stage of elective surgery to help reduce public hospital wasting lists. We have the lowest category 1 and category 2 surgical waiting lists in the country. 29 Sep 2004 Health Services 2533

We have heard a lot about public hospital beds. In addition, we are committed to an additional 242 new public hospital beds at the Mater Hospital, the Prince Charles Hospital, and the Caloundra Hospital and an additional $34.5 million to ease the growing pressure on our public hospital emergency departments. The honourable member for Robina and the honourable member for Moggill would know, because I have stated it in the parliament before, that we are about to spend $9.5 million on a new emergency department and an intensive care unit at the Robina Hospital. That has been in the budget papers and that is in the planning. The Gold Coast Hospital is the third busiest hospital in this country. We are fully aware of the pressures on that hospital. That is why we are going to build a new emergency department and a new intensive care unit at the Robina Hospital so that we can address that pressure. The member for Robina and the member for Moggill went on about oncology issues. I have stood in this parliament before and indicated to all honourable members that there is a significant shortage of specialists throughout the country. Do members know why we have a significant shortage? Because we do not have enough university places so that we can train the doctors to be the specialists for the future. Until we address that issue, we are going to continue to have huge shortages. Those members choose to ignore that. Time expired. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (5.48 p.m.): It is my great privilege to second the amendment moved by the Minister for Health. This government has taken the necessary positive steps to make up for the shortcomings of the failed federal government Medicare policy, which has seen the decline in bulk-billing for Queensland GP patients from 72 per cent to 64 per cent over the past three years. This decline is lower than the national average of 67 per cent. Under the federal coalition government, bulk-billing is declining faster in Queensland than it is in any other state. If the federal government will not act, then we are committed to fixing the problem. Our emergency departments are placed under enormous pressure by the fact that genuinely needy people are finding it almost impossible to find an affordable GP who can assist them to stay well or, least of all, to care for them when they become acutely sick. Over the past three years, 450,000 patients who could have been assisted by general practitioners have attended our public emergency departments. That is more than three times the population of the city of Ipswich. We are all aware of the human cost of this national failure. This is why the Beattie government has had to act in the interests of all Queenslanders. We have already achieved much in positioning our emergency departments for the challenges they face. Previous improvements to emergency department services by the Beattie Labor government have included, first, completing the rebuilding of 24 new emergency departments and refurbishing a further nine across the state since 1998. Second, we have employed 33 extra doctors and 15 more nurses at our busiest hospitals, including Townsville, Redcliffe, Caboolture—I hope the Leader of the Liberal Party is listening, although he is not in this chamber at the moment—Gold Coast and the Royal Children's Hospital. Mr Lawlor: Not interested. Mrs MILLER: I take that interjection. I do not think the Leader of the Liberal Party is really interested in the Gold Coast, as he is not here at the moment. Thirdly, we committed $9 million to establish an emergency department and intensive care services at the Robina Hospital, right in his area. Fourthly, we committed $13.5 million to upgrade Redcliffe Hospital's emergency department. We also committed $4.2 million to expand Redland Hospital's emergency department. We have increased medical staff at Nambour Hospital's emergency department from six to 11 and doubled the number of Caloundra Hospital's emergency department doctors from four to eight. We have achieved 90 per cent of patients being admitted within eight hours after treatment and observation at the emergency departments. Let us compare this with New South Wales and Victoria. In New South Wales only 73 per cent of patients are admitted within this time frame. In Victoria, 84 per cent of patients are admitted within 12 hours. We have also achieved 99 per cent of category 1 emergency department patients being seen by a doctor immediately. But of course there is more. We will spend $4.5 million over three years to employ 20 additional senior emergency nurses at some of the state's busiest emergency departments, including Royal Brisbane, Princess Alexandra, Cairns—the Leader of the Liberal Party is not here again—Gold Coast, Logan, Caboolture, Townsville, Redland, Redcliffe and Hervey Bay. We will also spend $2 million over the next three years to employ extra emergency department doctors at the busiest hospitals. We will spend $3 million in total over three years to set up four pilot bulk-billing general practice clinics near public hospitals, with two of these trials being committed for regional Queensland. It is outrageous for the Leader of the Liberal Party and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Moggill, to suggest that there is callous disregard for patients requiring emergency care. Efficiency within our services is also being addressed by our hardworking staff through an emergency services strategy. Through this strategy projects have been funded to improve bed management in hospitals, improve emergency department service delivery and significantly increase communication 2534 Health Services 29 Sep 2004 between hospitals. These are all for the benefit of our patients. Officers of Queensland Health also meet with representatives of the Queensland Ambulance Service to ensure a coordinated and a collaborative approach to ambulance redirection. All of these initiatives have contributed to the fact that ambulance redirection occurs rarely in Queensland. Rather than the Leader of the Liberal Party and the deputy leader, the member for Moggill, listening to rumour and innuendo coming from their so-called sources, who are obviously Liberal Party members, they should be supporting the initiatives of the Beattie Labor government. Time expired. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (5.53 p.m.): The Health Minister in this House on 29 April 2004 stated— I can say first-hand that there is no crisis in our health system. That is simply an unbelievable statement which goes against all the facts and figures given tonight. On 4 March 2004 I wrote to the minister seeking a copy of a recent planning study undertaken on the future health infrastructure needs of the Sunshine Coast district. My hopes of obtaining a copy of this document were heightened when the Health Minister stated on 29 April 2004— But there is a crisis in public confidence— He is right in that regard— and the public perception that is driven by stunts, by emotive and unsubstantiated statements that find their way to the media and in this parliament, and by attempts to ignore the very process that exists to help these people.

... I am asking every member to bring their patient issues or their questions about the health system to my department where we can try to address the issues. If every member is serious about helping to improve patient care, then they will help me on this matter. Imagine my surprise when the minister in his correspondence of 5 July simply stated that I could contact Mr Dan Burgen to discuss the report from August 2004 and could arrange for the key points to be discussed with me. On 19 July I again asked the Health Minister for a copy of the document to allow me to read its contents and, in his words, assist in improving patient care. I have not yet had a reply to that letter. Perhaps if the minister had turned his words of consultation into action we would not have seen ambulances bypassing both Nambour and Noosa hospitals' emergency departments. I note that in the minister's answer this morning there was no mention of any public hospital on the Sunshine Coast not being bypassed or having their emergency departments upgraded. These recent bypasses had a number of consequences, including that those taken to the wards to be treated had to be taken to a second hospital and QAS personnel and staff had to transport patients they had brought to the initial hospital to a second hospital, thus tying up ambulances across the Sunshine Coast for unlimited periods of time. These simple facts make a complete mockery of the Health Minister's statement that there is no crisis in our health care system. I certainly hope that the minister's planning study for the Sunshine Coast will not bypass the needs of the people of the Sunshine Coast. I would like to think I may yet glimpse this wondrous document the minister refers to. Dr Tim Bradley, the federal president of the Australian Society of Anaesthetists, stated on 6 September 2004— Public hospitals receive all patients in need of urgent treatment, from rashes to major illnesses and trauma. Nobody is—or should be—turned away. Dr Bradley is almost correct. Yes, they should not be turned away, but they are. This government simply does not understand the impact its policies are having throughout the state. On 31 August 2004 Mrs Glenda Stevenson of Caloundra wrote to my office in relation to the Caloundra Hospital. She referred to her grandson having a broken arm and taking him to a doctor. She stated that the doctor— ... rang up Caloundra Hospital to let them know I was sending my grandson to have his arm set. Their answer was, 'We haven't anyone to do it here. You will have to go to Nambour Hospital.' How disgraceful is that? Four years ago $14 million was spent on the hospital and for what, when they don't even have the amenities to set an arm. Here we are five minutes walk from the hospital and we have to spend 40 minutes getting to Nambour hospital. This is an outrage that should be looked into, especially when I have been told that we have 79,000 people in Caloundra and surrounding areas and more coming in all the time. This government has an attitude and a history akin to an adolescent child. It is everybody else's fault but its own. It readily blames the federal government for anything and everything but in particular the health issues facing Queensland. Hopefully we will not be seeing the hand of Labor in charge federally. I do not believe the country could tolerate a second meltdown. I am not going to repeat the comments of earlier speakers, but I do want to make very clear that this government simply does not take responsibility for its actions. It does not look at itself, examine its actions and then do as any decent government should do: move forward to rectify its own problems. The health system in Queensland, and in particular on the Sunshine Coast, is a total and absolute shambles. The fact that both Nambour and Noosa hospitals were in bypass mode recently is an 29 Sep 2004 Health Services 2535 absolute disgrace. It is something that this government has brought upon itself by its inept planning and an appalling attitude towards the needs of the people of this state. It has also been derelict in its wanton disregard for the needs of Caloundra residents by not providing adequate and ongoing funding for the Caloundra Hospital. Time expired. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (5.58 p.m.): This evening I rise to speak in support of the amendment. It is ironic that the Liberal Party is bringing this motion before the House tonight. It is ironic because it is in fact part of a conspiracy that has been occurring in this country, led by Prime Minister John Howard in conjunction with Mr Costello and his cohorts from the national Liberal Party. It is a conspiracy basically to dismantle the health system in Australia. This must be seen in its historical context because the past century has been characterised by governments of both sides of the House, nationally and at a state level, that have generally been about securing or making gains in the health system. Generally over the past century it was state and Commonwealth Labor governments which made the great gains. They made the great movements throughout the health system at a state level and at a federal level, going right back over the past century. It was Labor that put Medibank into place. It was Labor that made the major gains in terms of public access to the hospital system. Mr Shine: The free hospital system. Mr FENLON: And to provide a free hospital system here in Queensland. To put the case accurately and historically, even Menzies knew that he was in competition with the parties of the Left. He knew very well that he did not have much ground to move in terms of dismantling that system as much as he may have wished to because he knew that he was up against the international circumstances of the time to ensure that the welfare state was maintained. He was about maintaining some essence of the welfare state that was growing internationally at the time led by parties of the Left. He was not about dismantling it. What we have seen in Australia over the last decade under the Howard government is a historical departure from what we have seen from both sides of politics. Under Howard we are seeing the dismantling of Medicare and the dismantling of free health care, et cetera. These are significant points to raise tonight because it is this departure from the system—the departure from the maintenance of this welfare safety net in the health area—that is hurting and impacting the state system. Despite the magnificent efforts of this government and this minister to maintain standards in health, we are struggling to deal with these impacts, but deal with them we are. We are effecting the appropriate measures to ensure that service is delivered. The government should be commended for its efforts to remediate the human cost of the federal coalition government's dismantling of Medicare. Under the National-Liberal coalition the number of GPs prepared to bulk-bill has fallen dramatically. This is hitting thousands of Queenslanders, among them pensioners and parents of young children. Unable to find a doctor who bulk-bills, they are turning to emergency departments in record numbers. General practice has always been a Commonwealth responsibility, but tens of thousands of Queenslanders now have to attend public hospitals because they either cannot get an appointment with a GP or cannot afford the up-front fee. We will invest $34.5 million to establish a statewide health advice hotline, provide extra staff for emergency service departments and pilot bulk-billing GP clinics to relieve the pressure on public hospital emergency departments, reduce waiting times and deliver excellent care. These are the changes that we are putting into place. These are the remediations that we are having to put in place to cope with the changes that the federal government has effected. Under the Liberal Party that we have always known and loved, it should return to the Menzies standards and step away from the conspiracy being led by John Howard which it is taking part in. The Liberal Party in this parliament is showing its true colours by pinning its colours to John Howard's mast. Mr Shine interjected. Mr FENLON: I take that interjection. They should bring him back because even he knew what appropriate standards were— Time expired. Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (6.03 p.m.): Effects of the Gold Coast Hospital being short- changed over a long period of time are erupting like a severe case of chicken pox. Will it take, however, a life-threatening epidemic for the Beattie government to address the serious bed and staff shortages which result in clogged emergency departments in this state? I commend the staff at the Gold Coast Hospital and the Queensland Ambulance Service for their dedication to patient care, for working long hours in stressful situations and for putting up with frequent abuse from patients who get fed up with waiting inexcusable lengths of time to be seen, let alone treated. As a public hospital trained nurse who worked several stints in emergency departments, I can assure members that pressure is part and parcel of the job. Teamwork is vital, as is the ability to prioritise and treat the most urgent cases in the shortest amount of time. To finish a shift with high, 2536 Health Services 29 Sep 2004 unmet needs is stressful enough. However, when this happens on a regular basis, it is a prescription for staff burnout. Think about what this does to the morale and mental health of these skilled health professionals who face the ill and infirm every day. Stop for a moment and try to imagine the unrealistic situation these health professionals find themselves in on a regular basis. Individuals who work in this sensitive and demanding field are committed to improving the condition of those who present in an emergency department. The frustration they must feel when they are unable to provide care and treatment must be overwhelming. Why is this government risking losing our current invaluable health workers by forcing them to undertake impossible work loads? This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that the lack of services at our major public hospital on the Gold Coast has made headlines in the media for all the wrong reasons. An incident springs to mind which prompted the largest public rally the Gold Coast had ever seen—the 'save our hospital campaign' of 29 November 1998. Labor Party member Peter Burke, appalled by the poor treatment of his mother, who was left to suffer in pain at the Gold Coast Hospital, took it upon himself to go to the media with his story. Headed by then mayor Gary Baildon, current Mayor Ron Clarke and key hospital doctors, several thousand people, including me, took to the streets of Southport to protest over lack of funding and staff shortages at our hospital. The Beattie government, under pressure, did increase funding. Most of this money, though, was spent on infrastructure and not staff, hence the deplorable situation we find ourselves in again today. Staffing means recurrent funding, unlike capital works which one hopes will last for several years. The Premier's comments about a contingency plan are all well and good on the odd occasion such a plan may be required to be put into action, but as a long-term solution it does not even rate as a bandaid. Proper planning, which factors in school holidays, tourists and major events, would highlight the need for adequate staffing rather than expecting staff to pick up the slack. To blame the low availability of bulk-billing doctors as the reason for clogged emergency departments is a blatant untruth. Cases reported in the Gold Coast Bulletin on Friday, 24 September were too serious for GPs to treat, and one patient was even sent in by a GP who could not treat them. Shame on any single member of this House who chooses to bag doctors for providing services that offer continuity of medicine and for exercising their democratic right like other self-employed individuals to charge what they see as a fair fee for their services. Try enforcing those limitations on other professionals like lawyers or self-employed tradespeople and see what response you get! But for some reason Labor chooses to pick on doctors. Doctor-bashing has become a blood sport in this government. After years of study and low or no income, we cannot expect doctors to carry all of the responsibilities. Federal Labor's promise of 80 per cent of doctors bulk-billing is a complete sham—a fabrication that cannot happen—because doctors will not embrace it. Federal Labor is trying to fool the public into believing more doctors will bulk-bill. Why should they work for lower fees than they do now? Labor's package has country, city and outer metropolitan GPs worse off than under the Howard package. Bulk-billing clinics that the state government talks about implementing have no guarantee of reducing patient numbers. They have failed in Caloundra and Logan. My office receives calls from nurses, doctors, paramedics and patients every day. Stories of ambulances queuing is common. It is a common practice for GPs to have their referral sent back asking them to tell their patient they cannot even give them a date for an outpatient appointment. Time expired. Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (6.08 p.m.): It gives me much pleasure to rise to speak to the amended motion about the many advances the Beattie Labor government has made in the Health portfolio. At the outset, I must profess my surprise at the motion moved by the member for Moggill. The member for Moggill is first and foremost a member of the Liberal Party—the same Liberal Party that has at a federal level withdrawn funding from the Health budgets to the tune of $160 million in the latest Commonwealth Health Care Agreement. Mr Lucas interjected. Ms MALE: That is right. This is the same Liberal Party that at a federal level removed all of the funding from the dental care program because it just does not care about the oral health of the Australian people. It is the same Liberal Party which has presided over a huge decline in bulk-billing which places our emergency departments under great pressure. This is the selfsame Liberal Party that continues to allow the AMA to dictate the number of training places for doctors and specialists in a bid to protect their incomes. This is just outrageous! To follow on from that last point, and as has been said previously by the Minister for Health, a key area of concern for Queensland Health has been the shortfall in the number of university places funded by the federal government. Try as this government does—and I can assure members that it does try— obtaining specialists is very, very tough. I can provide clear evidence of doctor shortages and how the 29 Sep 2004 Health Services 2537 state government bears the burden of training. In cardiology there are 12 specialists in the public sector and 47 in the private sector. Queensland Health has 30 visiting medical officers who do 230 hours per week while we currently have eight trainees. In dermatology there are no specialists operating in the public sector, but there are 25 in the private sector. Queensland Health has 16 VMOs who do 72 hours per week and is currently training 11 trainees. In ophthalmology there is again no-one working wholly in the public sector, but there are 50 in the private sector. Queensland Health has 40 VMOs who do 172 hours per week and it has 12 trainees. In obstetrics and gynaecology there are 43 in the public sector and there are 70 in the private sector. Queensland Health has 26 VMOs who do 177 hours per week, and Queensland Health has 60 trainees. These numbers speak for themselves. These numbers also reflect that the bulk of training is done by this state government. Unfortunately, the majority then continue their work in the private sector. While we have exceptional doctors and health specialists working in the public sector, it is a fact of life that most prefer the private sector. Fortunately, federal Labor, under Mark Latham, has promised to deliver more university places for our young and talented people who would like to pursue medicine and other careers. In the long term more university places for young doctors would ease the situation which at present forces Queensland Health to employ more and more overseas trained doctors, but without these overseas trained doctors Queensland's health system could not operate as well as it does. The key is a long-term strategy which the Queensland government is already pursuing and has pursued with both the current federal government and with federal Labor. This year we saw a record $5 billion health budget, and this is felt in my electorate. Caboolture Hospital goes from strength to strength. The 2004 budget contains a $1 million allocation for a new 30- bed ward at Caboolture Hospital with recurrent funding of $3 million to employ an additional 35 staff. Last year the Minister for Health announced the opening of a one-stop shop for people with diabetes to be located at the Caboolture Community Health Centre. This is one location for all services including physician/endocrinologist, podiatrist, dietitian, diabetes educators and a Diabetes Australia Queensland outlet. This has made a huge difference to the quality and accessibility of services for people with diabetes in the area. Over the next 12 months Caboolture and Nambour hospitals will be part of the $22 million Healthy Hearing Program which will provide free hearing tests for all newborn babies in Queensland. This is what we see when we have a clear investment in health and wellbeing for our youngsters. This is what the Queensland Beattie Labor government does. The state government's commitment in February of $20 million to treat public patients in Queensland hospitals also enabled the Redcliffe and Caboolture district to carry out an additional 279 orthopaedic and general surgery operations, and 80 patients were treated in conjunction with the Peninsula Eye Centre. Locally there have been many, many improvements in my electorate which have come from the budget. Maleny Hospital received $71,000 for extra equipment. The Nambour Hospital received over $2 million for extra equipment, not to mention $1.9 million as part of a two-year funding allocation for breast screening facilities at Nambour. As I said, this is just part of the funding that flows through. I want to put on record my admiration for the dedication shown, the commitment given and the care provided by all workers in our hospitals across Queensland. The Beattie Labor government has a deep and abiding commitment to ensure that the health care of Queenslanders is given priority and is funded accordingly. I am not saying everything is perfect, but we continue to work on it, and we will work with those people to get the best service we can. The Liberal Party in Queensland are simply apologists for the Howard government. Why do they not stand up and fight for Queensland—stand up and fight for the health of the people that we all care about. Time expired. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (6.13 p.m.): I rise tonight to speak on this very important motion and speak out at the outrageous neglect of the Australian Labor Party and its contempt for the residents of Queensland. I also condemn the cynical amendment moved by the minister and note that it is only slightly less self-congratulatory than the one earlier this year about the electricity industry, and wasn't that well received by the media and the public! The major problem with Queensland hospitals is that there are simply not enough resources to go around. These resources could be beds, nurses or medical supplies. The severe shortages in all of these can be directly attributed to the Queensland Labor government, and no amount of political acrobatics and political spin can change that fact. Let me run through some of these facts—facts outlined in the federal Health Department's report into the state of public hospitals. The report, entitled the State of our public hospitals June 2004, gives comparisons between the state health systems in this country and ranks them according to a number of key criteria. Fact 1. Page 7 of the report shows that the Queensland Labor government presides over the lowest public hospital recurrent expenditure per person of any state in Australia—the lowest, and a long way below the national average. According to the report, Queensland sits at $322 per person, which is 2538 Health Services 29 Sep 2004 almost $50 per person below the national average of $371. This money goes to paying the things people would normally expect—medicine and infrastructure. However, the major expense when a patient visits hospital is nursing, contributing 26 per cent of the average cost of a hospital visit. If Queensland is spending 13 per cent less than the national average and 15 per cent less than the larger southern states, it follows that there will be problems with the number of nurses one can have on the hospital floor and the number of beds one can have operational in the hospitals. Fact 2. Page 7 of the report also outlines that Queensland is sixth out of the eight states or territories when looking at the number of patients seen by emergency departments in the recommended time. At 71 per cent, this that means that three in 10 people are not seen in the recommended period of time by emergency departments. Another aspect of this snapshot that I found very interesting was that Queensland has three of the top 10 busiest hospitals in the nation. One of those hospitals, coming in at No. 10, is the Gold Coast Hospital. In fact, on the list of the top 10 busiest hospitals the Gold Coast Hospital is the only hospital not in a metropolitan area. I mentioned before that the Australian Labor Party in this state shows contempt for the people of Queensland on the issue of health. If that is true, then they serve a cocktail of contempt and reckless abandon to the people of the Gold Coast and the Gold Coast Hospital. Last week the Gold Coast Bulletin did a series on failings of the Queensland government when it comes to the resources given to the Gold Coast Hospital. The Premier came down and lauded the Gold Coast Bulletin about a month ago at the opening of its new press, so I take as a given that, therefore, it is the most influential regional paper in the country. The government cannot have it both ways. The first part dealt with a Queenslander being told they would be better off driving themselves to Lismore—more than an hour over the border—to go to a hospital. This is because all of the hospitals between Brisbane and the Tweed were on capacity alert and a bypass for all ambulances. The following day came the story of Sylvia Hogan who, like many other Queenslanders, realised first-hand the traumas in our state hospitals as her daughter-in-law had to wait in incredible agony for a bed at the Gold Coast Hospital. I said in a recent speech that I regularly hear sentiments from patients at the Gold Coast Hospital to the effect that the staff are wonderful but that they are underresourced and there are not enough of them. Stories like that of Ms Hogan illustrate this point indelibly. On the weekend we heard the story of Nicole Casey, who was turned away for the second time in a month for a gall bladder operation that would relieve her of her pain and agony. Remember, this is the 10th busiest of the 750 public hospitals in Australia and the largest regional hospital in the nation, yet there are people such as Nicole Casey who are turned away twice in the same month. It makes one wonder what the situation is like at the major Brisbane hospitals as well. I can inform the minister and the Premier that Nicole Casey, Sylvia Hogan and the person told to go to Lismore are not stand-alone cases. However, they represent the line on the heart monitor measuring the health of Queensland Health, and it is in danger of flat-lining. My esteemed colleagues have proven this evening that hospital bypasses, staff shortages and beds with no nurses are the problem, and it is a problem caused by this government. We have given the government the solution—that is, investing the unbudgeted $130 million in GST receipts and putting it into the public health system. It is only by doing this that the government will begin to look after the health of Queenslanders. In her speech the member for Bundamba said that bulk-billing GPs were the problem that the A and E departments face. However, as my colleagues have mentioned, only between five per cent and 15 per cent of patients in A and Es are patients who can be treated by GPs. When they are treated, they are not the patients who contribute to access blocks. Moreover, only a federal coalition government will deliver more GPs, contrary to the Australian Labor Party's impractical plan for Australia's health system. Time expired. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (6.19 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the amendment. Is there pressure on our public hospitals? Yes, there is. I have no doubt that there is pressure on our public hospital system and I will provide a few of the reasons why. The shortage of nursing home beds causes problems for our hospitals around the country. On any given day, there are 2,000 people waiting in hospitals to go into nursing homes. In other words, these beds would be available to move patients from emergency departments into wards if only these 2,000 people were in nursing homes—where they need to be—and not in hospitals. Some of these people are waiting up to 12 months for a nursing home bed. Unfortunately, the Howard federal government does not understand the tremendous pressure it is putting on our public hospital system by not addressing this problem. It certainly does not understand the needs of these people. A health policy at its worst would have to be the Howard government's safety net. Here are some facts on the sham safety net that started in March. The Bennelong electorate, the electorate of John Howard, has received more safety net payments than the entire state of Tasmania. Tony Abbott's seat of Warringah has received more safety net payments than all of the Northern Territory and Tasmania. The 11 seats held by Liberal Party cabinet ministers received more safety net payments than the total 29 Sep 2004 Health Services 2539 amount received by Western Australia, South Australia, the Northern Territory, the ACT and Tasmania. I will tell members what that has to do with this debate tonight. Australia's wealthiest electorates are receiving the vast majority of very sparse health funds. Just as well the Beattie Labor government does not support a health care system where the more you earn, the easier it is to access government funded health care. The availability of a well-skilled work force is an important factor in ensuring the delivery of quality health services, both in the community and in hospitals. Continued growth in our state, continued growth in the demand for medical services and an ageing work force are all driving our need for more doctors and nurses. The continuing shortage of nurses has been well documented. The need for more nurses is driven by a number of factors. However, one that stands out is the declining number of undergraduate commencements and completions. An increased availability of post-graduate nursing places will mean more specialist nurses and will provide nurses with more options for professional development. We need a federal government that will invest in more nursing places, and that will mean more nurses for hospitals, aged care facilities and in general practice. We need a federal government that will invest in more places for Australian kids who want to become doctors and who have achieved the necessary requirements. They cannot find a government funded place to study medicine. Eight years of neglect by the Howard government has left Australians with a growing shortage of doctors and nurses. The National and Liberal parties have twice voted against motions in the Queensland parliament to urge the federal government to provide its fair share of funding and to work with the Queensland government for hospital reforms. The Liberals and Nationals refuse to support this. They rejected these motions with no thought for the sick and injured in Queensland. I must say that I am disappointed that the shadow minister for health is not here tonight to tell us what he thinks about this motion. It could certainly be argued that at the last state election health was one of the key campaign issues. The Beattie Labor government gave a commitment to the people of Queensland to work on improving our health system. The Beattie Labor government gave commitments to provide more nurses, reduce waiting lists and invest more in the health of Queenslanders—and that is what we are doing. One has only to look at this year's budget to see that happening. In this year's record Health budget, the Logan Hospital—the closest hospital to my electorate—received $3.3 million to upgrade the Logan Hospital emergency department. The funding will allow the hospital to extend the size of its emergency department, which is one of the busiest in Queensland, to include an observation area and a larger waiting room. Some $3 million dollars has been provided to the Logan Hospital for a new medical ward, and between 50 and 75 new positions will be created to staff the ward. This government is delivering. The Logan-Beaudesert Health Service will receive upgraded medical equipment valued at approximately $1.3 million and almost $1.8 million to offset cost pressures and maintain responsiveness. However, the most significant achievement of Queensland Health has been the 4,700 extra Queensland patients who have undergone surgery as part of this government's $20 million elective surgery program to reduce public hospital waiting lists. The state government has allocated a massive $110 million over three years to address surgery backlogs. It is expected that more than 18,000 extra elective patients will be treated within the time recommended by doctors as a result of this program. Since coming to office, the Beattie Labor government has delivered record Health budgets and completed the biggest health rebuilding program of its type in the world. Investment in Queenslanders' health is not just about hospitals; it is about community health facilities, preventative measures and greater cooperation with the private sector to help reduce public hospital waiting lists. The state government is providing this investment and getting on with the job of providing and maintaining a world-class, modern and well-equipped health system. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 49—Barry, Barton, Boyle, Choi, E.Clark, L.Clark, Croft, Cummins, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McNamara, Mickel, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, O'Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Spence, Stone, C.Sullivan, Wallace, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T.Sullivan, Nolan NOES, 26—Copeland, E.Cunningham, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Quinn, Rickuss, E.Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Malone Resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER: Any future divisions on this motion will be of two minutes duration. Question—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to —put; and the House divided— AYES, 49—Barry, Barton, Boyle, Choi, E.Clark, L.Clark, Croft, Cummins, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McNamara, Mickel, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, O'Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Spence, Stone, C.Sullivan, Wallace, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T.Sullivan, Nolan 2540 Adjournment 29 Sep 2004

NOES, 26—Copeland, E.Cunningham, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Quinn, Rickuss, E.Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Malone Resolved in the affirmative.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. T.A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations) (6.35 p.m.): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Kick-start to Literacy Program Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (6.35 p.m.): Members of this House would have heard me speak a number of times about the Mirani cluster schools Kick-start to Literacy program, a small motor repair project based at the Mirani State High School. I reiterate briefly that this is an excellent project that encourages young people, particularly boys, in the cluster schools around Mirani to come together to work on small motors. This literacy program has been implemented by teachers Cath Jeffery, Yvonne Lee and Lyn Egan, who have been the driving force behind the project, which has been so successful that the federal government has funded it for a second year. It has now been expanded to include 10 cluster schools in the Pioneer Valley. As I have said before, it is heartening to see the change in the young boys who undertook the program last year. There was a definite increase in their self-confidence. There was an eagerness to learn about what they were doing and there was an overall enthusiasm for the school generally. Certainly, there was a great turnaround for most of the boys. It is a vital and very worthwhile program that has delivered some huge results for the community. It is with pride that not only as a local member but also as patron of the project I can say that this innovative and successful project was one of the two state finalists in the Showcase Awards for Excellence in the middle phase of learning. Initially I thought that I would not be able to attend the showcase dinner at the convention centre, but I am pleased to say that circumstances changed and I was able to be there to support the schools in that area. To make the top two projects in the state for this category was a wonderful achievement. Of course, in reaching that stage it was disappointing not to receive the top honour of the night, but that certainly did not and never will detract from the changes that this program is making to the lives of those children and their families. To make the top two in the state was fair and due recognition of an innovative and successful project that delivers real outcomes from very little. For example, they work with whatever tools they can borrow or that are donated by the community. Recently six sets of basic tools and one set of speciality tools were donated by the Mackay Regional Area Committee. They are currently making an application for funding to provide their own workshop, et cetera. Once again I congratulate all those involved, especially Cath, Yvonne and Lyn. Without their commitment and dedication, a number of students in the Pioneer Valley would still be struggling within the education system as it now stands. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! Before calling the honourable member for Toowoomba North, I welcome members from the Shailer Park Netball Association in the electorate of Springwood. Star Care Principles Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (6.38 p.m.): I welcome the opportunity to advise the House of the recent Star Care Awards for officers of the Queensland Ambulance Service in Toowoomba. This event was held at the Toowoomba station on 24 September. The first award under the Star Care Principles, of which I will say something further shortly, was for the paramedic of the year. This is awarded to a paramedic who consistently delivers a high standard of prehospital care and displays exemplary patient care in accordance with accepted clinical standards. The person also possesses a high level of commitment to achieving client satisfaction in every instance and demonstrates a willingness to improve the Ambulance Service. I am pleased to say that the recipient was Dennis Walker of the Toowoomba QAS. The second award was for the category patient transport officer of the year. This is awarded to a patient transport officer who displays a high level of commitment to achieving client satisfaction and demonstrates a willingness to improve the Ambulance Service. Again, this award went to a worthy recipient in the form of Mr Chris Neave of Warwick. The third category was the communications officer of the year. This is awarded to a communications officer who demonstrates a high level of effective communication with callers, 29 Sep 2004 Adjournment 2541 operational crews and other ambulance officers. The person possesses a broad-based knowledge of operational requirements and procedures and effectively coordinates major incidents as required. On this occasion the recipient was Letisha Kahler of the south-west region in Toowoomba. The station of the year award went to the Gatton station. It is awarded to the station that promotes a friendly and welcoming environment to community members. The fifth category is the local ambulance committee achiever of the year. This was awarded to a local ambulance committee member who actively furthers the objectives of the Queensland Ambulance Service while ensuring that the needs of the local community are met. This person provides an outstanding contribution and achievement to the Queensland Ambulance Service and the community that they represent. This year's recipient was Clare McGowan of Millmerran. The final category was support officer of the year. This is awarded to an ambulance support officer who has demonstrated a high level of commitment to the goals and strategies of the Queensland Ambulance Service. I am pleased to say that this year the recipient was Marion Llewellyn of the Staff Development Unit in Toowoomba. The Star Care Principles stand for Safe, Team based, Attentive to human needs and Respectful, Client accountability, Appropriate, Reasonable and Ethical. The awards went to very deserving recipients. They are illustrative of the high standards displayed by the Queensland Ambulance Service. Extreme Youth and Young Adults Outreach Team Mr CHRIS FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (6.42 p.m.): I rise to bring to the attention of the House the wonderful work done in Maryborough by the Extreme Youth and Young Adults Outreach Team. This team has an event on the third Saturday night of every month. One of those events is a sports night, including rock climbing and a whole variety of indoor sports such as basketball and skate boarding, and the team feeds for free on rather delicious hamburgers the whole of the community who turn up. This whole event is run on voluntary labour and has some of the best technical equipment on the concert nights, because it holds a concert night featuring a local and sometimes imported band from other areas beyond Maryborough. The particular function is fabulous in terms of its technical ability. There is a whole vision team which has a vision mixer which can introduce the latest film clips with a full range of vision effects. This team also constantly teaches skills for free to people in the community in terms of the vision making. In terms of its sound desk capacity, it has a 24-channel sound system with subwoofer speakers and overhead speakers. Again, this is used as a training facility to teach some young people in our region how to do mixing for rock bands and other functions. As well as the vision and the audio team, there is a lighting team with a 24-channel desk which again is used to teach and train young people in Maryborough about the basics of lighting, how to mix lighting and how to create the right moods using this equipment. It is a fully automated lighting desk. Extreme Outreach is actually a ministry of Grace Community Church, which I am very privileged to be the pastor of. Each Sunday night we feed around 250 people for free, including many people in our community who suffer from mental illness and people who are homeless. There is a men's shelter right across the street, and every Sunday night we are privileged to have many people who have had a very difficult time in life come over and enjoy a free feed and our wonderful music program in the church with a 10-piece band featuring percussion and brass, which can only be described as a very modern way of preaching an age-old message. Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr CHRIS FOLEY: I commend the ministry of Extreme and Grace to the House. I thank the member for Southport, who says that he is coming to church next week. That will be a good thing. He will be very welcome. Cycling Safety Mrs CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (6.44 p.m.): On 25 August this year the nation watched Queensland triathlete Loretta Harrop run the race of her life at the Athens Olympics. Loretta attacked the torturous triathlon course with strength, determination and courage. She also carried with her in her heart and mind the memory of her brother, Luke. Luke died after being hit by a car while training on the Gold Coast in 2002. It was Luke to whom she dedicated her silver Olympic medal win. Loretta, who is often seen training at the Runaway Bay Sports Super Centre and around the Gold Coast, is greatly admired for her strength of character and sportsmanship, and I congratulate her on winning Olympic silver. Today I ask honourable members and the public to once again get behind Loretta by supporting her and her father Russell's commitment to campaigning for the safety of cyclists and triathletes. This 'Watch for Cyclists' sticker which I will distribute to members this week was developed by Steve Southwell to raise the awareness of cyclists using our roads. Its black and yellow print sends a simple reminder message that cyclists are on our roads, too. Loretta and Russell are asking people to purchase a sticker online at www.watchforcyclists.com and be part of a campaign to encourage respect for cyclists 2542 Adjournment 29 Sep 2004 using our roads and raise awareness of the need for drivers to be cautious of cyclists by displaying the sticker on the back windows of cars. The money raised through the sale of the stickers goes towards victims of road cycle accidents and the cost is $55 for 100 stickers. Loretta's silver medal should serve as a reminder to us all that cyclists, whether they are recreational or professional, use our roads for training, keeping fit and healthy and achieving their dreams and therefore deserve our respect—the respect that is so evident in Europe where the Tour de France race has instilled in the people of that country a deep admiration for cyclists and their great achievements. According to Bicycle Queensland manager Ben Wilson, in 2003 there were seven cyclist fatalities on Queensland roads. This year to date, there have been six. All members will agree that every fatality is one too many. I have spoken at length with cyclists in my electorate, and some of their experiences of riding on our roads that they have shared with me are frightening. I have been told of drivers deliberately slowing down to grab a cyclist's handlebars, oblivious to the intimidation and danger that they present to the sometimes junior cyclists just out for a training ride or recreational enjoyment. I know that shared roads mean shared responsibility, and I encourage all cyclists to wear a helmet and obey the road rules. But I stand here today in this House to call on all Queenslanders to change their attitudes, to slow down on our roads and to be patient and considerate. Please display the 'Watch for Cyclists' stickers and help raise awareness. Power Supply, Innisfail Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (6.47 p.m.): Last Sunday, 26 September, an Army Blackhawk helicopter involved in Exercise Swift Eagle clipped and broke a strand of powerline south of Innisfail, affecting the local area including a telecommunications tower. The outage occurred about 11.00 a.m. Some 500 metres of cable collapsed after contact was made by the Blackhawk. The incident caused a fire in a sugarcane paddock and threatened the surrounding bush. A volunteer had to flee the area before he and his water tanker were engulfed in flames. Some 35 consumers in the Cowley Beach area lost power, directly east of where the incident took place. The line could not be replaced immediately due to the vegetation. It required a contractor to clear the line as the vegetation was too thick to string the new wire. Weather conditions were not adverse for repair work to get under way. There was no excuse for the repair work not to be carried out that afternoon. The subcontractors commenced work at 7.00 a.m. on Monday to clear the vegetation, and it was not until midday that Ergon could start to replace the broken wire—24 hours after the air strike occurred. Power was reinstated about 2.30 p.m. on Monday, 27 September—over 26 hours after the outage occurred. The question I want to ask is this: why did the clearing of the vegetation not commence on Sunday? There was no sound reason for the delay. Does Ergon not have a capacity to call in staff or a contractor at short notice in the event of this type of emergency? Even more so, why has the conductor not been kept free of vegetation? In this region which is prone to cyclones it is prudent to keep the line clear of trees and bush that can lead to tree limbs breaking off and falling over the conductors, causing outages. This is a responsibility which appears to be falling by the wayside. The incident caused disruption to Telstra, Optus and a number of other telecommunications systems. This is what could be expected in a Third World country. There was a need to scurry around starting up generators and hoping that the batteries were sufficiently charged to cope with the outage, as this type of outage is more likely to happen during the cyclone period. Radio time lost may not be retrieved. In the event that the lights go out when people are reading the newspaper, they can read it when the light comes on again or the next day. But with no power by which to listen to radios, the message may be lost totally. The government needs to look at its corporate bodies to ensure that they are delivering the services required of them. It is extremely important that we ensure that these powerlines, which are so critical to the people in the north, are cleared. Police Remembrance Day Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (6.50 p.m.): Today it was gratifying for me to see the number of people in this House and staff recognise Police Remembrance Day. It is a sad indictment on our society that we have to have police officers, who keep the fabric of our society intact, remembered because they have died in the line of duty. It is an even sadder position for me to realise that, of the three officers who have died in the line of duty in the central Queensland region in the past 20 years, two of them died in my own seat of Keppel. It was pleasant to know that their memory is not forgotten. That brings me to the other point that I want to make about our emergency services, of which the Queensland Police Service is a very important part. On 4 September I had the pleasure of attending at St Joseph's Cathedral in Rockhampton an ecumenical service for our emergency services. At that service, nine of our emergency services groups were recognised. They came together to celebrate their work and to show society that they were there to assist them. At that service, the Queensland Police 29 Sep 2004 Adjournment 2543

Service was recognised, as was the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service, the Queensland Ambulance Service, the rural fire brigade, St John's Ambulance, the volunteer coastguard, the counterdisaster relief, the SES and the SES cadets. Mr Mulherin interjected. Mr HOOLIHAN: That is a good question. It was an ecumenical service and it was conducted by both the Catholic Church and the Uniting Church in central Queensland. One of the things that is of concern to me is that we do not recognise our emergency services sufficiently. This service is the only ecumenical service that is held anywhere in Australia for our emergency services. After seeing the respect with which all of those emergency services were treated at that service and the large number of people who attended, I would like to ask all members to consider encouraging their own emergency services in their own areas to hold such services on an annual basis. Public Hospitals, Cardiovascular Treatment Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (6.52 p.m.): I want to say a few words about the treatment of cardiovascular disease in Queensland's public hospitals. I want to tell members about a patient who came to me. I will withhold the patient's name but will take up the matter with Queensland Health later. This patient has an abdominal aneurysm and has been assessed in a public hospital and categorised as a category 1 patient. His abdominal aneurysm is in danger of rupturing and causing sudden death. This patient has now been waiting six months for lifesaving surgery. He has twice had his operation dates postponed. At the most recent one, the postponement was explained to him by the hospital that it was school holidays and that they were short of nurses. An abdominal aneurysm can rupture at any time and, if that occurs, the patient then has only hours to live. This particular patient is now suffering from depression because of living daily with the anxiety that this day may be his last. A second patient who came to see me was assessed at the Prince Charles Hospital by the cardiologist, had the angiogram and was booked for triple bypass surgery for his triple vessel cardiac disease. He was told by the cardiologist that he needed to be operated on within about six weeks. He has now been waiting six months. Apart from the obvious anxiety of not knowing what is going on, the mortality for a patient waiting for bypass surgery is about one per cent per month. If the average waiting time is about 10 months, that means that one in every 10 of these patients will die before they have their lifesaving surgery. This particular very gentlemanly man said to me, 'I guess there are sicker people than I am.' I do not think that I would be as gracious if I was waiting for a triple bypass. All of the cardiac tertiary units in Queensland require major upgrades in order to cope with the demand. The methods of treating heart disease have changed and are much more interventionist than they were. Accepted world benchmarks are that we need 30 cardiologists per one million people. Queensland has a total of 25 cardiologists in the public hospital system, whereas it needs 75 cardiologists. The benchmark for a paediatric cardiologist is one cardiologist per half a million people. Queensland has four. We have half the paediatric cardiologists that we need to service the heart disease of small children in this state. Queensland is growing rapidly. We have a budgetary situation in which money is pouring in from the GST. The other day we heard that an additional $130 million is yet to be spent. I am calling on the Minister for Health to ensure that that money is spent on the health of Queenslanders. Liberal Party Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (6.56 p.m.): Last week the Queensland Electoral Commission released a report on the conduct of preselection ballots relating to the last state election. In its findings, the commissioner stated— The Commission has reservations regarding the Liberal Party's compliance with the Model Procedures (provided for in the Act). Given the ad hoc nature of some of its processes, it is unable to satisfactorily demonstrate total compliance with the party's constitution, in particular, Clause 131 (1) which provides that all preselection ballots shall be conducted on the basis of and in accordance with the principles of free and democratic elections. Those guys opposite should not go yet. I am trying to help them. The report is scathing of the Liberal Party's state administration. The Liberal Party still has not provided the detailed reports it undertook to provide arising from a report by the commission dated November 2003. The Liberal Party organisation has been reckless and negligent in its compliance with the provisions of the act regarding party preselection ballots. By any measure, the QEC has been very patient with the Liberal Party, yet the Liberal Party continues to fail to meet the provisions of the act regarding free and democratic preselection ballots. But I think that I know one reason why it was so negligent in the latter months of 2003 and the early months of 2004 and why the QEC has been scathing in its criticism of the Queensland Liberal Party. The State President, Councillor Michael Caltabiano, and the chief fundraiser, Senator Santo Santoro, have been very busy. This will be news to the member for Robina, because we know that in the last state election the Liberal Party's fundraising efforts for his campaign were miserable, and that is 2544 Adjournment 29 Sep 2004 giving the efforts a rap. But thanks to media revelations it appears that, instead of raising funds for the state election campaign or answering the request from the Electoral Commission, we now know what kept the Liberal Party powerbrokers busy and distracted from the main event. Councillor Caltabiano and Senator Santoro, the Ted Lyons of party fundraising in the new millennium, were assiduously raising $140,000 from traditional Liberal Party donors to reimburse the failed candidate for Moggill for his court costs and other expenses arising from his challenge for preselection to Dr Flegg. What is so special about the failed candidate for Moggill that the party would divert its attention from raising funds for the member for Robina's state campaign? The answer is that the ruling faction of the Liberal Party depends on the numbers for the member for Ryan, Michael Johnson, to stay in power. The failed candidate for Moggill was then, but is no longer, of course, Michael Johnson's right-hand man. Thieves have a habit of falling out. While the now member for Moggill was spending his own money to get elected and to keep the Liberal Party's only Brisbane seat, his party was raising $140,000, and raising it secretly, to reimburse the candidate he defeated. We know the funds were raised secretly, because the party's state council specifically directed that there was to be no fundraising to reimburse candidates who launch legal challenges that fail. Yet Caltabiano and Santoro went ahead in defiance of the party and spent weeks raising more than what they raised for the whole state election campaign. Prep Year Trial, Teacher Aides Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (6.59 p.m.): After extensive contact with a number of significant stakeholder groups associated with Queensland education—the QCPCA, ICPA, C&K and Child Care Queensland—unfortunately I have to report to this House that our children's safety is being compromised by Labor's bumbling efforts to introduce prep year trials. While the principle of prep year is a principle the Nationals and conservative politics agree with, it has come to my attention that the execution and implementation of prep year under Labor's Education Minister Bligh is once again failing our teachers, failing our parents and, most disappointingly, placing at risk the lives and wellbeing of our children. A recent incident at a Queensland primary school—a prep year student, about five years old, walked 30 metres unescorted to a toilet block and then had an encounter with an adult who was subsequently reported to the police—highlights graphically the need for Minister Bligh to review the way prep year is being implemented in Queensland. The reason this young child walked unsupervised 30 metres to the school toilet block and had this encounter is that the Education Minister has decided that prep year trials in Queensland only have a part-time teacher aide who works 15 hours a week to help supervise and assist the teacher. I would suggest that most responsible Queensland parents would expect their toddlers of prep school age to be closely monitored during their toilet breaks. At the very least, if Minister Bligh cares about the safety of our young children, she should without delay increase teacher aide hours from 15 hours per week per class to 30 hours per week per class so that this basic supervision and duty of care can be carried out. In Queensland, under the direction of Minister Bligh, we have a ridiculous situation where a classroom of four-and-a-half- to five-year-olds in a preschool receives supervision from two adults, because in preschool the children qualify for a full-time teacher and 30 hours of teaching time. The same classroom of four-and-a-half- to five-year-olds in a Queensland prep year trial receives supervision from only one and a half adults because in Minister Bligh's prep year the children qualify for only 15 hours of teacher aide time—a reduction of 15 hours teacher aide time. Why is the minister trying to give us a prep year on the cheap? Why is Labor downgrading the safety of our children and placing teachers in a terrible situation? Why will the minister not authorise prep year trials with 30 hours of teacher aide time? It is probably the same reason we are in for a summer of Beattie blackouts. It is because of an endemic failure and culture of mismanagement and cover-ups. Member for Burnett Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (7.02 p.m.): The member for Burnett has made many wild claims in the short time he has been a member of parliament. We have just heard another litany of them. He has made a mockery of the truth. Truth should be an essential in politics, as it is in every avenue of life, but the member for Burnett has consistently distorted facts, either to gain a cheap headline or in a futile attempt to score political points, as he has just done. His litany of untruths began with his maiden speech on 18 March this year, when he claimed there was a health crisis. Not content with that, he also claimed an unemployment crisis, a sugar crisis, a seafood industry crisis, an education crisis, a public housing crisis and a law and order crisis. This same member of parliament said that patients from his region were unnecessarily and prematurely dying because they are being prematurely discharged. He also claimed that a patient had been refused help 29 Sep 2004 Adjournment 2545 at the Bundaberg Mental Health Unit. The member said that he had been told by a number of reliable sources that the patient was found dead. The member for Burnett also said that a patient at Bundaberg Hospital had been 'left in corridors in agony for approximately seven hours before he was attended to'. The patient, he said, was not even given pain-killers. He also claimed to have been told that a doctor had been 'on shift for 72 hours straight'. There are many other examples that could be given about how the member for Burnett has been loose with the truth. The member for Burnett has an unenviable record—a record where truth plays a very small part in what he says in this House. Here are the facts—facts that are easily verifiable. Firstly, there is no health crisis in any of the fields alleged by the member for Burnett. Secondly, the doctors at the Bundaberg Base Hospital's department of emergency services are not rostered on 24-, 48- or 72-hour shifts. Thirdly, patients are not prematurely or unnecessarily dying because they are being prematurely discharged from the Bundaberg Hospital. What an insult to the doctors! As regards the specific allegations of the member for Burnett, the patient he referred to as being left in the corridors without being attended to or given pain-killers was seen within minutes by a doctor, was issued a pain-killer en route and was regularly administered pain relief during his stay in Emergency. Here is the headline: as for the patient the member for Burnett claimed to have been told by reliable sources was dead, he is well and truly alive! This shows how far from the truth the member for Burnett is. Earlier this year the Minister for Health wrote to all members, inviting us to bring any concerns to him or his office. He made district managers available to all members, of all political persuasions, to discuss issues. This is part of the government's commitment to openness and accountability in the health system. But a system only works with the cooperation of members of this House who have the welfare of their constituents at heart. The member for Burnett is untruthful, untrustworthy and not fit to represent the good people of the Burnett region. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 7.05 p.m.