8 Aug 2001 Legislative Assembly 2309

WEDNESDAY, 8 AUGUST 2001

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

PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions—

Awoonga Dam Mrs Liz Cunningham from 850 petitioners, requesting the House to require the Gladstone Area Water Board to honour to the longstanding obligation to relocate the railway line prior to any impacts from the raising of the Awoonga Dam to ensure (a) GAWB’s longstanding obligations to the community, councils and Government are met, (b) economic development is not impeded in any way in both Boyne and Burnett Valleys, (c) future development will have access to this important transport alternative and (d) options for alternative income generation for Boyne Valley residents including product development, primary production diversification, tourism and other options are not diminished in any way.

Powerlines, Cardwell and Johnstone Shires Mr Pitt from 2,790 petitioners, requesting the House to direct Powerlink to establish the 275 kV line on the current alignment where its impact on the community of the Cardwell and Johnstone Shires is minimal.

Irradiation Plant, Narangba Mr Wells from 2,040 petitioners, requesting the House to (a) recognise that the proposed irradiation plant at Narangba is nuclear and is part of the global nuclear industry, (b) stop the proposed nuclear irradiation plant, not only from being implemented in Narangba, but anywhere else in Queensland, (c) halt the expansion of the nuclear industry in Queensland, (d) support the wishes of the people over and above those of industry, (e) ban the irradiation of food in Queensland, whether for domestic consumption or export and (f) adhere to the Labor Party’s traditional anti-nuclear stand.

PAPERS MINISTERIAL PAPERS The following ministerial papers were tabled by The Clerk— Minister for Environment (Mr Wells)— Report of the Review of the National Environment Protection Council Acts (Commonwealth, State and Territory) Code of practice for the taking and use of protected plants.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Capital Works Projects Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.35 a.m.), by leave: Queensland is the leading state for capital works expenditure. In fact, Queensland leads Australia. We are building the infrastructure Queensland needs to grow and prosper at a faster rate than any other state. Our $5.2 billion Capital Works Program represents 27 per cent of the total Capital Works Program of all the states combined; that is, 27 per cent of the nation's capital works from a state that represents less than 19 per cent of Australia's population. We are delivering infrastructure at a record rate, and we are delivering 46,300 jobs for construction workers around the state. The Department of Public Works has released an industry guide listing all the building projects sponsored by the Queensland government this year. This is an excellent publication from Minister Schwarten's department, identifying all the tender opportunities available for Queensland construction firms. I table that document for the information of honourable members. Copies are now being circulated to members in the House. 2310 Legislative Assembly 8 Aug 2001

The document highlights the enormous investment that this government is making in our great state. A few examples from this year alone—and I stress that they are just a few examples—are: $9.3 million towards the new Calamvale State School; $2 million for Tannum Sands High School; $1 million towards a new Surfers Paradise fire station; $2.4 million for Barrier Reef TAFE in Townsville; $2.5 million for TAFE horticulture facilities in Toowoomba; $4 million for Wide Bay TAFE in Maryborough; $2.1 million for the Torres Strait primary health centre; $12.6 million towards the Cairns Base Hospital; $12.7 million for the Nambour Hospital, which recently did a great job with Peter Wellington and I thank them on behalf of all Queenslanders for that excellent job—it shows how well qualified the staff are and what a great hospital it is; $9.8 million for the Rockhampton Hospital; $19.8 million to finish the Townsville Hospital; $35.7 million for the PA Hospital; $12.2 million for the Gold Coast Hospital; $10.7 million for public housing in Fitzroy; $30 million for Aboriginal housing grants in the far north; $2.2 million for police headquarters in Roma; $4.3 million for Mount Isa police headquarters; $4.9 million for two police stations in Rockhampton and Rockhampton North; $6.2 million for the northern fisheries facility in Cairns; $300,000 towards a new ambulance station at Longreach; $400,000 to finish a new ambulance station at Helensvale; $3 million for the Turtle Interpretive Centre in Wide Bay; $4.8 million to begin extending the Mackay Courthouse; and $49.9 million towards the Maryborough Correctional Centre Those are just a few examples and the list goes on. These projects deliver full-time jobs to thousands of Queenslanders. Construction of the new office building in Cairns will create 240 person years of employment. The Suncorp Metway Stadium redevelopment will deliver 3,400 person years of employment. The Brisbane Magistrates Court development will provide 1,300 person years of employment. The Millennium Arts Project will provide 2,800 person years of employment. The Gold Coast Convention Centre will provide 2,800 jobs, and the list goes on. That does not include the thousands of workers in industries supplying those projects. Some self-appointed experts believe even more public capital works are needed, but they conveniently forget that the private sector is taking a bigger role in infrastructure development. Compared to the other states, we have a record amount in terms of expenditure and we are delivering. The $1.5 billion Millmerran power station is an example of traditional capital works expenditure that does not appear in the budget because it is being privately built by Intergen for the government. Optus built the $80 million Reeflink fibre optic cable, delivering cheaper broadband services right along the Queensland coast. A few weeks ago I opened an $800 million public/private power station at Callide, and only half of that expenditure appeared in the budget. We have public/private partnerships delivering record capital works for this state. We have to look at the total amount and that is why we lead Australia when it comes to capital works. The budget capital works statement is not the only indicator of the level of infrastructure development in the state. Increasingly it will be supplemented by private sector developments. That is a good thing, because it increases our capacity to deliver the infrastructure that the economy needs and the people want. 8 Aug 2001 Ministerial Statement 2311

Members must make no mistake: when it comes to infrastructure development, Queensland is way out in front and it will stay there. We are determined to continue delivering quality infrastructure right across the state, because every Queenslander counts. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Goodwill Games Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.39 a.m.), by leave: Today I announce that the Goodwill Games momentum is quickening—a fact highlighted by a number of points. It is expected that more than 50,000 people will be on hand to watch the free 2001 Goodwill triathlon on Sunday, 2 September. It will be necessary to close a number of streets in the city and South Brisbane. Road closures for this hugely popular event will be in place from 6 a.m., when athletes begin training, until about 3 p.m., when the course will be cleared. Just as happened in Sydney for the Olympic triathlon—with television footage of the magnificent harbour being beamed around the world—so, too, will our Brisbane River and inner city be seen worldwide, in 450 million homes or by a billion people worldwide, through CNN. This should be one of the most popular spectator events, both for those on site and for television viewers. Triathlon spectators are strongly advised to use public transport services, for which normal fares apply, as this is a non-ticket event—it is free. Train services are particularly encouraged, as the Queen Street Bus Station and bus station underpass will be closed during the triathlon. The men's race will be between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. The women's race is between 11.15 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. There will be controlled crossings for pedestrians and cyclists at various points around the course. I table a list of the road closures for that day in conjunction with that event for the information of the House, and I would be grateful if members would ensure that the people of Brisbane are aware of the detail. Today I also announce that Concept Sports, which has been appointed as the official on-site merchandiser for the Games, will be establishing an 800 square metre retail outlet to be known as The Superstore located in the cultural forecourt area at South Bank on the river. The Superstore will be a one-stop shop for all Goodwill Games merchandise, with in excess of 150 merchandise lines to be sold, ranging from lapel pins through to spray jackets, polo shirts and kids wear. The Superstore will be open from Saturday, 25 August through to Sunday, 9 September. In addition to The Superstore, Concept Sports will be operating outlets across all games venues. The 2001 Goodwill Games merchandise range is being sold across the Myer Store Brisbane City, which is the exclusive retailer of Goodwill Games apparel and souvenir items and plush toys in the Brisbane CBD, and the exclusive stockist of countdown pins. More than 39 K mart stores across Queensland and selected stores in Sydney and Melbourne are selling Goodwill Games merchandise. What a can-do state this is. When we see what is happening in this state, we can understand what a can-do government and state this is.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Mr J. Cowley Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.43 a.m.), by leave: It is appropriate in this House that I note the retirement of a key player in Queensland's business and community life. John Cowley has presided over Queensland Newspapers since 1 January 1992. In that role he has held overall managerial responsibility for the Courier-Mail, the Sunday Mail, the Cairns Post, the Townsville Bulletin and the Gold Coast Bulletin. His role has not just been that of a loyal servant for his employer, but he has been a generous contributor of time and influence to make this a better state. His efforts include being— patron of the Gregg Hansford Royal Australian College of Surgeons Road Trauma Fund since 1998; board member of the Goodwill Games; past chair of the Royal Women's Hospital Research and Development Foundation; founder of the Bridge to Brisbane Fun Run; President of the Courier-Mail Children's Fund; and Chairman of the Gold Coast's Honda Indy, where he did a magnificent job on behalf of all Queenslanders. 2312 Ministerial Statement 8 Aug 2001

These attest to a magnificent community-minded contribution to making Queensland a better place. While he has had a clear role in achieving an economic outcome, John has ensured that the News Limited newspapers continue to play a significant role in the daily lives of Queenslanders. While I might not always agree with the editorial treatment my government receives, I genuinely appreciate the vital role that newspapers play in meeting so many reader information needs—from politics to events, business, sport, weather and so many other day-to-day reader needs. Mr Cowley's close interest in the wellbeing of so many sections of the Queensland community has been greatly appreciated. I wish him, his wife, Janina, and family every good wish for the future. I also extend a warm Queensland welcome to his successor, Jerry Harris, whom I met the other day, in his new role and in his adopted new state.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Suncorp Metway Stadium Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (9.45 a.m.), by leave: I take this opportunity to inform parliament of a very important church service to be held at Suncorp Metway Stadium next Wednesday. The ecumenical service will be held to honour people buried on the site more than 100 years ago when the land served as Brisbane's main burial ground. Bishop John Gerry from the Catholic Archdiocese, Bishop Ron Williams from the Anglican Diocese of Brisbane and leaders of other religious communities will participate in the service, which has been organised by representatives of the Inner Western Suburbs Inter Church Council in conjunction with Queensland churches. With redevelopment of the stadium set to commence later this month it is important that we take this opportunity to recognise the history of the site and the important role that it has played in the development of Brisbane. Prior to urban development in the 1870s, it was a swampy area often punished by prolonged wet weather. It was also part of the Turrball people's area. From 1843 until approximately 1900 the site was used as the main burial ground for Brisbane. In the pattern of the day I believe an acre was allocated for the Church of England, an acre to the Roman Catholics and Presbyterians, and half an acre to the others. Christians, Jews and Aborigines all shared the same ground. From 1900, the cemetery was no longer used as a burial ground and most of the headstones and remains were shifted to the Toowong Cemetery. This task was finished by 1914, but several headstones remained on site as evidence of its previous use. The ground then evolved into a sporting area with an oval for amateur athletics, cricket, football and tennis courts. The lease for Lang Park was granted to the Queensland Rugby League in 1954 with the Queensland Amateur Athletics Association as sub-lessees. In 1962, the Lang Park Trust was established and continues to administer the site and stadium today. It is in the past 50 years or so that Lang Park, or Suncorp Metway Stadium as it is now known, has grown in the public consciousness as the home of Rugby League in our state. It has become part of Brisbane's sporting and social fabric and been home to many of our state's greatest sporting triumphs. And now the life of this famous piece of real estate is set to enter a new phase. Demolition of the existing stadium will begin this month and construction of a new state-of- the-art stadium will commence. This stadium will seat more than 52,000 people and be capable of attracting world-class national and international sporting events. However, before we move on it is important that we respect the history of the site and the role that it played as a burial ground in the early years. The state government recognises the need to properly address this issue and has developed a formal process for the sensitive management and disposal of any remains. This process is consistent with the requirements of key agencies such as the Brisbane City Council and the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, in recognition of the history of the site the ecumenical service will be held at the western stand of the stadium at 8.30 a.m. on the exhibition public holiday, Wednesday, 15 August. It is an open service, but organisers have requested that people wishing to attend register by phoning 3369 6792. 8 Aug 2001 Ministerial Statement 2313

I thank the Inner Western Suburbs Inter Church Council and Queensland churches together for organising this service. It provides a wonderful opportunity to honour the memory of many of Brisbane's early pioneers. Further in relation to the redevelopment of Suncorp Metway Stadium, today's Gold Coast Bulletin carries a story in relation to funding which will come from the Major Facilities Fund. The deputy mayor of the Gold Coast expressed an interesting theory when I was down there recently that money raised from poker machines should all be spent on capital works. I explained to him then that if we used that theory in relation to the new Gold Coast highway, which has now opened, the people of the Gold Coast have got their amount that we get from poker machine revenue and they do not get any more funds for the next 47 years. Not to be outdone, he is still pursuing that argument. I explained to the Gold Coast Bulletin yesterday that, whilst we are redeveloping Suncorp Metway Stadium, we are also expending $100 million on a convention centre on the Gold Coast, but that did not appear in the story. The other thing I might mention is that in relation to the Major Facilities Fund, whereas hotels on the Gold Coast are paying less than $2 million, the government this year is putting something like $10.5 million into ensuring that the Indy is a success, as it has been in the past, and that a lot of people will be down there to use those hotels and poker machines.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Goodwill Games; Education Queensland Showcase Awards for Excellence Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (9.49 a.m.), by leave: Excellence in all forms of endeavour is what the Smart State is all about. We invest in excellence because we expect excellence, and that is what we all get in return. In Queensland this month there is no more obvious celebration of excellence than the Goodwill Games. Queensland schools have long been known as centres of excellence in both academia and sport. So when the Goodwill Games was destined for Brisbane, we always knew that our children would be up there sharing the spotlight in some way. The partnership began when Chief Executive Campbell Rose met with Education Queensland to explore how our students could be involved. Campbell's team, through Project Goodwill and in partnership with Education Queensland, opened up this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to students across the state by releasing 50,000 free tickets to the Games' athletics events. Queensland Rail also supported those students with reduced long-distance fares and free travel on the Brisbane Citytrain network. When we were contacted about just how difficult it would be for some students in our most remote schools to share in the Games, once again, the Goodwill team, Education Queensland and Queensland Rail put their heads together and came up with a plan to offer 150 free Games tickets and accessible travel to some 90 students from remote areas so that they, too, can attend the Games. Many Queensland school students will also be involved in the opening event on 28 August, either in the dance cast, the choir or the orchestra. Of course, a couple of Queensland school students will be competing in the Games. Tomorrow it will be just 20 days to the Goodwill Games—a perfect time to start the countdown. This day also coincides with the state finals of the Education Queensland Showcase Awards for Excellence. Both are fine examples of excellence and both will be celebrated in the Queen Street Mall tomorrow around lunchtime. Showcase is all about rewarding schools for the things they do that produce better educational outcomes for our students. Tomorrow night I will be welcoming the 12 state finalist schools to Brisbane City Hall for the gala presentation, and six schools will be named state winners and receive development grants of $30,000. The highly commended schools will receive grants of $10,000. The 12 state finalists are the Andergrove State School, Birdsville State School, Cairns School of Distance Education, Calliope State School, Chancellor State School, Coorparoo Secondary College, Mackay North State High School, Marsden State High School, Milpera State High School, Southport State School, Stanthorpe State High School and Wynnum North State High School. Badu Island State School and the Mooloolaba group of schools also received a special commendation. What sets Showcase apart from other reward-type programs is that these are proven programs that are already up and running in our schools with proven results. It is nice to be able 2314 Ministerial Statement 8 Aug 2001 to hand out a cheque for $30,000, but it is even more rewarding to know that the money will be put to the best possible use in developing those programs even further. The 12 state finalist schools are on display right now in the foyer of Education House at 30 Mary Street. I encourage members to drop in and check out what some of our state schools have to offer. I also encourage members to visit the mall during lunchtime tomorrow if they have a chance where they will be treated to a fantastic display of gymnastics by students from Belmont and Holland Park State Schools and a special appearance by Holland Park State High School's own Goodwill Games athlete, gymnast Danielle Kelly. What the Goodwill Games and Showcase have in common is a commitment to the best for our children. So it is an exciting time to be part of the Smart State.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Indigenous Employment Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts) (9.53 a.m.), by leave: No section of the Australian people has been more ravaged by unemployment than the first Australians. An Aboriginal child born today still faces the spectre of systematic disadvantage in education, training and employment. This has been so for many years, and many years should see some change. Accordingly, I wish to inform the House of some modest progress towards economic justice being achieved by the Beattie government through initiatives in the area of employment and training. Just a few weeks ago during NAIDOC Week, I was able to announce the establishment of a unit within the Department of Employment and Training to help the Queensland public sector meet indigenous employment participation targets. The move was in response to extensive community and government consultation and to concerns expressed by various public sector agencies. Frankly, it is in response to the failure of systems to date to give Aboriginal and Islander people a fair go in the public sector. This unit will help the state government achieve its commitment of increasing the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees to 2.4 per cent across the public sector by next year, and 2.4 per cent across all salary levels by 2010. Another noteworthy initiative is a grant of $174,150 for a community training partnership project in the Aurukun shire on Cape York to provide training opportunities for 82 indigenous residents. The project will help to develop employment opportunities in the communities of Aurukun, Mapoon, Weipa and Napranum. The skills gained by participants will help them to achieve sustainable employment in local industries including mining, retail, telecommunications and fishing. Another initiative which we should note as a breakthrough of commonsense over bureaucratic process is the new indigenous employment policy. A recent workshop in Cairns introduced the policy to indigenous representatives and north Queensland contractors who tender for projects in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The policy will ensure that 20 per cent of the on-site work force for government-funded public works in indigenous communities is recruited locally. Mr Speaker, you would not think that that requires an inspired government policy. You would think that it is a matter of commonsense, but sometimes you have to make policies to ensure that commonsense is allowed to break out. Mr Beattie: Hear, hear! Mr FOLEY: I thank the Premier for his strong support because it picks up on the Cape York Partnership agreement that the Premier has led. The new policy will also apply to building contracts worth more than $250,000. It will ensure that half the local recruits on these projects undertake formal apprenticeships or other approved training. In that way, the policy will contribute to breaking the cycle of long-term unemployment in indigenous communities by giving local people on-the-job skills plus formal qualifications. It makes a little more sense than flying in subbies from Cairns or Townsville, putting them in dongas and flying them out without a cracker of good being done for the training of local communities. 8 Aug 2001 Ministerial Statement 2315

As I indicated, the policy is also in line with the Beattie government's commitment to the Cape York Partnership. Hopefully, each of these steps takes us closer to a society that is somewhat less unfair. We want a society where everyone has a fair go when it comes to getting a job, and that must include people in indigenous communities who, for too long, have had little hope of breaking the grip of long-term unemployment. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Drugs Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy) (9.57 a.m.), by leave: Last week the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy was briefed on the final report of the National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence. All states contributed to the clinical trials to establish the effectiveness of drug treatments for opioid drug dependence. The results of two trials funded by the Queensland government were used in this evaluation. These were the trial of rapid opiate detoxification and the trial of detoxification using buprenorphine. The evaluation showed that drug treatment is effective for those patients who remain in treatment. Agonist maintenance, using methadone, buprenorphine or LAAM, retained more heroin users in treatment than naltrexone—50 per cent versus five per cent at six months. Heroin users who remained in treatment reduced their involvement in criminal activity, halving their reported rate of property crime, drug dealing, fraud and violent behaviour. Methadone patients—already on methadone at the start of the trials—had significantly lower rates of criminal involvement than heroin users at the baseline, at three months and at six months. This reinforces what we already know about the positive effects of methadone in helping people to get their lives on track. Methadone maintenance treatment remains the gold standard in terms of retaining people in treatment. Buprenorphine is a safe and effective drug treatment, which has similar effectiveness to methadone as a maintenance agent in certain groups of patients. Buprenorphine was also effective in detoxifying patients from opioids and, when used in this way, was more effective than traditional means of detoxification. Maintenance on the drug Naltrexone is an effective treatment option for those patients who are very highly motivated and have good support. The overall rate of serious adverse events was low while patients were in treatment, but these usually increased after patients left treatment. Heroin overdose rates were higher among patients who entered Naltrexone treatment in comparison with other treatments. Rapid detoxification from opioids onto Naltrexone under anaesthetic is an effective treatment option, but it is in no way a miracle cure for opioid dependence. The results of using an anaesthetic were no different to those where sedation has been used, which is a more cost-effective option. Both forms of rapid detoxification were, however, superior to that of conventional detoxification. Research and clinical experience shows that only a small proportion of patients are able to maintain long-term abstinence or reductions in their heroin use without further treatment. As such, detoxification is only the very first step towards reducing or eliminating heroin use and entry to post-detoxification treatment is arguably more clinically desirable than initial abstinence. Ministers have agreed that results will be disseminated widely to provide accurate information to treatment providers, patients and the general community. The use of Naltrexone to treat opioid dependence will be referred back to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. I am pleased to inform members that buprenorphine is now available from all existing Queensland Health opioid treatment programs and through authorised private prescribers throughout Queensland.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Australia Meat Holdings Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for State Development) (10.00 a.m.), by leave: Australia Meat Holdings' commitment to invest $32 million in the Dinmore operation establishes the platform for further expansion at the meatworks in the future. AMH has recently signed a new environment licence which will lead to the company spending more than $20 million on a new rendering and bi-product plant, with the remainder being spent on advanced water and waste water management systems. AMH has told me that these moves will set new standards for practices in the industry with regard to management of odour, waste and on-site noise. In time, this decision will allow AMH to introduce new second shift arrangements, lifting throughput to 2316 Ministerial Statement 8 Aug 2001 more than 3,000 head a day, and generate 650 new jobs, lifting the work force to more than 3,000 at Dinmore. This proposed expansion has been a team effort by the company and the Beattie government, with the Department of State Development, the Department of Primary Industries through the Food and Meat Industries Task Force and the Environment Department heavily involved. The decision by AMH came after three years of extensive negotiations between the company, the Food and Meat Industries Task Force and the Environmental Protection Agency. My parliamentary colleague the Environment Minister, Mr Dean Wells, recently said that the EPA had worked with the company over four months to get this result. Further, Mr Wells said that the new environmental licence had conditions on it which had the effect of improving the environmental controls but at the same time allowing for the other significant objective of the Beattie government, that is, an increase in employment. The meat industry is important to the state, particularly the regions, and AMH is one of our biggest corporate citizens. AMH operates four abattoirs in Queensland, with Dinmore having the biggest work force. The other AMH abattoirs are at Beef City in Toowoomba, Rockhampton and Townsville. The company has an annual slaughter of 1.3 million head of cattle with a sales turnover of $1.4 billion. Currently, the company employs 3,790 workers. The company exports a full range of chilled, aged or fresh frozen beef cuts, processed meat and variety meats such as offal. The company markets a wide range of by-products such as tallow, bone meal and hides throughout the state and New South Wales. AMH's principal export markets include the United States, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Canada, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and the United Kingdom. This is a significant company and is a significant contributor to this state. The Beattie government is keen to continue to support companies such as AMH to help them continue to expand operations, meet export demands, improve technologies and, at the end of the day, create and retain jobs in Queensland.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Queensland Rail, Coal Freight Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads) (10.04 a.m.), by leave: I am delighted to be able to advise that QR's coal services have recorded another outstanding year. In the 2000-01 financial year, QR railed a record 127.8 million tonnes of coal. This was 13.3 million tonnes, or 11.7 per cent, higher than the previous peak set in 1999- 2000. QR has achieved this tremendous result through working closely with the coal industry and by improving the productivity of its coal fleet and rail infrastructure. QR's focus on teamwork as an integrated railway has enabled it to achieve this record, which is the highest single-commodity tonnage hauled by any railway operator in Australia, whether privately or publicly owned. It consolidates QR's standing as one of the world's great heavy haul railways. In particular, export tonnages continue to grow strongly, up 13 million tonnes to 117.5 million tonnes. These exports earn Queensland around $6 billion annually in foreign exchange. Tonnage growth from the mines in the Bowen Basin in central Queensland has again powered the surge in railings of export coal. The Goonyella system, which serves Hay Point and Dalrymple Bay south of Mackay, hauled 69.3 million tonnes, up six million tonnes. The Blackwater system and Moura line to Gladstone were also strong performers, with haulage of 35.7 million tonnes of export coal, up 5.9 million tonnes. The McNaughton-Newlands system to Abbott Point near Bowen carried 10.1 million tonnes, up 0.9 million tonnes. There was also an increase in railings in south-east Queensland to Fisherman Islands from 2.1 million to 2.4 million tonnes. There has been a significant increase in railing demand over the last few months, and QR expects this to continue. To service this growing business, QR is planning to increase its coal wagon fleet. The productivity improvements in the coal fleet have been gained through QR's ongoing substantial investment in new locomotives and wagons and by modifications in fleet operations. Over the past three years, over 2,000 new coal wagons have been added to the fleet and the new 4000-class diesel locomotives are improving fleet flexibility and efficiency. QR continues to provide the vital link between the state's coalmines and ports, as well as to a number of domestic destinations. It operates this link in conjunction with all the users in the mine-rail- terminals chain. This close working arrangement is producing benefits for all the chain participants. QR also participates in a number of cooperative study groups to solve industry-specific issues. An example is the recent Cooperative Centre for Rail Research, or CRC, which involves 8 Aug 2001 Ministerial Statement 2317

QR, other Australian railways, several universities and the rail industry. The CRC has received substantial funding to investigate a number of rail issues, including coal transport-specific issues. QR continues to work closely with its coal customers to strive for even greater efficiencies. This will enable even greater coal tonnages to be exported which will benefit not only QR and the coal industry but also the state as a whole. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Wombat Display, Brisbane Exhibition Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (10.07 a.m.), by leave: I draw the attention of my colleagues to the Environmental Protection Agency's educational display at the Ekka. I refer to a unique aspect of an animal display which represents the way 21st century technology is being brought to bear to protect Australia's threatened species. The wombat featured is one of 15 female southern hairy-nosed wombats that will become involved in a surrogate mother project to save their critically endangered cousins, the northern hairy-nosed wombat. The northern hairy-nosed wombat is one of Queensland's most endangered mammals. It is so endangered that we were unable to bring one to the Ekka. Before the arrival of Europeans, this species of wombat was found throughout inland areas from central Queensland to the New South Wales-Victoria border. By the early 1900s, all populations except the current one were believed to be extinct. At the last count, only 100 wombats survive in the Epping Forest National Park in central Queensland, and 70 per cent of this population are males. With the assistance of the Natural Heritage Trust, the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service is coordinating a major recovery program. As part of this program, female southern hairy-nosed wombats such as Sonya, the wombat at the Ekka, will be used as surrogate mothers at the new Wombat Research Centre in Rockhampton. The Wombat Research Centre is a cooperative venture involving the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, the Central Queensland University, the Rockhampton City Council and Central Queensland Fertility. Before she joins the program in Rocky, Sonya will play an important role during the next 10 days raising awareness in the community about the plight of the northern hairy-nosed wombat. More than 14,000 people saw the bilbies that were the star attractions of last year's EPA-Queensland Parks and Wildlife display. We are expecting a similar response this year from the public. I must also make mention of the work of the Wildlife Preservation Society. It played an enormous part in the success of the Save the Bilby Fund and has again offered its support to the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service for the Northern Hairy-Nosed Wombat Survival Fund. I invite all members to take the opportunity to learn more about one of our unique and endangered animals when they visit the Ekka this year.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Queensland Bush Nursing Association, McKinlay Hon. R. E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton— ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing) (10.10 a.m.), by leave: This week the Minister for Police and Corrective Services, the member for Mount Isa, Tony McGrady, will hand over the keys for new accommodation to the McKinlay bush nurses. Thanks to collaboration between the Department of Public Works, Q-Build, the Department of Housing, the Department of Health and the McKinlay Shire Council, the McKinlay Bush Nursing Association now has a new home in Wylde Street—with a new carport, ramp and stairs and the connection of electrical services, drainage and water in accordance with local government requirements. The Queensland Bush Nursing Association has been providing nursing services to isolated Queensland communities since 1917. It currently provides services to five communities—Jericho, Cecil Plains, Bollon, Mount Surprise and McKinlay. I have first-hand knowledge of the McKinlay bush nurses' circumstances, as I taught at McKinlay in 1977 and 1978. I have to say that, even back then, the bush nurse, Pat McCarron, who incidentally is still the bush nurse, did a great job and lived in the residence that doubled as a surgery. It is a matter of fact that even then, some 22 years ago, the bush nurses accommodation was below standard. It is therefore with some pride, as a Labor minister in a Labor government, that I inform honourable members that we have been able to fix a problem that was clearly ignored by the National Party, which holds itself out to be a defender of the bush. Services provided at McKinlay include emergency and general medical services, home visits to the elderly, transportation of patients to Mount Isa for specialist appointments, pharmacy 2318 Ministerial Statement 8 Aug 2001 services and post-discharge nursing care. The McKinlay bush nurses accommodation plan is a great example of state government departments working together with a local council to deliver a new facility for McKinlay and surrounding communities. My ministerial colleague and member for Mount Isa, the Honourable Tony McGrady, approached me about 12 months ago to see what the state government could do to provide better accommodation for the McKinlay bush nurses. I also received phone calls from Shirley Collings of McKinlay and Jean Jackson of Kynuna, supporting moves to upgrade the amenities for the bush nurses. After lengthy negotiations the Department of Public Works, through Project Services in Townsville, managed the project, with the Department of Housing providing a four-bedroom house from surplus stock in Blackwater, almost 1,000 kilometres away. McKinlay Shire Council donated the land in Wylde Street, and Q-Build cleared the site and installed the new house, including galvanised steel screw pile foundations. It added the new carport, ramp and stairs and connected the drainage, water and electrical services. The total project cost was $187,480, shared by the Department of Health and the Department of Public Works. I would like to thank the Minister for Health, Wendy Edmond, Minister Tony McGrady and the McKinlay Shire Council for their cooperation. As government resources become more stretched as a result of the Howard government's economic mismanagement and its policy shift of winding back essential government services, the Department of Public Works and the Department of Housing are having to develop new initiatives and look at new ways to continue delivering services to Queenslanders, particularly in remote areas. This project highlights the Beattie government's commitment to rural and regional communities and our ability to get the job done by engaging with communities at a local level and targeting our resources. It also underscores the great job that Q-Build does in providing services in rural Queensland. Finally, I again thank the member for Mount Isa, my ministerial colleague Tony McGrady, for his strong advocacy and support for this project. Above all else, the success of this project proves that a hardworking member who engages his or her electorate gets results.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Sugar Industry, Workplace Health and Safety Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.14 a.m.), by leave: I rise to inform the House of the release of a task force discussion paper which is aimed at improving the sugar industry's current workplace health and safety record. Since July 1992 more than $11 million has been paid to compensate employees in the industry for injuries that have occurred in the workplace. In that time, 50,000 work days have been lost in the sugar industry due to injury or illness. In response, the Queensland government appointed an 11-member task force in January this year to examine and improve those workplace health and safety standards. This discussion paper is the result of six months of investigation by the task force. Task force members have consulted with a large number of associations and organisations involved with the sugar industry, as well as unions, management and workers around the state. The paper presents information and options for improving the current standards of workplace health and safety issues in the industry, and I am urging all stakeholders in the industry and the public for their support and for their comments on this paper. The paper presents three key areas for discussion: options for occupational health and safety management system audits; options to deal with hazards such as heat, noise and vibration, plant and hazardous substances; and opportunities for improving health and safety in the cane transport sector. The future of the sugar industry, and therefore the health and safety of its workers, is critical to Queensland and critical to the Beattie Labor government. Queensland produces 95 per cent of Australian sugar. We also have the world's largest bulk sugar handling system, including seven port terminals, with the capacity to store more than two million tonnes of sugar. 8 Aug 2001 Private Members' Statements 2319

The contribution that stakeholders have made and will make over the next few weeks will go a long way to improve the health and safety standards within the industry. Again, I urge all stakeholders, including honourable members here today whose electorates include sugar farming communities, to make comment on the report in the interests of their industry, their communities and the state. I table a copy of the discussion paper for honourable members. STANDING RULES AND ORDERS Sub Judice; Privilege; Pecuniary Interests (Cognate Debate) Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.16 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a cognate debate on government business notices of motion Nos 1 and 2 standing in the name of Mr Beattie. Motion agreed to.

LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE Report Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (10.17 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee's report No. 30, Progress report on implementation of recommendations made in the report of the strategic management review of the offices of the Queensland Ombudsman and Information Commissioner. I also table four documents provided by the ombudsman which form part of this report. In June 2000 the Premier tabled in the House the report of the strategic management review. In June 2001 the committee asked the ombudsman for a written progress report on implementation of the review recommendations. This LCARC report, together with the associated material, essentially comprises the ombudsman's response to that request. The current Ombudsman and Information Commissioner, Mr Fred Albietz, retires on 13 August 2001. Mr Albietz has been with the office for 22 years and has served as ombudsman since 1991. I am sure the whole House joins with the committee in acknowledging Fred's professionalism, hard work and commitment during his time in office. Ordered to be printed.

NOTICE OF MOTION Minister for Police and Corrective Services Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.18 a.m.): I give notice that today I will move— That this parliament calls on the Premier to bring forward his planned mid-term appraisal of ministerial performances so that a more competent, more informed and less antagonistic minister can be appointed to the police and corrective services portfolio.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Lang Park Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.19 a.m.): Today we see reports that the state government has agreed to honour conditions relating to the Brisbane City Council on the Lang Park redevelopment. This is particularly interesting because since the ministerial call-in of the development application we saw a line drawn through so many of those regulations in the particular council process. The Premier and Mr Barton have been determined to push this development through come hell or high water—and it might be high water, because one of the proposals they drew a line through was the regulation regarding flood levels for a one in 100-year flood—the Q100 regulation. What particular conditions are they going to honour? These are some of the conditions they actually removed. They removed a condition that the government submit a transport management plan to council for approval and that they adopt and implement the provisions of council's approved transport management plan. There was total removal of a condition that a design plan be submitted for council approval of the northern and southern plazas of the development, which includes pedestrian linkages, integration with community sports facilities, 2320 Private Members' Statements 8 Aug 2001 community purpose facilities on non-event days—for example, Meals on Wheels and local schools—and park infrastructure. They also removed the condition that council provide any comments on issues to be addressed prior to construction commencing. They removed a condition that a detailed design plan be provided to the stadium management advisory committee and the community liaison group for comment. A line was drawn through a condition that all new proposed buildings be constructed in accordance with council guidelines to ensure that finished floor levels are above the Q100 flood level standard. A condition was removed that government submit to council for approval an environmental management plan for the construction phase and a separate environmental management plan for the operational phase of the development. The government removed conditions that the government obtain approval from the council of both plans, and that they adopt and implement the provisions of the council approved environmental management plan. Time expired.

Regent Taxis Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (10.21 a.m.): I draw to the attention of this House a serious problem which has developed on the Gold Coast in relation to the transportation of disabled people. Regent Taxis, the only taxi company operating on the Gold Coast, has refused to continue to carry scooters, which many disabled people use these days. It is the only taxi company in Queensland to make this decision. The company claims that it is a fear of litigation that has prompted the decision. However, it has been carrying scooters without incident for over 15 years. Today's Gold Coast Sun has given two examples of two ladies who are severely disadvantaged. Members can see the headline: 'Abandoned'. That is exactly what has happened to these people. One lady, Margaret Dunn, is a counsellor with Lifeline, and she has been using Regent Taxis' maxi taxis for 15 years. But suddenly, due to this cruel decision, she is now confined to her home. As she says, her scooter is her legs, and she is now condemned to never leaving the house. Mrs Sadie Bross, a lady in her seventies, lives with her disabled sister and relies on her scooter and maxi taxis even for the most basic of chores, such as shopping, paying accounts, et cetera. She has done so for over 10 years, and thereby she maintains some degree of independence. This high-handed attitude is created by the monopoly that is enjoyed by Regent Taxis. The member for Surfers Paradise, Lex Bell, has also received many calls and is just as concerned as I am about the effect that this ban will have on the Gold Coast's disabled residents. As Mrs Bross said to me, 'We'd like to go to Regent Taxis' offices and protest, but how do we get there?' They are truly abandoned by this heartless decision. These people have also had the support of many taxidrivers who are upset about the decision that they are no longer able to transport these people who have been their regular clients for many years. This is a situation that has been created by that monopoly, and it is a situation that must be addressed.

SunWater Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (10.23 a.m.): Irrigators in the Mareeba Dimbulah Irrigation Area—the MDIA—are in a similar position to that of the Burdekin irrigators in that they are incensed at the prices charged by SunWater for irrigation water. By way of protesting and trying to be heard, irrigation water users have been withholding a percentage of SunWater charges which have significantly risen in recent times. Now SunWater has sent them threatening letters of demand which have caused much trauma to battling growers. Cane producers have just been through a period of record low prices, and even though the movement is trending upwards they still have a way to go before they cover costs such as depreciation. And as anyone knows, no business can survive long term unless these costs are met. The fruit and vegetable growers are in a similar position. They have had more than their share of problems without the extra impost of harsh water charges. At this point in time, irrigators feel they are not getting a fair hearing—in fact, they are not being listened to at all. Representatives have tried to reason with SunWater but are being ignored also. They believe that SunWater will rake in a financial windfall at the expense of the battling 8 Aug 2001 Private Members' Statements 2321 growers, and if the present price path is not reviewed in the near future many farmers will not survive. One has to remember that there is no competition in the supply of water to that area; SunWater is the only supplier. The present situation is stifling development opportunities in the MDIA region and leaves one wondering if this dictatorial action by SunWater is a sign of things to come. Mabel Park High School Mrs DESLEY SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (10.24 a.m.): The time we as members spend in our schools is of paramount importance and often quite inspiring. Such was an occasion at Mabel Park High School this week when the entire school, including teachers, students, P&C members and parents, gathered to launch their anti-bullying policy involving the entire school family. I was privileged to represent the Minister for Education at this very important occasion. This school has taken seriously the effect of bullying and has devised a very comprehensive policy booklet which has been distributed to every student. At the launch, the student representative council recited, on behalf of every student at the school, the anti-bullying oath. The program was devised and coordinated by Mr Alex Shemansky, drama teacher extraordinaire. The stage band gave a wonderful presentation, followed by addresses by principal Roslyn Parkes, the Director-General of Education, Mr Jim Varghese, and myself. A magazine letter from a past student was read as inspiration. We were then treated to a very lively spoof of the Jerry Springer show, presented by drama students who no doubt thoroughly enjoyed every moment of their 'Terry Stringer' show. It very aptly demonstrated the very real need for having this whole-of-school policy and the benefits to be gained from a proactive approach calling for tolerance, acceptance, vigilance and mediation when the occasion arises. An a cappella rendition of Lean on Me by three students very movingly reinforced the message. This school is a wonderful mix of cultures. Tonight Mabel Park High School will hold its annual multicultural evening, which is a celebration of its diversity but, most of all, gives people the opportunity to enjoy all the vibrancy and colour that the school's ethnic groups bring. Time expired.

Flagstone High School Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (10.26 a.m.): The government has decided to build at new high school at Flagstone to start in 2002. For any community this should be a joyous occasion, with signs and buildings as the school gets ready for the potential $11 million to $12 million complex in six months time. At the present time there is nothing in the area. There are no billboards and signs, and the reason is that this has been a complete government farce. The only reason that the school was built at Flagstone is the fact that the ALP found a friendly developer who gave it a block of land. But the developer went bust. So there are no houses around the land, there are no shops around the land, there is no infrastructure around the land, and the site has been changed three times. Until a few weeks ago, the land was not even handed over. So the government decided to use the local primary school as an interim measure for the high school for next year. It was thought that a few demountable buildings could be placed at the primary school whilst a couple of permanent buildings could be built and then used by the primary school when the high school moved to its permanent site. Now there has been a new change. It has been decided to wait until December, when other schools have finished with their demountable buildings, and then move these buildings onto the site over Christmas and be ready for the school to start in 2002. It has now been decided to use a corner of the land which will be the permanent site in the future. So now we have a department trying to convince a community to send kids to a school which will spring up over Christmas. It is a school which will have demountable classrooms and demountable toilets and probably the effects of a very wet Christmas and new year. And it will be moved again for 2003. The government cannot talk about excellence and a Smart State when this is what is happening in its own departments. I call on the minister to stop this absolute farce, which has occurred simply because the ALP and a land developer wanted to play mates. 2322 Questions Without Notice 8 Aug 2001

Retirement Villages Act Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (10.28 a.m.): In 1999 the Beattie government introduced the Retirement Villages Act. The objective of this act was to protect the older members of our community, to increase money spent on the facilities that they were occupying, to try to maintain the value of their investment in their buildings, and to protect the quality of life of our elderly citizens. As a former police officer, and as many experienced members of the House should acknowledge, I acknowledge that legislation introduced with the best intentions can still have flaws. We have heard a lot in recent weeks from the opposition about the arrogance—the alleged arrogance—of the Beattie government. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have spoken to many residents of retirement villages who have raised concerns about the aspects of the implementation of the Retirement Villages Act. I have spoken to the Honourable Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading about these concerns. What was the government's response? We acknowledged the problems and undertook to hold a review of this legislation. That is hardly the behaviour of an arrogant government. I applaud the honourable minister for the review and encourage all stakeholders to prepare submissions. I invite the minister to attend the Redlands and examine the retirement villages in the electorate. Whilst this legislation was designed to address the appalling conditions in some retirement villages, the impact on quality villages such as Tranquil Waters, Salford Waters Retirement Estate, Lake Sherrin Homes for the Aged, and the Seventh-Day Adventist Retirement Village needs to be reviewed, and it is. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for private members' statements has expired.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE CHOGM; Minister for Police and Corrective Services Mr HORAN: (10.30 a.m.) My question is to the Honourable the Premier. I refer to reports this morning that police are threatening to march on Parliament House in protest over funding for CHOGM and over calls by the Police Union for the sacking of Minister McGrady. I ask the Premier: has his Police Minister been forced into the meeting he is having with the union today? Does the Premier have any confidence left in Mr McGrady's ability to do his job? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for his question. No, the Police Minister— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will hear the answer. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Callide! Mr BEATTIE: I had hoped that we could treat this institution with respect. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr BEATTIE: Let me make it clear: I am happy, as I always am, to give detailed answers to questions in this House, but I think that it is important, as leader of the government, that I do everything that I can to ensure that the opposition lifts its standards and treats this House with respect. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to answer any question put to me, but I think that we need to show this House more respect. I think that the community expects us— Opposition members interjected. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Callide will cease interjecting. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego will also cease interjecting. Mr BEATTIE: As I indicated, if I can get some peace and quiet, I am happy to provide a detailed answer. I am determined that my government will show respect for this institution. It is about time the opposition— 8 Aug 2001 Questions Without Notice 2323

Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr BEATTIE: It is the members' question time. If they want to waste it, that is fine. Mr Horan: Answer it in the normal, robust parliamentary way. Mr BEATTIE: Let me make it clear: I am happy to answer any questions. All I ask for is some quiet so that I can actually do that. Mr Horan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr BEATTIE: Let the record show that the Leader of the Opposition has continually interrupted my attempt to answer this question. He continually disrupts this parliament. Let me make the point that I have full confidence in the Police Minister. My government will not be stood over by the Police Union. I would have thought that the National Party, which was involved in corrupt practices with the Police Union, would have learned from its mistakes. Members may recall that all we saw in Queensland was corruption. We had a police commissioner who went to jail. The National Party were in there— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, you would have thought— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Time expired.

Government Superannuation Office Mr HORAN: In addressing a question to the Treasurer, I refer to the QSuper Superannuation Fund, which is the superannuation fund for employees of Queensland government departments, authorities and enterprises and which is administered for the board of trustees of the State Public Sector Superannuation Scheme by the Government Superannuation Office, a portfolio office within the Queensland Treasury Department, and I ask: can the Treasurer confirm or deny whether an attempt was made recently to illegally withdraw and/or transfer millions of dollars from the QSuper fund? Mr MACKENROTH: I am unaware of what the Opposition Leader is alluding to. Certainly, if I was aware of any attempt to do anything illegally, I would have it stopped. But I am unaware that there was any attempt of the nature that the Leader of the Opposition has alluded to. I do not believe so. I think that— Mr Johnson: No CJC inquiry? Mr MACKENROTH: I believe that the officers of Treasury would ensure that the actions that they take are appropriate. In relation to the CJC inquiry—and I took the question that the member asked me to, in fact, mean something different from what the member for Gregory is alluding to—yes, there is a CJC inquiry on a matter that Treasury referred to the CJC in relation to an officer perhaps, and this is what needs to be determined, attempting an illegal act. That has nothing to do with the government; this is in relation to that person. The CJC will undertake that inquiry. If any evidence is found that there was illegal activity, the person will be charged and dealt with appropriately. As it has been explained to me, if, in fact, the allegation is true, nothing ever would have come of it, anyway. It would not have been successful. However, there is an allegation that someone had attempted to do something illegally. I am sorry that when I first started to answer the question I thought the member was referring to an action of the government, not an individual acting on his own behalf. Yes, there is an inquiry. As soon as it came to the notice of officers of Treasury, they referred it to the CJC.

The Ekka 2324 Questions Without Notice 8 Aug 2001

Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: My question is directed to the Premier. The Ekka has been part of the lives of Queensland families for decades. In the past the Premier and his government have supported the Ekka by their physical attendance there. What will be the situation this year? Mr BEATTIE: We will continue our support for the Ekka. I thank the member for his question and I hope that all members of this House will participate in the Ekka. The Ekka is a celebration of the state's products and its people. In 2001 the Ekka is shaping up as yet another special event for this city and, indeed, for all of Queensland. I am aware of the member's family's long-term involvement in the Ekka in the past. The new CEO of the Ekka, David Clare, and his team have worked hard to offer a new, exciting program. The traditional must-see highlights remain, but this year the Man from Snowy River re-enactment and the singing of John Williamson will be additional highlights. Nightly from Friday, 18 August inclusive, the Ekka's Man from Snowy River re-enactment is to include a cast of 10 stockmen and a herd of 24 brumbies bringing the famous tale to life. So it is going to be a great occasion. The Ekka's doors open to the public tomorrow, Thursday, at 10 a.m. I know that the Minister for Primary Industries has already had a sneak preview. A government member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Okay, as has the Minister for State Development. Tomorrow night the cabinet and I will join the Governor for the annual RNA cabinet dinner. My cabinet will again meet at the Ekka on Monday in a formal session. So the cabinet goes back to the Ekka. This is the third time that cabinet has actually been to the Ekka as part of the Ekka activity. The now annual Ekka cabinet meeting is part of my government's community cabinet program. By the way, in all we have now had 40 community cabinets. They all are about keeping in touch with Queenslanders right across the state. The Ekka's official opening is by the Governor of Queensland, Major General Peter Arnison, AC. That will be on Friday night. As members know, my government is a keen supporter of the Ekka. The state government precinct at the 2001 Exhibition will showcase Queensland's people and innovation. The precinct, located between the agricultural pavilion and the Walter Burnett building, will feature more than 25 displays representing a majority of government departments. The displays are interactive, fun and, of course, educational in helping the people of Queensland learn more about the state in which they live, the Smart State. Visitors to the pavilion will have the opportunity to see, touch and experience the state government's contribution to Queensland through interactive displays designed, as I said, to showcase Queensland as the Smart State. Another attraction— A government member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Yes, I should mention the Wally Lewis statue is at the Ekka. We are protecting that statue from the pigeons. So if members want to see the Wally Lewis statue, they can see it there. Another attraction worthy of note is the alternative industries display. This is an initiative of outback producers, with assistance from the DPI. The display will demonstrate the initiatives shown by outback communities and individuals in finding alternative sources of income apart from traditional grazing and grain-growing activities. I urge all present and, indeed, all who can possibly attend to take the time to be part of one of this state's premier events. I table some staggering Ekka statistics that highlight its broad appeal. The Ekka is another job-creating Queensland event. It certainly is strong, alive and well and I hope that everyone enjoys it.

Government Superannuation Office Mr JOHNSON: I refer the Honourable Treasurer to the QSuper fund that has a membership of many thousands and fund investment exceeding $9 billion, and I ask: under current security measures can false passwords to the SIGMA computerised financial management system be created? Can false accounts be created in the names of members who do not exist? Have SIGMA passwords been assigned to temporary casual employees? Are regular audits conducted of SIGMA passwords to correspond to current users to ensure that such persons are still employed within the relevant section of the Government Superannuation Office or whether they remain as employees of the GSO at all? 8 Aug 2001 Questions Without Notice 2325

Mr MACKENROTH: In answer to the question from the Leader of the Opposition, I did confirm that there is a CJC investigation under way. The information that I have at this stage is that an employee in the superannuation office has been reported for attempted fraud and there is now an investigation before the Criminal Justice Commission. It would be best to leave it up to the CJC to do the investigation. The information that I have is that whilst the attempted fraud involved putting together some false members' names, no money was taken out of the system and, in fact, no money could have been taken out of the system. The alleged fraud that was being put together would not have worked and has not worked. That is the information that I have. Mr Horan: It almost worked. Mr MACKENROTH: It almost worked except that it did not; that is correct. Because of their own security measures, they found out about it before it could happen. The best thing that we can do is to leave this up to the CJC, rather than pursuing the information that the member is getting from the Police Union.

Centenary of Federation Ms PHILLIPS: My question is to the Premier. Today the people of Townsville-Thuringowa begin their turn in an exciting time celebrating the Centenary of Federation. Will the Premier be joining us in those celebrations? Mr BEATTIE: Indeed I will be. I will be there on Saturday night as part of the activities. Townsville will be in the national spotlight for the Centenary of Federation. It is an exciting time for the people of Townsville and I am keen to be with them on this historic occasion. Today Townsville begins five days of Centenary of Federation celebrations with the Festival of the First Flag. This festival opens Federation North, one of the national centrepiece events for the Centenary of Federation. The Townsville festival runs from today until Sunday. Through the provision of funding for Centenary of Federation celebrations, the Queensland government has ensured that major events will be held across the whole state, and that is why this event is being held. That is happening in partnership with the Commonwealth. Federation North is funded by the Queensland government through Centenary of Federation Queensland. The weekend celebrations that I will be attending will include the most spectacular fireworks, aviation and aquatic shows ever seen in Townsville, with Cleveland Bay providing a magnificent backdrop. It has been billed as the biggest fireworks event since Strand Fire in 1999. Members will recall that the Queensland Government funded the redevelopment of The Strand. I thought I would just mention that in passing. The festival will feature the world-renowned RAAF Roulette team, the Army Chinook and Black Hawk helicopters, skydivers and an explosive F-111 afterburner display. Everything is happening in Townsville. In all, six tonnes of fireworks will be used. It is the largest logistical exercise of its kind ever staged in north Queensland. On Sunday I will launch the $100,000 Bowen Bridge Heritage Track along the banks of Breakfast Creek as part of what is happening in Brisbane. The heritage track, funded by Centenary of Federation Queensland, has been built by the community for the community. Over 300 people, the majority of them volunteers, have worked together to create a lasting legacy in the International Year of the Volunteer. However, it is more than that. Including Queensland heritage trail network initiatives, the overall commitment of the Queensland government to Centenary of Federation celebrations is almost $65 million. As the minister knows, the majority of that funding has gone into the heritage trails, which will be long- term infrastructure that will mean jobs in the bush and the regions. I am proud that my government has played such a significant role in bringing the festival to fruition. Over 12 months, 12 regions throughout the state will have celebrated our nation's 100th birthday. Our federal government counterparts and local councils have also made a significant investment in making sure that all the people of Queensland have the opportunity to participate in these nationwide celebrations. More than 490 events will be held throughout the year, including such diverse community celebrations as family days, multicultural festivals, indigenous celebrations, environmental projects, surf carnivals, race days, and the events in Townsville. I make the point that the other states do not have the same focus on the regions. We know that the regions of Queensland are our strength, and that is why Townsville is the centrepiece of the Centenary of Federation events to be held this week. 2326 Questions Without Notice 8 Aug 2001

Mining Exploration Permits Mr QUINN: I refer the Premier to his claim that there has been a breakthrough in establishing indigenous land use agreements to pursue outstanding mining exploration permits, and I ask: how can this be considered a breakthrough when the mining industry was not included in negotiations, even though fees charged and new reporting requirements are involved? How can this be considered a breakthrough when the mining industry is yet to see any of the details of the proposal, which are yet to be released? If the agreements ultimately meet with industry support, can the Premier guarantee that mining exploration permits will start to be issued within the next 12 months? Mr BEATTIE: I set out the details of this in the ministerial statement that I made yesterday. I reiterate that the consultation that has taken place on this issue, which involves native title and cultural heritage, has gone on for years. It started in a process that I began when I invited to my office explorers, large miners, small miners—by the way, small miners had never been involved in discussions with the federal government when this was first considered—indigenous people, pastoralists and everybody else. Members have to recall that when we inherited this issue three years ago, former Premier Borbidge had stirred up a huge confrontation and had tried to use it for political gain. Members may recall that he said that everybody's backyard was at risk and a lot of political nonsense went on. We inherited a very difficult situation. We brought everybody together. From that we ended up with a number of bills that have been through this House. Notwithstanding the shortcomings of the federal legislation—and there are shortcomings in it—we have the best possible system that we can get. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr BEATTIE: We did get it through the Senate. We succeeded where no other state has succeeded. We got it through the Senate because we had a good model and we consulted widely. Secondly, in terms of the ILUAs, we sat down and negotiated with indigenous people. I have indicated publicly what the outcome of that was. Last week the explorers were briefed by my staff. Obviously in any group one will not get 100 per cent of people on side, but the overwhelming majority of explorers whom my staff briefed were enthusiastic that they finally had a breakthrough. When talking about the mining industry, let us talk about the people who are doing the mining. Let us not talk about the Mining Council; it gets paid to whinge. Let us talk about the people who actually do the job—the explorers and the mining companies. They know that this is a— Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego, we will hear the answer. Mr BEATTIE: Is being rude a part of the member's life? He should give it a break. If the member had listened he would know that, during the past three years, the Mining Council has been involved at the table on this and every other matter. If the member actually understood the issue, he would know that as part of the ILUA we had to form a process on which the indigenous people would sign off. If the member had listened to what I said yesterday, instead of pursuing stupid political points, he would realise that with the ILUA we needed a mechanism whereby indigenous people would work directly with explorers. One does not need to be Einstein to work out that the first thing we had to do was to get the indigenous people to agree to a statewide process. There will be two major processes: the statewide process and the one based around Mount Isa, which is the basis of separate negotiation on which the explorers are signing off. The explorers have been briefed and I am confident that they will overwhelmingly support this as a breakthrough and as a way to get rid of the backlog. I would have thought that the member would be behind it.

Queensland Academy of Sport Mr REEVES: I ask the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport: given recent media coverage of the World Swimming Championships and the current World Athletics Championships, can he inform the House of the performance of Queensland athletes, particularly those from the Queensland Academy of Sport? 8 Aug 2001 Questions Without Notice 2327

Mr MACKENROTH: It has been an exciting few weeks for Australian sport and I am proud to report that Queenslanders have featured prominently. Eleven athletes from the Queensland Academy of Sport were selected in the national team of 44 for the World Swimming Championships in Fukuoka, Japan. They all performed wonderfully and helped Australia to the top of the gold medal tally. Grant Hackett smashed fellow Queenslander Kieren Perkins' 1,500 metre freestyle world record and won two gold and two silver. Geoff Huegill was also a dual gold medallist in the 50 metre butterfly and four by 100 metre medley relay. Other QAS swimmers to win gold were Giaan Rooney in the 200 metre freestyle, Leisel Jones in the four by 100 metre medley relay and Ashley Callus in the four by 100 metre freestyle relay. QAS team-mates Hayley Lewis, Tarnee White, Linda McKenzie, Julia Ham, Jodie Henry and Leon Dunne also formed a very strong Queensland contingent at the championships. Other Queenslanders in the swimming dream team were four by 100 metre medley relay gold medallist Regan Harrison, Grant McGregor, Trudee Hutchinson and Leigh Bull. However, athletes from the academy have not just been performing well in the pool. At the World Triathlon Championships held in Edmonton, Canada, on 23 July, Chris Hill finished second in the men's event. QAS team-mate Miles Stewart finished ninth and Loretta Harrop was placed eighth in the women's. From Canada, representatives from the academy took to the beach last week in Klagenfurt, Austria, at the Beach Volleyball World Championships. Seven QAS athletes represented Australia in four teams of two at the Beach Volleyball World Championships. Olympic gold medallists Natalie Cook and Kerri Pottharst, Kylie Gerlic and Angela Clarke, Joshua Slack, Jarrod Novosel and Lee Zahner teamed up with New South Welshman Julien Prosser. In fact, there was only one volleyballer in the national squad who was not a QAS athlete. This is an outstanding achievement and reasserts Queensland's dominance in the sport of beach volleyball. Of course, our national representation will also continue over the next week or so at the IAAF World Championships in Athletics in Edmonton, Canada. I congratulate all QAS athletes who competed during the past couple of weeks, along with their dedicated team of coaches and trainers. The coaches and trainers have worked tirelessly to ensure that our hardworking and talented athletes achieve all the sporting success they deserve.

World Firefighter Games Mr MALONE: I ask the Minister for Emergency Services: what is the status of the World Firefighter Games, which is worth many millions of dollars to Queensland, due to be held in Brisbane from 21 to 28 September 2002, and can he rule out that the Premier is considering cancelling the games and placing the blame on the United Firefighters Union? Mr REYNOLDS: Today, as the Emergency Services Minister, I indicate that I will be announcing a new board of directors for the World Firefighter Games to be held in Brisbane in September 2002. The first and essential task of that new board will be to seek the United Firefighters Union's unqualified support for the games in the best interests of its members and in the best interests of Queenslanders. In 1998 the government made a decision to stage the World Firefighter Games in Brisbane. This world-class event has the potential to provide a multimillion-dollar boost to the Queensland economy as the premier event for the state's firefighters. Notwithstanding the government's commitment to the games, we have had major concerns about the United Firefighters Union's lack of support to date. The UFU has encouraged its members to boycott the games as part of a protest against the termination of the former executive manager of the World Firefighter Games Brisbane 2002. The case is currently before the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. It is clear to the government that, without the appropriate support of the UFU, low participation numbers could impact greatly on the overall success of the games. Given the continued opposition from the union, the government has made a decision to appoint new directors to the board, as of today, with expertise in staging major events. I will meet with the board this afternoon. As I said, one of its first and essential tasks will be to seek a meeting with the UFU in an effort to secure support. The new chairman of the board is current Queensland Events Chair Des Power. Queensland Fire and Rescue Authority Commissioner Frank Pagano has been appointed deputy chair. The third director is Glen Poole of Queensland Treasury. Mr Power and Mr Poole have expertise in 2328 Questions Without Notice 8 Aug 2001 events management and Commissioner Pagano will represent the firefighters. As minister, I am appealing to firefighters across Queensland to support the positive direction the government has taken and help to ensure the success of the games. I also call on the United Firefighters Union to rethink its position and throw its support behind the games for the benefit of Queensland and for its members as well. Road Funding Mr STRONG: I ask the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads: is the minister aware of the federal coalition brochure called Fixing Our Roads which details the federal government's Roads to Recovery funding initiative, and has any of the money been allocated to state road projects? Mr BREDHAUER: Any money that the Commonwealth wants to spend on roads in Queensland I welcome. When it announced last year that it was going to spend $1.6 billion over four years on the Roads to Recovery program, I came out and I welcomed that. In discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister and federal Minister for Transport, John Anderson, at an ATC meeting in Launceston last year I was amongst other state ministers who offered to help facilitate a process for the efficient use of that money on— Mr Seeney interjected. Mr BREDHAUER:—no, let us be clear—local government roads in Queensland so that we could target strategic local road priorities that we had worked out in consultation with the Local Government Association of Queensland. I gave a commitment that the money would be spent on local roads. The Commonwealth government said that it did not want any of this money, and it has allocated no money to state controlled roads. That was the deal. The Deputy Prime Minister would not listen, though. He went ahead with his program and he allocated the money to local governments across Queensland. Nonetheless, I still came out and welcomed the money, because it is an important allocation. I have said in this House on a number of occasions—and I said it yesterday—that the Commonwealth government has been underfunding national highways, roads of national importance and various other road programs in Queensland and throughout the country since it cut the National Highway budget by $620 million in 1996. But coalition members around Queensland are now trying to cover for the disappointment and outrage that is experienced by Queensland motorists at the failure of the Commonwealth to spend money on roads. Imagine my surprise when the member for Hinkler put out a leaflet to people in his constituency called Fixing Our Roads, talking about what the Commonwealth government has done through the Roads to Recovery program for roads in Queensland. Bear in mind that not a penny of this money has been allocated to the state government for state controlled roads. He lists all of the projects in the leaflet. But let us have a look at the photo on the front cover. What have we got? We have got Takalvan Road in Bundaberg—a state controlled road. Who are those workers? They are workers paid for by the state government with money that it put into a state controlled road project in the electorate of Bundaberg. We are the ones looking after regional roads. Paul Neville gets caught out. I talked in the parliament yesterday about the members for Moreton and Herbert, who were out there pulling a con trick on their constituents—and the confidence trick continues. I will table this leaflet for the benefit of members. The member for Hinkler should not try to claim the credit for the money that we are spending on roads. All Queensland motorists know that this Commonwealth coalition government has short-changed Queenslanders, and it is about time they stopped trying to claim credit for our roads and job creation projects.

Horse Riding in National Parks Dr KINGSTON: I refer the Minister for Environment to the fact that he apparently told some residents of Spicer's Gap who were involved in the unfortunate and unsuccessful search for the missing bushwalker that it was the police who would not allow horsemen to become involved in the search. The state of Victoria has trained, mounted SES riders who are regularly involved in difficult searches. I am also told that the SES has the power to override the police and the QPWS and thus make decisions regarding who will be involved in an SES conducted search in this state. I ask the minster: does he now agree that the SES has the power to authorise horsemen to take part in searches in national parks when SES personnel regard their involvement as essential? 8 Aug 2001 Questions Without Notice 2329

Mr WELLS: The honourable member asked a question during the last sitting week very similar to this, and I can now confirm the answer that I gave. The answer was that sometimes the countryside is not amenable to being searched by riders on horses but is more amenable to being searched by the SES on foot, and that in fact is what occurred. Let me go through the sequence of events. Locals indicated that there were horses available to the searchers if they wished to use them. A ranger was asked his view. His view did not include an expression that it is against the law to use horses in national parks. He said that the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service preferred that there should not be horses in national parks, but that was just a statement of the overall preference. The person who made the decision was, in fact, the police officer in charge of the case. The information that there were horses available was then taken to the SES. The SES local controller indicated that there were new units of the SES available and that, given the close nature of the country, it would be better to use those additional units of the SES so that the search could continue on foot. The matter was then put to the police officer who, under the appropriate legislation, was the individual in charge of the search. He said that it might be the case that using horses in country of the particular kind that they were searching would be a danger to the horses; the horses might injure themselves and they would be much less likely to find the unfortunate Stephen Wells than SES searchers. Consequently, for those reasons—for reasons of the particular circumstances of the case—the decision was taken not to use horses in this particular national park search. Let me make it abundantly clear to the honourable member that there is no rule that there should be no horses in national parks in any circumstances. Human life and limb always take priority. If he did not understand it when I said this last week, let him understand it now: human life always takes priority, and it did in that situation. It was a situation in which it was necessary for a decision to be taken on the ground by the people who had responsibility for conducting the search as to what would be the most efficacious way to conduct that search. That was the decision that was taken. I think that it is unnecessary for the honourable member to pursue this matter here. He has had a week during which he could have spoken to me—indeed, we have said g'day once or twice. It would be more appropriate if he pursued the matter in another place. May I take the opportunity to express the condolences of all members of this parliament to the family of the deceased young man, who was a fine young Australian. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Algester, I welcome to the public gallery students and their teacher from the Craigslea State School in the electorate of Aspley.

Capital Works Projects, Tendering Ms STRUTHERS: I ask the Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing: what is the government doing to encourage building contractors who want to tender for public capital works projects? Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the honourable member for her question and her continuing interest in the building industry and the construction jobs that it yields for Queenslanders. When I became the Minister for Public Works I was astonished to learn that builders out there were still—to the Courier-Mail's benefit—having to purchase the Courier-Mail of a Saturday morning to look up what tenders were available. I thought it was appalling—and so did the industry in some of the early meetings that we had with them—that there was simply no possibility of the industry preparing itself in the long term. It was with that in mind that I instructed the Department of Public Works to produce a document that would be a road plan, if you like, of exactly what projects were going to come up over the next 12 months. That information, of course, was available through Treasury. It is available in the budget papers, but of course those sorts of things are not necessarily accessible to people in the building industry. It was with that in mind that that document that the Premier tabled this morning was prepared. I have to say that the way it has gone over in the building industry has been extremely good. It is broken up into sections so that medium size builders will find medium size projects for which they can tender. It is broken up so that regional builders can get a go at it. It enables builders to plan all their tendering arrangements ahead of time. The document has now gone on line, which 2330 Questions Without Notice 8 Aug 2001 will facilitate yet another opportunity for builders to get access to it. I am told that more than 1,500 building industry contractors have already got a copy of this. The search facility, which does not require a password in order to gain access, will obviously benefit the industry greatly in terms of accessing the information. This government stands for getting on with the job in capital works. I have heard what the members opposite have had to say over the last week or so about capital works. They should be the last people to ever talk about capital works in this state, considering the horrendous mess that they got it in and the capital works freeze that brought the building industry to its knees in this state. The lack of accessibility has made them a defining line in terms of a joke in this state for the building industry to laugh at. Mr Horan: Why have you had a cutback in your budget? Mr SCHWARTEN: I note that the Leader of the Opposition continues to be rude and babbles his froth and nonsense over there. He does so because he is ashamed of the fact that he is a joke in the building industry in Queensland.

Government Superannuation Office Miss SIMPSON: I ask the Deputy Premier and Treasurer: can he confirm that the amount of money that is subject to the CJC investigation is approximately $10 million, and what changed security measures has he implemented in the Government Superannuation Office within his department? Mr MACKENROTH: I cannot confirm the amount that is under investigation. The CJC will do that. That is their appropriate role. When this was found out, the Treasury Department implemented appropriate changes.

Outback Queensland Tourism Authority Ms MALE: I refer the Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading to the fact that last week in this place the Deputy Leader of the Opposition described as a travesty of justice the result of a proposed restructure of the Outback Queensland Tourism Authority, and I ask: can she explain to members her role in this review, why it was necessary and how it will affect promotion of outback tourism? Mrs ROSE: I thank the member for the question, because I found the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition during the Adjournment debate last Thursday night quite extraordinary. I was fairly disappointed for a couple of reasons, firstly, because it showed his complete lack of understanding about how regional tourism organisations operate— Mr Johnson interjected. Mrs ROSE: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has absolutely no idea about how regional tourism organisations work. Secondly, I was also disappointed that he did not even bother to contact my office at any time. Mr Johnson interjected. Mrs ROSE: Regional tourist organisations— Mr BEATTIE: I rise to a point of order. Because of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's interjection, I cannot hear the minister. I think all members in this House are entitled to hear the answer. Mrs ROSE: Thank you, Premier. Mr HORAN: I rise to a point of order. I would like to remind the Premier that we have a Speaker in this House. The Speaker runs this House, not you. Mr BEATTIE: I rise to a point of order. The one person who does not run this House is you, and you never will. Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will hear the answer to the question. Mrs ROSE: Regional tourism organisations are not divisions of the Department of Tourism, Racing and Fair Trading. They are not divisions of Tourism Queensland. They are organisations which are run by individual regional organisations and business communities throughout the state. The decision to relocate the officers from Blackall and Mount Isa was a decision taken by the regional tourism organisation itself. 8 Aug 2001 Questions Without Notice 2331

Mr Johnson: Outback tourism in Brisbane—good on you. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gregory. This is my final warning. Mrs ROSE: But the organisation made the decision itself. The Outback Queensland Tourism Authority president, Glen Graham, said that the relocation of those officers was part of streamlining its own activities to ensure optimum results for outback tourism operators. It was not a decision that was made out of my department. This was a decision that was made by it. It says that the relocation would enable the association to lift its profile and strengthen its marketing relationships. I will quote directly from Glen Graham. He says that the OQTA management committee—the management committee, not the government— Mr Johnson: So those people out there are incompetent, are they? Mrs ROSE: You have a complete lack of understanding about how regional tourism organisations work. Mr LINGARD: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, you have allowed the Premier and the minister to talk directly to us. They are supposed to talk through the Speaker and not say 'you'. If you continue to do that, then obviously you are going to get comments from the opposition. Mrs ROSE: Through you, Mr Speaker, the member for Gregory has shown a complete lack of understanding about how the regional tourism organisations work. Mr JOHNSON: I rise to a point of order. I find the minister's remarks offensive. I ask that they be withdrawn. Mrs ROSE: I withdraw.

Flying Foxes Ms LEE LONG: I refer the Minister for Environment to the control of flying foxes in my region of the wet tropical north, which is prone to cyclonic conditions and which makes netting unviable. I ask: orchardists in the area want to know if the minister envisages the reintroduction of damage mitigation permits. If not, will the government compensate orchardists for the loss of their crops and livelihoods? Mr WELLS: There has been no cessation of the issue of damage mitigation permits. Damage mitigation permits are still being issued. The only change is that damage mitigation permits for electrocution are not being issued. The reason for that is a legal reason. Under the law, we are required to issue damage mitigation permits only for lethal means of protection of crops that do not involve cruelty. We have now received advice from the RSPCA that indicates that electric grids are a cruel means of lethal protection of crops. Consequently, as a matter of law no such damage mitigation permits can be issued. This is not to say that damage permits for lethal means cannot be issued—they are and will be. However, they will not be issued for electrocution. The difference between the state's position— Mr Rowell: For how many years have you been issuing permits for electrocution? Mr WELLS: For some years, but the requirement is to obey the law. Once it became clear that the correct interpretation of that section of the regulation was that we were not to issue them for the purposes of electrocution, we could not do it. I am sure that the member opposite does not wish to see this government not acting in accordance with the law. The Commonwealth's position is somewhat different. I am in receipt of correspondence from Senator Hill, the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment, indicating that he believes that a couple of species, particularly the spectacled flying fox, may be threatened species and in these circumstances is considering such a declaration. The effect of such a declaration by the Commonwealth would be that no lethal means would be available. The state's position is not that we should use no lethal means ahead of receiving such information, because I do not have before me anything other than anecdotal evidence concerning the issue of the declining numbers of the spectacled flying fox. Consequently, I am not prepared to act on that. I am prepared to continue to issue permits for lethal means of control so long as those lethal means do not breach the law and do not involve cruelty. If the honourable member has a concern about the capacity of farmers to protect their crops by lethal means or by other means available by damage mitigation permits, it would be a good idea for the honourable member to get in touch with the Commonwealth minister and indicate that it is her view that that particular species is not a threatened species. If the species was 2332 Questions Without Notice 8 Aug 2001 determined by the Commonwealth to be a threatened species, then of course no lethal means of mitigation would be available to the honourable member's constituents. Natural Heritage Trust Funding Mr HAYWARD: I refer the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines to complaints by the Queensland Landcare and Catchment Management Council that the federal government is not providing any information on how the next round of Natural Heritage Trust funding will be delivered to Queensland applicants. I ask: is the minister concerned this Commonwealth delay is creating unnecessary uncertainty amongst community groups that are worried about the future of Natural Heritage Trust projects? Mr ROBERTSON: I am concerned about the lack of certainty as a result of the failure of the federal government to release guidelines for what is now commonly called Natural Heritage Trust 2 funding. I am also aware of the comments by the chair of Queensland's Landcare and Catchment Management Council, Ken Stallman, that community groups are also concerned about the future delivery of NHT funding. The federal government has promised billions of dollars in Natural Heritage Trust funding but has been silent on how this money will be devolved to community groups. That is why I am concerned that the Commonwealth is holding back on any announcements for future NHT funding in order to use this money to pork-barrel coalition electorates in the lead-up to the federal election. NHT is too important to play politics with. The Commonwealth needs to start talking to groups such as the Landcare and Catchment Management Council and community groups about the best way to fund future NHT projects. Members opposite would be aware that during debate on bills yesterday I called on the federal government to address these problems because the kinds of projects available under Natural Heritage Trust funding are not one-year projects or two-year projects; they are projects that often take years and years to come to a conclusion. It is the lack of uncertainty provided by the federal government for NHT 2 funding that is stopping community groups engaging in long-term planning for the protection of our environment. The other concern I have relates to the fact that this year's federal budget papers indicate that there has been a carryover of some $130 million which was unspent under the current Natural Heritage Trust funding scheme. $130 million is a lot of money. That could have gone to the states, Queensland included, down to the level of community groups to engage in important environmental works. The fact that the federal government has failed to pass on that $130 million and just bundled it into Natural Heritage Trust 2 funding—for which there are no guidelines on how to apply for that funding—suggests to me that NHT is going to be used as a political football in the months ahead leading up to the federal election. No member in this place should be under any misapprehension about what the federal government is planning to do with Natural Heritage Trust funding. It is going to be used as a political football. We will see a misallocation of resources into coalition electorates as the federal government tries to prop up its failing stocks in electorates. The thing that will suffer most in Queensland as a result of this misallocation of resources and the failure to spend $130 million will be our environment. I take this opportunity to call on the federal government to release that $130 million backlog of funding and get it into the states and onto the ground where it will make a real difference. Time expired.

Flying Foxes Mr LESTER: Given the reluctance of the Minister for Environment to issue damage mitigation permits for the control of flying foxes, will he consider compensation for affected farmers as, quite obviously, they do not have any really effective device to deal with them? Netting is very costly indeed and there is some doubt as to its effectiveness. Can the government help these people? Mr WELLS: It is not a matter of reluctance; it is a matter of law. The statute says that cruel means of— Mr Horan: But you are allowed to shoot them. Mr WELLS: I would hope that his constituents could shoot straight. Lethal means of control are permitted, provided those lethal means of control are humane. As a matter of law, cruel means of control are not permitted. Inhumane means of control are not permitted. Once advice has been received that the grids are inhumane, then it is unlawful for permits to be issued. I say 8 Aug 2001 Questions Without Notice 2333 to the honourable member: he could not issue them if he were minister for environment and I will not issue them while I am Minister for Environment. Having said that, however, it is perfectly clear that those fruit farmers who have to protect their crops against flying foxes have to use alternative means. My department's preferred means is a non-lethal means of protecting those crops. That is what we prefer. However, that does not mean I will refuse to issue permits for lethal means of control, as long as they are humane. There are financial difficulties facing the fruit farmers, but I have received some advice to the effect that the value of the crop is increased by approximately 30 per cent if nets are used. The initial outlay for netting is very considerable, as honourable members on the other side of the House will know. That initial outlay, however, could be returned over a period of years. I am aware of the details of the problem. I am aware of such details that nets can be put up and the take from the crop each year increases but that farmers cannot be sure that those nets are not going to be blown down in a storm. It has not happened yet. This is very much state-of- the-art testing technology—simple technology but nevertheless state-of-the-art. Nobody knows the answer to that yet. However, it can be a good tactic to put up nets. It might very well be the best tactic to put up nets. How do farmers get the money up front to do that? My department and other departments are working this through with the association of the fruit farmers and with other people who are involved. Obviously this is a problem and we have sympathy for the people who have this particular difficulty. Nevertheless, we must also do what is right and we must refrain from permitting the inhumane means of killing flying foxes.

i.lab Mr LEE: Can the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy add to recent media coverage of the success of one of the occupants of the government's i.lab? Could the minister also give some idea of the types of industries currently in residence at i.lab and why this incubator is important to Queensland? Mr LUCAS: I thank the member for the question. He is a member of this parliament who has a great interest in innovation issues. One of the great things about my portfolio is the ability to deal every day with people who are doing innovative things for the benefit of Queensland, the Smart State. One of the great initiatives of this government, started in September 2000, is the i.lab, the technology incubator, which is out at Toowong, near the University of Queensland. I presume that when the honourable member asks about one of the great successes there he is referring to Liquid Animation. Liquid Animation is a great story of a company run by four Brisbane brothers, the Viner brothers. It is also an example of the way in which the innovative and IT industries have developed. The four brothers are formerly a lawyer, now an animator; formerly a nightclub owner, now the general manager of the business; formerly an accountant, now the operations manager; and currently and formerly a paediatric surgeon, now a content provider for some of the work that they do. The youth health web site youthealth.com, which I launched in March of this year, provides information for parents and for people in the medical industry. I have here a picture of the front page of the web site, which I was delighted to launch. As well as being involved in that project, Liquid Animation also has some leading animators. Once upon a time Australia led the world in terms of animation. A lot of those Jetsons and Flintstones series of the 1960s were actually drawn in Australia. Liquid Animation is the next cab off the rank when it comes to innovation and developing industries in this state. In fact, I am very proud to say that it has entered into an arrangement with the Disney group in the United States—I am sure honourable members would all agree it is amongst the most rigorous requirers of quality content in the world—to provide the opening episode and subsequent episodes for a prime-time series called The Proud Family, which I am told is a mix between The Simpsons and The Cosby Show. That is tremendous. There are tremendous amounts of people employed in that. In fact, over the last year the number of staff at Liquid Animation at the i.lab has gone from seven to 35, with 15 freelance animators. That is top stuff that is happening in this state. Of course, there are other things happening at i.lab. Omnix has won a multimillion dollar contract for an Australian transport industry upgrade, providing chemical warehousing, distribution, integrated e-commerce support and those sorts of things. 2334 Standing Rules and Orders 8 Aug 2001

There are 11 tenants currently at i.lab. Three more are planned in the next few months. I urge any member to go out to i.lab and see the uplifting experience of having Queensland people at the cutting edge. They are doing things in multimedia, virtual reality, travel, logistics, bioauthentication, radiocommunications, logistics and value chain software and wireless communications. Five residents have secured venture capital of $5 million. They are all creating new jobs. As I said before, three tenants will graduate within the next few months. There are other benefits of course to Queensland. The intellectual property gets registered here and the businesses get developed here. I.lab is a good news story.

WorkCover, Investigation Services Dr WATSON: I refer the Minister for Industrial Relations to the current WorkCover Queensland tender for the provision of factual investigation services, and I ask: can the minister confirm that the structure of the tender means that the number of firms able to meet the requirements of WorkCover will fall from the current 55 to around 10 and that the criteria are discriminatory and favour large interstate organisations? Further, does he support the tender criteria, which discriminate against Queensland firms currently performing the tasks? Mr NUTTALL: As I have indicated to the House before, the WorkCover board has already reduced the number of solicitors and is undertaking a process for contract managers to provide claims investigation services. As the member indicated correctly, 55 firms were used but on an ad hoc basis. Now we are putting in place a process to ensure that the contract managers can actually run the investigations process and employ other people. So it is actually being done by contract managers. I am quite happy with the process that is taking place. The State Purchasing Policy applies to WorkCover as of 1 July of this year. It is following the State Purchasing Policy. I have been advised that everything is being done in accordance with due process. It is being managed by WorkCover's external services unit. That unit will be responsible for the monitoring and auditing of both the contract managers and the individual investiga09tors to ensure compliance with service level agreements.

Indigenous Communities, Violence Mr RODGERS: My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy. One of the features of the public debate about violence in indigenous communities has been widespread agreement that local community solutions are the most likely to succeed. Can the minister tell the House how the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy is fostering local initiatives to address violence and other justice issues? Ms SPENCE: I am happy to talk about the local justice programs which are funded by the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy. The member for Burdekin is quite right in identifying that local initiatives are more likely to reduce the levels of violence that embroil Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and that is why we encourage and fund these local justice groups. In fact, we fund 34 groups throughout Queensland. We have trebled the budget for local justice groups in the term of the Beattie government. And this year we have allocated $1.8 million to local justice groups. I am pleased to announce today two new groups that will be funded. One is in the electorate of Burdekin. It is known as BAYWatch, the Burdekin Area Youth Watch. I know that the member for Burdekin has had a close association with the BAYWatch group. It is funded because they have already proven successful in dealing with the young people in the Burdekin region. The group is made up of police officers and other community people who are doing terrific work, and we want to support them. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired.

STANDING RULES AND ORDERS Sub Judice; Privilege; Pecuniary Interests (Cognate Debate) Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (11.31 a.m.): I move— 8 Aug 2001 Standing Rules and Orders 2335

(1) That the sub judice convention for the Legislative Assembly, contained in Report No. 7 of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, be adopted. (2) That the Procedures for Raising and Considering Complaints of Breach of Privilege or Contempt, contained in Attachment 'A' to Report No. 36 of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, be adopted. (3) That the proposed standing order relating to the declaration of pecuniary interest in debate and other proceedings, contained in Recommendation 2 of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee Report No. 44 be adopted as Standing Order 158A of the Standing Rules and Orders. I move— (1) That the Standing Orders Committee review the current Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly and as part of that review consider placing all Standing Rules and Orders dealing with the conduct of members in one chapter or part. (2) Further, that the Standing Orders Committee consider incorporating into the Standing Orders— the Procedures for Raising and Considering Complaints of Breach of Privilege or Contempt, contained in "Attachment A" to the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee Report No. 36; the sub judice convention for the Legislative Assembly, contained in Report No. 7 of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee; and the Register of Members' and Related Persons' Interest resolution. By moving both motions together this means that, in the debate, members will be able to make reference to both of the motions that I have moved. I think this will help to conserve time for the House. Let me deal with motion No. 1 first. The three important recommendations that I am asking the parliament to adopt today are all about accountability. As members would know, this is a government that prides itself on accountability. That is why, when presented with a recommendation from the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee that the matters contained in the motion before the House be adopted, the government did not falter. My government's support in principle for the committee's recommendations was tabled in March of this year. I am here today to urge all members to vote for the adoption of the committee's recommendations. As I said, these recommendations are all about accountability. They are about protecting the reputation and standing of the Queensland parliament. I am sure all members would agree that we need to be ever vigilant in ensuring the ongoing relevance of the Queensland parliament to people's everyday lives. The people of Queensland will only regard what we do here as important if we are seen to respect the positions we hold and undertake them in a responsible and serious manner—and behave appropriately, I might say. Our behaviour in here will have a very significant influence on how the community behaves. Mr Horan interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Here we go again. I talk about lifting our standards— Ms Bligh: Point proved. Mr BEATTIE: Exactly—point proved. The Leader of the Opposition interjects. He is becoming the wrecker of the Queensland parliament and the opposition. Mr Horan: Both sides of the House. Mr BEATTIE: He says 'both sides of the House', and he is right. The only side behaving is the government side. The opposition is in the gutter trying to disrupt this parliament on every occasion. The opposition and the National Party are becoming the wreckers of this fine institution. Mr HORAN: I rise to a point of order. Mr BEATTIE: He cannot take criticism, either—glass jaw! Mr HORAN: I rise to a point of order. My point of order is that I find those comments offensive, because what we are seeing in this House— Mr BEATTIE: I withdraw. Mr HORAN: I have not finished. I have not even asked— Mr BEATTIE: That is a matter for the Deputy Speaker to determine. Mr HORAN: I have not asked for a withdrawal yet. The Premier should wait until I have asked for a withdrawal. I have not asked for a withdrawal yet. He cannot withdraw until I have asked for. Mr BEATTIE: Madam Deputy Speaker— Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Male): Order! The Leader of the Opposition. 2336 Standing Rules and Orders 8 Aug 2001

Mr HORAN: My point is this, that the Premier continues to use this business of saying 'there they go again' whenever he is in trouble, like he was this morning. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr HORAN: Whenever he is in trouble, he turns around and says, 'There they go again.' Mr BEATTIE: I rise to a point of order. This is not a point of order. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition— Mr HORAN: This parliament is getting sick of the way he behaves. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition! Mr HORAN: My point of order— Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition! Is there a point of order? Mr HORAN: My point of order is that I find the Premier's remarks offensive, and I ask that they be withdrawn. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition may ask that the Premier withdraw. The Premier? Mr BEATTIE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy to do that. I withdraw. But let the record show that when you sought to address the member he continued to talk. He has no respect for the Speaker of this House and no respect for the chair. Let me come back to what I said before. Let me talk about the opposition and the National Party. Under the standing orders, this is not a matter on which the Leader of the Opposition can object. But let me make it clear that the National Party in this place seeks to wreck the parliament. On every occasion it comes in here to wreck the parliament. My government instituted a system of three-minute answers for ministers so that we would get a lot of questions. What happens is that ministers are continually interrupted by members taking points of order that are completely outside the standing orders. When Speaker Turner was here, if any of us had done that we would have been thrown out. Mrs Sheldon: What a load of rot! Mr BEATTIE: That is exactly what would have happened. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Here they go again—the disruption! Every time! The wreckers are at it again. The National Party members are the wreckers of parliament—the wreckers of this fine institution. Let the record show that the government will do everything it can to lift its standards, but we require opposition members also to lift their standards; but all they do is simply pursue a wrecking role. They do not follow the standing orders. They do not understand the standing orders. They do not respect the Speaker. And they seek to denigrate the people's House. I thought the National Party and, indeed— Mr Horan interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Here they go again. Let the record show interjections again. The Leader of the Opposition is at it again, trying to disrupt my contribution. The Leader of the Opposition is wrecking it again. Mr Horan interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The wrecker is at it again. Let the record— Mr Horan interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Here we go. The Leader of the Opposition is interjecting again. Mr Horan interjected. Mr BEATTIE: There he is again—another interjection. The wrecker of the House is at it again. We will continue to lift the standards. We will continue to lift the standards. Let the people of Queensland know that the National Party, once upon a time, was a great political party that believed in institutions and believed in respect for parliament. Ms Bligh: When was that? Mr BEATTIE: This was a long time ago. Now they are the great wreckers of the parliament. 8 Aug 2001 Standing Rules and Orders 2337

Mr Seeney interjected. Mr BEATTIE: They do not like it, but it is true. Every one of them wrecks the House. Opposition members interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will cease interjecting. The Premier will continue. Mr BEATTIE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I set out to get it on the record. Mr Horan interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Here we go. He is at it again. Mr Horan interjected. Mr BEATTIE: He is at it again. Mr Horan interjected. Mr BEATTIE: He is at it again. Mr Horan interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Here we go. He is at it again. Here he goes. You see, you cannot have it both ways. If you ask a question— Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will address his comments through the chair. Mr BEATTIE: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me make it clear that we will continue to highlight the importance of this institution to the people. If the National Party and others opposite want to wreck this institution, then we will make sure that the people of Queensland are aware of it. The people of Queensland will only regard what we do— Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Madam Deputy Speaker, can we actually not have— Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr BEATTIE: The people of Queensland will only regard what we do here as important if we are seen to respect the positions we hold and undertake them in a responsible and serious manner. Ours is a rapidly changing world. As society changes we must change with it. Whilst principles such as integrity, trust and confidence are timeless—indeed, as relevant now as they were in 1860 when this parliament first sat—the way in which we adhere to these principles must change. We need to make sure that the practices and conventions of this place keep pace with the rapidly changing world and changing community attitudes. What we are about here today is instilling public confidence, particularly now. At a point in history when the regard of the community for politicians is at an all-time low—somewhere below that of car salesmen and journalists—it is important that we jointly and publicly proclaim that we are serious about the way in which we conduct ourselves. It is also important that we as members appreciate that what we do and say in this place can have ramifications outside this place; that we have sufficient regard for the upholding of public confidence; and that we constantly review the way in which we apply the principles of integrity, trust and confidence. The recommendations contained in the motion that I put before the House today concern the sub judice convention of the Legislative Assembly, the procedures for raising and considering complaints of breach of privilege or contempt, and members' declarations of pecuniary interests. With this motion I am asking this House to adopt a range of practices that show the people of Queensland that we are serious about acting in an ethical manner. Parliament is a fundamental institution of our democracy, and it is important that the public holds the parliament in high regard. If the parliament is to be respected by the community it must reflect community standards. During the last sitting we agreed to adopt the statement of fundamental principles, also recommended by the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. The integrity of parliament principle contained in the statement of principles is what we are pursuing here today. Today I am asking the House to adopt the sub judice convention recommended by the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. As honourable members would be 2338 Standing Rules and Orders 8 Aug 2001 aware, the sub judice convention governs the extent of debate in parliament on certain matters. The primary aim of the sub judice convention is to avoid prejudice in court proceedings. For many years the House has followed the sub judice convention as reflected in the 1976 report of the former Select Committee of Privileges. In practice, this convention, as interpreted by a number of Speakers in this place, has seen a ban placed on debates and matters before royal commissions. This amendment removes the anomaly that exists whereby members are not free to speak within parliament about matters that are debated openly by the media and the public. The discretion of the Speaker will, of course, remain. In terms of procedures for raising and considering complaints of breaches of privilege or contempt, I am also asking the House to adopt the procedures for raising and considering complaints of breaches of privilege or contempt as recommended by the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee in its report No. 36. Those procedures merely codify the current law and practices. They will enable great consistency when considering privilege references and help to clarify the type of conflict-of-interest issues that may arise in matters of privilege. Importantly, the procedures also provide guidance to persons as to what constitutes contempt of the Legislative Assembly. I urge all members to support the adoption of these procedures. In terms of the declaration of pecuniary interest in debates and other proceedings, I am asking this House to support a new standing order that will see all pecuniary interests, of which a member is aware, declared. This new standing order, again recommended by the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, will see members required to declare their interests. Members with a direct pecuniary interest will not be able to vote on matters under debate. As well, this new standing order will require them to make a statement prior to his or her speech or be made as soon as possible after a division has been called so that it will then be recorded in Hansard. I turn to the second motion that has been moved in my name. The first motion that I moved, as well as being about accountability and integrity, is about the practice and convention of parliament. The second motion is about enshrining that practice and convention in the parliament's standing orders. That is all I am talking about. Let me make it clear that, although the motion asks that the Standing Orders Committee review the current standing orders, I am not—and I want to stress this—talking about a general review of those standing orders. In terms of the first motion, I am talking about it in a very narrow, limited way, and that is all. It seems to me that the current standing orders are sufficient and accurate, and I do not support major change to them. There are areas that we can enhance, for example, in improving some of the language, and language only. I support changes—because we have instituted a number of changes over the past few years—to implement the first recommendation, and that is all. I am not supporting a major review of standing orders. I do not wish to be misunderstood on that. In fact, as a result of this motion, I will draft and take to the Standing Orders Committee appropriate changes to reflect the first motion. We have to enforce the existing standing orders in this place. Once we do that, the place will operate effectively. I am also seeking the concurrence of the House in placing all standing orders relevant to members' conduct in one chapter or part. My recommendations to the committee will include that. As well, I ask this House to support the inclusion of the procedures for raising and considering complaints of breach of privilege or contempt; the sub judice convention; and the Register of Members' and Related Persons' Interest in the parliament's standing orders and rules. As outlined by the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, there is a clear need to address the style and language of the current standing orders and rules. I stress the style and language; I am not talking about the content. In terms of language, a user-friendly version of the standing orders would benefit us all. As I said, in that regard I will ensure that some drafting recommendations are made very quickly. As well, I am sure that all new members would agree that there is a degree of ambiguity in some areas, but I believe that the proper enforcement of the existing rules and standing orders will clarify that ambiguity. In conclusion, I want to make a final point. We can have the best standing orders in the world, but unless we enforce them and unless members lift their behaviour in terms of the parliament, the standing orders do not amount to anything. The bottom line is that this place is like any other organisation: we can have ordinary people in it, we can have good people in it, we can have brilliant people in it, but unless we have people who are really committed, people who will, in fact, make a difference, then that organisation does not run. Therefore, the onus is on every one of us to make sure that we understand and adhere to the standing orders. I have 8 Aug 2001 Standing Rules and Orders 2339 highlighted the importance of the standing orders in motion No. 1. Motion No. 2 says that we will review the current standing orders, but I want to make sure that it is understood clearly that that review is contained within the strict limits and restrictions that I have talked about. Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (11.45 a.m.): I rise to second the motions moved by the Premier. The standing rules and orders, in conjunction with the sessional orders that are adopted from to time by the parliament, govern all that we do in this place. They bring order to the often volatile nature of parliamentary debate and they ensure that a balance is struck between the opportunities that are available for government and non- government members to express their point of view and to contribute to debates. They also strike a balance between the interests or the opportunities of private members and members of the executive government. Ideally, it is the standing orders to which new members should look to familiarise themselves with the way in which parliamentary business is conducted. I think that we would all agree that there is often a great deal of mystery attached to becoming a new member of parliament. There is much for any new member to learn—much to learn about the communities that each of us represent, much to learn about the way in which the government operates and what level of government is responsible for particular activities, and much to learn about the way in which to properly represent the needs of our respective communities and their constituents. Mr Seeney: You should know some of that before you come here. Ms BLIGH: I think that it is important that people recognise that they have a lot to learn. The best new members are those who are prepared to keep an open mind and to spend some time in their electorates learning the things that make them effective representatives. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all the new members of the Beattie Labor team on the efforts that they have put in over the past five months to recognise that being a new member of parliament brings with it a great many challenges. They need to keep an open mind, they need to put their nose to the grindstone, and that is what every one of them has done. They have not come into this place with a cocky attitude, assuming that they know everything. Unlike some members opposite, they have not come into this place assuming that they are the font of all wisdom and that we should all bow in their path and bow to their wisdom. I say to the member for Callide that that is a mistake that none of them will be making. I am very pleased to take this opportunity to recognise the hard work that the new members have put in and, most importantly, the attitude that they have brought to this place. I hope that they have the attitude that, I think, represents our whole government, and that is that every day is a learning day. Every day we learn something new. Every day we have an opportunity—whether we are here for one month, 10 years or 20 years—to learn something more about our electorates, more about Queensland as a whole, more about representative democracy and to be a contributor to it. However, for many new members, I would say that one of the most mysterious things of all are the intricacies of the parliament. Often new members of the parliament, because of their involvement with a political party or because of a previous employment opportunity, have had an opportunity to be in the parliamentary gallery to witness the debates and to have a sense of how things happen. But that is not true for all new members. For many new members, their first couple of months in parliament is one of their steepest learning curves. Indeed, I think that a number of members in this place today—members of some years' duration, I might add—would still find some of the standing orders and rules of this place a mystery. Just as the standing rules and orders of 1860, when this parliament first sat, reflected the needs of members of that time, so, too, must we ensure that the standing rules and orders of this century are accessible, readable and, above all, relevant to society today and to the needs of the members who are here today. In keeping with the recommendations of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee—it is their view, and I support it in seconding this motion—the Standing Orders Committee should review the current standing rules and orders. I would like to take this opportunity to concur with the Premier in recognising that the parliament is working very well. In terms of getting through the business of the House and giving opportunities to both private and executive government members, in my view the current standing orders are working very well. When the standing orders are enforced, we have a parliament that I think is getting its business done in a very effective way. Therefore, I also predict that the review of the standing orders would see relatively minor changes to the way in which the parliament runs. Over the past three or four years, the combination of the standing orders and the sessional orders have stood this government in good stead. In my view, they do not need a significant 2340 Standing Rules and Orders 8 Aug 2001 overhaul. However, such a review gives us a chance to, where necessary, reorder in line with the proposals of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. For example, the suggestion that we take the opportunity to put all matters that relate to a member's conduct in one chapter is, I think, a very sensible recommendation. I predict that the review committee will adopt it. It gives us a chance to look at the language of the standing orders and, hopefully, it gives us an opportunity to make the standing orders a little more accessible and relevant to the twenty-first century. It also gives us an opportunity to change the standing orders by including some items that have now become a matter of regular practice and, I understand, enjoy a commitment from both sides of the parliament. For example, I refer to including in the standing orders the requirement for members to declare their pecuniary interests. The way in which we conduct ourselves as members of parliament has a direct bearing on the respect that the community has not only for each of us as members but also on the institution of the parliament. The conduct of members in this parliament is under a significantly higher level of scrutiny in this century than was the case when the standing orders were written in 1860. In 1860 the architects of the current Standing Rules and Orders could not possibly have predicted the degree of electronic media that is available and that is a routine part of everyday life. Members of the public not only know of the content of the debates, the ideas and thoughts of members of parliament, but they also get a regular opportunity on the evening news and radio to hear the tone of our voices, to see the expressions on our faces, to see whether we are interrupting each other and to hear the sorts of debates that occur. In my view, that places an even higher responsibility on us all to conduct ourselves in a way that shows constant respect for the parliament. I endorse the Premier's comments that the standing orders should provide sufficient rules for us to meet that requirement. When we are looking at the standing orders, it is important to keep that in mind. By prominently displaying all matters that relate to the conduct of members in one chapter or part, we are clearly telegraphing to the public of Queensland that we are genuine about fulfilling our duties in a serious and responsible manner. I heartily support the recommendations to do that clearly in any revision of the standing orders. Given the bipartisan nature of the Member's Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committees, I hope that the recommendations of its report will enjoy the bipartisan support of the House today. I urge all members to support the motion. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (11.52 a.m.): I rise to support the motion before parliament and I will indicate why during the course of the cognate debate. I commend the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee for the very bipartisan work that it continues to do and has done in the time that I have been a member of that committee. I first served under the chairmanship of the member for Barron River, Ms Lyn Warwick. Mr Fouras interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: I thank the member for Ashgrove for that interjection. I served under the chairmanship of the member for Logan, Mr Mickel, who was an excellent chairman of the committee. I now serve under the chairmanship of the member for Mount Ommaney, who is also a very excellent chairman of the committee. The members of the committee are very aware that the sorts of issues that we deal with can have major implications for the way that the parliament operates. Very importantly, that can set precedents that will be used from time to time, not only in this place but also in other jurisdictions throughout Australia and other Westminster democracies. That is why we should be very careful not to play politics with a committee as important and significant as the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. If we do something that is based on politics alone and we set a precedent through the decisions and recommendations of this parliament, that precedent can be used by governments here and in other places to impede democracy, impede debate and impede the due process and obligations of members of parliament as they go about their duties. I indicate to the parliament that, in our deliberations, we are always very careful that we look at all the implications of the decisions that we make and we leave absolutely no stone unturned in doing that. I was amazed to hear the Premier speak a while ago. It must be a very long way from Brisbane Central to Damascus, because this man has undergone the most significant conversion that I have ever seen in the parliament. About four years ago when he was opposition leader, this bloke came into this place with a dummy tied around his neck. This morning at question time, he 8 Aug 2001 Standing Rules and Orders 2341 talked about the bad old days of the National Party, but he also talks about the good old days of the National Party. I do not know what are the good old days and what are the bad old days. Mr Horan: A bad day's a good day. Mr SPRINGBORG: That's where the coalescence is. He talks about the bad old days, yet he was very happy to jump in a car and beetle up the road to Bethany at Kingaroy to do a deal with Joh behind the cow shed. His membership of Actors Equity paid off when he played himself in the re-creation. This bloke comes in here and talks about all of those sorts of things. He clutches his heart and he wrings his hands and he carries on. At the end of the day, the parliament is a robust place. The Premier talks about the need to lift our standards within the parliament, and basically we all agree with that. However, he must be consistent in his approach as well. He should look at the way that he has carried on in the parliament when he was the Leader of the Opposition. Another very important point is not to gild the lily too much. We have never seen such a lily gilder as the Premier of the state. He takes credit for the Pacific Motorway, which was an initiative of the Borbidge-Sheldon government. He says, 'We are opening this great initiative of our government.' Is it any wonder that the community at large will be cynical about these approaches? We need a little bit more honesty from the honourable Premier. Maybe he should reflect on actions past rather than on where he would like to go in the future. What the Premier said about enforcing the standing orders concerns me a little. The Speaker enforces the standing orders in this place. This parliament is a robust institution. I have had the opportunity to see other parliaments around Australia and the world that are far more benign. They are probably not quite as robust as this parliament, but they become very sterile places. They become far too orchestrated and, at the end of day, one cannot get to the crux of a lot of the things as the community expects. Another thing that concerns me is the restriction on interjections. Certainly there needs to be some curtailing of interjections, but this parliament has operated in this way since it was first established almost 150 years ago. Anyone who doubts that can have a look at the Hansard from earlier times and read the interjections that were made. That is a part of the debating process and that is what lifts it. People say, 'It is terrible in parliament because they all carry on,' but they are in the public gallery at question time because that is what they want to see. The media is here at question time, because that is what it wants to see. The rest of the time the parliament is fairly sterile. Certainly a lot of workmanlike debate goes on. There is agreement on 70 per cent or 80 per cent of matters that are debated by the parliament, and that is the way that it should be. However, question time is different. I would ask that we do not curtail the robustness of the parliament too much, because it is important. We also have to consider—and the member for South Brisbane actually mentioned this in seconding the motion—that the capacity to share and exchange information in this day and age is so much greater than it was years ago. People say that the standard of the parliament has deteriorated. The standard of the parliament has not deteriorated as compared to 140 or 130 or 100 years. Members can read the Hansard debates to see that it has not deteriorated. Some of the stuff that was said in the 1890s would lift the polish off boot leather - that is a reality - but it was never reported. A Frank Nicklin press conference basically involved once a week getting somebody in from the Sunday Sun and somebody in from the Courier-Mail to have a cup of tea and a bit of a chat. Today, there are doorstop interviews all of the time and there is a lot more involvement. The media is demanding more and the community wants to see more, and they do. They see the process warts and all. At the end of the day, we must not build an expectation that is so high that it cannot possibly be delivered, or we will have a very sterile institution that does nobody any good. The Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee has made a number of very excellent reports to this parliament. The recommendations of three individual reports, in entirety or in part, will be adopted by the parliament today and, hopefully, taking the process through to its conclusion, the standing orders will be amended. On 21 August 1997 I spoke in this place on the need to amend the sub judice convention. Under the chairmanship of Mrs Warwick, the then member for Barron River, the committee delivered a bipartisan report to the parliament recommending that we adopt the new principles that we will be adopting today. Although that was worth while, it was not done at the speed of greased lightning but at something more approaching the speed of frozen treacle. That it took four years to get a sensible change into this parliament after it was tabled and first debated by this House is not good enough. However, the reasons for those changes are sound. 2342 Standing Rules and Orders 8 Aug 2001

In 1976 there was a review of the sub judice convention and the principles were established at that stage. Those principles do not take into consideration what is expected of members of parliament today and also a member of parliament's ability to participate in this place and share information with the community at large. Therefore, a number of the amendments are extremely important. When it was adopted in 1976, I think the general concern of the parliament was that members should not talk about any matter before a court, a royal commission or other inquiry, the reason being that the processes might be impeded and there might be a perceived or real influence—something which needed to be mitigated. However, in reality that had a number of flaws. Certainly, this principle is important, firstly, when dealing with a criminal trial where a jury is involved and matters raised in this place may have the capacity to influence jurors; and, secondly, when dealing with a civil trial where because of the magnitude of the issues a jury is making the decision. However, there are very few civil trials that involve a jury. The committee looked at those issues and decided that in relation to a criminal matter before the courts being decided by a jury there should be no discussion in the parliament about the matter, because there might be a real concern about influence. That was a reasonable and consistent conclusion by the committee. In relation to civil matters where there is no jury involved there should not be any concern, because at the end of the day judges know points of law and are not going to be influenced by what is said in this place. On some occasions we have had a great deal of debate about whether matters before an Appeal Court should be discussed in this place. An Appeal Court is a panel of judges who are also unlikely to be influenced by matters discussed in the parliament. I do not have any problem, and the committee does not really have any issue, in respect of those matters. In relation to a retrial ordered by the Court of Appeal or by a higher jurisdiction, the same sorts of provisions should apply in criminal cases, and that will be the case. The issue of royal commissions and other commissions of inquiry is one that needed to be addressed, because I think there has been disparity in the application of the convention and also some disparity between the rulings of Speakers in this parliament on these matters. From the time of the Fitzgerald inquiry in 1987 and onwards, in this parliament the opposition was able to ask a whole raft of questions relating directly to the Fitzgerald inquiry. Some might have been ruled out of order, but a range of questions was asked in the parliament. We then move on to the new generation, I suppose, of governments in the 1990s, where depending upon, I think, who was in the chair and whether or not there was a raw interpretation of the convention, questions were not allowed on things such as the Carruthers inquiry when the Labor Party opposition wanted to ask about it and also the Shepherdson inquiry when we wanted to ask about it. That was ludicrous, given that we were dealing with a commissioner who was not going to be influenced by matters discussed in the parliament. In some cases, as I think was elucidated in the Fitzgerald inquiry, there were probably matters raised in the parliament by the opposition of the day that probably became pivotal in setting the agenda and which also might have been useful in the consideration of further information for the deliberation of that committee. Why do we apply this convention when there is no ability to influence a commissioner? There is also the nonsense whereby we cannot talk about a matter in here but we can go out and stand on the steps of parliament and talk about it. The average Joe and Josephine on the street can talk about it, but we cannot talk about it in here. That needed to be amended. That provision will be fixed up in what I think is an excellent sub judice convention. Once again, I say that I think it was before its time. It is a pity that it has taken four years to bring it in. Nevertheless, it is better late than never. New standing order 158A was recommended to govern the way members disclose potential conflicts of interest in the parliament. Basically, the rules are that if a member has an exclusive interest or an interest that is not an interest in common— Mr Mickel: Direct. Mr SPRINGBORG:—a direct interest—that member is not supposed to debate the matter or participate in related proceedings of parliament. One of the concerns is that it becomes a bit nebulous after that. What is a direct interest and what is an interest in common? For example, when the Gocorp issue—and I do not want to revisit the matter—was raised in this place, declarations were not made in the parliament. Even though there might not necessarily be a 8 Aug 2001 Standing Rules and Orders 2343 problem on a lot of occasions it mitigates negative fallout if members of parliament quite clearly know that they have a duty of disclosure. Although members might be able to continue to participate in the debate and be actively involved, I think people would have a lot more confidence in the process if members had a clear understanding and a clear directive about how they are to go about disclosing any potential direct interest or conflict of interest. That is what new standing order 158A is all about. It is important that the parliament adopts this standing order today—and it will—and that it become a part of our standing orders. In relation to privilege matters, I was on the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, as the member for Logan and other committee members at that stage would very much appreciate, at a time when we were getting almost one privilege matter referred to us each week. That created a great degree of interest for committee members and also anxiety. There might have been—and I do not want to cast aspersions— Mr Mickel interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: That is right. I will come to that. Whilst there might have been some very sound bases for some of those concerns to have been raised as a matter of privilege, in the political robustness of this place there are also opportunities for one side or the other—and it is happening on both sides—to try to say, 'Look, somebody has done something wrong and we've referred it to the privileges committee.' That is why the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee decided that we needed a very clear process that honourable members could follow in submitting matters to it. That is why it came down with report No. 36, which makes a series of recommendations for members to follow when raising those complaints. Of course, members are required to raise the matter with the Speaker. The Speaker will then decide whether he or she believes the issue should be referred to the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. In that process we are relying upon the independence and the proper consideration and deliberation of the Speaker. That is why it is important that the Speaker ensures that he or she elevates themselves above any political influence in the parliament. The committee made this recommendation to ensure that we were not tied up unnecessarily in looking at minutia, and so that we would know that issues referred to us would be of significance. There needed to be some sort of screening process. We made that recommendation in a bipartisan way. We know that the process relies on the good grace and independence of the Speaker. Of course, that does not exclude the opportunity for a member of parliament, if they are aggrieved by the decision of the Speaker, to stand in parliament and move that the matter be referred to the committee. They can still do that; they still have that opportunity. However, it tries to provide a process whereby the Speaker looks independently at that matter of privilege, based on its merits, and then decides whether or not to refer it. It provides an independent filtering process and is something that I think is overdue. As I said, it also points out what processes members should follow when submitting a matter of privilege. One would hope that there should be very few matters of privilege raised in the parliament because we know about our duties and obligations and we say things that are truthful, or we believe that what we are saying is truthful. Therefore, we should not have the argy-bargy and debate and all of the other things that occur from time to time. We know that matters of privilege arise from time to time. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that there is clarity in the process, and this report addresses that. These three reform proposals that will be adopted by parliament today are certainly a step in the right direction. I concur with the Premier. I think they elevate the place and they provide an opportunity for greater understanding by members of parliament of their duties and obligations. Hopefully they will also provide some degree of confidence for the public at large, who are sometimes very much led by what they see happening in this place—and I would say that it is not always an accurate reflection of what happens in this place, either. It also makes perfect sense that the standing orders are to be consolidated. I note what the Premier spoke earlier about not having a holus-bolus review, and I agree with that. However, it makes a lot of sense to have sections regarding the behaviour of members of parliament in one chapter so we can quickly go to that, understand what is going on and make a clear determination. That is a sensible reform. I look forward to the meeting of the Standing Orders 2344 Standing Rules and Orders 8 Aug 2001

Committee and the final chapter of this being implemented for the benefit of all members of parliament. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (12.11 p.m.): As a member of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee for the 49th Parliament and as chair of the committee for the 50th Parliament, I am pleased to be able to support the proposed standing order relating to the declaration of pecuniary interests in debate and other proceedings. The new standing order states that— (1) Notwithstanding compliance with any other order of the House concerning the disclosure of interests, a member shall, in respect of any question in the House, declare any pecuniary interest (of which the member is aware) (whether or not it is a matter of public policy) that the member or a related person has in the question, if such pecuniary interest is greater than the interest held in common with subjects of the Crown or members of the House generally. (2) The declaration in (1) above shall be made: (a) at the beginning of their speech if the Member participates in debate on the matter in the House, Committee of the whole Legislative Assembly, or a Committee of the Legislative Assembly; or (b) as soon as practicable after a division is called for on the matter in the Legislative Assembly, Committee of the whole Legislative Assembly, or a Committee of the Legislative Assembly, if the Member proposes to vote in that division. (3) The Member's declaration shall be recorded and indexed in the Votes and Proceedings or minutes of proceedings of the Committee and in any Hansard report of those proceedings of that division. (4) It shall not be necessary for a Member to declare an interest when directing a question seeking information. As a political, elected representative, I have learned that the way we conduct ourselves is constantly under scrutiny by members of the public. After all, we are in our positions at the will of the people. Just as what we say and how we perform is subject to scrutiny, so too it is vital that our financial interests are transparent. A tradition of the Westminster system is that there be a declaration of direct pecuniary interest. This means, in essence, that members should declare any direct financial benefit accruing to them. Transparency seems to be the best safeguard against a conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest are inevitable in public life as they arise from the potential conflict between public duty and private interest. It is a requirement that members of parliament and their spouses declare their financial interests in a Register of Members' Interests yearly whilst they remain elected and update this information when necessary. However, the new standing order states that members should declare any pecuniary interest in relation to any question that is raised in the House about that matter. It makes sense that a member takes the matter of accountability seriously. Where there is some personal or financial interest which may be related to, or affected by, a matter raised in the House, the member should be required to own up to that interest and put it on the public record. If they do not do this, then they cannot in all conscience vote on the matter. This standing order allows for the member to declare the interest during the first part of their speech for debate on the matter or as soon as practicable after a division is called on the matter. It is very important for these standards of integrity in the parliament to be maintained as a longstanding tradition, otherwise the institution of parliament itself would become subject to corruption. What faith could we then have in a system that is not open and accountable but makes the laws which govern this state of Queensland? I commend these standing orders to the House and I support the motion to adopt the revised sub judice convention, the procedures for raising and considering complaints of breach of privilege or contempt and new standing order 158A. The sub judice convention is a restriction that the Legislative Assembly imposes upon its debates. The MEPPC of the 48th Parliament undertook a detailed review of the application of the sub judice convention in Queensland. The former Select Committee of Privileges last reviewed the convention in 1976. The MEPPC of the 48th Parliament concluded that the application of the sub judice convention in Queensland was more restrictive than in some other parliaments in Australia and overseas. In report No. 7 tabled in July 1997, that committee recommended a new sub judice convention. The MEPPC of the 49th Parliament recommended in its Code of Ethical Standards Report, tabled in September last year, that the new convention be adopted. The government accepted that committee's recommendation. Since 1976 the judiciary has taken a much more relaxed attitude to the issue of contempt of court, and the media have taken advantage of this relaxed attitude by reporting about matters 8 Aug 2001 Standing Rules and Orders 2345 that are before the court. The situation had evolved whereby the media and the public in general were free to discuss matters before the court or other bodies such as royal commissions but, at the same time, members were restricted from doing so in the Assembly by the Assembly's application of the sub judice convention. For example, a member in their position as party leader or some other capacity could make comments outside the Assembly relating to matters before a court. Those comments might be reported widely to the media, but the member would not be allowed to refer to those matters in the Legislative Assembly. A royal commission is not a court exercising criminal jurisdiction. It does not try cases and it is unlikely that a commissioner conducting a royal commission would be influenced by parliamentary debate. The MEPPC recommended that the sub judice convention should not apply to royal commissions. Under the revised sub judice convention, the convention will continue to apply to matters of a criminal nature. The sub judice convention should not suppress discussion on matters of public importance, providing there is no substantial risk of that discussion prejudicing a person's prospects of receiving a fair trial. Therefore, changes have been recommended to the application of the sub judice convention in respect of civil matters. The MEPPC believes that the mere fact that a matter is to come before a civil court is not reason enough to restrict members from speaking out on matters of public interest. The committee believes that it is highly unlikely that a judge hearing a civil proceeding would be influenced in their decision about a particular case by what is said by members of parliament in the Legislative Assembly. The proposed new sub judice convention, therefore, applies within the period of four weeks preceding the date fixed for the determination of a civil case being heard by a jury. This is an appropriate safeguard. The new sub judice convention strikes an appropriate balance between the rights of the House to debate issues and the rights and interests of citizens involved in court proceedings. I commend the new sub judice convention to the House. With regard to procedures for raising and considering complaints of breach of privilege or contempt, report No. 36 of the MEPPC, attachment A, clearly sets out procedures to be followed in referring matters of privilege to the appropriate authority. Attachment A provides details relating to how suspected breaches of privilege are to be treated with consistency by the Speaker or by the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. I commend these procedures to the House. I also commend the work of the MEPPC and committees and research staff. Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Lib) (12.18 p.m.): As a member of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee during both this term and last term, I certainly will support the motion before the House today. I have been privileged in serving as deputy chair to both of those committees and I would like to state how well I felt the previous chairman, Mr Mickel, ran that committee as well as the current chairman, Mrs Attwood. It is a harmonious committee. We work well. I know we have another previous member here, Mr Reeves, the member for Mansfield. Everyone contributed very well to that committee. Many people may think that the committee does not meet often. However, I can assure the House that we have had countless long meetings, sometimes all day, in camera. Many issues have been brought up by both members in this House and the public who have accessed the facilities of that committee. We have been asked to report on the comments of strangers to the House and as to whether or not privileges and ethics of the House have been broken by members. Citizens' rights will also be incorporated in Hansard in a form that the committee has agreed to which covers their issues of concern. These are all big advantages. Before I proceed further, I do have to comment on the words and behaviour of the Premier this morning. I was a minister in government when Mr Beattie was first a member of the opposition and then the Leader of the Opposition. To say that robust debate happened in the ranks of the opposition back then would be to put it mildly. It was more like a rabble. To hear the Premier stand up and say, 'This performance is terrible. We can't have the opposition interjecting. That is not the role of parliament,' is a nonsense. It would seem that there is one rule in this House for the opposition and one rule for the government under Mr Beattie. What a prima donna performance we had this morning. No wonder he is a member of Actors Equity, and I have to say that this morning he would have got full value from his membership fees. This House is for robust debate. Of course interjections will occur when, as usually happens in this place at the moment, our questions are not answered by ministers or Mr Beattie. The greatest load of waffle I have ever heard has come from that side of the House, particularly since the last election and the fact that the government has 66 members. Arrogance is the pervasive attitude. It would be nice to have equal rules for both sides of the House. We are happy to conform to that, but let us have none of the hypocrisy we had in here this morning—members 2346 Standing Rules and Orders 8 Aug 2001 standing in here with their lips clenched between their teeth and all the other rot, which would not happen unless we had the cameras here. A government member interjected. Mrs SHELDON: This is an issue, because we are debating standing orders, matters concerning members before the House and issues that members have to raise and must raise. So I think it is appropriate that those things be said. I had no intention of saying them in this debate until I saw the behaviour and heard the words of the Premier this morning. The issue dealt with in this cognate debate is very important. I do congratulate the government on bringing these motions on for debate. Issues such as these have been hanging around this parliament for a long time. It is important that the work of the committee, which is bipartisan, and the reports that have been issued are included in the requirements of the House. If they are not, people can rightly say, 'Why do we have these committees and why do they sit?' It is most appropriate that at the end of the day every member in this House has a right to speak to a motion to say whether or not they agree with the content and whether or not they believe it should be adopted, because we are a committee of the House. We are certainly not autonomous. The issue of sub judice has been one of controversy in this House over a number of years. Similarly, the question as to what is and is not sub judice has been raised by both sides of the House. It is more often that this issue arises when oppositions try to raise questions and governments do not want them raised, regardless of the political persuasion of the government of the day. Therefore, it is commonsense that the sub judice convention and rule outside this House be the rule applied inside this House. Essentially, the rules of sub judice were put in place so that juries could not be adversely affected in a case—usually only a criminal case—where what was said and reported in the media may be adverse to a fair finding. This House should abide by those principles. However, sub judice has been used in here to gradually suppress any issue the government of the day did not want raised in relation to royal commissions, commissions of inquiry and civil cases. In fact, what has happened in this House with regard to the rule of sub judice has become a nonsense. Mr Fouras interjected. Mrs SHELDON: The convention, Mr Fouras, was breached in this place. The convention used was not the convention set up outside the House for very right and dutiful purposes. Rather, at times it was used for political advantage in this place. I am not putting blame on any particular shade of government. It is right that the sub judice convention be adopted. It is an interesting and important convention, particularly for new members of the House. There are many complexities in this place and more and more onus is placed on members to ensure that they have it right. There has also been an increase in media coverage, and that has been mentioned earlier. It is interesting to note that the media has the right to cover everything done in parliament, but it does not. It is only ever present at question time, which is the theatre of this House, and that is why the public thinks that that is all we do. As all members know, most of the work of this House is quite sober and dedicated. Members make speeches pertaining to issues of interest to their electorates and legislation is passed. It is often a great pity that debates such as that are not shown to the public so that it can get a broader concept of what happens in parliament and the role and functions of our parliament. There were a number of recommendations of the committee regarding the practice of sub judice applying to the Legislative Assembly and, therefore, I intend to touch on them in general. I think it is important that they are enshrined in Hansard so people know what they are. The report relating to the sub judice convention states— (a) In general, care should be exercised to avoid saying inside Parliament that which would be regarded as contempt outside Parliament and could jeopardise court proceedings. I have already mentioned that. It continues— (b) Matters awaiting or under adjudication in all courts exercising a criminal jurisdiction should not be referred to (in motions, debate or questions) from the moment a charge is made. The convention shall cease to have effect when the verdict and sentence have been announced or judgment given, but shall again have effect should a Court of Criminal Appeal order a new trial, when this would be regarded in the same light as an initial hearing. (c) Civil cases in courts of law where a jury is to be empanelled should not be referred to (in motions, debate or questions) within the period of four (4) weeks preceding the date fixed for trial. (NOT from the time a writ is issued.) (d) The convention does not apply to other civil proceedings. 8 Aug 2001 Standing Rules and Orders 2347

(e) The convention does not apply to the proceedings of royal commissions and similar tribunals. (f) The convention does not apply to in camera committee proceedings. However, committees should ensure that any evidence taken is not published until after the criminal or civil proceedings are finalised, unless the committee believes that there is an overwhelming public interest in the release of the evidence. (g) The convention is always subject to the right of the House to consider and legislate on any matter. I believe that these are very good recommendations. I would urge the House to support them in a bipartisan manner. The second issue pertains to procedures for raising and considering complaints of breach of privilege or contempt. The committee certainly took quite a long time to consider these issues. The report and attachment A, which we are talking about, is quite comprehensive. If members are not too sure exactly what is contained in that report, I suggest that they get a copy of report No. 36, because there is too much to go into in full detail here. In a nutshell, it talks about matters of privilege suddenly arising, committee reports and the Speaker's initiative. It talks about other matters of privilege. It sets out how a member can go about asking that a matter be sent to the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. Attachment A to the report states— (1) A member should write to the Speaker at the earliest opportunity stating the matter of privilege and requesting that the matter be referred to the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. (2) An allegation of breach of privilege or contempt must be formulated as precisely as possible so as to give any person against whom it is made a full opportunity to respond to the allegation. (3) The Speaker considers a matter of privilege and determines if a question of privilege is involved. (4) In considering if a question of privilege is involved, the Speaker takes account of the degree of importance of the matter which has been raised and whether an adequate apology or explanation has been made in the House in respect of the matter. No question of privilege is involved if the matter is technical or trivial and does not warrant the further attention of the House. (5) The Speaker ... may request further information for the complainant. I do believe that in the past—it was alluded to by a previous speaker—members on both sides of the House indulged in trying to get things through to the privileges committee that, frankly, should never have gone there, and some of them succeeded. A lot of the time of the privileges committee was taken up in dealing with what were particularly political issues, frankly. It was also stated that the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee is a bipartisan group. Now there are Independents and members of other minor parties on it. It is not a political committee, so it should not be treated as such. There was a fair degree of anger amongst all members at some of the matters that were coming before us when there were other vitally important things that had to be considered. That does not mean to say that we should not be looking at matters of privilege, because that is obviously part of what the committee does. Hopefully the recommendations of the committee will be followed because certainly matters of privilege of this sort have not been coming to the committee as often. I think it is important that the House follows the procedure recommended by the current committee. Otherwise the whole committee process becomes a laughing stock. I think this is much more evident when the numbers in the House are very close. When there is a majority of one the situation becomes very political, but it should not be allowed to because enough politics goes on in here, outside and everywhere else. I think the procedures of the House need to be sanctioned from that. It may well happen—politics is cyclical—that the parties get back to the situation of having very narrow margins. I would like to think that in that case those procedures would not be followed again and that the House would look very clearly at what it is doing. I think the procedures have been clearly spelt out in terms of lodging a complaint and what has to happen. The report talks about contempt of the House. In essence, contempt of the Assembly means a breach or disobedience of the powers, rights and immunities of the Assembly or its members or committees. Conduct, including words, is not contempt of the Assembly unless it amounts or is intended or likely to amount to an improper interference with either the free exercise by the Assembly or a committee of its authority or functions or the free performance by a member of the member's duties. The latter is very important. Any members who experiences any interference with what they are trying to do as a member of parliament should report that. There have been incidences of it in the past and I think often new members are not sure whether they can report it. If it is not something that should come before the committee, then it will be dealt with. But members should not be interfered with in any way in terms of the fair carrying out of their work as members of parliament, regardless of their politics, because they are elected primarily to represent constituents, although in our political system one sometimes wonders. But that, I am sure members would all agree, is their primary 2348 Standing Rules and Orders 8 Aug 2001 function. People elect them to the House to represent them on matters and issues of concern to them that they want seen to. I do not think we should ever forget that. The third issue involved the Standing Orders Committee reviewing the current standing rules and orders with respect to the declaration of pecuniary interest in debate and other proceedings. There has been a lot of debate on this recently, too, particularly in the previous parliament. Again, a lot of it was based on political issues. Nevertheless, it is very important that a very clear guideline on the pecuniary interests of members is available to the members and set down very clearly so that there can be no misinterpretation of that. I think sometimes in the past members have been caught up because the guidelines were too flimsy, frankly, and those who really were honest and genuine and looked at these issues said, 'Where are we supposed to go with this?' Unless there are very clear guidelines, it can be very difficult. I think it is very important. I am pleased that the Premier is supporting the recommendation that the Standing Orders Committee review those current standing rules and orders and that part of that review consider placing all standing rules and orders dealing with the conduct of members in one chapter or part so that members can go to that chapter and see what is required of them. The consequences of not meeting those requirements are pretty drastic. Sometimes I think people in sheer ignorance do not meet the requirements. It is not that they are trying to create a contempt of the House; because they do not know what those requirements are, they have not addressed them. If the provisions are all mixed up and people have to really seek them out, sometimes it is very difficult. So if all the relevant standing rules and Orders are in one part, members can look at them very easily. I will quote the proposed new convention that the committee recommended in terms of the declaration of pecuniary interest in debate and other proceedings. It states— (1) Notwithstanding compliance with any other order of the House concerning the disclosure of interests, a member shall, in respect of any question in the House, declare any pecuniary interest (of which the member is aware) (whether or not it is a matter of public policy) that the member or a related person has in the question if such pecuniary interest is greater than the interest held in common with subjects of the Crown or members of the House generally. (2) The declaration in (1) above shall be made— this is important to realise— (a) at the beginning of their speech if the Member participates in debate on the matter in the House, Committee of the whole Legislative Assembly, or a Committee of the Legislative Assembly; or (b) as soon as practicable after a division is called for on the matter in the Legislative Assembly, Committee of the whole Legislative Assembly, or a Committee of the Legislative Assembly, if the member proposes to vote in that division. Quite often with the work members have on hand they are not in the House. Unless they are listening to the broadcast, members may not know that a debate about an issue in which they have a pecuniary interest is under way. I think it is very important when bills are introduced that members look at the bill, look at what it is about and look particularly at the explanatory notes, for example, and ask themselves, 'Do I have a pecuniary interest in this?' They should know in advance and take particular notice from the orders of the day where the bill is. This issue was raised: 'We did not know that debate was on. How could we declare a pecuniary interest when we did not know it was on?' This became an issue not so much if the person had not participated in debate on the bill but if they came in to vote and they were voting on something in which they did have a pecuniary interest and they did not really realise the implications. Members can get advice on this matter, particularly from the Clerk or the Speaker. It has to be a reasonable pecuniary interest and one that could be beneficial to members, in terms of voting in a particular manner on that bill, or could be so interpreted. When members look at the bill they might say, 'That seems a pretty dry issue,' but it is not really when it pertains to members here in the House, where it could be a problem. I think members would agree that these are very worthwhile recommendations. It is important that they are accepted. I do believe that they will be accepted by the House. I certainly commend them to the House. Hon. J. FOURAS (Ashgrove—ALP) (12.37 p.m.): I am pleased to take part in the debate on the Premier's motions, which address three issues: the sub judice convention; procedures for raising a breach of privilege or contempt; and the need for a new standing order for the declaration of pecuniary interests, both in debates and votes. 8 Aug 2001 Standing Rules and Orders 2349

Free speech in parliament is fundamental to our Westminster system. Since the Bill of Rights of 1689 it has been settled under article 9 that 'freedom of speech in debates or proceedings in parliament ought not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament'. This privilege was hard won. It was born out of the blood and carnage of the English civil war, when the supremacy of parliament was finally established through the Bill of Rights of King William and Queen Mary. Since that time the three great pillars of parliamentary democracy and a free society have been parliament's privilege of free speech, the parliament's power of the purse and the parliament's sovereign power to make laws binding on the Crown and citizens alike. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights has ended up as section 40A of Queensland's Constitution Act 1867. It basically says that a member of parliament can say in parliament anything which if said outside could be taken up in a court. The sub judice convention has been the one limitation on the freedom of speech. It is a self-imposed limitation by the parliament. It restricts members from saying things in debates in order to avoid prejudicing litigants before the courts. This has led to an unacceptable situation. For example, debates on matters before bodies such as the CJC are freely discussed by the media and the public, but members of this House are restricted from doing so in the House itself. The current sub judice convention was established in 1976. There has never been any argument that matters in courts exercising a criminal jurisdiction should not be referred to in parliament. There is no doubt that that would be prejudicial to a litigant. But the issue of most concern to the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, which was responsible for making this recommendation—and of which I was a member—was the principle that— ... Current proceedings before a Royal Commission should not be referred to in motion, debate or questions. In response to what the previous member said, it is important to note that I was Speaker of this chamber for more than six years, I think, and the advice that I was given then as Speaker was that inquiries by the CJC really did come under proceedings before a royal commission and, therefore, if I was to uphold the convention of this House I was obliged to rule out of order motions, debates or questions on that matter. That was the legal advice I received as Speaker, and I am sure that it would have been the advice that would have been given to any other Speaker. Later I will talk about the problems that that has created in this chamber for the presiding officers. Whereas we have this convention that goes back to 1976, the courts have increasingly recognised that the press and electronic media have a right to canvass matters of public interest and that the public interest takes precedence over ensuring that judicial processes may not be prejudiced. That has been happening while we have sustained that convention here. Public inquiries are justified on the basis that the government of the day seeks guidance on a matter of public concern by obtaining and examining evidence through an impartial judicial process. People heading such inquiries would not be improperly influenced by anything said in this parliament. If a matter is of sufficient importance to justify a public inquiry, then obviously it is of equal importance not to restrict members from debating the issues pertaining to that in this parliament. In this particular respect, with regard to royal commissions, the sub judice convention no longer applies to the House of Commons or the Canadian and New Zealand parliaments. I was a member of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee which brought down report No. 7 of 1997. We found quite unequivocally that there was no reason at all for the convention to apply to royal commissions, tribunals and other bodies examining similar functions. I remember being in this House during the Shepherdson inquiry when the current Speaker got into all sorts of problems by referring in this chamber to that outdated convention. In fact, we had in the previous parliament an unprecedented motion of no confidence in the Speaker. The chair has always had a discretion in these matters. When I was visiting the House of Commons, I asked why its members did not move motions of no confidence in the Speaker. I was told that, 'Our Speaker must have had a particular reason for disagreeing with a ruling or making a ruling which may not be obvious to us; but he must have had a particular reason to do that.' The bottom line is that the chair has always had a discretion, and that discretion should always remain with the chair. The convention has always existed. But as mentioned previously by the member for Caloundra, this could lead to a perception of bias, because the Speaker is then seen to be making a decision about an inquiry which, quite often, could have an impact on what may happen to the government of the day. 2350 Standing Rules and Orders 8 Aug 2001

The second matter that we are debating today through this motion is how we treat matters of privilege. Standing order 115, which allows members to rise in this House on a matter of privilege suddenly arising, really is the most abused standing order in this parliament. Quite often it is about something that has been said previously by a member. I remember that, regularly, the former Leader of the Opposition would get up at the end of question time—a time allocated in the sessional orders or standing orders to government business—and claim that a member had misled the House. That is amazing. Let us be clear about what is a contempt and what is said in here. It is a serious contempt when a member deliberately misleads the House. It is not a debate about whether a person has said something that is arguable. Referring back to Socrates, none of us would ever open our mouths in this chamber because we would never know what the truth was. So if we all had to speak the 'truth' every time we rose in this House, we would never speak in this chamber. So much of what is said about a matter of privilege suddenly arising is quite out of order. A matter of privilege suddenly arising should be about something that suddenly restricts a member from his rights and his privileges as a member of this House, such as somebody locking someone up in a bedroom, or somebody shanghaiing someone, or threats being made to intimidate a member. So although the chair must listen to a particular concern suddenly raised by a member, it has always been my understanding that it was never a matter of privilege. It is good that we have in this chamber a process whereby matters of privilege are raised—writing to the Speaker, being precise, and then the Speaker determining whether such a matter should go ahead. I support very much the notion that the House should be tested. If a member feels aggrieved that he or she does not have the position they want, under this procedural change that member should be entitled to move that the matter be referred to the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. As a member of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, I remember a situation in which we had two choices about a minister of the Crown. One was that a minister of the then Borbidge government was foolish and the other was that he had misled the House. The committee decided, rather than to say that it was a deliberate misleading, that the minister had been foolish. I refer now to the third part of the first motion before the House, which relates to pecuniary interest. It is important to have this new standing order, which clearly sets out within the rules and procedures of our parliament the process that members must follow in debates or in voting on a matter in which they have a pecuniary interest. Too often members deem something to be a matter of pecuniary interest when it is an interest that is held in common with many members of the community; for example, if somebody here has a shareholding in a company such as BHP, he is not going to influence the directors of BHP by what he might say or do in this chamber. I have seen politics being played in this chamber on such a matter. Mr Seeney: On both sides. Mr FOURAS: Of course. Too often members change their views depending on which side of the House they sit on. I do not applaud that. It is one of the saddest and most cynical exercises in this parliament, and that game is played rather poorly. For example, I remember when CTP was increased by Joan Sheldon and how we on this side thought that it was outrageous. Yet when we did the same thing, the members opposite thought that it was outrageous. We can reverse the arguments, depending on which side of the chamber we sit, which I think is one of the most galling things about this chamber. But it will always be that way because that is the nature of politics, the nature of the adversarial system that we have in place. We have had examples of such behaviour in the Western Australian parliament that led, in my view, to the fall of the Court government. A minister of that government did not disclose a pecuniary interest in relation to government action that enabled him to make a lot of money. I think that it is important that we have a process that does not allow that to occur. As I said, I am not talking about matters such as shares. I think that members are in a position to know that if, for example, they own land and if their vote for legislation could result in some development being allowed to take place on that land or something like that, that that is not in the interests of the public. If that land is owned by the member and perhaps some other people, that member should state that he or she has a pecuniary interest and that member should consider whether to vote on legislation relating to it. If that member votes on that legislation, that should be done after the member has made that pecuniary interest public. I think that is important. 8 Aug 2001 Standing Rules and Orders 2351

Ultimately, it is important that the rules and procedures of this House are dynamic. In many ways in today's society we have the electronic herd running roughshod over the ability of governments to govern. As a result, in this cyber age we are in an electronic straitjacket. We ought to be a contemporary parliament. We cannot have a sub judice convention that does not exist in other parliaments that operate under the Westminster system, and that certainly does not exist in other state jurisdictions. I commend the Premier for these motions. I commend the three items that are before the House. I am heartened by the degree of unanimity, in a parliamentary sense, in which we have addressed these matters. I think that it is a good sign that, when things are as clear as this, we do not play politics in this chamber. I am pleased to take part in one such debate. I commend the motions to the House. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (12.52 p.m.): A number of the items that I was going to raise have been canvassed already by a number of speakers. It was interesting to hear the previous speaker talk about having decency in this debate. I think that today we all came into this House prepared to display some decency in this debate. That was destroyed by the Premier's precious, pathetic little performance this morning simply because he was hurt by some of the interjections and processes that occurred during question time. If anything demonstrated that we should have a strong, robust and democratic parliament, it was what happened this morning. We asked a question of the Treasurer regarding allegations of certain matters that were believed to have happened within the Government Superannuation Office. The Treasurer said that he had no knowledge of it. It was not until an opposition member injected and asked, 'Is there a CJC inquiry?,' that the Treasurer changed his mind and said that he was aware of that and said that he had misinterpreted the question. Later on in a subsequent answer the Treasurer apologised to the parliament. That is a classic example of how the cut and thrust and parry and interjection of this place can keep some honesty and accuracy in the debates in this parliament. The Premier comes in here with his show-pony acting performance. He turns his back to the opposition like a beaten boxer and is not prepared to take the interjections or the criticism from this side. The opposition takes it. We accept it. We cop it. Occasionally we stand up in this place and say that we want something withdrawn because we find it personally offensive, but that is part of this place. The pressure that is applied to the government is designed, under our parliamentary system, to maintain performance. As an opposition, we have to do two things: we not only have to examine, find something that is wrong and then criticise but we have to apply pressure to the government so that we can lift its performance. In recent days we have talked about matters such as non-performance and cuts to capital works. The next day the minister came into this place and made a statement in defence of what the government is doing in terms of capital works. Yesterday we had a strategy against the Minister for Families. That was another example of pressure being applied to a minister and the way in which this parliament works. I have no doubt that the minister and her department are saying, 'We have to make sure that we get some more money; we have to make sure that we get some more staff. We do not want any more of this.' That is the way in which this place works. Sometimes the strategies are successful; sometimes they are not. Sometimes they are average; sometimes they are good; sometimes they are bad. But it is the robust way in which this place operates that applies the pressure and which is the essence of this parliament. It allows people to be represented. There may be 11 members from the National Party and 66 members from the Labor Party in this current parliament. However, as National Party members we represent thousands of people. We have every right to push our point of view, divergent as it may be from the view of the government of the day. That is what this parliament is in danger of losing when this precious Premier will not answer a question properly. When we ask him to answer the question, or we interject on him, he just turns his back and says, 'There they go again, Mr Speaker. They are wreckers. They knock, knock, knock. They are wreckers. They interject. They are rude.' I think that everybody is starting to notice—particularly the media—that the Premier does that every time he is in trouble. This morning he was in trouble. It is the coward's way of getting out of standing up, facing the music and answering the question straight, just like all the rest of us have to do. Although there is not a lot of time left before we break for lunch, I want to comment on some particular issues contained in these motions. At the outset I want to say that the opposition is supporting these motions. I think that it is good that we are getting clarity and formality into these 2352 Standing Rules and Orders 8 Aug 2001 three issues of the sub judice convention, the procedures for raising and considering complaints and also the declaration of pecuniary interest. I remember an issue relating to pecuniary interest when the coalition was in government. The Labor Party opposition challenged a member—I think he was a farmer—when we were having a debate about irrigation. At that time the Labor Party opposition challenged that member's right to be involved in that debate. I think that this motion sets it out quite clearly. One of the important things in the recommendation about the declaration of pecuniary interest is that the matter of such a pecuniary interest is to be greater than the interest held in common. We could take the pecuniary interest question to extremes. For example, there may be a member whose husband or wife is a teacher. Does that member have to declare that when we are debating legislation that relates to teacher accreditation? We could take the issue of pecuniary interest to silly lengths. So I think that good notice should be taken of the fact that the interest is to be greater than the interest held in common. That could apply to members who have a business interest—or the members of their family could have that business interest—in a retail operation, or a farming operation, or some sort of contracting arrangement. But good commonsense should be used. This will mean that members of parliament will have to make sure that they know what the bills that they vote for are about. That means that if members happen to be at a meeting with constituents, receiving a briefing or something like that, and then leave that meeting to rush down to the chamber to vote on legislation, they have to know where they stand on the legislation and whether they have a pecuniary interest in it. I think that the issue of the sub judice convention is good. It means that we know clearly that, in matters of criminal trials where juries are involved or civil trials where juries are involved, the sub judice convention applies. Generally speaking, outside of those matters, we have a clear ruling that will be put into the standing orders so that we know exactly where we stand. On behalf of the opposition, I say that we support these recommendations and congratulate the committee on the work that they have done in working through them. It has taken some considerable amount of time, but I think that it will help us to raise the standards of how we go through these three particular processes. I will conclude on the matter of standards and say that we should not forget that this is a place where both sides have to be tested. We should ensure that, when we have a robust debate, as parliamentarians we do not turn our backs on the debate and try to overtake the true role of the Speaker. The real leveller in this place is the independent, straight down the middle principles that apply to the Speaker of the House. The Speaker of the House runs this place. The Speaker of the House should be able to make decisions about the behaviour of members from the government side or from this side. The Speaker of the House should be able to make decisions about the rules of this House as they apply under the standing orders. That should be left to the Speaker of the House. If we try to overtake the Speaker's role and try to direct the Speaker without any true respect, then this House will lose the true democracy that it is all about. Sitting suspended from 12.59 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! Before calling the member for Logan, I note the presence in the public gallery of parents, teachers and students from St Peters Lutheran College in the electorate of Indooroopilly. Mr MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (2.30 p.m.): It is a pleasure to speak in this debate today. As chairman of the previous committee, it is great to see the deliberations of the previous committee being considered by the parliament as a whole. In praising the previous committee, I praise the work, at all times and in all our deliberations, of the previous deputy chair, the honourable member for Caloundra; the deputy opposition whip, the honourable member for Southern Downs; and the other members of the committee. I make this point about committee deliberations: they occur, of course, away from this parliament, they are out of the public eye and therefore, hopefully, they never attract any great public criticism. I might say that the task of the previous committee was never easy, because of the nature of the work that we were given to deliberate upon. Only once before in the history of the Westminster system, in the Profumo case in the 1960s, has a member actually been found to have deliberately misled the House. A lot of members who are new to this institution may not realise that, in the previous parliament, a member behaved so abysmally that an all-party parliamentary committee found that that individual had deliberately misled the House. Worst of all, that individual showed no remorse and 8 Aug 2001 Standing Rules and Orders 2353 quite happily, I will say, he was dismissed by the people in one of the lowest votes ever for a member recontesting a seat. A government member: It was 4.5 per cent— Mr MICKEL: It was five per cent. At last, the public recognised what the all-party parliamentary committee had had to deliberate upon. Another equally distasteful incident that the committee had to deliberate upon, and it did so unanimously, involved the spilling of milk at Parliament House. Without going into the committee's discussions on that, I will say this, and I will say it publicly: how on earth can we say to the people in the gallery today, 'For goodness' sake, don't put graffiti everywhere and don't deface public property,' if we thought so little of this place not to take umbrage at what those people had done. Quite correctly, the all-party parliamentary committee came down against the actions of those members of parliament. The other incident was the serving of a writ upon a member of this House in the public gallery. In other words, the committee had to decide upon a number of very important issues. I congratulate all the members of those committees, because each one of them put aside their party differences and looked at the issues in a very dispassionate way. They came down with resolutions that upheld the dignity of this House. That is why today I wish to congratulate those members. I know many members were seconded to various parts of those committees. Prior to the luncheon adjournment, the Leader of the Opposition said that we had to be aware of how we conduct ourselves in this place and that we should maintain robust debate. I am all for that. I have no problem with it at all. However, I do take the view—and I take it when I am in your current position, Mr Deputy Speaker—that when a member does not want to take an interjection, is clearly bothered by that interjection and, therefore, is interfered with in speaking freely to this House, the standing orders are quite clear: they regard such conduct as disorderly. That is quite unremarkable. Therefore, what the Leader of the Opposition regards as a bit of robust debate can happen only if the Speaker wants to give way. On no occasion today did I see that happen. Any investigation of the standing orders as proposed by these resolutions is to be welcomed. It is a good thing that the conduct of members in this chamber is listed for everyone to see. It is not a challenge to our standing orders at all if, occasionally, they are looked at. The Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee is the appropriate committee to do that. There are several other issues that we need to look at today. It has been said that an examination of the sub judice convention is long overdue. It is sensible. Both in my observations of this House and as a member of it, I have come to the belief that it is a convention that is rarely understood by some new members. I remember a fellow who represented the Maroochydore area—I cannot remember the seat—who wanted to disclose information on a criminal trial which, to the best of my recollection, was still in progress. There was an incident during the last parliament when the former member for Thuringowa wanted to disclose some information in a criminal trial. The notion of sub judice was a foreign force to those people. That is why we had the convention. Sensibly, the material under discussion in royal commissions and inquiries is now allowed to be discussed in this House. It puts the Speaker in an invidious position when a question mark hangs over what is in and what is out with regard to information before royal commissions and commissions of inquiry. In the past, Speakers have had to rule on those things, quite inconsistently I believe. It has always seemed to me to be passing strange that a member is allowed to waltz out of this place and speak on any matter to do with a royal commission, yet he or she is not allowed to speak on those matters in this House. That is a blinding absurdity. I know that that is lost on the opposition because none of them is in here. Not one of them is in here to listen to what is clear logic on my part. I will raise another matter to do with sub judice, and I am glad that it is going to be cleared up. Somebody mentioned the Liberals, and I will mention them myself. For example, there has been some doubt about whether we can speak on matters from the civil jurisdiction. Speaking on matters from the civil jurisdiction is very important to me, because at the moment a candidate of the Liberal Party is taking the entire Liberal Party executive to court. To do what? To make sure that all of the branch members can get a vote in a Liberal Party preselection. Until this matter is passed by the House, I would be in some doubt as to whether I can speak about it. I felt constrained in my contribution in this place, because I could not speak about the enormous 2354 Standing Rules and Orders 8 Aug 2001 influence that the Carroll-Santoro forces have had on the Labor Party. Because of their actions, they have delivered the Labor Party the 1998 state election, the Brisbane City Council 2000 election and had a large dollop in relation to the 2001 election. However, this was all dwarfed by what has been going on in Ryan for years. I am pleased now with the ending of this limitation on discussion about civil proceedings that from now on I will be able to talk about these things, because previously I had felt constrained. I will say this: the Bob Carroll-Santo Santoro forces delivered in Ryan inside the Liberal Party what we in the Labor Party could never have dreamt of, and that is the election of a Labor candidate in the federal division of Ryan for the first time in history. The history of the Carroll- Santoro forces should be recognised here today by our members with any sense of fair play. I know some of our members opposite had difficulties with the former member for Clayfield, but they should never forget this: prior to the Carroll-Santoro forces taking over the Liberal Party it had 15 members in this place and they have managed, through a process of attrition, to reduce that to three. That is a marvellous contribution by any stretch of the imagination. I am pleased that, with the passing of the sub judice convention today, I will no longer be prevented from speaking about these things. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! In the interests of impartiality, I say that I think the member for Logan has made his point well and perhaps he should move on to other matters. Mr MICKEL: I am guided by you always, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your impartiality and undeniable intelligence. I turn now to the pecuniary interests register. I understand the need for such a register. I will say, though, that I think spouses of members of parliament find it an intrusion. I have heard it said by former members that it would be better, if we really want to keep an eye on people, to have a debt register, not a pecuniary interests register, because a register which highlights the amounts people owe and to whom would be a better indicator of someone who is open to a bribe. Someone asset rich, the argument goes, is less inclined to be bribed. But I will leave that for another day. I must say that the committee never considered this. This parliament should always reject the notion of having a wealth register. There was a suggestion put to the committee that, instead of outlining the shares that people held, we should indicate how many shares members held. This would change forever the pecuniary interests register and make it a wealth register. I do not believe the parliament is enhanced by such a notion at all. I say this because the media would, on any given day, go to that wealth register and, on a rising share market, would make out that somebody's wealth had been increased immeasurably. If members doubt that, I invite them to reflect back to the time the pecuniary interests register came out. In the first flurry, a series of assets was listed beside members' names. The most disgraceful article I ever read was about a member elected to this place at that time. It was reported that the member had a housing commission loan. In other words, the inference to be drawn was that this guy was on a bit of a rort. In reality, the member had just been elected and had come into this place in what could only be charitably described as modest circumstances. He was not on a rort at all. All honourable members know that we do not get instant wealth just by being elected and walking into this place. That was completely overlooked in this article. A similar incident happened either last year or the year before with the member for Mansfield, who had some unit trusts, as I believe. It was written up that he was intolerably wealthy because he had a few shares, yet in reality what he had was unit trusts. To show that I am completely impartial on this subject, I point out that the thing I think was completely below the belt from the media was the reporting earlier this year of the then Liberal Party candidate for Ryan, Bob Tucker. From what I could gather, Bob Tucker owned a beach house. There was no suggestion ever that he had got this by rorting. There was no suggestion that it was going to be subject to some state government approval. Like any other member of the community, he had worked hard to get this asset for himself. But somehow it became the subject of some media commentary that he owned this luxurious house that he had paid whatever amount for and now it was worth X amount. Have we really reached the stage in this country that we have given up providing for ourselves and our family? Have we really reached the stage where a pecuniary interests register in the hands of the media is the subject of some upward envy? Let me say this in a spirit of bipartisanship: if Tucker has worked hard for that beach house so as to provide a recreational centre for himself and his family, I say good on him. It should not be the subject of any political commentary from the media and I hope not from anybody on this side of the House. That is what is wrong with the pecuniary interests register in the way it is used at the 8 Aug 2001 Standing Rules and Orders 2355 moment and I fear that that would be what would be wrong with it if it were to become a wealth register. It is essential that we retain maximum accountability. I do not attempt to walk away from that at all. That is what this provision enshrines. I think also that it would strengthen this House if somebody who has a direct pecuniary interest in something that is before the House stands up and declares it. I have no problems with that at all. In fact, I think it is important, too, in correspondence. If members are making representations to a minister about an issue in which they have a direct involvement, they should point this out to the minister, and in that way everybody is alert to and aware of it. These deliberations of various committees are an historic moment with respect to the sub judice convention. They have come before this House, some have said, not before time. I wish to say, though, that in relation to the committees that I served on and had the pleasure of serving on with members of the opposition, and in one case an Independent, the strength of this place is the fact that members of parliament can deliberate on these matters totally professionally and come up with a report that is totally acceptable to all sides of the House. In relation to all of those difficult issues that I started off my speech with this afternoon, there was never once a dissenting report. Not once did anybody get cold feet at the last minute and slither out with an easy option. It was not easy to find somebody who had deliberately misled the House. That was not easy at all. It was not easy to send out somebody for 28 days when they had poured milk on the steps of Parliament House. I congratulate members of the opposition on behaving as members of parliament on that issue. In conclusion, what I am saying to the gallery today—to the hundreds of people who are listening to us—is this: the institution of parliament has been strengthened by the committee system; it will be strengthened again by the initiatives that are going to be hopefully passed in this parliament later today. Let's not have any more of this slithering away with pecuniary interest registers—wealth registers—or trying to deny people in this country who are a bit successful. Ms KEECH (Albert—ALP) (2.50 p.m.): I am happy to stand here before the House and support the motions moved by the Premier. Before I do that, may I thank the honourable member for Logan, Mr John Mickel, for his passionate response today to the two motions. The people of Logan are certainly very privileged to have a member who not only is passionate about their representation but also constantly works extremely hard in his delivery to present in the House their issues and also any other issues that are pertinent to members of parliament and its committees. In that respect, I must also congratulate the previous and present chairs of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, in particular, Mr Mickel, Mrs Attwood and Lyn Warwick for the excellent work they have done in getting these motions now before the House. The Premier moved two motions. The first motion to be adopted deals with three matters. One is with respect to the sub judice convention, which was presented in report No. 7 of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. The second is with respect to procedures for raising and considering complaints of breach of privilege or contempt, and this was contained in attachment A to report No. 36 of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. The other aspect that we are dealing with today relates to the declaration of pecuniary interests in debate and other proceedings. This was contained in recommendation No. 2 of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee report No. 44. With respect to these three issues, I am happy to support the second part of this first motion which enshrines these practices and conventions in the standing orders. As honourable members are aware, the standing orders govern the conduct of the business of the Legislative Assembly and its committees. They are orders to which honourable members are compelled to adhere. Sometimes we see them adhering in a very direct way with those orders and not so much at other times. For the information of honourable members, I state that the members of the Standing Orders Committee, which has the responsibility of amending any standing orders, are Mr Speaker in his ex officio role as the chair, the Premier, the Leader of the House, the Deputy Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and in this, the 50th Parliament, there is also the member for Beaudesert and the member for Gregory. With respect to committees making recommendations, section 24 of the Parliamentary Committees Act requires that relevant ministers respond to recommendations of parliamentary committees. Today a couple of speakers have discussed the fact that there has been some time lag in the response of this parliament to some of those recommendations. In particular, the 2356 Standing Rules and Orders 8 Aug 2001 member for Southern Downs said that he was concerned that it is taking quite a while for some of the recommendations, particularly those from the 48th Parliament, to be incorporated in a notice of motion in this House today. Whether we are talking about legislation or a response to committees' recommendations, I guess it is better to be slow and deliberate than to be considered hasty and, in retrospect, of a lesser quality. Mrs Carryn Sullivan: Hear, hear! Ms KEECH: I thank the member for Pumicestone. Often we are encouraged, particularly by the media, to act hastily on recommendations and policies. I consider that the slow and deliberate manner which this House takes in responding to issues is of the greatest importance. It is important that we get good policies up, not those that are simply driven by haste and certain interest groups. Although members may not be aware, it is actually quite an historic and rare event in which we are joining today. Even though the motions before the House may be considered to be merely of a technical nature, the second motion which has been moved by the Premier to amend the standing orders is, in fact, a very rare event. It is important to remember that, since the Queensland parliament convened in May 1860, only 10 amendments to the standing orders have actually been considered. As members will recall, one amendment was due to the abolishment of the Legislative Council, the Upper House— Mr Shine: In 1922. Ms KEECH:—in 1922. The other five amendments were, in fact, led primarily by a need to reprint the standing orders. So it is good to know that, in past decades, members of the House were very clear about making amendments only when there was a need to reprint the current standing orders. Today is an historic event because, to my understanding, this amendment is due not to the need to simply reprint the standing orders but to some very important and serious issues which have been presented by the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, and I am very happy to speak on those. In particular I would like to discuss that part of the Premier's motion that relates to the pecuniary interests register. Before I do that, I would like to give some background to the proposed standing order relating to the declaration of pecuniary interests in debate and in other proceedings. Standing order 158 currently provides that no member shall be entitled to vote in any division upon a question not being a matter of public policy in which he or she has a direct pecuniary interest. In other words, members of the Assembly are currently required to declare any direct pecuniary interest they have in a matter before the House. However, the definition of what constitutes a direct pecuniary interest is extremely limited. The standing orders do not define the word 'direct'. I have looked through them and I certainly cannot find a definition of the word 'direct'. It has been held that the standing order does not apply with regard to matters of public policy, that is, government policy. However, nearly all legislation before the Assembly relates to public policy, and standing order 158 is, therefore, extremely narrow and rarely applied. This is appropriate, because the standing order precludes a member from voting on any question upon which they have a direct pecuniary interest. The Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee of the second session of the 48th Parliament conducted an extensive review of the Register of Members' Interests. I congratulate the members of the committee for the work they did during the 48th Parliament. It reported on the matter in October 1996 in the MEPPC report No. 2. As part of its report, the committee recommended that standing order 158 should be strengthened by requiring members to make an oral declaration during debate on any relevant interests they have in a matter. Earlier the member for Caloundra raised problems that have sometimes occurred with this situation, that is, when honourable members may not have had an opportunity to watch the monitor but then have come into the House for a division but are not aware of the bill before the House and therefore did not have an opportunity to declare that they had a relevant interest in the matter before the House. I concur with her. This has certainly led to some difficulties. That particular recommendation of the MEPPC of the 48th Parliament was not accepted by the then government, which instead preferred to amend standing order 158 based on standing order 196 of the House of Representatives. The amendment was adopted by the Assembly in May 1996. This clarified to some extent the elements of a direct pecuniary interest. During the 49th Parliament under the chairmanship of the member for Logan, Mr John Mickel, the MEPPC subsequently reviewed the matter as part of its code of ethical standards inquiry. During its review, that committee also held discussions with the Auditor-General, who had made a number of 8 Aug 2001 Standing Rules and Orders 2357 recommendations concerning disclosure requirements on the part of members. The MEPPC reported separately on the Auditor-General's recommendations in report No. 43. In Audit Report No. 1 of 1999-2000 the Auditor-General commented on the disclosure by members of their financial interests during debate. In discussions with the MEPPC, the Auditor- General was supportive of members being required to formally advise the House during the passing of legislation if they had a financial interest in the matter. This brought into the debate another level, that is, the requirement that members must formally advise the House whether they have a direct interest in the bill before the House. The notice of motion to adopt proposed standing order 158A arises from recommendation 2 of the MEPPC of the 49th Parliament. The recommendation was contained in report No. 44—a report of the committee under the chairmanship of Mr John Mickel, the member for Logan—entitled Report on a Code of Ethical Standards for Members of the Legislative Assembly, which was tabled in September last year. The Beattie government accepted the recommendation. Therefore, today the House is debating the motion moved by the Premier in relation to not only the acceptance of the reports but also the adoption of the recommendations into the standing orders as standing order 158A. I now turn to deal with the proposed new standing orders in more detail. Proposed standing order 158A will strengthen standing order 158 by increasing transparency in the Queensland parliament, because it is transparency above all other things which will best safeguard against conflicts of interest. Today the Premier talked about the accountability that the people of Queensland expect from this parliament and its members. It is through transparency of our interests and our behaviour within the House that we can be accountable to those people who have placed their trust in us. Issues such as transparency and accountability have been strengthened by the publishing of Hansard on the web. As a very new member of parliament, I have been pleasantly surprised at the number of constituents who contact me immediately after the Hansard has been published on the web to comment about speeches I have made in the House. I am pleased to say that to date these comments have been very positive. I am certainly encouraged not only to work harder for the people of Albert but also to speak as often as I can so that the people of Albert can access my speeches and those of all other members and scrutinise them to make us as members of the House more accountable. The proposed new standing order also provides that members will be required to make ad hoc oral declarations in the Assembly at the beginning of any speech or as soon as practicable after a division is called about any pecuniary interest they have in the debate and other proceedings. Again, this is a practice which will encourage the transparency and accountability of members. The new provision will apply wherever a member's pecuniary interest is greater than the interest held in common with subjects of the Crown or greater than the interest held by members of the House generally. I am pleased to see this additional measure added by the committee, because we do not want to get to the stage where frivolous and distracting declarations have to be made. For example, if a member owns 50 shares in Coles-Myer, that does not mean they have an interest greater than the interest held in common with subjects of the Crown or greater than the interest held by members of the House generally. It is very important that this is a practical and pragmatic impost on members. The new standing order is in addition to, but does not replace, the requirement upon members to comply with the provisions of the members' interests resolution of the House. The new standing order will further guard against the perception of a conflict of interest that might arise between members' private interests and their duties as a member. As all honourable members are aware, it is often the case that incorrect perceptions can cause some difficulty within the community. I thank the previous chair of the committee and its present chair, the member for Mount Ommaney, for the work they have done on the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. I also thank the Clerk's office and in particular the Deputy Clerk for their assistance in interpreting the reports of the committee. I commend this motion to the House. I am very happy to be part of this historic event. It is indeed rare that we have an opportunity to speak on a motion that will make amendments to the standing orders, but I certainly believe that these amendments will add transparency and accountability to the House. Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (3.09 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the motions before the House. I do not want to let the moment pass without welcoming the 2358 Standing Rules and Orders 8 Aug 2001 members for Hinchinbrook and Southern Downs to the House this afternoon. It is great to have them along while we are doing the work of the parliament. Mr Springborg: As soon as I heard you were talking I rushed down. I nearly sprained my ankle. Mr McNAMARA: While we are talking about conventions, I take a moment to remind the opposition of the convention that there should be someone from both front benches in the chamber when the parliament is working. It is lovely to have them along and I look forward to a productive afternoon together. Mr Springborg: Likewise. We might have a cup of tea after this is over. Mr McNAMARA: Indeed. I take the opportunity while the member for Southern Downs is here and listening to refer to his road to Damascus comments. I remind him that the report relating to these motions was received on 7 July 1997. Of course, he will be well aware that the then Premier was the Honourable Robert Borbidge. Some of the opposition members indulged in sanctimonious windbaggery in their speeches, so it is worth reminding them that the Premier at the time was in fact opposed to the proposed amendments. Mr Springborg: On sub judice. Mr McNAMARA: I take the interjection from the honourable member for Southern Downs. I will read the comments of the then Premier, Rob Borbidge, which are recorded in the report. The then Premier is reported as saying— ... there is no evidence that current practice in the Legislative Assembly is causing any difficulty. The Issues Paper mentions that in recent times the situation has developed where the media and the general public are free to discuss matters before a Court, while Members of the Legislative Assembly are somewhat restricted in these discussions. It does not automatically follow, however, that the Sub Judice Convention needs reform. So the then Premier had a year to bring this particular amendment before the House and he did not get around to it. It was not, however, our intention to come in here and start finger pointing. We are very pleased that the proposals before the House have the support of all sides of House. I am a little disappointed that the members on the opposition benches chose to take this opportunity to distort history and try to score political points from what should have been a moment for the whole House to celebrate some sensible reforms. The Premier's motions before the House have been debated at some length. I propose to confine my comments essentially to the sub judice convention components. The sub judice convention is of course a restriction on debate and is therefore a restriction upon the privileges of the Legislative Assembly and its members. One of the fundamental tenets of parliamentary privilege is freedom of speech and debate in the parliament. In your speech today, Mr Deputy Speaker Fouras, you referred to Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689. Mr Springborg: 1688. Mr McNAMARA: I think it was 1689, but I would hate to be misleading the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! For the member's interest, I think it was introduced in 1688 and passed in 1689. So you can use whatever date. The preferred date is 1689. Mr McNAMARA: You, Mr Deputy Speaker, did refer to this legislation, which is still part of our law today by virtue of section 40A of the Constitution Act 1867. Accordingly, a member of parliament is able to say in parliament anything which if said outside of parliament could be punishable as a contempt of court. However, the power to be able to say anything does not mean that members cannot or should not set limits on themselves in relation to what is said in this place. Out of respect for the judiciary and in order not to prejudice litigants before the courts, parliament restricts its own debates through the application of the sub judice convention. In its report on the sub judice convention tabled in 1976, the Select Committee of Privileges recommended that the application of the sub judice convention in the Legislative Assembly should always be subject to the discretion of the chair and to the right of the House to consider and legislate on any matter. The select committee drew attention to the paramount right of the House and suggested that any self- imposed restriction should be minimal, while ensuring that the House does not become an alternative forum to a court or permit its proceedings to interfere with the course of justice. The sub judice convention recommended in the 1997 report is less restrictive than that which had previously been the case. Recognising this, the judiciary has in recent years taken a more accommodating attitude to the issue of commentary on matters before the court. Nevertheless, 8 Aug 2001 Standing Rules and Orders 2359 members are also well aware that our good friends in the fourth estate have taken advantage of this increased latitude by regularly reporting in detail on matters currently before the courts. Indeed, the High Court itself has encouraged freedom of speech, finding in the Australian Capital TV case in 1992 an implied right of free speech in the Australian constitution, particularly regarding political matters. The new convention set out at page 19 of the 1997 report is sensible and easily followed. It still restricts free speech privileges in respect of criminal proceedings but lifts the restrictions in relation to royal commissions, tribunals and other bodies exercising similar functions. The convention applies only to civil cases where a jury is to be empanelled and then only within a period of four weeks preceding the date fixed for trial. The 1997 report also recommended that the new sub judice convention as drafted should be contained in the standing orders. This is a very sensible reform, in my view, which will make the very clearly set out convention able to be instantly available to the chair and to all other members, simply by reaching for a copy of the standing orders. Indeed, given that this convention directly impacts on the conduct of debate and the content of debate in this place, it is entirely appropriate that the convention be incorporated into the standing orders. As one of the temporary chairmen of committees, I welcome the clarity which this concise new convention will offer to occupants of the chair when one of the occasional lively discussions occurs in this place on this topic. The clear expression of the convention means that the Speaker from time to time will play an interpretive role rather than exercise the current broad discretion, as has been the case when the House has had only general guidelines and precedent rulings to go by. While there is no doubt that the Speaker of the parliament from time to time will always exercise the traditional impartial role which is so important to the smooth and fair functioning of this place, I suggest that the new approach will lessen the likelihood of allegations of partisanship being made because of differences of opinion regarding interpretation. I note that the final clause of the new convention is that the convention is always subject to the right of the House to consider and legislate on any matter. We remain masters of our own destiny here. The convention, and its inclusion in the standing orders, rebalances the need for free speech in this place with the rights of litigants in the more open times in which we live. It will make the Speaker's life easier and perhaps take some of the confusion and heat out of future debates concerning sub judice matters. It will not, however, prevent the robust debates which we have so fondly heard so much about today from members of the opposition. Of course, I continue to expect that that will be the case and would not have it any other way. I make a quick suggestion for a further amendment to the standing orders. In old Edinburgh, before the advent of plumbing, people used to empty their slop buckets into the street. It was considered sensible and reasonable that before you did that, in case someone was passing by, you would yell, 'Guardy loo! Guardy loo!' to allow people to take the necessary evasive action. Perhaps we could nominate some members of the House from time to time about whom the Speaker could call, 'Guardy loo! Guardy loo!' before they speak, thus allowing for small children to be removed from the galleries and for people to take the appropriate steps if they would like to get out of the way. Mr Springborg: Sensitive members, too. Mr McNAMARA: There are some. Of course, we all have our favourites. I will not name anyone yet, but perhaps we can start with a bit of an opinion poll of members as various speakers rise to offer their contributions and we will see how they all go. These motions before the House are eminently sensible. They have the support of the whole House, notwithstanding some of the hysterics and self-serving whining that has gone on here today. I support them wholly. Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (3.19 p.m.), in reply: I thank the honourable members for South Brisbane, Mount Ommaney, Ashgrove, Albert, Logan, Hervey Bay, Southern Downs, Caloundra and Toowoomba South for their scintillating, intelligent and perceptive support for the motions that I moved. Members of the opposition not only supported the motions but, in a sense, loved them. They thought they were worthy of support. There was lots of talk on both sides about putting politics aside for the benefit of the parliament. Isn't that good news! I am delighted to hear that, and I look forward to a lot more of it, 2360 Standing Rules and Orders 8 Aug 2001 because that is important not just for the parliament but for the community and, hopefully, in regaining community respect and support for this institution and its members. The member for Caloundra cited my alleged behaviour and said that the idea of having no interjections was a nonsense. She is right. I do not have a problem with interjections. It is repeated interjections that disrupt ministers from being able to answer questions. I say that because my government brought in a three-minute limit for ministers to answer questions. And if that three minutes is going to be abused and ministers cannot get an opportunity to properly answer questions, then frankly we have to consider reviewing the system. A smart interjection is very clever. A smart interjection around here can assist in the operation of the parliament. But simply screaming and yelling like a wild bull in a paddock is not interjecting; that is disrupting the parliament. And that is, in my view, showing a lack of respect for this institution. I have no problem with interjections. Joan Sheldon is quite right. When I was Opposition Leader, we used incisive interjections from time to time, but we did not sit here and berate the House and scream and yell and carry on. All one has to do is have a look at the contributions in Hansard to see that. The opposition's argument is that we are trying to say that the House should not have robust debate. What a lot of nonsense! Of course we are not saying that the House should not have robust debate. But inane interjections which are designed simply to disrupt a minister who is answering a question are not real interjections, nor are they robust debate; they are simply a disruptive tactic for the parliament. I do not believe that has a role here. I believe it is important that all members of parliament accept that the standing orders are used properly. One of the tactics that the opposition uses here—and I use this in response to what has been said—is to abuse the standing orders. I seriously do not think the leadership of the opposition fully understands the standing orders. Taking points of order because somebody disagrees with what a minister is saying is not in accordance with the standing orders; it is absolutely outside the standing orders. If somebody feels that they have been adversely reflected upon, they can ask for the statement to be withdrawn. Mr Deputy Speaker, when you were the Speaker of this House, and when Neil Turner was the Speaker of this House, anybody who took a point of order and sought to give a long explanation was sat down. That was the rule that was applied. The current Speaker has been very generous—something that I have no problem in supporting—but that generosity is being abused. And the government's generosity on these things is being abused by the opposition. I want to make it clear that we are not against robust debate, nor are we against incisive interjections. But when we have limited ministers' answers to three minutes and they are continually disrupted by senseless points of order, frankly that leaves the government in a position of saying, 'We might go back to the old system where there was no three-minute limit.' What would happen if that were the case? There would be fewer questions answered, and that would be to the detriment of the opposition. I say very clearly to the opposition that we want an astute and sensible running of this parliament. But I will insist that my ministers have an opportunity to answer the questions. If the opposition continually disrupts and wrecks the three-minute limit, we will go back to the old rule whereby ministers would not have a three-minute limit and they would be given an opportunity to fully answer the questions. The three-minute limit will work only if the opposition does not carry on in a very disruptive way, which is against the institution of this parliament. The current Speaker's and the government's view has been—and I support the Speaker on this—that with 66 government members, because of our numerical position we do need to be tolerant and understanding of the opposition. That is one of the reasons why the Speaker's position here is the correct one to take, that is, a very tolerant one. It is a different parliament from what we had in the last two parliaments. However, if the opposition is simply abusing that process, it brings the parliament into disrepute. Our generosity here is simply being abused. Having said all that, I am delighted that the member for Caloundra supports the motion. She commended the government for bringing these motions into the House, and I thank her for that. I have covered most of the points raised by the member for Southern Downs about the operation of the parliament. A lot of his gratuitous remarks are not worthy of a detailed reply. However, there are some issues that do need to be taken into account. For example, the member entered into a rather wide-ranging debate, making comments about the Gold Coast highway and taking credit for it. One of the things that I have always tried to do is be generous. As Rob Borbidge would tell members— 8 Aug 2001 Standing Rules and Orders 2361

Mr Seeney interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The member for Callide is at it again. He cannot help himself. He wants to disrupt the debate. With the opening of the Gold Coast motorway, I actually rang Rob Borbidge about it, and I acknowledged publicly the fact that the previous government had started the proposal. Since then we have acknowledged that the budget overrun cost a few hundred million dollars more than it should have, but we delivered on the incompetence of the previous government. I am happy to say that members of the previous government started it. They mucked it up, they incompetently handled it, they got the project wrong, and we saved it. I am happy to say they started this incompetence, but I am also happy to say that we saved it. There you go. I have been fair now. I have put the whole story on the record, and I am delighted to be given the opportunity to do it. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Listen to him scream. He hates the truth. Opposition members hate the truth—the empty vessels. If there are any other matters that they want to raise, I would be happy to come in here and qualify those and explain them, as well. The people of the Gold Coast know that, had it not been for my government, they would not have had an upgraded highway. So when they drive down that highway they can thank my government for delivering it. The previous government could not deliver a soft drink to a corner retailer. The way they run things, they would run a stand where you would end up with cold pies and hot drinks. That is the way they run things. They could not organise a chook raffle. If it was not for my government the highway still would not have been built. So they should not give me any of their nonsense. Mr Springborg said it was not such a long way from Brisbane Central to Damascus. That is true. He got his geography right. But Damascus is a long way from here, and with a bit of luck we will convert all of them along the way. The member for Southern Downs did support these motions because he can see how enlightened and progressive they are. I also acknowledge something quite seriously, though. He did agree with me that there is no need for a review of the standing orders. I thank him for his support of the position that I took, because I think that is right. I have clearly narrowed, in a very direct way, the review that will take place, and I thank him for supporting what I said in relation to that. We also had a contribution from the Leader of the Opposition, who said that there was a clear need for interjections. That is right. I do not disagree with that, as long as they are civilised and intelligent. But we will be waiting a while for those. He said also that a robust parliament is necessary. That is true; but it should not be used as an excuse for destroying this institution. It should not be used as an excuse for disruptive behaviour. The opposition, he says, brings pressure. We have not seen any of that yet. But at one point no doubt we will. That is the role of an opposition—to test the government's mettle—and obviously it is an opportunity for us to respond. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the capital works spending issue. All we have seen—and which I am happy to highlight—is that the Leader of the Opposition does not understand how capital works operate. We have demonstrated a $5 billion-plus Capital Works Program for the last two budgets. We have highlighted the private/public expenditure in it, and we have demonstrated that we will lead Australia. Obviously, oppositions have to whinge; we work and they whinge, and that will be the way that it will be. But frankly, if that is the level of his understanding of the budget, then I have to say the opposition has a long way to go. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Mr Premier, on interjections the Speaker of the House of Commons once told me that they should be relevant, witty or rare. Mr BEATTIE: I have to say that I think that is superb. It is good to see the Westminster tradition being referred to here, because that is the way we ought to operate. Mr Seeney: All of mine are. Mr BEATTIE: I say to the member for Callide that just because a member makes a lot of noise does not mean that that member makes any sense. I am waiting for the day that we will get an incisive, witty interjection from the member. When we do, I will stand in this House and acknowledge it. I will say, 'There is No. 1 for the member for Callide. It was witty and it was intelligent.' But as for the rare bit, I have to say that the member cannot be rare enough. 2362 Standing Rules and Orders 8 Aug 2001

One point on which I want to take the Leader of the Opposition to task is that he said that I had taken the coward's way out because I had not answered the question this morning. The reality is that I did answer the question. I have gone back and read it. If members continually interject, I cannot answer the question and, more to the point, I say that ministers should not be intimidated in that way. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that he is quite right: it takes two to tango. My government is providing leadership to lift the standards in the House. The Leader of the Opposition is not. Until he provides that leadership, we will have the sort of nonsense displays that we saw this morning. Over the past three years that I have been Premier I have demonstrated that I am prepared to answer any question to the best of my ability. I have never walked away from a question, nor will I. All I ask is to be given the courtesy to be able to answer the question. I do not mind the Leader of the Opposition making two or three interjections during one three-minute answer, but about 25 is a bit much. I think that if he asked the question, he should at least have the decency and, in my view, the commitment to this institution to allow me to answer the question. Two substantive issues were raised by non-government members. One was pecuniary interests. Members will have to read bills and monitor debates to judge whether they have a pecuniary interest. The issue was raised that members may well turn up in the House to vote in a division yet they might not necessarily have had an opportunity to be aware of what the division is about. That may well happen to members on the opposition side. Based on their performance, I guess it happens daily. However, we have to remember that the opposition calls for divisions; the government does not. The bills are listed on the Notice Paper. It is not unreasonable for the people of Queensland to expect their members of parliament to know what they are voting for. I think that no member of the House should exercise a vote if they do not know what they are voting for. Of course, if a member is in opposition or is an Independent, that member can abstain. It is an extraordinary argument to say that a member may rush into this parliament and vote for a matter not knowing what it is about. I think that all members of parliament need to know what they are voting for. Mr Seeney: One of your members said that. Mr BEATTIE: Can the member give it a break? This is not another one of those incisive, intelligent interjections. We can see the intelligence of the member. We can see it in the member's eyes as he cranes his neck, as if he is going to say, 'I have something intelligent to say.' He will move his hand just in case we have not seen the eyes move. It is a double act: the eyes go one way, the hand goes the other. Then one eye does not go the same way as the other eye. The member should give it a break. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can be of assistance to the member for Callide. That comment was made by the member for Caloundra and was commented on by the member for Albert. Mr BEATTIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you. I was actually listening. It was the member for Caloundra. The member can apologise. Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker, I heard the contribution that was made by the government member but, if an earlier contribution was made that I did not hear, then I sincerely apologise to the Premier, because I know how easily he is hurt. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The goodwill is catching. Mr BEATTIE: It is. I have to say that that is a significant improvement in the behaviour of the member for Callide. There is hope for him yet. If the member for Callide comes into this place and listens to my ministerial statements, he will be a better educated person and he will be a better representative for the people of Callide. I will give him his one spot. There it is—the day he saw the light. Maybe the member for Southern Downs is right: maybe Damascus is not that far away. I will finish by referring to the old sub judice rule. Governments from both sides have used it to stifle debate. I accept that point. I refer to the Carruthers inquiry, the Connolly-Ryan inquiry and the Shepherdson inquiry. The new sub judice rule will not apply to CJC hearings. I think that is a good thing. I know that there will be some contention about that. Frankly, if the matter can be debated outside this parliament, it should be debated in here. I have to say that, during the Shepherdson inquiry, I found it incredibly frustrating that issues were being debated but our standing orders required certain rulings to be made. In saying that, I make no criticism of the rulings that were made; they were appropriate at the time. But if I have to go out and face a news conference and answer questions about the Shepherdson inquiry but I cannot be asked those questions in this place, that is an absolute nonsense. I am happy to answer questions on any issue, be it the Shepherdson inquiry or otherwise. I believe that it is 8 Aug 2001 Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 2363 imperative that I be required to do so. Under the current standing orders I am being accountable to the people at a news conference and not accountable to the parliament. That makes it a nonsense. Therefore, the sub judice rule needs to be changed, and I welcome that. I thank all honourable members for their contributions. This is an improvement to the parliament. We have to do more yet. Motions agreed to. FORESTRY AND LAND TITLE AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 7 August (see p. 2301). Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (3.35 p.m.): In speaking to this Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill, I would like to inform the parliament of the demise of a far-north Queensland sawmilling operation. John Coleman, a third-generation timber cutter, sawmiller and sleeper cutter of Ravenshoe, a former major sawmilling centre and timber town about 120 kilometres south-west of Cairns, said that he and his family are broke—technically bankrupt—because of the state government's practices that are deliberately calculated to put his and all other far-north Queensland sawmillers and sleeper cutter operations out of business. According to Mr Coleman's version, the demise of his small, profitable industry and his money-earning capacity reads like a script from an Irish famine movie where unscrupulous British landlords ground the Irish tenant potato farmers into the ground by any means, legal or not, through controlling their rents, tenancy conditions, means of production and selling capacity. After World Heritage listing literally invaded a large portion of north and far-north Queensland timber-producing areas, many hundreds of people from Ingham in the south to Cooktown in the north became unemployed. Mr Coleman heard that Queensland Rail wanted sleepers, so he contacted QR. They told him that they would buy as many sleepers as he could supply if he could get a timber lease from the state government. During this time the state government deregulated the timber industry and, according to Mr Coleman, all sorts of cowboys without any timber experience or even equipment were applying for timber leases and, in many cases, getting them, only to go broke or to be unable to fulfil the contracts because they had no idea of what they were doing. Mr Coleman said that he had obtained letters of contract with Queensland Rail and the banks recognised these as being better than normal legal contracts. After all, they were state government promises. Mr Coleman designed and built his own transportable sleeper mill with a loader and a two- metre sawbench powered by a 160-horsepower GM diesel. All up it cost about $20,000. Mr Coleman said that he did extremely well with his new sawmill, with Queensland Rail and shires buying as many sleepers and bridge girders as he could supply. Mr Coleman wrote the following letter to the Atherton district forester, Martin Crevatin— As any business does, we also need to plan and prepare for the new millennium. Our major customer, Queensland Rail, has asked us for a guarantee of supply, but without a guaranteed timber supply we cannot do that. The district forester, with more than an element of truth, told Mr Coleman in a letter dated 22 November 1999— DPI Forestry is not the decision maker with respect to access to timber resources. Presently advice on many of the sales proposals submitted to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for consideration have not been forthcoming, consequently impacting on our ability to release resource to the industry. In his letter, the district forester outlined to Mr Coleman the process leading up to the release of a planned forest product from a native forest. His response made finding the hidden meaning of James Joyce's Ulysses simple reading. The district forester wrote in part that the process— ... involved the DPI drawing up "three-year rolling plans", submitting them to DNR Resource Management for consideration, DNR RM assessing the proposals, advising the DPI of the "appropriateness of the operation", any areas of special interest and any specific management requirements that DPI Forestry should incorporate into its sale plan preparation. DNR RM then advises DPI Forestry of any other circumstances relating to the sale preparation and implementation immediately the circumstances relating to the sale preparation and implementation immediately the circumstances come to notice. Six months prior to the sale agreement finalisation, or as otherwise negotiated, DPI Forestry reconfirms the proposed sales and provides maps to DNR RM showing allocations of the areas, MUID levels and major access routes. But wait, there is more! The district forester then expounded upon more happenings. He stated, 'when detailed site plans had been made available to DNR RM, future operations within the codes of practice, harvesting guidelines, supplementary requirements of DNR RM' and 'DNR RM 2364 Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 8 Aug 2001 audits/monitors operations as appropriate.' That is just the sort of information that a tough-as-nails 32 year old, third-generation sawmiller who started work at the age of 15 wants to know when he knows that he has been led up the garden path by bureaucrats at the same time as he is going broke. At the end of the letter, the district forester said— A further 3,000 cubic metres may also become available for competitive tender during the coming year at Wooroora. Mr Coleman said that this never eventuated. He asked for the area to be brought up for tender, but it was not. Mr Coleman said that there were dozens of letters between DPI, DNR, EPA and Minister Welford's office. It appears an orchestrated Keystone Cops scenario to send him broke. To make it worse, he was told that if he were a successful tenderer, he had to pay for the environmental study of the area even though it had been logged before. In October 2000, Mr Coleman was supposed to have received another timber tender allocation from DPI, but this never turned up. In the meantime, Queensland Rail was begging Mr Coleman for sleepers. QR had convinced Mr Coleman that he could supply it with sleepers for the next 10 years if he wanted to, but Mr Coleman could not get past the first base of the bureaucratic maze, buck-passing regulatory ordeals and ridiculous decision making that, had it not been so serious, could have been written as a Yes, Minister script. Here was a situation where Queensland Rail was requesting a product, far-north Queensland had the product, the product was in plentiful supply, the product could be harvested without any danger to future supply or the environment, and the supplier had the knowledge and machinery to supply the product to Queensland Rail. Yet politically motivated philosophies and interdepartmental and bureaucratic infighting and bungling prohibited the product from being placed on the market, let alone supplied to a buyer, that buyer being none other than another Queensland department. As Mr Coleman's legal firm Farrelly Lawyers wrote to the minister on 4 April 2000— On the one hand, one Government department is seeking continuity of supply whilst, on the other, our clients are being denied that very continuity of supply by a combination of interaction between DNR and DPI. On 2 February 2000, Mr Coleman wrote to the then Minister for Environment and Heritage and Minister for Natural Resources, Rod Welford, trying to explain to the minister why the mill was likely to go down the gurgler through no fault of his own. He told Minister Welford that there was no problem with the availability of the timber resource in the area, but the problem with the harvesting of timber lay exclusively with the restrictions placed on them by the minister's department. Mr Coleman wrote— It is the near-impossible guidelines that your department has forced upon us that is condemning us to the death of a thousand cuts. Mr Coleman then categorised his main concerns: not having been offered any blocks in drier areas that were economical enough for him to harvest, given the time; the time taken for the approval of new areas was too unreliable; the DPI's and DNR's uncooperative attitude towards each other and towards the sawmillers, who Coleman claimed are treated like criminals in the forest; and, finally, departments using their power to politely put them out of business. Mr Coleman said that if he saw a green-eyed tree frog hopping area, he was not to cut one branch within 30 metres of the radius of the hopping area. Mr Coleman said that if there was a goshawk's nest in the top of a tree 190 metres from a tree to be felled, even though they knew they could drop the tree 200 metres away from the nest, they were not to fell the tree. An area 100 metres in radius around such a nest was protected, even though the nest would be completely unaffected. On one occasion, Mr Coleman's father was helping him in the scrub when they were approached by a female DNR staff forester. With all the power in the world, she started telling his father how to build a road into their section. This staff forester was 20 years old and had never been to Queensland before, yet here she was telling his father, who is one of the best timbermen in Queensland and had been a dozer driver since he was 20, how to build a snigging road and what a rufous owl's nest looked like. Minister Welford's senior policy adviser, Sue Yarrow, answered Mr Coleman's letter of 4 February, mainly stating that there was no doubt that— 8 Aug 2001 Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 2365

... one of the important roles of the DPI is to identify and put in place conditions ensuring that harvesting of our public forests is ecologically sustainable and consistent with legislation, but that the Department places considerable importance on tailoring protective measures to be practicable and workable ... to facilitate continued access to these forests for productive purposes. She also added the rider that, as far as the EPA was concerned, in northern Queensland some sales also refer to the EPA because of the high number of environmental and endangered species potentially involved. John and Dianne Coleman wanted to get out of the timber industry under the same arrangements that were made in south-east Queensland, that is, a payout made in accordance with the state government's South-East Queensland Forest Agreement, but they were in for a rude shock. There would be no payout along those lines. The state government informed the Colemans that, contrary to the proposed across-the-board generous payouts to south-east Queensland millers, the government was pursuing a streamlined process that is more responsive to specific regional issues. In other words, zilch to the Colemans. Correspondence flew between the Colemans' legal firm, Farrelly Lawyers, and the state government, but the die was cast. The state government will not ease restrictions, some of which are so ludicrous that they are laughable. As a result, Mr Coleman was unable to enter into contracts because he could not provide assurances of continuity of supply. The best that Mr Coleman was likely to be offered was a further one-year extension on two already harvested areas. On 28 November 2000, Farrelly Lawyers wrote what finished up to be a sad and prophetic letter to the then Minister for Environment and Heritage and Minister for Natural Resources, Minister Welford. Sections of the letter said it all— ... the reality of the situation has overtaken the speed with which responses relative to our clients' demands have been forthcoming from your office. ... Briefly, our clients will, by 1 December, have exhausted all readily available timber. Our clients will be forced to dismiss all of their employees, some of whom are longstanding. ... Our clients are no longer in a position where they can afford further delay, particularly given that they have significant loan commitments to meet in respect of a farm they purchased, fully intending that they would have been able to easily meet their loan repayments from the proceeds of their saw-milling enterprise. Farrelly Lawyers pointed out to the minister that they first started correspondence with the state government over seven months previously, as follows— Unfortunately a response directly relevant to our clients' needs has not been forthcoming over that seven months period, and as a result our clients are being forced out of the industry. ... We respectfully request you treat this matter as one of urgency and revert to us now with details of practical assistance to exit the industry, so that our clients can meet their commitments to their staff and financiers. I took up the cudgels for Mr Coleman. Last year I wrote to Minister Welford advising that the Colemans employed six people and managed to exist on small timber sales, but that these sources had now been exhausted; that they had orders for over 25,000 railway sleepers, of which they had supplied only 8,000 and were unable to supply more because of current state government policies. I told Minister Welford that there were prospects of timber close to their operation which the government could make available should it choose. The current Premier, Peter Beattie, continues his use of the political mantra 'jobs, jobs, jobs' when he gives interviews or speaks about the economy. In this instance, Mr Coleman was denied the opportunity to provide jobs in far-north Queensland through governmental ineptitude and, in fact, had to put off all of his staff. Last year the DPI offered Mr Coleman a timber lease at Glen Eagle, but the offer had much the same meaning as a plaque on the wall stating that 'beatings will continue until morale improves'. The Glen Eagle offer was a poisoned chalice, and Mr Coleman maintains that the DPI must have known this. Mr Coleman said the Glen Eagle resource was 280 kilometres away—much too far away—that it could not be harvested in wet weather, that there was not enough timber and that he would have gone under just trying to get it out. The financial crunch time came for the Colemans this year. Their whole timber plant went up for auction in what was described as one of the largest machinery auctions in years in the district. He was hoping that the sale of the equipment would at least help loans and bills from the mill and alleviate mounting pressure from his bank. According to experts, Mr Coleman had close to 2366 Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 8 Aug 2001

$1 million worth of gear up for auction. The auction was a total heartbreak. He grossed a total of only $90,000 for all of the equipment. I believe the mill was sold to a PNG consortium that will export the timber back to Australia and perhaps back to the Smart State. Mr Coleman said that everything they owned had been valueless. A $30,000 timber trailer sold for $2,500. The Coleman's house, on 120 acres near Ravenshoe, was also put up for auction and they did not receive a solitary bid. To make matters worse, as unfortunately happens so often when families are in crisis, the Colemans' marriage is floundering. He lives in town and Dianne lives on the farm with the children. The family grimly want to hang on to their farm, but Mr Coleman admits their chances are limited. Their debts now exceed what they could remotely hope to get for their property. The sad tale of the Colemans is a perfect example of government intransigence ruining lives. In relation to the timber industry per se, why deregulate such a specialised industry thus ruining current, capable and reputable operators who are specialists in their field and who have sawdust in their veins? Why discriminate against sawmillers in north Queensland? Why not have the same exit package for north Queensland sawmillers as was provided for southern sawmillers? The Colemans should have been given compensation such as was provided to Boral at the Nandroya mill through the South-East Queensland Forest Agreement package. There is one rule for the big operators and big enterprises and another rule for the small operators and small enterprises. The Colemans have been left destitute. But in spite of all that, Queensland Rail still wants its sleepers. Queensland Rail is of the opinion that they have the capacity to deliver but, unfortunately, because of the intransigence of this and the past government in particular, these people are no longer able to operate. They are broke, all of their assets are gone and their family is starting to bust up. This is an absolute disgrace. There is no capacity for compassion. There is not even capacity to deal with a situation where people have the equipment and the resources to supply timber to the badly needed QR system. Certainly, the valuable timber they provided for bridge girders has gone down the gurgler. Time expired. Hon. K. W. HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (3.55 p.m.): It is a pleasure to rise to speak to the Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 2001. Under this bill there will be a capacity for landowners and plantation managers to sell their sequestered carbon. This bill takes the first step towards trading in carbon credits by legally recognising the commodity sequestered carbon, thus allowing contracts to be negotiated. However, the nature of such contracts will determine the nature and the flexibility of the sale arrangements. Under the Kyoto Protocol, measurement of net emissions is based on the counting of all changes in carbon pools. Thus for any area the level of available sequestered carbon for trading is one based on the net change in stocks, accounting for both tree growth and harvesting activities. Trading against such stocks is likely to be linked to future commitment periods currently understood to be the five-year periods. The main purchasers of sequestered carbon are likely to come from the energy sector, both nationally and internationally, using such a product to offset the emissions from electricity generation. While they may need to offset their emissions, such actions may be temporary—for example, while new technology is developed to reduce overall emission levels. The level to which they are prepared to continue to purchase offsets will be an economic one. They will simply determine how much they are prepared to purchase. That, of course, will be based on the most cost-effective way to satisfy imposed emission caps under an emissions trading scheme. An owner of sequestered carbon will be able to enter into a contract, firstly, to sell the rights to this carbon, and then a further contract to a different party giving rights to harvest this timber, therefore registering both interests through a profit a prendre agreement—and I have spoken to the minister about this—on his land title, thus constraining actions to harvest the timber without consideration of the interest in carbon. The term profit a prendre means to basically take a profit and it allows a right to an interest in a commodity or a product which is separate to the ownership of the land. As in futures contracts, the interest in the sequestered carbon or timber is not linked to specific trees, just to the delivery of products of defined quality as specified in the contract. This then allows for considerable flexibility in land management arrangements. For example, an energy company could in 2001 contract a plantation group for one metric tonne of sequestered 8 Aug 2001 Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 2367 carbon available in 2013 to 2017. The plantation area is likely to be based on a number of areas at different growth stages. To satisfy that contract, a plantation manager needs to be sure that his activities can provide the level of carbon from his overall cycle of rotations. So a further contract for one metric tonne available in 2023 to 2027 could be delivered from the same plantation but from different trees, while the later contracts could come from the same area but from trees grown after the harvest of the initial rotation. Another possible seller of sequestered carbon is the land-holder undertaking some farm- forestry activities. Due to the level of carbon sequestered, it is likely that any viable trading will come through groups of farms pooling the carbon from their overall activities. So, again, it is possible that such a group could enter into a contract to deliver a given level of carbon during a specified commitment period in the future. Such a contract would not mean that any specified area of land was quarantined off from tree management activities but, rather, it would mean that the group of land-holders would have to ensure that at any future period they could demonstrate that there was the specified level of sequestered carbon present. This bill sets out to give land-holders and plantation managers the capacity—and that is the important thing about the bill—to sell their sequestered carbon. It is about providing some flexibility and economic viability but, importantly, long-term sustainability to Queensland's natural resources. I commend the bill to the House. Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—Ind) (4.00 p.m.): In speaking in favour of the Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill, I am conscious of the need for such legislation to provide and protect the rights of freehold landowners in the event that the Kyoto agreement is one day ratified and trading in carbon credits becomes an established practice. However, I am also mindful of the need to protect unwary land-holders from the unscrupulous dealers who will no doubt prey on the unwary as soon as such an agreement appears in the offing. To ensure that such unscrupulous dealings are avoided, I trust that the dealings under this legislation will be covered by legislation providing for a cooling-off period such as in most other contractual arrangements. I am also concerned as to how restrictions imposed under the tree clearing guidelines will impact on landowners who may wish to obtain some benefit from the timber locked up under the tree clearing laws. Will these landowners be able to trade carbon credits in respect of this timber, or will they be further restricted in the use of their freehold land? Recently Jandowae held its timber town festival and a great number of people visited the town. Jandowae has two mills, and I might add that they are extremely good mills. They have been owned by the Blinco family for years. At all times we must try to protect mills such as these through legislation. Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (4.02 p.m.): It is a pleasure to rise to speak in support of the Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill. There is growing international recognition that it is appropriate to place a real dollar value on natural resource activities. This is reflected in the move to triple bottom line accounting in such initiatives as the development of environmental services—for example, the CSIRO currently leads a major project to identify and quantify such services—and in our moves to actively manage such natural resources as water, salinity and carbon. The Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 2001 represents a first step in facilitating the use of natural resource products specifically providing for recognition of carbon sequestration in a process by which, in the case of freehold land, this can be traded. In the Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 2001 the definition of 'natural resource product' is constrained to the products of a tree or vegetation. This is consistent with the placement of this amendment in the Forestry Act 1959. However, in the development of this amendment there has always been recognition that this is a first step towards a broader direction of supporting natural resource management through the explicit valuing of activities that enhance such resources and, thus, potential trading in such products. There is increasing international recognition of the range of environmental services that can be provided and traded. However, work in this area is at a relatively early stage. For example, the Commonwealth, as part of its implementation of the national action plan on salinity and water quality, is currently leading a working group on market-based instruments. One of the major elements of its terms of reference is an identification of any pilot activities relevant to the progression of this agenda. 2368 Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 8 Aug 2001

In the United States of America there is a longer history of government involvement in, for example, air quality—clean air being a key environmental service that we tend to take for granted. Since their passing of the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955 there has been a series of clean air quality control acts, with the Clean Air Act 1990 imposing formal constraints on emissions of noxious substances. Arising from this there has been significant trading activity, with one speaker at a recent emissions trading conference personally claiming over $100 million in air credits transactions. Currently, the Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 2001 explicitly addresses the recognition of carbon sequestration on freehold land—the recognition of one commodity on only a small proportion of our total land. Work is currently under way to extend the capacity for trading in sequestered carbon to leasehold land. It may also be appropriate at some later stage to extend this approach to other key environmental services, specifically salinity and biodiversity, as key related objectives of sustainable land management. With this future direction in mind, the Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 2001 has been specifically developed as a small stand-alone component of the Forestry Act 1959, inserting a part 6B after the current part 6A, which deals with quarry material in deed of grant or freeholding lease. If at some future time it is felt appropriate to develop a new piece of legislation, for example, a natural resources property bill, then part 6B of the Forestry Act 1959 could form the basis of such a bill, with expanded definitions and conditions to include a far broader range of natural resource products than the current tree or vegetation. With regard to the extensions of any trading capacity to leasehold land, current investigations indicate that this may not be as complicated as previously felt, with the key issue being the extension of the profit a prendre mechanism to leasehold land which, as my friend and colleague the member for Kallangur so eloquently outlined, means a right to an interest in a commodity or a product which is separate to the ownership of land; it is the right to take a profit. This would provide a capacity to develop contracts transferring the rights to interest in the carbon, allowing some trading to occur. This would also satisfactorily address native title issues as this is dealing with a change of interest in carbon in trees. The Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 2001 applies only to freehold land and is limited in its scope with regard to natural resource products. However, it paves the way for the development of a stand-alone natural resources property act and the possible development of future legislation addressing management of a broader range of natural resource products across all land tenure. I commend the bill to the House. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (4.08 p.m.): In speaking to the Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 2001, I find I cannot get enthusiastic about it and I am sceptical about the prospects of forest farming and carbon credit trading on the stock exchange. At this point, as we know, the United States is rethinking its position on the Kyoto protocol. So the future on this subject is unclear. I understand that New South Wales and some countries have already started to speculate in carbon credits hoping to get in on the ground floor. That was until the USA stalled the process. Queensland would also want to be in on the ground floor if some form of the Kyoto protocol ever goes ahead, but the question is if. Contrary to some beliefs, scientific researchers have discovered that the rush to create a carbon credits trading scheme and to plant extra trees to reduce global warming may all be in vain. Experiments have shown that planting trees may not thwart global warming or serve as an adequate substitute for reducing heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions. Experiments have also shown that, after initial growth spurts, trees grow more slowly and do not absorb as much excess carbon from the atmosphere as expected. Researchers said that once forests initially capitalise on the extra carbon in the atmosphere they quickly deplete nutrients in the soil, their growth slows dramatically and their ability to store excess carbon is curtailed. A leading ecologist found that the impact of existing forests on carbon in the atmosphere may not last very long and may not be very significant. Therefore, the impact of forests on carbon dioxide may not materialise in any important way. Scientists who did not participate in the studies said that the results were potentially very important in determining the role which forests play in regulating climate change. If this is true of forests in general, we may not be able to count on existing forests to maintain a high capacity to absorb carbon and, therefore, we may not be able to look to forests to eliminate the threat of global warming. As plants grow, they absorb carbon dioxide in their tissues and emit oxygen. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have been increasing for decades in conjunction with 8 Aug 2001 Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 2369 fossil fuel consumption, traffic and industrialisation. Many scientists believe the rising levels of CO2 and other emissions in the atmosphere are trapping more of the sun's heat, driving temperatures up and causing global warming. Some computer projections predict that levels of these so-called greenhouse gases will rise 35 per cent to 50 per cent in the next 50 years, with temperatures increasing along with them. Conservationists have advocated protecting existing forests and planting new ones so they can serve as carbon sinks which would help to regulate the atmosphere and moderate global warming. However, other studies suggest that those hopes are too optimistic. In a test plot, pipes steadily pumped an air mixture containing 560 parts per million of carbon dioxide into the tree canopy. It simulated what computer models predict atmospheric conditions will be like in 2050. In a control plot, pipes pumped conventional air with a carbon dioxide level of about 365 parts per million. The trees exposed to more carbon dioxide grew at a rate up to 25 per cent faster. In the two years since, the growth in the tree rings fumigated with extra carbon dioxide slowed to about the same rate as the control trees. It was reported that expectations that the trees would continue to sequester large amounts of additional carbon were unduly optimistic. The lead researcher blames the trees' return to slow growth on a shortage of other nutrients, notably nitrogen. When nitrogen was added to the test plots, those trees grew more quickly again. Farming, air pollution and other activities are increasing the levels of some forms of nitrogen in the environment, but those sources probably would not directly fertilise forests to a meaningful degree. Forests may slow down the rate of increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but most forests exhaust soil nutrients very quickly. From that point on, the trees showed no response. A second study examined decomposing leaves and roots on the floor of the experimental forest plots. They found that the total amount of litter increases in a carbon dioxide enriched atmosphere, but so does the rate at which it is broken down. The carbon returns to the atmosphere rather than being incorporated into the soil. Once a leaf falls from the tree, its carbon is recycled back into the atmosphere in about three years. There are still many questions to be answered, such as the issue of property rights. What happens if trees are destroyed by fire, flood, disease, drought, grubs or any other natural or man- made disaster? My understanding is that three titles could be issued over one plot of trees— one for the land, one for the wood and another for the carbon. This bill relates to the title over the carbon. My concern is the danger that forest farming will be promoted as a viable option before legitimate carbon credit trading systems actually become a reality and while there is still a great risk it might not even come about. It seems to me that everyone has jumped on the bandwagon. It is a bit like the story of the emperor's new clothes. Mr CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (4.14 p.m.): Today I rise in support of the Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill after a very hard act to follow, that is, the speech of the member for Tablelands. By the look on the face of the member for Callide he is eagerly awaiting a coalition government to be returned with the possibility of that type of backing. The Queensland Beattie Labor government has developed a range of policies designed to encourage the development of a vibrant and sustainable forest industry in Queensland that is able to fully participate in the full range of markets for forest products, including possible trading in carbon sequestered in trees established in plantations. To date, these policies have focused on several key areas, including the removal of legislative impediments constraining the expansion of private forestry in Queensland, which is obviously what is now before the House; the introduction of the South-East Queensland Forest Agreement; funding the set-up of regional plantations, farm forestry committees, tree grower cooperatives and other self-help groups across the state; providing advisory public information and extension services to landowners and other potential investors in private forestry; and a commitment to develop a Queensland forest practices system. The Queensland government is currently addressing one of the legal issues relating to the recognition of carbon sequestered in forest and other vegetation in Queensland. This legislative amendment is proposed to recognise carbon sequestration rights on freehold land by extending the definition of a profit a prendre to cover natural resource products. The intent of this legislation is to provide a legal basis for reference to carbon sequestration rights in contracts. As a result, it will facilitate trade in carbon credit sourced from carbon sinks in Queensland if and when such a market is established. Furthermore, the South-East Queensland Forest Agreement includes a major injection of government funding to establish a hardwood timber research and extension program, as well as a joint venture program to establish 5,000 hectares for the government's blueprint of the future management of Crown native forests in south-east Queensland and the basis for an internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable forest industry. 2370 Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 8 Aug 2001

The Queensland Forestry Research Institute, which is part of DPI's Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences, is developing high-value, short-rotation plantation hardwoods in an $8 million project called Hardwoods Queensland. In this project, QFRI is using its stocks of genetic material of suitable native tree species and its leading expertise and technology in softwoods to make rotational links for high-value timbers economically viable by reducing them to 25 years or less. Hardwoods Queensland addresses the whole research and development continuum, including genotype selection and mass planting stock production, establishment and management prescriptions, pest and disease protection, and processing and marketing, including the possibility of selling the carbon sequestered in the trees. The Queensland government is also committed to the development of 5,000 hectares of commercially focused hardwood sawlog plantations in south-east Queensland under its hardwood plantation program. The Department of Primary Industries' Forestry Division is coordinating this four-year hardwood plantation program, involving both government and privately-owned lands, which will provide a vital transitionary source for the timber industry. Apart from the parcels of Crown land dedicated to future plantations, the program aims to significantly increase the involvement of landowners and investors in private forestry in Queensland through commercial joint venture arrangements. This and future generations realise that the days of bulldozing everything in sight are gone. Not all of those who cleared or still clear land should be condemned. Only those who realised that land-clearing practices were not sustainable or those who withheld or kept this information to themselves will be criticised both now and in the future. While we on this side may be criticised for not being extreme enough, the conservatives will be ostracised. They still think and live in the 19th century. We now know that what we do to our most valuable environment today will have both short and long-term effects on mother nature. Our country, and indeed this great state, should be leaders in carbon credits. We owe it to this planet as we are a large contributor to global warming through mineral sales, including coal. I fully support this government's export policy, but we must be realists. We have the land and, God knows, we have the water. I again mention the millions of litres that we waste annually—I have actually heard it quoted as billions of litres—when we pump highly-treated sewage effluent into rivers and/or the ocean. Maybe it is time Australia's federal government took the lead, not that there are any real conservative leaders at the moment, and maybe it is time it showed some initiative, similar to what was done many years ago with, say, the Snowy Mountains river scheme. While the Snowy scheme may not be the most ideal example of environmentally friendly government infrastructure, it is a good example of a major initiative that this country took on. A major inland infrastructure of irrigation of arid land has been talked about for years. Instead of selling off the silver for short-term political gain, the failed Howard government should have funded a major long-term, environmentally significant and sustainable project. Much of the one- off funding would be far better addressed as long-term, ongoing, recurrent funding of many projects. Later this year when the present federal environment minister, Senator Hill, is replaced—the state National Party opposition agrees with us on that—by a competent environment minister, who will obviously be a Labor member once Labor is returned to government federally, this state Beattie Labor government should be down there, cap in hand, pushing the barrow to further capitalise on carbon credit trading. Whether or not the USA or other nations wish to be a part of our planet's ongoing improvements to environment sustainability, we owe it to our children, our children's children, our children's children's children—and even their kids. We owe it to all generations that will follow us on this wonderful planet that God created. Queensland, we all agree, is the greatest state in Australia, which is the greatest nation on earth. We need to do all we can to encourage and to be a part of the revegetation and greening of this planet. Decisions that we make when we vote in this House are recorded and they become a part of history. I hope that history judges us well. Only time will tell. I fully support this bill and commend it to the House. Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (4.22 p.m.): I rise to support the Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 2001. I cannot accept the less than optimistic view put forward by the member for Tablelands. We cannot afford to sit idly by and wait for the final decisions regarding the Kyoto protocol. By then it will be too late and Queensland will be left far behind—a missed opportunity. 8 Aug 2001 Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 2371

The bill seeks to come to grips with the need to bring some degree of clarity in respect of sequestered carbon in trees or other vegetation on freehold land in Queensland. Property owners have the right to know just where they stand regarding matters of ownership and property rights. This bill addresses these issues. The concept of trading in carbon credits has been brought to the fore as the world grapples with the greenhouse gas phenomenon and its serious implications for climate change. The Kyoto protocol, to which Australia is a signatory, provides for trading in carbon credits in a process of offsetting greenhouse emissions by nations with a substantial industrial base—that is, the developed world. The prospect of obtaining a financial return for the farming of trees in order to store quantities of carbon has generated a great deal of interest from primary producers in Queensland. Many are keen to enter into commercial arrangements with overseas firms responsible for substantial greenhouse emissions. Not all primary producers are motivated by profit alone. One such individual is Errol Wiles, a Babinda agroforester who has been involved in reafforestation activities for, to my knowledge, over a decade. Mr Wiles and I disagree on most things political, but no-one could doubt his credentials as a genuine environmentalist. Whilst many are merely talking about environmental issues, he is putting philosophy into practice. No doubt he will be closely following the passage of this bill through the House today. There are significant opportunities for plantation investments in this state by, as I understand, Japanese and Chinese corporations. These investors, like Queensland primary producers, will welcome the legislative mechanism which formally establishes ownership of and rights attached to stored carbon. It is vital that Queensland places itself in a favourable position to take full advantage of these commercial opportunities. Of course, the US Bush administration has turned back the clock on the substantive Kyoto framework, thus putting the future of the protocol at risk. Equally unfortunate is the sycophantic behaviour of the Howard government here in Australia. Whilst the status of the protocol remains unresolved, it is most relevant to put in place a legislative framework in the anticipation of a positive outcome. In a complementary initiative to the Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill, Minister Robertson recently announced government plans to interpret the Land Act more broadly to allow some rural leaseholders to diversify into additional land use activities to improve their economic viability and sustainability. Rural leasehold land constitutes more than 70 per cent of the land area of Queensland, so naturally the quality of the use and management of the leasehold estate has a major bearing on Queensland's long-term economic prosperity and natural resource sustainability. As the minister informed the House yesterday, he is writing to leaseholders to inform them about the new opportunities under this plan and to advise them that draft guidelines will be available for public comment from 20 August. The new approach will apply to holders of pastoral leases and grazing homestead perpetual leases and will allow them to diversify into complementary land use activities that can be conducted under existing legislation without impacting on native title. Activities may include some forms of aquaculture, timber plantations, small-scale feedlots, low-key tourism such as homestay enterprises, nature conservation, documentary and film-making, and crops traditionally not associated with these types of properties. The opportunity for some leaseholders to diversify into timber plantation activities will, under this bill, allow them to enter into carbon credit arrangements that will provide greater economic certainty and sustainability to their properties. However, the scale of diversification will be an important consideration. It will not be possible to approve new land uses which become the dominant enterprise on a property. The government's plan has been hailed by land-holders, rural industry groups and local authorities alike as a very progressive and practical way to address the problem of declining rural economic viability. The Department of Natural Resources and Mines has begun consulting with other relevant state government departments, rural industry bodies and conservation and indigenous interest groups to develop final guidelines to determine the appropriate scales of each use. This new approach to land diversification is designed to assist rural land-holders facing economic difficulties. In a general climate of declining rural profitability, farmers have genuine 2372 Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 8 Aug 2001 concerns about the long-term viability of their farms and their ability to respond to changing local and international markets. This bill will allow Queensland leaseholders to spread their economic risk into complementary activities, thus making them less reliant on traditional commodities and less vulnerable to commodity price crashes. A review of diversification on leasehold land complements the Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill, which also addresses the need for land-holders to find new sustainable ways to use the natural resources on their land. I believe the Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill to be timely and proactive. I support the bill. Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (4.28 p.m.), in reply: First, I thank all members from both sides of the House who have spoken in the debate on the Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill. In particular I thank the opposition members, who have indicated their support for this legislation. I will deal with a number of issues brought up particularly by members opposite. This bill amends the Forestry Act 1959 and the Land Title Act 1994 to clarify the legal ownership and property rights of landowners and other parties in carbon absorbed or stored by trees and other vegetation on freehold land in Queensland. Honourable members are aware that the Kyoto protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change, to which Australia is a signatory, envisaged an emissions trading scheme that incorporates carbon credit trading for offsetting emissions. This has initiated significant global interest in forestry plantations to potentially generate carbon credits from carbon sequestered in timber plantations, forests and other vegetation. Recent international negotiations at Bonn have progressed agreement on this issue. This agreement provides the basis for ratification of the Kyoto protocol, given greater flexibility and strategies to meet targets—that is, the ability to count sequestration arising from forest, grazing and crop land management. While the United States was not involved in the recent negotiations, and this still represents a sticking point for ratification of Kyoto, hope for agreement in the near future is strong. There is growing interest from both the forest industry and the rural sector generally in opportunities associated with carbon credits. There is also significant interest from energy industries—nationally and internationally—and high-energy emitters regarding the purchase of such credits. This amendment will bring Queensland into line with other states which have already recognised carbon rights and will position Queensland to capture investment opportunities associated with farm forestry and plantation establishment. International investors continue to investigate the commercial viability of plantation investments in Queensland and opportunities to generate carbon sequestration, conditional on a legislative mechanism to recognise ownership of rights. Heightened investor interest indicates that action should be taken to position Queensland to take full advantage of forestry investment in the event that a possible emissions trading scheme is established. The amendment will mean that landowners and other interested parties will be able to enter into contracts about the ownership, or exchange of ownership and use, of carbon rights generated by trees and vegetation on freehold land in Queensland, with these rights registered on their land title. However, this bill is not about land clearing—about which the member for Darling Downs indicated some concern. Mechanisms for emissions trading under the Kyoto Protocol specifically relate to trees planted after 1990 on land previously used for other activities. Tree clearing is about retaining current vegetation and thus not increasing the greenhouse emissions associated with the clearing, for example, from burning timber. In addition, the amendment will apply only to carbon on freehold land, not leasehold land. However, as the member for Mackay stated previously in this debate, it paves the way for the development of a stand-alone Natural Resources Property Act and the possible development of future legislation addressing management of a broader range of natural resource products across all land tenures. The bill is simple in its intent and operation. It defines a natural resource product—the carbon stored by trees and other vegetation. It then permits landowners to enter into contracts with other interested parties regarding the ownership of that carbon, and it allows that contract to be registered on the land title as a recognised land interest or a profit a prendre. It thus provides greater forestry activity with both greenhouse and other natural resource benefits. This action should be taken to position Queensland to take full advantage of forestry investments and minimise the competitive advantage of other jurisdictions in attracting investment. The bill is the first step to establishing a generic framework pertaining to natural resource products in an effort to provide a context for focusing and linking ownership and dealing in other natural resource commodities that may arise in the future. 8 Aug 2001 Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 2373

I should respond to some of the comments made by the member for Tablelands. Whilst I do not agree with the scientific arguments that she put forward, nonetheless—as we have seen in this House over the past week—we can have quite vigorous debates about science and how science gets interpreted. As we know, there is nothing certain in science; and we have seen that in various debates in this place this week. Nonetheless, what this bill represents is the first step. We are not rushing ahead. I think the member mentioned New South Wales as a state that perhaps has rushed into a carbon trading scheme. We are not taking that approach. We are taking a very cautious approach, because the last thing that we want to see is, as a result of actions taken by government to promote carbon trading in a fairly uncertain environment, all sorts of less than savoury investment schemes being created that may only result in tears in the years to come. Nevertheless, we think and believe that the amendment before the House today, as a first step, at least gets people thinking about the possibilities that may arise as a global emissions trading scheme is developed as a result of activities or discussions in Bonn over the last couple of weeks. As I said, I do not agree necessarily with the science the member for Tablelands put forward. I believe the evidence is pretty clear about the growing problem of greenhouse emissions on this planet and the role that trees and other activities can play in reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. But as I said, we are not rushing ahead. We are taking a very cautious approach to it, but we do not want to be left behind. I commend to the member for Tablelands a publication by the government called 'Carbon Credits from Forestry—Questions and Answers for Rural Landholders'. It probably needs a little updating as a result of what has happened in Bonn, but I commend that publication to her. I was going to say the same thing to the member for Darling Downs, but he has left the chamber. This publication sets out in fairly clear language where the debate is currently, what we are doing, and the path ahead that we see ourselves travelling down as things become a bit clearer on the international scene. I will make sure that one of the attendants takes a copy of this over to the member for Tablelands. I hope she reads it. The Forestry Act 1959 is considered the most appropriate legislation to amend, as it is concerned with forests and associated products on all land tenure and will simplify the process of enabling parties to register interest and deal in natural resource products. No doubt one of the things that we will be discussing in the years ahead will be not just carbon trading schemes as they may develop but, interestingly enough, we are also looking on a national basis at salinity trading schemes as one of the ways to attract commercial interest in the problem of salinity right across our landscape. That is something that the Murray-Darling Commission is working on at the moment. When I was in Canberra last week, I received quite an extensive briefing from the Murray-Darling Commission on what it is looking at in terms of a salinity trading scheme along the same principles as we are starting to see with respect to carbon trading. As the member for Kallangur mentioned, there will be considerable flexibility for land-holders and forestry managers associated with the provision of carbon sequestration associated with profit a prendre agreements. An owner of sequestered carbon will be able to enter into a contract to firstly sell the rights to this carbon and then a further contract to a different party giving rights to harvest his timber, registering both interests through profit a prendre agreements on his land title, thus constraining actions to harvest the timber without consideration of the interests in carbon. However, as in future contracts, the interest in the sequestered carbon, or timber, is not linked to specific trees, just to the delivery of products of defined quality as specified in the contract. This then allows for considerable flexibility in land management arrangements. Yesterday afternoon during this debate, the member for Callide suggested that the bill did not contain a sufficient definition of 'vegetation'. In fact, the bill does define 'vegetation'. I understand that the member for Callide was actually briefed on this issue by my department earlier in the week. But it is probably useful to clarify this issue in Hansard. The Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 2001 provides a definition for 'natural resource product' that includes parts of a tree or vegetation, including parts above and below ground, whether alive or dead. Under the Forestry Act 1959 a very broad definition of 'forest products' is used, covering all vegetable growth and material of vegetable origin, whether living or dead. However, this definition excludes specifically grasses or crops grown on a Crown holding by the lessee or by a licensee or on a forest entitlement area by the lessee or owner. Given that the Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 2001 applies to freehold land, this exclusion does not extend to the intent of its definition. 2374 Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 8 Aug 2001

If I remember rightly, the member for Callide questioned the definition of 'vegetation' in the context of what we are seeing as a result of negotiations in Bonn. I guess plants other than trees can be factored in for calculating levels of carbon sequestration. If I remember rightly, the member might have mentioned saltbush as one of those plants that perhaps should be included in the definition. It is. In fact, just recently as a result of what I heard went on in Bonn with respect to the Australian position put forward by Senator Hill, plants such as saltbush were targeted specifically as part of the Australian position for recognition because of its multiple benefits. We get not only a carbon benefit from planting that type of vegetation but also we receive a salinity benefit. That is something that we are looking at through the Murray-Darling Commission—the appropriate use of saltbush in a mixed-farming scenario that might provide benefits not just in terms of carbon but also in terms of salinity. I hope that has addressed the member's query. I suppose he will raise the matter again during the committee stage and we can perhaps have a chat about it then. It should be noted also that the Vegetation Management Act 1999 uses a very specific definition of 'vegetation' targeted to the purposes of that act. While including a native tree or a native plant, it excludes specifically grasses and mangroves. The definition of 'natural resource' used in the Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 2000 is 'means a tree or vegetation'. Therefore, this definition includes specifically vegetation other than trees, including grasses and shrubs. The reason this definition was used was to allow the recognition of all vegetation that could sequester carbon. A further issue is the inclusion in the definition of a 'natural resource product' of soil carbon, a potential significant source of carbon sequestration. The definition of a 'natural resource product' used in the amendment refers to 'all parts of a tree or vegetation, whether alive or dead, including parts below the ground'. Thus while carbon in the soil associated with organic matter will be included as a natural resource product, inorganic or mineralised carbon will not. In conclusion, the Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 2001 recognises grasses under the definition of 'vegetation' and also includes organic but not inorganic or mineralised soil carbon under this definition. The amendment reflects the first step towards a greater recognition of the broader natural resource commodities such as salinity and biodiversity on both freehold and leasehold land. Given the greater certainty of major sequestration activities being included in a final Kyoto protocol, this amendment remains a major step in positioning Queensland to capture future opportunities arising from greenhouse response actions. I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) in charge of the bill. Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr SEENEY (4.44 p.m.): I will not take up too much of the time of the chamber, but before I refer specifically to clause 4, I would like to commend the minister for his closing remarks. I think that some of the other members who spoke in the second reading debate should study carefully what the minister had to say, because I think that he reinforced some of the concerns that I expressed in the second reading debate about the need to not oversell this legislation and not to let what is understandable enthusiasm get away. I think that the minister's reply to the second reading debate encapsulated the need to be cautious about the way in which this legislation is interpreted. Unfortunately, I think that the contributions of some of the government backbenchers bordered on overenthusiasm. This whole area of carbon credits trading—the whole purpose of this legislation—has our support. There is no doubt that we support this legislation. But I would certainly be very concerned if it was construed as opening the door to increasing farm viability, as I think one particular speaker said. The question of whether or not the opportunities that this legislation opens up will ever be used will be determined by international policy makers, of which Australia will play only a very small part, given that we are only a very small part of the international community. I think that the member for Kawana talked about going cap in hand down to Canberra and making sure that land-holders could benefit from this. That is arrant nonsense and everybody should understand that. If there are opportunities to be gained by the Queensland economy or Queensland land- 8 Aug 2001 Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 2375 holders, then we are all in favour of the framework being put in place so that we can make the most of those opportunities. But let us not oversell the issue. Let us not run away with airy-fairy nonsense that will inspire false hopes and false schemes in land-holders about boosting their economic viability. All of that may happen in time, and I certainly join with the minister and most other people in hoping that that does happen. But whether or not it will happen will not be determined by the Queensland parliament. It will not be determined by this legislation or any other legislation that the Queensland parliament passes. The carbon trading question will be an international policy decision. We can be part of that decision-making process, but we can have only a very small influence. I want to clarify the definition question, about which I still have some doubts. I think that, from listening to the minister's closing remarks, he and I are of a like mind. However, I raise the question of why the definition is as it is in the legislation. The definition of a 'natural resource product' includes the following—

(a) all parts of a tree or vegetation, whether alive or dead, including parts below the ground. I take it from what the minister said that he is interpreting 'vegetation' as including all of those other things that I mentioned in my contribution during the second reading debate that I believe it should include. In fact, the member for Barron River quoted a definition—I am not sure where she was quoting it from—that included things such as shrubs, grasses and that type of vegetation that, on a first reading at least, is absent from the definition in this legislation. I did not quite understand the explanation that the minister gave, which obviously was prepared for him as a response to the questions that I asked in the briefing that we received from the department. Is the minister contending that 'vegetation' is defined somewhere else and that, therefore, there is no need to define it here? Or is there some other reason why it was not defined here? I think that the whole area of concern could be put to rest quite quickly by adopting the definition that the member for Barron River quoted. I am not sure where she quoted it from, because it is not in the definition that is contained in the legislation. If that definition that the member quoted were in the legislation, it would cover adequately any concerns that anybody might have and it would ensure that the legislation was broad enough to encompass all of those possibilities that I spoke about in my contribution in the second reading debate. I wonder why the definition in the legislation does not include the words 'including shrubs and grasses'. Why does it not take away that doubt? It appears to me that it would have been very simple to have written the legislation as the member for Barron River said. It would have removed all doubt. I would appreciate some comments from the minister on why the definition is the way that it is. I hope that he can clear up that issue. I certainly have no problems supporting the legislation. I would welcome some comments from the minister. Mr ROBERTSON: There is nothing behind the way that the definition has been written. The member read out the definition of a natural resource product. I think its meaning is quite explicit. The words are 'all parts of a tree or vegetation'. A commonsense reading of that would include trees, shrubs, grasses and organic soil carbon associated with below-ground components of trees, shrubs and grasses. I appreciate what the member says, but I do not necessarily see that the definition is lacking in any way. When it says 'all parts of a tree or vegetation', clearly that is all encompassing in terms of any plant that one could possibly think of. As I said in my speech on the second reading debate, and I am happy to say it again, the definition allows for the recognition of any carbon sequestered from normal activities involving trees or vegetation. Therefore, included under the definition of 'natural resource product' are trees, shrubs, grasses, and organic soil carbon associated with the below-ground components of the three types I just mentioned, either alive or in the process of breakdown, that is, dead. However, this definition of 'natural resource product', in line with its location in the Forestry Act, does not include mineralised carbon or inorganic carbon in the soil and other means of sequestered carbon such as geosequestration, that is, the pumping of carbon into layers below the ground. I hope that satisfies the member's question. Mr SEENEY: I certainly do not want to be difficult on this particular issue because, as I have said all along, I agree with the legislation. I believe that the assurances that the minister is giving certainly address the points of concern that I have raised. However, I have to make the point that this is the second piece of legislation that the minister has brought into the House where the explanation that he has given to the House is not mirrored in the wording of the legislation. This 2376 Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill 8 Aug 2001 issue could quite readily have been made a lot clearer if the definition in the bill had been better worded. The problem that I have is that the definition of 'natural resource product' refers to vegetation. The last piece of legislation that this House considered that included a definition of 'vegetation' was the Vegetation Management Bill. That legislation specifically limited the definition of 'vegetation' to trees. In the interests of legislative consistency, it would be reasonable to expect that a similar definition would be used in this legislation, unless the minister specifically stated otherwise. He could have done that quite easily by using the definition that the member for Barron River quoted in her contribution to the second reading debate. He could have easily taken away any concern that anyone could have had. A couple of times in his summing up to the second reading debate and again in response to my initial inquiry, the minister said the right things. The things that he said addressed the issue that I raised, so why did he not put that in the legislation? Why was the legislation not written to cover that eventuality? Why has the minister not been prepared to amend the legislation, if he wanted to go to that extent? Once again we are put in the position of having to rely on the Hansard record of what the minister said in the debate. I do not think that that is the right way to handle legislation. Legislation has to be broad enough to cover all the eventualities and concerns that might be raised. It must cover every possible interpretation that might be put upon it in years to come. This legislation will be relevant for the long term. Perhaps neither the minister nor I will be here when it is eventually put into place. As I said the last time that we debated this topic, it will be worse than useless for any protagonist who is arguing about the interpretation of this legislation to go into a court of law or wherever and wave around a copy of the Hansard containing the assurances that the minister gave me in this House. The legislation will be interpreted strictly according to the way that it is written. The minister and his officers who prepare legislation need to be aware of that so that their legislation covers these eventualities, rather than asking us to rely upon the assurances that I know that the minister is giving in good faith. I accept that the assurances that the minister gives in response to this concern are given in good faith. However, the standard of work produced by the parliament would be much enhanced if the minister addressed these issues in the legislation. He should take more care to make sure that legislation is written in a way that clearly reflects his intent. In this case, we are once again seeing legislation written one way and the minister saying that his intent is something else. I do not think that is a good position to be in. I recommend to the minister that we do not do this a third time. I am not going to divide or move an amendment, as I possibly could, to make my point. I support the legislation, but I do not support this type of sloppy wording. I do not support a situation where we come in here and question the way that the legislation is written, and then the minister stands up in good faith and says, 'That wasn't my intent. My intent was something else.' While I accept that in this case that was the minister's intent, I think that the legislation could have been worded much better. Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for Callide for his advice. It has been noted. I do appreciate that he is not going to divide on this, so I will not provoke him in any way that might somehow affect the outbreak of goodwill that has clearly occurred over the last couple of days. Three bills have been introduced into the House on which members opposite have agreed with the government. That is appreciated. As I said, the member's comments have been noted. We retain the belief that when the man or woman in the street reads this legislation, as I am sure they will, and when they read the words 'tree' and 'vegetation', they will understand what the common usage of those words is, that is, all parts of a tree or vegetation, whether alive or dead, including parts below the ground. They know that that is an all-encompassing definition. I appreciate the advice of the member for Callide, as I always do. In the near future, should we be in a position to further amend this legislation as things develop, I hope to be able to accept the useful advice that he has provided me with. I hope we will do better next time. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clauses 5 to 7, as read, agreed to Schedule, as read, agreed to. 8 Aug 2001 Consumer Credit (Queensland) Amendment Bill 2377

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Robertson, by leave, read a third time. CONSUMER CREDIT (QUEENSLAND) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 29 May (see p. 1141). Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (5 p.m.): At the outset, I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the bill before the parliament, which seeks to amend the Consumer Credit (Queensland) Act to ensure that, in availing themselves of a greater range of finance, people are protected by certain disclosure laws requiring the lender to fully and frankly disclose the terms of the loan, require loan contracts to be in writing with a copy provided to the consumer, make lenders accountable for the payments made by consumers, and provide that a consumer can challenge a loan contract if it is unfair or oppressive. Over the past few months, many honourable members would have received correspondence on the issue of micro or payday lending. Certainly, there has been correspondence from those in the industry indicating that everything is rosy and that we should not treat them too harshly. I am sure the minister is aware of that type of correspondence and email. Before I go to the detail of what we are trying to achieve today, I wish to make a few general comments about the act we are dealing with and also some of the issues that consumers of credit have to deal with on a daily basis in the general community. Over time, the government has wanted to make sure that it did what it possibly could to protect consumers in the state and also on a national level. That makes sense. A lot of people are extremely vulnerable. Not everyone can borrow $100,000 or $200,000 and pay it back in five years. Therefore, there are risks for lenders and borrowers. A moment ago, I spoke about people coming to see honourable members in their offices. A few years ago, when the legislation was introduced making financial institutions far more responsible for considering the ability of people to pay back a loan before a sum of money was provided to them, I had people coming to my office complaining that they had been hard done by, that they could pay back a loan and that money should be lent to them. Although it is not totally prescriptive and does not say that financial institutions cannot provide people with money, I think financial institutions are being more responsible with their lending. That is extremely important, because we do not want people being caught on the lending treadmill. Some people do not even have the capacity to pay back $10,000 to $20,000 either because of low income, lifestyle choices or issues that arise and not necessarily through any decision that they have deliberately made; things do happen. This bill seeks to address much smaller borrowings—sums of money that you and I, Mr Deputy Speaker, and most other honourable members would take for granted as being able to pay back. I refer to amounts such as $200 through to $500 and sometimes even $50. Some people have trouble paying back those amounts of money. Over the last decade or so, the financial institutions in Australia have increasingly come under the consumer microscope and are now also far more critically analysed and commented upon by parliamentarians, the media and a whole range of other people in the community. Over the past two decades, there have been some significant changes and repositionings amongst our major financial institutions, the major banks, throughout Australia. We note that they are very accountable to their shareholders now. Shareholders want to know that the money they invest by way of shares will attract a dividend. There is a competing interest between the social obligation to the community at large and the obligation to the people who direct them, that is, the shareholders. That is something that they need to be very much aware of. As she travels around, the minister would hear the same concerns that I hear, that is, that financial institutions are not necessarily living up to their social obligations. Whilst I accept that they have to make decisions that are financially sound and that there are obligations under the Corporations Law to do that, there are also social obligations. I suppose someone on $1.5 million a year, plus share bonuses and a whole range of other incentives probably does not understand how a person with a $50,000 loan would feel or the way a community feels when it loses its only financial institution. That is of concern to us. Over the 2378 Consumer Credit (Queensland) Amendment Bill 8 Aug 2001 past 20 years, the federal government has gone down the track of deregulation of the banking industry. It is very sad that we have not seen a charter of social responsibilities enshrining certain responsibilities on banks and other financial organisations to accept greater obligations to consumers and the public at large. Anyone who represents an electorate where there have been bank branch closures—and I note the honourable member for Aspley has spoken about this on a couple of occasions in parliament—understands the feeling of vulnerability that communities experience when they lose their one and only financial institution. It is not just a matter of telephone banking and being able to whip down to an ATM; they are just not there. Some people do not have the confidence to use the latest technology to make transactions, and we should not be forcing them to do so. This transition is an issue. Other people do not always share in the available technology that allows them to bank on the Internet. It is important that, when dealing with issues of consumer credit and financing, we reflect on some of the issues that communities have had to face over a long period. No doubt generations of parliamentarians in this place in future will be speaking about the same sorts of issues. I do not think I had even heard about payday and micro lending until a couple of years ago. By and large, it was not around until a couple of years ago. We have addressed the larger financial institutions, which are very highly regulated, as I indicated earlier, in their dealings with the people they lend money to—and for good reason. However, over the past couple of years we have seen a whole new category of lender opening up—payday and micro lenders—that are not bound, because of the nature of the finance that they provide, to the provisions of the Consumer Credit Code. That is of particular concern to me. I commend the minister for bringing this legislation into the parliament. I understand this is something that will be applied right across Australia. What we are dealing with is template legislation basically designed by Western Australia— Mrs Rose: No, New South Wales. We did. Mr SPRINGBORG: We designed this one and other states are picking it up as template legislation. It is important that that loophole is closed. Anyone who has witnessed one of these micro lending or payday operations has to be a little concerned. I am not saying that there are not people of great integrity involved in these operations, but I think it is also fair to say that there are also some fairly unscrupulous people involved in this type of lending and they prey on vulnerable people. It behoves the parliament to move to ensure that those vulnerable people are protected. I have witnessed one of these operations in my part of the world. It is of real concern to see the despondent, vulnerable people who walk through the doors, obviously to get the money that they need to live for the next week or whatever the case may be. You just know that they are in a debt spiral and that they are not actually going to get out of it. This bill seeks to provide that this legislation will apply if the interest rate exceeds 24 per cent per annum and if the fees and charges payable exceed five per cent per annum. By and large, many of these types of loans do not go beyond 62 days, when the existing Consumer Credit Code applies. This sort of provision will actually address that problem. I note that the minister indicated in her second reading speech that some interest rates add up to about 1,300 per cent per annum. That is quite unbelievable. Imagine if a person borrowed $100. After a year they would have to repay $1,300, and that does not even take into account the effect of compounding interest on a simple loan like that. Then there are also default fees. Let us say a person borrows $100 and cannot pay it back. They would then have to pay a $21 default fee this week, another $21 next week and so on. I know that the minister has heard of these sorts of situations. If any member in this parliament had to repay $100, we would probably just do that once we receive next week's pay cheque. However, we are dealing here with people who live from hand to mouth. A lot of people live that way. They are extremely vulnerable. They do not have that sort of money and do not have the disposable income. So they borrow a couple of hundred dollars this week and a couple of hundred dollars in a month's time. They will not have even paid that off and they will be borrowing more. In some cases what they stand to lose is quite extraordinary. I would like to ask the minister one thing for further clarification. I understand that this may not necessarily extend to loans of less than $200. Is that right? A concern was raised with me about that by an organisation recently. 8 Aug 2001 Consumer Credit (Queensland) Amendment Bill 2379

Mrs Rose: It will. Mr SPRINGBORG: That is what I was coming to. I was going to seek from the minister an assurance that it would apply to amounts much less than that—I would say even down to zero. Whilst what the minister is doing in applying it to these payday loans, which are typically less than 62 days, is commendable, it is important that it also applies to those loans of less than $200 because many of those people I talked about being so vulnerable are in that category. It is often the $50, $100 or $250 loan that causes problems. We need to make sure we take it right back so that they are protected. If we do that and if the minister brings that amendment into this parliament at some future time, we will have legislation that addresses the legitimate concerns of the community with regards to payday or micro-lending and will also ensure that there is not a category of people out there who are going to be missed and who are not going to be protected, because they are particularly vulnerable. I would not know what the number would be, but there is actually a large number of people who take up this service who are seeking to borrow the equivalent of half their pay cheque to tide them over, and that might be $50, $100 or $120. I do commend the minister for that. I think it is a step in the right direction. We have an obligation as a parliament to ensure that we regulate to protect people. I know a lot of people out there complain of overregulation by government and say that we should have more of a free market approach. However, I would say that the people elect members of parliament to ensure that we do not have rule of the jungle. We would have rule of the jungle if we were not here looking at these sorts of social, economic and financial issues under which a lot of people really do suffer. I believe that this sort of legislation is important. It is a step in the right direction. I commend the minister for bringing it to the parliament. I know that the parliament is going to support it. I very much look forward to the minister in her response indicating to me when it is going to be taken below that $200 threshold, because a number of people are going to be looking and waiting for that. I have pleasure, as does the opposition, in supporting this legislation. Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (5.14 p.m.): I have pleasure in rising to support the Consumer Credit (Queensland) Amendment Bill 2001. This amendment to the Consumer Credit (Queensland) Act of 1994 is sensible, responsible and timely in that it acts to close a loophole in existing legislation that currently leaves the most vulnerable in our communities open to financial exploitation. It is my intention today to outline the purpose of this amendment bill. But before I do that in any more detail, I want to spend a few moments setting an historical context for the amendment. In the 1960s a consumer's access to credit facilities was very different from what it is today. Variable interest consumer loans were unknown, credit cards did not exist and credit gimmicks such as the 12-month interest-free period were not available. Perhaps that is why we or our parents talk about the 'good old days'. I think life in relation to consumer credit was certainly much simpler back in the sixties. In 1987 the Queensland parliament enacted the Credit Act in an attempt to regulate the credit market. While the legislation was well intentioned, it is widely agreed that it did not provide the intended clarity or direction needed in the marketplace. It has been variously described as being drafted in a difficult and convoluted manner, rendering it almost impossible to either administer or be honestly complied with. The obscure and technical nature of the act made it difficult to interpret while, at the same time, containing extremely large penalties for breaches of the act. In addition, it was acknowledged that, because of changes in credit provision, the law was virtually outdated before it was even enacted. The Consumer Credit (Queensland) Bill of 1994 was a significant attempt to overcome the failures of that previous act. This bill was something of a milestone in terms of the way that it was created. The Consumer Credit Bill of 1994 was created as template legislation, as the member for Southern Downs quite rightly referred to. It came about following eight years of consultation between all state governments and territories as well as industry representatives. In 1994 a then more youthful member for Brisbane Central referred to the process of developing this template legislation as 'cooperative federalism'. He went on to espouse the benefits of delivering uniform legislative standards across the country, and this is as true today as it was in 1994. Significantly, the amendment bill before the House today continues as template legislation that will be adopted by all states and territories with the exception of Western Australia. In the process of developing template legislation, it is necessary to obtain two-thirds majority support from the state and territory Ministers for Fair Trading and Consumer Affairs. This has, 2380 Consumer Credit (Queensland) Amendment Bill 8 Aug 2001 indeed, been achieved. In addition, there was broad consultation with key industry stakeholders including consumer groups, mainstream financier industry bodies, academics, the legal profession and payday lending organisations. As I stated at the outset, the purpose of the amendment bill before the House today is to close a loophole in the existing Consumer Credit Code that has allowed payday lenders to avoid regulation. Payday lenders simply did not exist back in 1994. They are a new breed of fringe lender that have emerged in Australia over the past two years. They offer customers short-term cash loans between paydays. It is not the purpose of this legislation to make moral judgments about such practices but, rather, to regulate their practices in order to protect the consumer from unscrupulous payday lenders who have the potential to see vulnerable people tied into an insidious spiral of debt and financial and social crisis. The code as it already exists provides protection to consumers who borrow money. For example, there is a requirement for lenders to fully and frankly disclose the terms of the loan prior to the consumer signing the loan contract, including the fees and charges payable, the interest rate, the amount of the repayments, the term of the loan and whether security is required. There is also a requirement for loan contracts to be in writing. The lender must provide the consumer with a copy of the loan. There is also a requirement that lenders must properly account for repayments made. In addition, the lender must ensure that the borrower can repay the loan without substantial hardship and there are restrictions on the types of security that can be demanded. There are also restrictions preventing a lender from taking court or recovery action against a borrower without first contacting the borrower and providing that borrower with an opportunity to make good any arrears or default. While these requirements have always existed, they have not applied to payday lending. This is a form of consumer credit that has escaped regulation by virtue of the fact that the loans are taken out for a period of less than 62 days, thus falling outside the jurisdiction of the existing legislation. Of course, payday lenders do not always spell out the realities of the loan conditions or provide a written contract for unsuspecting consumers, who are often desperate for a relatively small sum of money to tide them over until their next payday. I ask members to imagine that they are low-income earners who have depleted accessible income during the Christmas-New Year period—and I might add that one does not have to be a low-income earner to find oneself in this situation—who then find themselves with back-to-school expenses, which may involve finding funds to send a child to another town or city to attend a university. It does not really defy the imagination to believe that an offer of easy money to tide one over should be an attractive proposition. The difficulty comes when, having received the next pay, there are a range of bills and living expenses that just have to be met, leaving inadequate funds to repay the payday credit provider. Before long, the unwitting consumer is entangled in a web of growing interest payments that simply cannot be met. The type of effective interest rates that we are talking about are not to be taken lightly. As the minister mentioned in her second reading speech, the rates that are charged can range between 235 per cent to over 1,300 per cent per annum. It does not take a brilliant mind to realise that interest rates of these magnitudes can easily overwhelm an individual's capacity to repay what might have initially seemed to be a manageable sum of money. This bill acts to close the loophole that leads to this situation by providing that if the loan is for less than 62 days and the interest rate exceeds 24 per cent the code applies to the transaction. Similarly, this bill will apply to the transactions if the fees and charges payable on the loan exceed five per cent of the amount of the loan and the loan is for less than 62 days. These two new regulations will act to protect unwitting or vulnerable people from unknowingly signing up for a loan that could well destroy their lives. This bill is a commonsense approach to the further regulation of the consumer credit industry. It has the support of all the states and territories, with the exception of Western Australia. I commend it to the House. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (5.22 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the Consumer Credit (Queensland) Amendment Bill 2001. Many people watch current affairs programs, and all too often they show too many stories of honest, decent people being ripped off—people who are living pay to pay trying to make ends meet but who are then caught out by the unscrupulous practice of payday lending. Payday lenders are a new breed of fringe lender in Australia. They offer customers short-term cash loans between paydays. Payday loans are marketed as being quick, easy and convenient to obtain. They are advertised as being available on the spot, cash when you need it, cash within an hour. It all sounds a little bit too easy. We 8 Aug 2001 Consumer Credit (Queensland) Amendment Bill 2381 have heard the saying that if it sounds too good to be true then it is too good to be true. This certainly applies to some of the practices in the payday lending industry. Although payday lending is a new industry to Australia, it has rapidly grown. There are three major payday lenders in Australia whose franchises keep emerging all over the country. If the USA, Canada or Europe are any indication of this practice, it will keep growing. With more and more people living pay to pay thanks to the introduction of the GST, I have no doubt this industry will continue to grow. The concerns of this industry are not confined to Queensland. Similar concerns are being raised all over the country, and this has turned into a national problem. It was Queensland that first started to inquire into the concerns being raised. In March 2000 the previous Minister for Fair Trading, Judy Spence, established a working party to look at the practices of payday lending. What are some of the particular problems? Payday lenders lend small amounts of money. They appeal to decent, honest people—usually battlers on low incomes, welfare recipients or people who may not be eligible for a loan from a bank, building society or credit union. So what is the problem? Currently, the industry is unregulated as it does not fall into the regulation of the Consumer Credit Code because they are lending to people for a period less than 62 days. The lenders do not express the loan in terms of an interest rate but instead use the term of a charge. When this charge is converted to an interest rate, it is in the order of 500 per cent to 1,300 per cent per annum. This depends on how long the advance is for. One complaint was received from a couple who borrowed $50. They found themselves on the ever-spiralling credit trap and could not afford to repay the money. In only eight months they owed $700. The fees charged were very high and consumers are not always made aware of this. This certainly highlights the unscrupulous practice of offering small loans at exorbitant cost to those who can least afford it. They are ripping people off who live day to day or perhaps who have circumstances in their life at the time that has made them desperate for some money. They are ripping people off through exploiting a loophole that currently exists. When the Consumer Credit Code was introduced to offer the public protection from all forms of consumer credit, loans of less than 62 days were exempted to allow banks to provide short- term bridging finance and for trade credit arrangements. Statistics show that a large number of women are users of fringe credit providers—women who are struggling to keep the family going, keep the bills paid and food on the table. However, it is unscrupulous practices that are in fact leading to these people struggling. If we compare the cost of a payday loan to a credit card, the results speak for themselves. The fee for a $100 advance from a payday lender can be up to $3.50 per day. For $100 owing on a credit card, the interest bill at 18 per cent is approximately 5c per day. That is about 70 times less than the payday loan. Many of us complain about the high cost of a credit card, but imagine being hit with a bill 70 times that amount. Because of the unregulated environment, contracts are not signed and most times contracts are never offered to clients. In other words, the industry is growing with no regulation in place. It becomes free for all to enforce any rules they want. Sometimes they ask clients for security over the loan. At times the security can be worth several thousands of dollars for a couple of hundred dollars being lent. Some people have had cars repossessed through the non-payment of a small loan. What can happen is that the lender can take a bill of sale over the car. Currently, there is no requirement for a contract, no regulation on fees and charges and no regulation on the security that can be taken on the loan. In other words, they can make up the rules and the consumer cannot challenge an unfair contract in court. What is even more disturbing is that they are hurting people—people who need our support and help and people who do not deserve to be ripped off. These people usually fall more and more into the credit trap. They go and get money that is desperately needed. When they cannot pay it back, they go and get another loan, and the cycle keeps going. When we think it can stoop no lower, there are reports that threats and bullying tactics are being used to have money repaid. Being in financial debt to the point where it is almost uncontrollable is quite a strain physically and emotionally to anyone, but then being threatened and bullied must be one of the most frightening experiences. Some operators—and I repeat that it is only some operators—in the industry are abusing consumer credit and fair trading legislation. People who may be stuck in a financial nightmare may look at getting some advice on budgeting or how to make ends meet, and this may help them during such a stressful time. In grades 11 and 12 my school offered a subject that was then called consumer education. It was a great subject. It involved learning about lending, particularly the different types of loans available. It also involved establishing a business and then operating that business. Of course, budgeting 2382 Consumer Credit (Queensland) Amendment Bill 8 Aug 2001 was another part of the subject. It was great, because we were put into real-life situations. It certainly gave me great knowledge for when I started my working life. Today, the Queensland government assists school leavers by giving practical tips to school leavers in the Psst! Post School Survival Tips booklet. The booklet is distributed to all grade 12 school leavers and gives sound advice on topics such as buying a car, smart shopping tips and buying a computer. I am pleased to say that it also contains very good advice on credit. It provides advice on common credit contracts such as mobile phone agreements or a credit card. Most importantly, it identifies the pitfalls of getting caught in the credit trap. It has been noted that 700 Queenslanders under the age of 25 declared themselves bankrupt in the 1999-2000 financial year. This is a disturbing trend, as the figures have increased dramatically in recent years. The failure of young people to manage finances is a matter that deserves attention. That is what Psst! is all about: assisting young people to become street wise and make informed choices on consumer issues. The Beattie Labor government wants to protect Queensland consumers from being caught in the credit trap. Some of the credit advice in Psst! states— Watch the Sharks—Despite the efforts of both government and business, there are some unscrupulous operators who will try to rip off consumers. Some traps to look out for: ... Up front fees which are non-refundable, there is still no guarantee you will get your money at a reasonable rate. ... 'Short-term credit under 62 days' sometimes known as Pay Day Lending. A fee could be charged which could equal 1300% annual interest on the money you are borrowing. I must say, complaints about payday lending make the loan sharks look like dolphins. I am pleased that the Beattie Labor government has introduced this bill as I know it will put an end to this unregulated environment. This bill ensures that consumers receive full disclosure of terms. Contracts will be written and a copy will be given to the consumer. This will enable court challenges if the contract is unfair or oppressive. This bill provides the protection that all Queensland credit consumers deserve. Payday lenders should be subject to the same laws that apply to the other forms of lending in Queensland. I congratulate the previous minister, the Honourable Judy Spence, on instigating the working party and listening to the concerns of Queensland consumers. I congratulate the Honourable Merri Rose and her staff on their hard work on this bill. I commend the minister for the hard work she has done since becoming Minister for Fair Trading, because I know that the consumers of Queensland will be listened to and that unfair practices will not be tolerated. I commend the bill to the House. Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—Ind) (5.31 p.m.): The first thing I must do is congratulate the Minister for Fair Trading on her approach to the Consumer Credit (Queensland) Amendment Bill and on her concern about those this bill seems to be aimed at—that is, those who do not seem to have much in life. I think it is absolutely wonderful that a government intends to regulate all personal lending in Australia, as mentioned in the second reading speech. That includes home loans, personal loans, credit cards and in-store finance. If the government can possibly regulate this side of lending, who knows where we will end up? Maybe we can move on to the major lenders and stop the ludicrous means they turn to in order to recover money. Some of their actions are what I call inhumane—for example, placing an extra six per cent to seven per cent interest on people who run into trouble repaying loans. The banks claim to be protecting shareholders, but they are only making some poor family or small business go to the wall. When they go to the wall, the shareholders miss out as well. The lenders spoken about in the bill are those who capitalise on the most vulnerable in our society. One example is a lending group which advertised through the Queensland Dairy Organisation newspaper and no doubt got a lot of inquiries because of the cheap interest rate advertised. Of the number of dairy farmers who no doubt applied—they were asked to pay a $2,000 up-front fee—only one got any finance, and that was through a major bank which this advertiser then claimed a fee for. These sorts of low-life tactics have to be stopped. Personally, I am happy to speak in favour of this bill. Not only do I want to see this bill made law, I would like to see it backdated, but I know that is not possible. To me, payday lenders are a group of people who should not exist. I have borrowed a lot of money over the years but have never had to take the disastrous step of having to make it 8 Aug 2001 Consumer Credit (Queensland) Amendment Bill 2383 happen in such a short time. The point I make is that these lenders are capitalising on people who probably should not be borrowing the money anyway. The percentages mentioned in the second reading speech of Minister Rose have really opened my eyes, and I thank her for that—235 per cent to over 1,300 per cent per annum. I think we might all be ducking for cover once this bill is passed. The minister says that the interest should not exceed 24 per cent, but I would have liked it to be no more than about 15 per cent. If that were the case, all of the rogue lenders would be pushed out. I commend the minister on the fact that the charges are to be not more than five per cent. I can remember years ago when my wife and I first bought our dairy farm. The bank I was with put a 10 per cent loan charge on us if we were to get feed money in an horrific drought. That is 10 per cent of the amount we were to borrow, as well as the high interest we were to be charged on that money. No doubt we did not take out the loan. I disagree with the following intention as set out in the second reading speech— However, it will not capture some products offered by mainstream credit providers, such as bridging finance, that were never intended to be caught by the code. Why is every government so scared of our major banks? I ask seriously that we look at all lending institutions and put an end to all corrupt lending, for example, the interest charged on bridging finance by major institutions. I am disappointed that this is not included. What about the major banks putting a huge interest charge on people in trouble? Some of the money referred to in this bill is borrowed by heavy gamblers and drug addicts who are not known or seen as such. They may have good jobs and may be good citizens. Lastly, I commend the government for going against the trend of national competition policy, which, I might add, seeks the deregulation of everything. It is so encouraging to see the Queensland government standing up and being accountable. I take this stand as someone who is against NCP. It is a stand Queensland must lead on and which no doubt will lead to bigger and better things. Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (5.35 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the Consumer Credit (Queensland) Amendment Bill 2001. One of the major concerns with payday lending that this bill will address is the creation of debt traps. Consumers can easily get caught in a debt trap by taking out payday loans. One of the most vulnerable groups is young people—students and so on—who are forever short of money and always seeking quick solutions to their chronic money shortage. When I was at uni a game of cards was seen as an avenue to easy money, but of course for every winner there was a loser, so it did not always solve the problem. Much of the advertising for payday loans is directed at students and young workers who do not have the experience to examine these agreements and to look further down the track to realise that the payments required to repay the immediate cash loan incorporate an interest component that equates sometimes to up to 1,300 per cent per annum. The same comments could just as validly be applied to elderly people—pensioners and so on. The GST has impacted most heavily on this section of the community and, as a result, their savings have been greatly diminished. When they come to a bit of a hurdle for which they have not allowed—for example, health problems or motor vehicle repairs, or even matters they have anticipated, such as rates or insurance bills—they do not have the money and it is attractive to seek a quick solution to the problem. As is the case with young people, they do not look far enough down the track to realise that the repayment figure contains a ridiculous interest component. Of course, in the event of default the penalties and interest become outrageous. If there is further default, there are no adjectives to describe the penalties and interest payable. I have mentioned the young and the elderly and some of the problems with this type of lending for them, but it impacts on the whole community. Consumers can easily find themselves getting caught having to borrow money each week just to live to the next payday. It gets worse if the consumer has to continue to borrow more and more money each week to pay out existing loans, and higher and higher fees are incurred. What is a superficially attractive proposition to alleviate what is perceived as a temporary situation causes permanent damage to the financial health of the borrower. It is not only damaging to financial health; financial hardship and even bankruptcy can have disastrous effects on the physical health of borrowers and their families. This situation is a treadmill that just keeps getting faster and faster. Eventually something has to give. Desperation can lead to desperate deeds. One way of repaying loans that have 2384 Consumer Credit (Queensland) Amendment Bill 8 Aug 2001 grown out of all proportion to the amount originally borrowed is to resort to crime. I am sure this is a factor in the level of drug and property offences we see today. In my legal practice I regularly acted for people driven to crime by what they saw as insurmountable debts. They saw no legal way out of the problem. And that was in the days when personal bank loans, bank cards or other credit cards were the problem. They at times charged up to 20 per cent per annum and caused those sorts of problems. Imagine the impact of payday loans with an effective interest rate of 1,300 per cent per annum! Some payday lenders require security for loans, such as a bill of sale over a car or other chattels, such as a caravan or a boat. The costs associated with the bill of sale are added to the loan, and the value of the security often far outweighs the amount of the loan. It also overlooks the fact that usually if there is some security for a loan, the interest rate is lower, as it is expected that the interest rate would reflect the possibility of default and non-recovery of the debt. So in addition to a bill of sale over, say, a car worth thousands of dollars to secure a loan for a few hundred dollars, these lenders are also charging up to 1,300 per cent per annum in effective interest rates. Many payday lenders obtain from customers a direct debit authority authorising the lender to withdraw money from the customer's bank account. That gives the lender first access to the customer's pay, possibly at the expense of the necessities of life, such as food and rent and children's clothing, et cetera. As I have said, payday lending is simply putting temptation in the way of sometimes desperate people. Payday lenders are exploiting a loophole in the consumer credit laws. This means that payday lenders are not covered by the same consumer protection laws as those that govern all other lenders. This means, for example, that payday lenders are not required to disclose to consumers the fees payable; payday lenders are not required to give consumers copies of the loan contract or paperwork; payday lenders are not required to give statements of account or receipts showing how much of the debt has been repaid; a contract does not need to be in writing—and this of course leads to all manner of confusion, misunderstanding and outright fraud; a consumer's ability to challenge in court the fees charged or other conduct of the lender is severely limited; and enforcement practices if the borrower does not repay are not regulated. I congratulate the minister and her staff on this bill, which will end these abuses, and I commend the bill to the House. Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (5.42 p.m.): I am pleased to endorse the comments made by honourable members in this House about this important legislation. Unfortunately, I have to say that there are people in Cairns and in far-north Queensland who badly need the protection that this legislation will provide. I am sorry to say that I have met some of the people and heard about the hardship piled upon hardship that these loan sharks have caused for them and their families. Some months ago now I met a young fellow—and we might all understand his circumstances. He is on casual work. He works in the hospitality industry in Cairns. Just prior to the weekend his mates had organised a bit of a fishing trip up in the cape and wanted him to come along. He was out of cash, but he was going to get paid the very next week, so it seemed to him like a good idea to get a small amount of cash so he could go away with his mates over the weekend, pay his way for the petrol and, I dare say, buy a drink or two. That is how he got into the cycle. And before he knew it, because of the small amount of money he had borrowed, he was hooked into increasing amounts—put down to fees and interest—that were way beyond him, given his uncertain casual and variable work. An even sadder story that I was confronted with came from a lady who lives in a public housing area. Her husband had obtained some work. She was not in the work force. They had five young children. Indeed, it was a celebration in the family that her husband was working. Unfortunately, however, he was a man given to excessive drinking from time to time. After being paid he had gone off with his mates celebrating and drank away his hard-earned earnings. She needed food for the family. There were no prospects of money until the next payday, so she borrowed what she thought was just enough money to buy food for the family to get them through the next 10 days or so. But she was caught. Another sad story is that of a woman who, for whatever set of reasons, has developed for herself a serious gambling problem. She does not know, either—in her sensible moments—why she is drawn to the same club, where she goes too many days of the week with whatever money she can rustle up and puts it through the gaming machines. Some weeks she breaks even and she does not get herself into debt. But sometimes she has been heavily in debt. It was then that 8 Aug 2001 Consumer Credit (Queensland) Amendment Bill 2385 she found herself in the hands of one of these payday lenders—dreadful people that they are. The Premier calls them loan sharks. He said— These loan sharks prey on the vulnerable by offering cash loans at huge interest rates to battlers between pay days. 'Loan sharks' does not seem to be a severe enough term for what these people are doing. They are sociopaths—even psychopaths—and certainly con men. And for most of the ones in Cairns that I have heard about, that is not a strong enough term for what they are. All of us are entitled to look for an opportunity to make some money in this world, and there are all sorts of good purposes to which we can put those dollars that we earn. But we are not entitled, of course, to do so by these disgusting practices of usury and by preying on people who are very often poor people, powerless people, impulsive people, sometimes financially naive and even financially dumb, one might say, and others who are just plain desperate. The minister gave us an example of a customer who had obtained a $50 payday advance which was to be repaid in two weeks. It sounded so harmless, so possible. However, the minister said, the amount was rolled over when the $50 was not able to be paid back within the two weeks, and the person was reassured that that would be all right, they could pay later. It kept being rolled over, so that in less than a year the debt amounted to $1,000—a usury rate of interest and, of course, fees were accruing all along the way. It is a debt trap and a deathtrap financially. And of course, it has powerful effects in terms of family and work circumstances. I would like to pay credit to the excellent work of the Office of Fair Trading throughout Queensland, I gather, though I know well that this is so in the city of Cairns. It is through the Office of Fair Trading that the details of these loan sharks and their practices have been brought to our attention and that the members of parliament today are able to stand here proudly and bring in this legislation which will very substantially at least curtail their practices. At least for the Office of Fair Trading in Cairns, I must say that their investigative work takes time. It is a busy office. Whenever I have been there the phone has been ringing off the hook about myriad matters. So I would sincerely like to pay compliments to the staff there who find the time to do the investigation and to bring to the minister—and thereby to the parliament—the facts of these matters. That is indeed to their credit. I am a great supporter of the Office of Fair Trading and believe in fact that it will need to be expanded in its size and resourcing as the years go on. Through Fair Trading a working party was established. It found last year that the effective interest rates charged by payday lenders ranged between 235 per cent and over 1,300 per cent per year. So in supporting this bill, what exactly does the bill do? It closes the loophole by providing that if the loan is for less than 62 days and the interest rate exceeds 24 per cent, then the new code will apply to the transaction. Similarly, if the fees and charges payable on the loan exceed five per cent of the amount of the loan and the loan is for less than 62 days, then the code applies. That will certainly protect those people in Cairns of whom I spoke who have been seeking amounts from $50 to $100. The five per cent marker—$5 out of $100—will ensure that the new code applies. Queensland, too, can be proud that we are setting the pace nationally; that this is national template legislation, and that it will thereby make payday lenders far more accountable by requiring the lender to fully and frankly disclose the terms of the loan; by requiring loan contracts to be in writing with a copy provided to the consumer; by making lenders accountable for the payments made by consumers; and by providing that a consumer can challenge a loan contract if it is unfair or oppressive. So I am pleased to hear that members from all of the parties and the Independents in this House—at least those who have spoken so far in this debate—support the bill. We need to realise that when there are these loan sharks, when there are these people who care only about their pocket and who care nothing for the damage that they do to others—these sociopaths, these psychopaths, these con men and these con women—stopping them may require yet further action. This is a large step that we are taking, but it is only the first step. The message to those people is that we will continue, that the campaign is not over yet, that the day will be won for those who need us to protect them from these sharks in Queensland. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (5.50 p.m.): There is a great degree of support on this side of the House for the proposals that are being put forward in this legislation. Certainly, the member for Southern Downs raised some issues, and I believe that the minister has taken them on board. I believe that those issues are quite important. 2386 Consumer Credit (Queensland) Amendment Bill 8 Aug 2001

There are a number of reasons why people get involved with payday lenders, which is a high- risk area. There is little question that massive profits can be gained from such lending. However, we have to consider the reasons why people get themselves into the position of requiring a payday lender. In some cases, it is for reasons of genuine hardship, as has been expounded by many members during this debate. Of course, issues such as gambling and drugs cause a great deal of problems in society. Also people and their families face difficulties because of poker machines. Because of those issues I suppose we can understand that, if credit facilities are provided, even though the price for paying for that credit is phenomenally high, people will go down that track. If a person is a compulsive gambler and needs to find money, of course that person will take advantage of that source of money. I believe that is what is happening. Payday lending is only a recent phenomenon. As has been said already, they have probably been around for about two years. However, they have now become a major concern because of the deprivation that they are causing to families and other people who are in trouble. I do not want to refer to the interest rates involved, because they have been spelt out very clearly by other members. Throughout Queensland and, indeed, Australia, credit providers are important. They provide a mechanism for people who have assets to borrow against. I suppose it depends on those assets as to whether or not people who are borrowing against them receive a fair deal in terms of interest rates. That is pretty much the long and the short of it. However, in recent times there have been bank mergers and takeovers. That has resulted in a reduction in the number of larger lending organisations and a reduction in competition. Of course, as this is happening, smaller lending institutions are coming in and filling the gap. Today, online banking has some major advantages. People are able to access their accounts and transfer money practically at any time. I think that is a big issue. It is becoming part of our lives and part of society. However, computerisation, the Internet and the capacity for people to do their banking without going to the banks is having some other implications, about which I will speak shortly. We have concerns about hackers. This morning in parliament we heard about the prospect of the Queensland super fund being raided by hackers. Whether or not that is a fact, we will find out shortly. Mr Barton interjected. Mr ROWELL: We listen to the members opposite very carefully. However, we are finding that people are able to access such systems. Yes, the person involved in this instance may have been caught, but when a system is put in place people are able to access it. We have to develop mechanisms that will protect that $9 billion of people's super funds. That is the point that I make. I want to talk further about online banking and how that has resulted in staff reductions in banks. I know that in towns of 8,000 or 10,000 people there are no longer branch managers in the banks. Just a handful of people are employed in the bank, very often working flexible hours. That diminishes the capacity of local bank branches to deal with issues. People have to travel hundreds of miles—maybe even to Brisbane—before they can actually do business with a bank, whether that is a financial transaction, buying property, obtaining a loan, a hire-purchase agreement, a lease or whatever it might be. Also we are seeing the banks increase their mobility as they sell off their assets. I believe that now very few bank premises are actually owned by the banks. The banks are turning to more flexible arrangements such as acquiring rental properties. Very often the bank will sell off its property and then renegotiate a rental for that property with the intention of staying in that location for the next 10 to 12 years. Through the banks liquidating their assets, they can get a higher return on their money than they can by owning property. I suppose this issue is all about risk. That is why the payday lenders are out there at present. They are charging enormous interest rates. As the risk increases or declines, so does the interest rate. Home loan interest rates are probably lower than, say, for rural loans. To some degree that has to do with risk. That causes increased concern to people who have to borrow money to run a business, because when they borrow money to run a business and the business does not go too well or they experience difficult seasonal conditions, it then becomes more difficult for them to make repayments on that borrowed money. Of course, for those people who are on wages—provided they have a regular job—and who buy a home, they have an asset that they can dispose of quickly. As a result, if those people get into financial trouble, it is easier for them to dispose of that asset than it is for people who have to sell their farm or their machinery, which is so vital to them, to get them out of financial trouble. 8 Aug 2001 Minister for Police and Corrective Services 2387

Of course, loan costs are more attractive on the larger loans. It takes just as much time for a bank to organise a loan of about $2 million or $3 million as it does for them to organise a loan for $20,000. We are now seeing a premium on the $20,000 or $30,000 loans as against the larger loans. Of course, some organisations do not want to deal with smaller loans. They get around that by charging a higher interest rate for those loans. There are mechanisms that the banks use to control the type of business that they want to be involved in. I want to talk very briefly about the collateral value of property. When people in rural areas experience adverse seasonal conditions and low returns on their products, particular when they experience a series of adverse seasonal conditions, those people experience a great deal of difficulty in repaying their loans. Very often they have to refinance their loans and so on. I believe that the banks recognise that. It is a mechanism that they use to certainly make it more difficult for people to operate. They will also use it as a mechanism to not take on particular loans that they consider to be high risk. Of course, when the banks reach the point at which they believe that their money is at risk, they become concerned with the collateral value of the property. The banks will then simply increase the interest rates to a point at which people cannot pay for their loans. When that occurs, the banks start to talk about selling off property. Very often, if a number of properties in an area face this problem, we see fire sales. Those fire sales then have a domino effect, because they impact very heavily on the collateral value of properties around a district. If a house is sold for $150,000 when it could probably have sold for $180,000 in better times, that sets a trend. The collateral value that people have in their properties all around that area is impinged upon. While the payday lending issue is of importance, the whole banking system and finance system causes some concerns. From time to time, I speak to banks about those concerns. I did that today with one particular bank. In summary, I congratulate the minister on putting forward this legislation. I hope she takes notice of the concern that was raised by the member for Southern Downs. Debate, on motion of Mr Rowell, adjourned.

MINISTER FOR POLICE AND CORRECTIVE SERVICES Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (6.00 p.m.) I move— That this parliament calls on the Premier to bring forward his planned mid-term appraisal of ministerial performances so that a more competent, more informed and less antagonistic minister can be appointed to the Police and Corrective Services portfolio. In the five months since the member for Mount Isa was appointed as Minister for Police and Corrective Services, community confidence in the administration of these important portfolios has plummeted, relations between the Queensland Police Service and the Beattie government have deteriorated to an all-time low and the correctional services system has been racked by a series of security breaches. The member for Mount Isa has been wont to say in the past that the buck stops with the minister. The opposition agrees. However, increasingly in recent times the member for Mount Isa has tried to duck his own pledge and blame everyone but himself or, if that fails, to shoot the messenger—practices that many of his colleagues on the other side of the House indulge in. We have seen members of this parliament asking legitimate questions, as they are entitled and expected to do on behalf of the public of Queensland, attacked and personally vilified for doing so. We have seen the Queensland Police Union viciously attacked with wild accusations whenever members of the union raise their very legitimate and serious concerns regarding issues such as the underfunding of their operations by the Beattie government and the refusal of the Beattie government to protect police officers in preparation for the expected demonstrations at CHOGM. We have seen staff and other individuals within the Corrective Services portfolio blamed and targeted whenever a security breach occurs. We have seen communities such as Helensvale arrogantly scorned for highlighting problems with police shortages. It is time that the member for Mount Isa did as he said and lived up to his pledge, because the buck does stop with him. It is worth noting that he was removed from his previous portfolio for exactly the same sorts of reasons as he now should be removed from the Police and Corrective Services portfolio—because the buck stopped with him. His position in that portfolio had become untenable because the mining industry had completely lost confidence in his administration and because he simply could not fix the issues that the industry needed fixed—issues like the backlog of some 1,700 mining exploration permits that had developed under the Beattie government's failed native title regime. 2388 Minister for Police and Corrective Services 8 Aug 2001

Let us look in more detail at the record of the member for Mount Isa since he was removed from the Mines and Energy portfolio and handed the Police and Corrective Services portfolio. Firstly, let us look at police staffing on the Gold Coast. In the most recent incident, last week the minister scoffed at concerns amongst Gold Coast residents about this fast-growing region, police response times and police numbers. Instead of sensibly and rationally undertaking to investigate the matter, as the Police Commissioner later did, the minister simply lambasted the Gold Coast Bulletin for reporting those concerns and then tried to claim that the region was overstaffed. The Minister for Police and Corrective Services stated that the Gold Coast, which has the worse crime rate in Queensland, is overpoliced. In fact, there is one officer to 606 people on the Gold Coast compared to a state average of one officer to 481 people. There is also the problem of the record number of police stress claims. Under the Beattie Labor government, Queensland police are lodging stress claims and being medically retired in record numbers. In the year 2000-01, 200 stress claims costing in excess of $3.6 million were lodged, compared to 118 in the year 1999-2000 which cost $1.5 million. Medical retirement numbers have increased from a three-year low in 1998-99 of 49 retirements to 58 in the year 2000-01. Those are dramatic increases in anyone's language and surely point to a significant problem within the Police Service. Despite that increase, the Police Minister proposes to do nothing because he is reportedly satisfied that best management practices are being implemented in the Police Service. I move to the Police budget. The Criminal Justice Commission recently revealed that Queensland's spending on criminal justice is four per cent below the national average. Despite a claimed budget increase, the minister failed to address this underspending relative to our national position in the 2001-02 state budget. The police housing maintenance budget was cut from $880,000 last year to just $653,000 this year. The maintenance budget for small stations has been cut from $630,000 to $500,000. The maintenance budget for watch-houses has been cut from $1.9 million to $1.2 million. The minor works budget for larger stations has been cut from $2.82 million to $2.1 million. Those figures reflect the fact that the minister is a weak representative of his portfolio in cabinet. Recently, on seven nights in a row there were police chases in south-east Queensland. The opposition has proposed that a new law be introduced to punish offenders who cause high-speed police chases. Despite the increase in police chases and subsequent accidents, and despite the dangers to the public, the minister still refuses our proposal to introduce a new law. The Beattie Labor government has also refused opposition calls to introduce a specific offence in the Criminal Code to protect Queensland police from assault. Those are the sorts of things that the minister should be bringing forward in cabinet, so that the ministers responsible for the relevant legislation can act to provide protection for our police. The existing provisions of the Criminal Code do not provide sufficient protection for police officers against assault or an effective deterrent for people considering making such an assault. An increasing number of violent assaults on police officers is occurring, resulting in stress caused to police and the very real risk of officers contracting a serious communicable disease. The Queensland Police Union has threatened to march on Parliament House in protest over security funding for CHOGM to provide for equipment, training and rehearsals. So far the Beattie Labor government has taken no notice of the recent call by the opposition to introduce special precinct powers during CHOGM to provide for the special needs of police in all circumstances. The Queensland Police Union has repeatedly expressed its extreme dissatisfaction with the minister, to the point where it has called for his sacking. Only today, after the minister was finally forced into it, has a meeting taken place between the Queensland Police Union and the minister. On the TV news tonight we saw the union stridently attacking the minister over the state of the cells at the police station at Cloncurry, some three years after they were burnt out. That is in the minister's own electorate, but nothing has happened about it. This year the police capital works budget has been cut by $4.4 million on last year's actual spending. For the first time ever, the department has been forced to borrow $22 million to pay for capital works, with an interest cost of $547,000 for this year alone. Queensland prison debts have soared to $226 million after the government slashed a $100 million equity injection from the budget of the Department of Corrective Services. In the important area of Drug Squad funding and despite the rampant increase in drug related crime, evidenced by the total rate of reportable drug offences increasing by 117 per cent to 1,010 offences per 100,000 population, just $5 million has been allocated to the Queensland Drug 8 Aug 2001 Minister for Police and Corrective Services 2389

Squad. This compares to an allocation of $133 million or 15 per cent of the entire Police budget for traffic policing this year, which got an increase of $14 million on last year's budget. As part of traffic monitoring operations, 1,691 police are employed in comparison to only 68 staff in the state drug investigative group. There were 41 escapes and absconds from custody in the past year. There are still three escapees and 10 absconds at large within the community. The minister has blamed the parole boards and community corrections staff. In desperation, he has put his director-general, Helen Ringrose, singularly in charge of approving all day leave and work leave permits. If that is not buck passing, I do not know what is. In relation to correctional services funding versus funding for police stations, we have seen the Beattie government spend $69 million on the Woodford prison, $44 million on the Brisbane Youth Detention Centre and $97 million on the Maryborough Correctional Centre's upgrade, yet there are police stations all over the state in need of urgent work to improve their security levels, provide more spacious facilities and generally provide for the needs of modern policing. Some of the works needed include those at the police headquarters in Roma Street, the city station, Holland Park, the overcrowded Oxley Police Academy and the Coolum Police Station. The planned $1.5m for the Coolum Police Station was scrapped by the Beattie Labor government after the 1998 state election. The police housing in rural and regional Queensland is appalling, with exposed electrical wiring, leaking roofs and rotting walls. Some of these places are beyond repair and many of them are in the minister's electorate. Maintenance work has not been conducted for months and even years. Finally, perhaps the most poignant demonstration that this minister is not up to the job came today in question time when the Premier tried to avoid backing his minister. It was only after sustained pressure that he was finally forced—he was dragged kicking and screaming—to offer any expression of confidence that the minister could do his job. He did everything possible not to answer the question and carried on with his usual antics. Time expired. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (6.10 p.m.): I rise to second the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. This morning in the parliament, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, we saw the Premier squirm and dither as he tried to find words of accusation against the opposition so as to avoid having to express support for his Minister for Police and Corrective Services, the member for Mount Isa. Mr Speaker, you might think that the Premier had reservations, but this evening let us see how many of the shining stars from the Labor Party on the Gold Coast are game to get to their feet in support— Mrs Reilly: I am not afraid. Mr JOHNSON: I hope the member is, given her arrogant stance on the matter of police numbers on the Gold Coast. When opposition members had the hide to express the concerns of residents on the Gold Coast, who have had to resort to using members of the fire brigade to help maintain law and order, this minister got to his feet and threatened to withdraw the new Toowoomba Police Station and then proceeded to claim that the Gold Coast is overmanned. Within minutes we saw that the Commissioner for Police had to defend his staff from the loose cannon and confirm that the Gold Coast was not overstaffed. That is contradictory for a start. So just who do the Premier and members opposite support—the Minister for Police or the Commissioner for Police? One of them is wrong and we all know who it is. I note also that the government has been critical of this opposition for voicing concern about the maladministration of the Police and Corrective Services portfolio. Do members opposite really agree that members of parliament should not represent the views of union members, or are they, just like the minister, total hypocrites? Mr Barton interjected. Mr JOHNSON: The member is a former Police Minister. He knows exactly what this portfolio is all about. He should pass on a bit of advice to his colleague. I will tell the House where I get the drum. The mail I get is from the people I speak to in the electorate and the police officers themselves. I have even spoken to members of the government 2390 Minister for Police and Corrective Services 8 Aug 2001 who have told me just how inept this minister is. Police officers right around this state volunteer this information because enough is enough and they have had an absolute gutful. The police are the custodians of law and order in the state and they deserve our total support. They tell me that the minister is out of touch and that all he is interested in is getting media coverage. But at the moment it seems he is more interested in negative publicity, and that does not improve the situation when he is challenged. Members opposite say all the time that this minister gets agro at the thought of being criticised. I have heard that from staff members, whether they be in the Police Service or in the Department of Mines and Energy. So we can imagine what members of the Police Service are saying. Of course the Premier had to come in here tonight and support his minister. I would expect no less of the Premier than that he would support his minister. But he knows, just as I know, that there are a lot of members on his side of the House who are saying that surely there are more appropriate members within his government who could fill this very important portfolio. I wish to touch on a couple of issues in my electorate, where we have a lot of one-man stations. The minister has a lot of one-man stations in his own electorate. They have not had a police officer for over 12 months. Some of those positions are being filled now. Even in Longreach itself, which is an inspector's district, there are five vacancies at the moment. A lot of good police will not go out there, because when it comes to paying $250 a week they would rather stay at Maroochydore or on the Gold Coast—where there is overstaffing. According to the commissioner, there are plenty of staff. But the minister says the area is overstaffed. But there is always a shortage. We know that there are shortages right around the state. It is about managing the resources. I call on this minister and the government to show some leadership on this issue. At the end of the day, it is the people in the regions who are paying the penalty because we do not have the good officers there to support communities and provide the thin blue line of security and safety for the people there. These are the most important people in our community. They would like to provide a better service, too. But their hands are tied and they cannot speak out. We know why they cannot speak out. The legislation sees to that. I urge the Premier to change this minister. Time expired. Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (6.15 p.m.): I move— That all words after 'that' be omitted and the following words be inserted— 'The Queensland Parliament congratulates the Queensland Government on the major initiatives it has taken to increase the police budget and police numbers, extend its capital works program and give the Queensland Police Service the support it needs, and has full confidence in the Minister for Police and Corrective Services.' In moving that motion, let me point out very clearly that our record of increasing expenditure both in terms of the Police budget and in the capital works area is one that we can all be proud of. During the 1998 election campaign, we promised 813 more police. When we came to government in 1998 there were 6,808 police. By the end of the first term, there were 7,644 officers—an increase of 836. We exceeded our promise. We will continue to increase police numbers by about 300 officers each year during this term. Let us compare our record to that of the previous government. The last coalition government promised 695 additional police but actually increased police numbers by only 437—well short of its target. We have also delivered record budgets for each of the last three years. Let us look at recent Police budgets. In 1996-97, the Police budget was $574 million; in 1997-98, $644 million; in 1998-99, $668 million; in 1999-2000, $740 million; in 2000-01, $801 million; and in 2001-02, $870 million. If we compare the figures, we will see that there has been about a $300 million increase under my government compared with the coalition. That says it all. The Police Minister is doing a great job delivering better police services to Queenslanders and he will continue in that role. If members opposite want to talk about non-performance, I am happy to deal with the National Party. I will come back to that. Let us look at the budget. In terms of housing—and I just got a quick note on this—as I understand it, the budget last year was about $300,000 and the actual spent was $880,000; this year the budget is $653,000 and we will spend close to $1 million. That is the position as I understand it. It goes without saying that we are delivering. The Police Union has indicated publicly on a number of occasions that it is prepared to take issue with the government on particular issues. I am not particularly worried about that. This is a 8 Aug 2001 Minister for Police and Corrective Services 2391 democracy and it is entitled to express its view. All I ask is that it do so accurately and honestly. However, the Police Union is in a particular position because of its responsibility. I draw everyone's attention to page 288 of the Fitzgerald report, by Commissioner Tony Fitzgerald, who had this to say about the Police Union involving itself in political matters. He stated— ... whilst unions have a legitimate role to play in industrial matters affecting their members, it is singularly inappropriate for the Union to demand the right to influence the selection of the Police Commissioner or Minister. The Fitzgerald report also states that the union has exercised considerable influence in shaping police force personnel—this was prior to the Fitzgerald inquiry—and management practice over many years, and that, whilst the unions have a legitimate role to play in industrial matters affecting their members, it is singularly inappropriate for the union to demand the right to influence, as I said before. In addition, it said that any contact between unions and government ministers, including the Premier, should occur only with the Police Commissioner and the minister being present. I am saying that the union has a legitimate role to be involved in industrial matters. It should not get involved in political matters. That is exactly what the Fitzgerald report said. Having made that point, this government—and this includes the Police Minister and me—is not interested in a fight with the Police Union, but we will stand up and explain to the people of Queensland what we are doing. In terms of the comments made about CHOGM and other issues, I understand what the Police Union is seeking to do. They are trying to embarrass the government to obtain industrial outcomes. The bottom line is that all that does is affect CHOGM. That damages the state. It does not help. All it does is hurt Queensland. I said to the Police Union that I would hope that they would be sensible and factual in their remarks. I am, however, committed to the view—and I delighted that the Police Minister had a successful meeting with them today—that we will work with the Police Union and we will achieve sensible outcomes. They should meet with the minister. I have indicated that I am happy to talk to them from time to time, but their first port of call should be the minister and we should ensure that we end up with sensible negotiations. Time expired. Hon. R. E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing) (6.20 p.m.): I rise to second the amendment moved by the Premier to the motion before the parliament. In doing so may I make the passing remark and observation that the only thing missing from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was the bit at the bottom which should have said 'written and organised by Gary Wilkinson on behalf of the Queensland Police Union'. There is no doubt whatsoever that what the Minister for Police has been subjected to in this chamber in terms of questions over the last couple of weeks is simply a return to the days of the healthy vine growing between the Queensland Police Union and the National Party. The same vine that was hacked away by the Fitzgerald reforms is now back and blooming and growing by the day. I do not criticise the entire Queensland Police Union, but there are certain individuals in it who are without any doubt whatsoever giving information to members of the National Party, writing their questions for them and—as is obvious tonight—writing their speeches. There is no possible reason to suggest that the sort of motion that has been moved here tonight should be supported—none whatsoever. There is no evidence at all. As the Premier has outlined tonight, if honourable members compare the figures in terms of what we have put into police resources and what members opposite put into it they will see that we are ahead. We are ahead in terms of the number of police. We are also ahead in the way that we are rebuilding stations in my own electorate. They were hobbled, which was absolutely disgraceful, as a result of the National Party being in power for 30 years. For example, two detectives were working in a fireplace in my electorate. We now have three new stations in Rockhampton—at least, one is under way at the moment; the other two are nearing completion. The fact of the matter is that, thanks to this minister, we have 30 more police coming on board in Rockhampton, yet the people opposite say that he should be dismissed, that he should be removed and that he does not enjoy the confidence of this government. I have to tell them that they are wrong—dead wrong. If they want to come in here and prosecute a case on behalf of the Queensland Police Union, if they think that they are back in the business of running the government, they are wrong. My good old mate Bill Gunn had the heart and the courage to stand up and tell the Police Union a few home truths back in the bad old days. And what did they do? They moved a motion of no confidence in him. We see a re-run of that here tonight. Who are the mouthpieces in here for the Police Union? Mr Barton: Look at what happened to them when they got into bed with the union. 2392 Minister for Police and Corrective Services 8 Aug 2001

Mr SCHWARTEN: I was just about to get to that. The fact of the matter is that they are not out there moving the motion of no confidence themselves any more; they are getting the National Party to do it for them. A couple of years ago we had the dirty, underhanded deal that was done in Mundingburra, which was exposed in this chamber time after time after time. The same key players are over there at the Police Union now and the same players are over here in the National Party. The fact of the matter is that that helped cost the National Party government, but they really do not understand that. The moment that they get up on their feet they go back to the good old days, as they saw them, the halcyon days of being arm in arm with the Police Union and belting the Labor Party from a position of strength. However, they are not in that position of strength now, and they will not get back into that position of strength if they continue down this path. The police who work in my electorate—and I know many of them and they do a hard day's toil—are not interested in political fights with the government; they are interested in getting on with the job. They expect their union—and I am a unionist, as are many people on this side of the House, and I will die one—to take up the fight on behalf of their union members for industrial conditions, and I support them doing that. What I do not support them doing is going out and undermining this minister, who is doing the right thing, who has the courage of his convictions to stand up and be counted on so many issues. Sure, they are not always going to agree with him, but the way not to do it is to be underhanded and go over there and get the National Party to do their dirty work for them. In relation to the housing issue, where was the Police Union 20 years ago when the Teachers Union was out there fighting the good cause for decent accommodation? They were nowhere to be seen. Why? Because the National Party was in government! We are now out there trying to fix up those mistakes, and it will take time and money to do it. The prioritisation of that work is in hand. I noticed the member for Callide yesterday belting Q-Build yet again, even though he has apprentices in his own electorate who are making a living out of Q-Build. Q-Build do a mighty fine job in this area. The fact of the matter is that the Queensland Police Union cannot even tell the truth when it comes to that. The incident that was outlined here about the burnt-out power point was caused by an overfilled fish tank, resulting in the water running down the wall and the power point shorting out. I can hardly believe that the opposition would raise such a point in support of the Queensland Police Union. This minister has every confidence from this government, and so he should. Time expired. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (6.25 p.m.): I rise to support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition and seconded by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I also rise to oppose the amendment that was moved by the Premier and seconded by the member for Rockhampton. Basically, the job of the opposition is to keep ministers accountable. The job of the opposition is to raise issues in this parliament. I find it a little bit strange that the members on the other side conveniently want to deny us the opportunity to be able to express issues on behalf of the Queensland Police Service and also issues that are reflected by the Queensland Police Union. When we do this in this parliament, they stand up and say that we are somehow going back to the Dark Ages and some sort of linkage between the opposition and the Police Union. They seek to deny the fact that there are some real issues there that need to be addressed. If they want to adopt that particular attitude, they will be suppressing the legitimate concerns of the membership which the Queensland Police Union is seeking to articulate on their behalf and concerns that come to us, as local members of parliament, which deserve to be raised in this place. Let us look at an article by Matthew Franklin which appeared in the Courier-Mail not all that long ago. It is headed 'Strategy to expose weakest links'. This motion tonight calls upon the Premier to bring forward the consideration of that cabinet reshuffle to expose those weakest links. The following words in the article give an indication of the Premier's thinking— No one knows who they are but the 19 ministers know Premier Peter Beattie plans a mid-term Cabinet reshuffle probably about June, 2002. They are on notice. 8 Aug 2001 Minister for Police and Corrective Services 2393

It states further— Beattie's decision to let the cat out of the Cabinet bag so early just after the February 17 state election highlights his understanding of the need for regeneration. ... He will do the same in the Cabinet and he has purposely let this be known to fire the starting gun on what will be a sensational race for ministerial leather between old stagers and ambitious newcomers. And aren't there a lot of them on the backbench? It goes on— Likely candidates for demotion would include Environment Minister Dean Wells, Families Minister Judy Spence and Employment Minister Matt Foley. This motion tonight asks the Premier to include on that list the honourable member for Mount Isa. The article continues— The next cabs off the cabinet rank probably will come from a group of MPs including Desley Boyle (Cairns), John Mickel (Logan), Jo-Ann Miller (Bundamba), Lesley Clark (Barron River), Tim Mulherin (Mackay), Darryl Briskey (Cleveland), Karen Struthers (Algester), Linda Lavarch (Kurwongbah) and Warren Pitt (Mulgrave). Mrs Reilly: All great and talented and exceptional members. Mr SPRINGBORG: The honourable member for Mudgeeraba is wanting to vote for this motion tonight because she wants to expedite her opportunity, but she is going to be forced by the solidarity on the other side—threats or otherwise—to vote against this motion and to vote for the amendment which was moved by the Premier. We heard a lot from the Premier earlier about what the government has purportedly done for the Police Service in Queensland. Let us not forget the fact that many good things for the Queensland Police Service happened under Russell Cooper, the person those opposite want to malign so much. Many social issues were addressed by Russell Cooper when he was Police Minister. He put in place the plan for an extra 2,000-odd police officers over 10 years. He also put in place the new police academy in Townsville. That police academy bore fruit for the previous government and is bearing fruit for the current government because it provides an opportunity for police officers to be trained in far-north Queensland and then dispersed across the state. It provides the opportunity for more police officers to come on line, and that is something that is demanded by the community in general. I was amazed to hear the Minister for Police indicate in this parliament the other day that it was his understanding that the Gold Coast was overrepresented in terms of police numbers. I am not sure what the sixpack, sevenpack or eightpack—whatever they are—on the Gold Coast think about that, but there were concerns raised in that regard. We have to fight for additional police officers. Another issue of concern to me is attacks on police officers, an issue that this government has to stand up for. There needs to be more effective deterrents in place. We hear people say, 'The courts will do the job.' The courts are not doing the job. The expectation in the community is that there needs to be a better system in place to protect police officers. They are on the streets protecting us, and we have a right to be protected. However, we also have a duty and obligation to protect our police officers. The Police Minister and the Attorney-General should take those sorts of issues to cabinet. This motion has to be supported. Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (6.31 p.m.): I am happy to address the motion before the House tonight, because it gives me an opportunity to highlight the achievements of this government and in particular the Minister for Police. It saddens me, however, that opposition members have wasted the time of the House by bringing this politically motivated and completely unfounded motion to the House. We have a Police Minister who will not shirk from his responsibility. He is prepared to stand up and make the tough decisions in the best interests of this state. The budget for 2001-02 shows the commitment by the minister to not only increase funding for the Queensland Police Service but also ensure that the Queensland public receives value for its money. The commitment of the Beattie Labor government and the Minister for Police and Corrective Services to being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime has never been more evident than with the largest budget in the Queensland Police Service's history. This budget gives the Police Service $870 million for operating costs, a massive 8.6 per cent or $69 million increase, compared to the 2000-01 budget. The budget has also boosted capital spending to $86 million. The police budget offered many highlights, including 300 additional police, 60 additional civilian positions, the continuation of the service's 10-year Capital Works Program, $7.5 million to enhance the service's scientific facilities, $7 million for new computers, $2.5 million for communication upgrades and enhancements, half a million dollars for forensic science 2394 Minister for Police and Corrective Services 8 Aug 2001 enhancements, and a further half a million dollars to enhance the service's capability in addressing the issue of drugs. All members of this House would appreciate the importance of police beats and police shopfronts as a visible police presence in their community. The government's commitment to 10 new shopfronts and 10 new police beats in this term is already under way. We will soon see six new neighbourhood police beats in communities, including Holloways Beach, North Ipswich, Redbank-Goodna, Rochedale South, Oxley and Tullawong. I am personally aware that the member for Glass House lobbied heavily to see a new police beat for Tullawong. Ms Keech: That's because she's such a good member. Mr ENGLISH: Yes, she is. There will also be four new police beat shopfronts in Cannon Park, Castletown, Springfield and Morayfield. Let us not forget the substantial construction program for this financial year, which includes new police stations at Calamvale, Fraser Island and Loganholme. Replacement police stations also are under construction at Agnes Waters and Eumundi. As if this was not enough, there is also the government's commitment of achieving a police strength of 9,100 officers by August 2005. The minister has also recently approved the first seven officers of the state flying squad and the first five tactical crime squads in Townsville, Logan-Gold Coast, the Valley, the Sunshine Coast and Cairns. They will be up and running by the end of the year. These squads will provide a real boost to regional police and be an excellent weapon in our fight against crime. The people of Queensland will clearly benefit from all these initiatives. The Beattie government is committed to being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. We have introduced practical crime-fighting measures and implemented a comprehensive range of commonsense crime prevention initiatives. All of my colleagues in the House and the people of Queensland have the utmost confidence in the Minister for Police and condemn the opposition for once again wasting the time of this House. The opposition would be best suited to sitting down and coming up with some substantial policy directions rather than wasting our time on empty rhetoric. Mr Schwarten: As an ex-police officer, you would know that, too. Mr ENGLISH: I do. Just as the opposition is devoid of policy ideas, it is bereft of original ideas concerning criticisms of the police portfolio. It has to rely on the Police Union to generate any interest in police issues. I suppose it makes a change from relying on the Courier-Mail for its ideas. The National Party lacks not only ideas but also direction. It is going nowhere. I would suggest that it reshuffles its own frontbench, but unfortunately there is no talent to shuffle. Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (6.35 p.m.): First of all, I express my concern that this parliament has once again allowed a motion to be amended by removing all words after 'that'. The original motion began with the words— That this Parliament calls on the Premier ... The amendment moved by the government states— That all words after 'That'— the very first word— be omitted and the following words be inserted— The Queensland Parliament congratulates the Queensland Government ... I went to a show society meeting the other night. The standing orders of a show society or any society in Queensland—and they are silent in particular areas—always refer to the Queensland government. With the current situation, any motion in Queensland can be changed or amended by removing all words after the very first word. What kind of ridiculous situation is that? If motions put before this House are the criteria for all committees in Queensland from now on, then it really is a most ridiculous situation. Any committee will laugh at us some time in the future when it sees what happens to the motions that come before this House. The Premier and the Minister for Police have to realise the difficult situation that arises for members of parliament when any minister comes into direct conflict with the union. Quite obviously, that situation can create massive problems. This is particularly so when the Police Minister comes into direct conflict with the Police Union. With regard to police and police stations in my electorate, this conflict has great potential to be embarrassing. During my many years in this place I have been in the position to look at the Capital Works Programs of all police stations in my electorate and have believed them to be very fair. Even though Beaudesert will only come on to the Capital Works Program in 2004, I have never asked for an upgrade of the Beaudesert Police 8 Aug 2001 Minister for Police and Corrective Services 2395

Station. Rather, I have always been very happy in this regard. In my time in this place Mount Tambourine has had a brand new police station built, as have Canungra and Rathdowney. Jimboomba has acquired a massive 27-man police station. I knew that was coming on line. When the ALP government came into power, I was able to say to then Minister Warburton at the time, 'You have to give us a 27-man police station because that's what's on the Capital Works Program.' I never asked for anything that was not on the Capital Works Program. It was a similar situation with Browns Plains in 1983. Even though there will be some difficulties in relation to Boonah in the future, I believe that I have been fair to the Capital Works Program. However, I know Beaudesert does not come on line in the budget until a particular year. I knew the Capital Works Program of Minister Cooper, and if this minister wants to deviate from that I will try to use whatever powers I have to avoid that situation. The Police Union has now come out and said that Beaudesert desperately needs a new $5 million police station. Gary Wilkinson said that the current station was too old, out of date and cramped. I agree with that, but then what happened? A spokesman from the minister's office said that the station was built in 1980 and is adequate for its eight police officers. There is a direct conflict between the minister and the Police Union. I do not mind playing politics, but I am concerned that either the Police Union is taking over my role or the minister is trying to vindicate his stand against the union. However, that is not the situation. The situation is that it should stay on the Capital Works Program. If the minister and the union are in direct conflict, I have trouble as a member of parliament, as would any other backbench member of parliament. If the minister is going to continue this fight against the union in the media, then we as members of parliament will be in a terrible position, as will our electorates. With such a breakdown in the relationship between the minister and the union we will have a stand-off. Nothing will occur in our electorates, simply because the minister has a fight with the union. Hopefully we can work with the capital works program and negotiate with the minister, but we do not want the minister saying, 'Because the union has asked for it I am not going to give it.' Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (6.40 p.m.): I am more than happy to support the amendment moved by the Premier and to indicate my support and that of my Gold Coast colleagues for the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. I will tell the House why I am more than happy to do that. Mr Johnson interjected. Mrs REILLY: I will tell the House why I am game to do it. The member for Gregory implied that the Gold Coast members were not game to speak on this or other motions. I am more than happy to speak because I am not afraid to speak on things that I know are right. And I am not afraid of the bullies and thugs on the opposition side of the House who think they can attack new members of parliament, stare us down and have us shaking in our boots. The other reason I am happy to speak in this debate tonight is that I know the true situation. I have more friends on the Gold Coast who are in the police force than the member for Gregory and other members opposite will ever have. Funnily enough, many of them live in the electorate or in the suburb of Helensvale and its surrounds, and so do their families. They have been talking to me about policing and crime issues in Helensvale. Funnily enough again, they are telling a very different story from that told by their Police Union. Why are they talking to me? Far from having no confidence in the minister, they have absolutely no confidence in the Police Union adequately and accurately representing their concerns. The minister has more than adequately responded to issues of policing on the Gold Coast, particularly to the issue of hooning. It is an issue I am very aware of, having been woken up in the wee hours of the morning several times in recent weeks by the sound of cars drag racing on my suburban street—something I did not hear a few years ago but have heard recently. Far from the minister not being aware of these issues and not acting promptly until they were brought to his attention by the Gold Coast Bulletin, he is working closely and consultatively with the Gold Coast members towards solutions. I will outline those for the House in just a moment. Ms Keech: It shows what a good minister he is. Mrs REILLY: That is right. He is a fabulous minister. Indeed, he has facilitated opportunity for Gold Coast members to speak openly and freely about these issues—with him, with the Police Commissioner and with senior police from Brisbane and the Gold Coast, as we have been doing. Gold Coast constituents know that they can come to us and talk about any concerns they have in relation to crime and policing, as they do regularly, because they know that we are listening and taking these issues to the minister, who is sympathetic and committed. 2396 Minister for Police and Corrective Services 8 Aug 2001

In relation to hooning, the minister will be taking several proposals to cabinet in the near future, with a view to increasing penalties and police enforcement in our communities. I might be able to get some sleep on a Friday night yet. I must say that the situation has in fact improved in recent weeks in the Parkwood-Arundel area due to regular reporting by residents to their local police, who have acted promptly, efficiently and adequately to put the situation to rest at all hours when they are called upon. One proposal which the Police Commissioner and minister have discussed is increasing the number of officers in the State Traffic Task Force to allow for a trial of new police in a traffic response team. The traffic response team would be based in Boondall but would work throughout the state. Its first priority areas would be the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast and Ipswich. I commend them on this very innovative and quick response. Another proposal is an increase in penalties for drivers found to be creating undue noise when operating a motor vehicle. We all know how loud drag racers' cars can be. A further measure which has been put forward is a legislative option to allow for the suspension of drivers' registration in instances where they have repeatedly failed to adhere to the law. A 'three strikes and you're out' option is expensive and would use up police resources. Police have better things to do than sit around baby-sitting hoons' cars and confiscating vehicles. The members for Albert and Broadwater have spoken to me about the response from local police, which they are more than happy with, and from the police community consultative committees, which provide a real opportunity for local police and community members to work together to solve local issues. That is a process of which the minister is tremendously supportive. It is one thing to call for more police, but the hard facts of life are that we cannot have police officers parked at the end of every street, waiting for a crime to happen. That is why communities and community members must play a greater role and take some responsibility in preventing crime and in reporting crime as it occurs, not come to tell the member weeks after something happened, 'We think there were some cars hooning in our area, but we were too busy to tell you.' Time expired. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (6.45 p.m.): One thing is becoming increasingly clear about this Beattie Labor government—that is, the Police and Corrective Services Minister is a dud. Over the last two months the opposition has taken the very measured, balanced approach of identifying, one after the other, the issues on which the Police Minister has failed in terms of the administration of his portfolio. Tonight we have come into this parliament and moved a motion calling on the Premier to bring forward his mid-term review and to replace the Police Minister with somebody more capable and able to do the job. What have we seen? We have seen a number of members stand up and wax lyrical about how wonderful the Police Minister is, but none of them have been prepared to deal with any of the issues that we have brought up over the last two months. Through the budget process, through the estimates process and over the last two weeks in parliament we have addressed those issues, one after another. Nobody has been prepared to stand up here tonight and argue those issues, not even the member for Rockhampton or any others of the members who— Mr SCHWARTEN: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. One of the issues raised was that of housing, and I did deal with that. I ask the honourable member to withdraw his statement accordingly. Mr SEENEY: There is no point of order, as the member quite rightly knows. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Minister, were you saying that was offensive? Mr SEENEY: He did not find it offensive and there is no point of order. Mr SCHWARTEN: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find the remark that I did not raise— Mr SEENEY: I withdraw so that I can continue with my speech. This is a deliberate tactic to prevent the opposition from having a say in this parliament. All the members on the other side have done in defence of the Police Minister is attack the Police Union. That includes the member for Rockhampton, who seems to have something of a phobia about the Police Union. All those opposite have done is attack the Police Union as though that is some sort of defence of the Police Minister. In effect, that is all the minister has done over 8 Aug 2001 Minister for Police and Corrective Services 2397 the last two months when we have raised these very genuine issues about his performance. His only defence has been to attack the Police Union. I put on record tonight that I have had no contact with the Police Union over the last two months. I have never met the president of the Police Union. I have never spoken to him on the phone. I have never spoken to anyone from the Police Union about any of the issues I have raised in this House, despite the conspiracy theories that the member for Rockhampton comes in here and peddles. The only material I have ever used that originated from the Police Union were some photographs to back up what opposition members were already hearing from other sources within the Police Service about the standard of housing that police officers had to endure. So government members can put that theory to rest. The Leader of the Opposition went through the issues one at a time, in a very ordered, very measured way. No-one has been prepared to talk about those issues. No-one has been prepared to talk about or defend the record number of stress claims. The Premier made a half-hearted attempt to defend the Police budget, because he knows he can stand up and sprout figures—millions of dollars here and millions of dollars there—and confuse everybody. There is no doubt that the police capital works budget has been cut by $4.4 million. There is no doubt that the housing maintenance budget has been cut from $880,000 to $653,000. Anyone who wants to look honestly at the budget documents can see the undeniable evidence. This Beattie government has an obvious mandate from the people of Queensland—it has an a mandate to govern this state for the next three years—but the Premier does not have a mandate to protect ministers who are not up to the job. The Beattie government has quite a deal of talent on the backbench, even if I do say so myself. There are plenty of people there who could better serve the people of Queensland in the role of Police Minister than the member for Mount Isa, who has clearly failed on a whole range of issues. He has failed in this portfolio area, just as he failed in his previous portfolio area. He has this portfolio because of his failure when he was the Minister for Mines and Energy and when he totally lost the confidence of the mining industry. He has totally lost the confidence of the Police Service, and he has totally lost the confidence of the people of Queensland. If the Premier is going to deliver on any of the rhetoric that he so self-righteously sprouts in this place, he needs to bring forward that ministerial review, review the performance of this minister and replace him with someone who is capable of doing the job. Time expired. Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (6.50 p.m.): I take this opportunity tonight to respond to some of the scurrilous remarks that have been perpetrated by members opposite, many of which have been made simply to make the news headlines. As someone who has been involved in the Labor movement for some 40 years, I accept this motion tonight as a badge of honour which I wear with a great deal of pride. By having my political opponents forced into such a situation, I am a proud person tonight. We will never, ever, ever let them forget how they dragged this state into the political gutters. The political stance to which we are now subjected on a daily basis really makes me wonder whether members opposite care about the government process at all. It makes me wonder whether they have any respect at all for the parliamentary traditions. But then again, we have to remember just whom this side is dealing with. In relation to the Police portfolio, the hypocrisy of some members opposite can only be described as breathtaking. They are welcome to criticise the government, and they are welcome to criticise me. But let nobody in this House forget that it was the party of the opposition that presided over Queensland's darkest days pre-Fitzgerald. And as I said a moment ago, we will never, ever, ever let them forget this. It was the National Party which was in power when widespread corruption was exposed all the way to the then serving Police Commissioner. And when it comes to my personal performance, I want to refer to some of the achievements since I came into this portfolio. In the first six months of the second Beattie government we have achieved much. I have travelled to police stations at Maryborough, Townsville, Rockhampton, the Gold Coast, Mornington Island, Normanton, Cloncurry, Winton, Cairns, Edmonton, Gordonvale, Mooloolaba, Doomadgee, Logan, Beenleigh, the Redlands, Gladstone, Tannum Sands, Nambour, Bundaberg and Agnes Water. We have legislated to close the loophole in the Weapons Act which previously allowed hand guns rendered inoperable to be restored to working order and potentially end up in the hands of criminals. 2398 Adjournment 8 Aug 2001

We are overseeing extensive preparations for CHOGM. We have worked with industry groups such as Agforce to address the issues of increased stock theft associated with rising cattle prices. And we have expanded the state's DNA testing program to include the routine sampling of prisoners in police watch-houses. Members would be aware that just this week I foreshadowed new laws to deal with hooning. And also this week we announced a task force on graffiti. I have delivered a record Police budget for the coming financial year. This year's budget is underpinned by an 8.6 per cent increase in the operating budget, bringing it to a record amount of $870 million—a record amount. Importantly, the government will deliver on one of its key election commitments, that is, increasing police numbers. The Beattie government has provided funding to increase police numbers by about 300 officers each year to reach the target of 9,100 sworn officers by the year 2005. And as I pointed out last week, it is the job of the government to provide additional funding to deliver net increases in police numbers rather than to become involved in the actual allocation of police officers to particular areas. That is an operational matter. One has only to look at the government's record during the last term to realise that when we say that the commitment will be delivered in full, we mean it. And during the last term of government we committed to providing an additional 813 police. By the end of our first term we actually delivered a net increase of 836 sworn officers—an average of more than 300 additional officers each year. The opposition's poor record in delivering increased police numbers is clear for everybody in this state to see. The last coalition government promised 695 additional police but actually increased police numbers by only 437—well short of its target. And in relation to police spending, the Beattie government's record was described by the Premier— Time expired. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 59—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, E. Cunningham, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Hopper, Jarratt, Keech, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nolan, Nuttall, Pearce, Pitt, Poole, Pratt, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Smith, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Purcell NOES, 15—Copeland, Horan, Johnson, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Quinn, E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Watson. Tellers: Lester, Springborg Resolved in the affirmative. Question—That the motion as amended be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 59—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, E. Cunningham, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Hopper, Jarratt, Keech, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nolan, Nuttall, Pearce, Pitt, Poole, Pratt, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Smith, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Purcell NOES, 15—Copeland, Horan, Johnson, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Quinn, E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Watson. Tellers: Lester, Springborg Resolved in the affirmative.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (7.06 p.m.): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

WorkCover, Investigation Services Dr WATSON (Moggill—Lib) (7.06 p.m.): WorkCover has traditionally managed Queensland's workers compensation claims and employed external local loss adjusters, which I am advised total about 55 firms, to carry out factual investigations into industrial and work-related accidents. The personnel involved in these operations, who operate throughout the state, number between 90 and 100, but they are not solely involved in carrying out WorkCover assignments. These experienced personnel carry out work in accordance with WorkCover's standardised criteria. As late as 22 November last year WorkCover acknowledged its satisfaction with the system. Yet on 14 July 2001 WorkCover advertised in the media for the management and provision of claims investigations. The material issued and made available on application indicates clearly that WorkCover intends to appoint a very small number of organisations, which I am advised total 8 Aug 2001 Adjournment 2399 about 10 to 15 at the most, compared with the current 55 that are employed. However, in reality, on the information provided by WorkCover, this will be about four or five organisations. It is very doubtful if any of the current established firms or personnel who until now were most acceptable service providers to WorkCover can meet the requested criteria. The inflexible criteria are very discriminatory and bear all the overtones of southern investigation organisations, some of which have extended their operations to Queensland. It is common in southern states for organisations to employ retired, superannuated public servants who in their past lives have been involved in some form of investigation. In the main, some of these organisations are private inquiry agencies of a general type that are not experienced in the factual investigation of work- related matters. Their operations are on a much broader scale and involve such issues as extortion, blackmail, divorce, corporate fraud, missing persons, spying on employees, spying on children for parents and things like that. In many instances these subcontractors have no understanding of the type of investigative work required for personal injury claims or the skills associated with the promotion of WorkCover. WorkCover factual investigations require a somewhat specialist approach and the skill levels required are much greater than those that are required in the broader type of investigations to which I have referred. WorkCover's plan, which I think many in the industry believe could very well be driven by New South Wales established practices, will certainly cause the unemployment of experienced personnel. Quite frankly, it smacks right at the heart of the Beattie government's supposed commitment and concern for jobs, jobs, jobs. As usual, this government looks like selling Queensland jobs to interstate organisations.

Glasshouse Country Meals on Wheels Association Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (7.09 p.m.): I would like to inform the House of some fantastic work that is being undertaken by a very dedicated group of volunteers in my electorate, the Glasshouse Country Meals on Wheels Association. I believe that, in the International Year of the Volunteer, the best thing that we can do is acknowledge and celebrate the hard work of our dedicated volunteers. The Glasshouse Country Meals on Wheels Association is a wonderful example of such volunteers. Tonight I would really like to honour them for their dedication and commitment to helping keep people in their homes and also for just keeping an eye on the people who are out there in our community. On the weekend I attended the 15th annual general meeting of that association. Although that organisation has been going for exactly 15 years in an official capacity, the people involved in the organisation were busy doing their hard work a lot earlier than that. They were also interacting with people from the Maleny Meals on Wheels, the Caloundra Meals on Wheels and, of course, later on with people from the Caboolture Meals on Wheels. It is just fantastic to see the work that all of those wonderful volunteers are doing. Something that I found really just too great for words was the fact that three of the original volunteers are still there today working with their other volunteers in Meals on Wheels. One of those three people is Mr Tom Bartlett, who is one of the founding members of the Glasshouse Country Meals on Wheels Association. He is a wonderful man. As I said, he has been doing that work for 15 years. He received his 15-year service medal, along with Mrs Betty Upson. They were presented with their medals by their long-serving president, Mr Tom Upson. I believe that Tom has been the president for 11 years. This year he has decided to pass it on. It was great to see him present the medals to those two people. Although another volunteer, Mrs Joyce Barry, was not at the meeting on the weekend, she will be presented with her 15-year service medal when she attends the next meeting. As I said, this group has been dedicated to doing their work for a really long time. Over that time they have encouraged other people in the community to help them. I think they have about 55 members on their books who are working to help the Glasshouse community. Apart from hearing about the good work that they do, it was interesting to hear the humorous stories that they had to tell. One story was about when the group went to a house to deliver a meal. The elderly lady who lived at that house did not answer the door, so they were in the process of knocking down the front door. They had a police officer there as well. Just as they were about to break through the second door, up came the lady with her nephew in a car. He had very kindly taken her on a surprise outing. But the volunteers were so worried about her that they 2400 Adjournment 8 Aug 2001 risked life and limb and sore shoulders to break down the door to make sure that she was okay. That is the sort of good work that these volunteers are doing in our community. The Glasshouse Country Meals on Wheels Association has 22 clients. It has had a 45 per cent increase in demand for its meals. The association manages to keep the prices down by fundraising, by using its HACC grant and by using produce kindly donated by a lot of the growers in the area. I thank all of those people.

Toowoomba Surf Life-Saving Club Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (7.12 p.m.): Tonight I would like to promote Queensland's first-ever inland surf life saving club in the beautiful range-side city of Toowoomba. Warwick has had a junior program established for some time with close links to a coastal club. That program has been extremely successful, but Toowoomba intends to be the first fully established club. The Toowoomba Surf Life Saving Club was established at a meeting of interested stakeholders on 11 July this year. I was very happy to be the first-ever signed up financial member of the club and am very proud to hold the position of vice-president on the very first club executive. Many of my colleagues on both of sides of the chamber may be amused at the concept of a surf life saving club in Toowoomba, where admittedly there is no beach or, for that matter, any surf. However, the establishment of this club in Toowoomba is by no means a joke or a tourist gimmick. The Toowoomba Surf Life Saving Club has been established to provide the very important service of educating people on the Darling Downs through raising awareness of the dangers of swimming in the surf and teaching safe practices for swimming at the coast. The Darling Downs is classified as an at-risk area by Surf Lifesaving Queensland as it is over 50 kilometres from the coast. Invariably holiday makers travel to the beach only once or twice a year and are not familiar with some of the dangers of swimming in the ocean. Consequently, the provision of such a service to people on the downs is of vital importance. Hopefully, it will assist to reduce the incidences of surf-related tragedies. While education and awareness are the cornerstone of the club's existence, it is envisaged that down the track the club will enter surf-lifesaving competitions. The Nobby Beach Surf Life Saving Club has kindly donated a surf rescue boat and our club is gathering teams to train on one of our local dams. In the first instance this will be for fun, but with a view to maybe getting serious down the track. At the present time, a nipper training program is in place that has amassed a very enthusiastic band of Toowoomba juniors. For the initial program, the club received 80 interested potential nippers, but could afford to handle only 40. Therefore, it is a major goal of the club to expand this very worthwhile program. On excursions to the coast, professional surf-lifesavers have marvelled at the enthusiasm and ability of the young nippers in the program. This week I attended the club's very successful corporate dinner, which was well attended by leading businesses and sporting identifies, as well as residents from all sections of the community. The development and success of the Toowoomba Surf Life Saving Club would not be possible without the dedication of club President, John White, and my fellow Vice-President, Brian Turner. Their combined efforts to get the club up and running have been invaluable. Undoubtedly, the most encouraging aspect of the club's establishment has been the overwhelming support of the Toowoomba community. With this support, it is my hope that the Toowoomba Surf Life Saving Club will continue to thrive, promoting water skills and a healthy and active lifestyle for young people on the Darling Downs. If the only message we get out is to swim between the flags, that will be a very successful outcome.

Celebration of the Arts Ms KEECH (Albert—ALP) (7.15 p.m.): Last Friday night Beenleigh was alive with the sound of music. The music came not from the Austrian hills but from the Beenleigh Community Centre, where a group of 11 state schools joined together for the Celebration of the Arts 2001—A Space Odyssey. This event featured 11 state schools: Beenleigh State High School in conjunction with 8 Aug 2001 Adjournment 2401

Beenleigh, Cedar Creek, Eden's Landing, Eagleby, Eagleby South, Mount Warren Park, Pimpama, Windaroo and Woongoolba State Schools. This was an incredible event. It is an annual event and I enjoyed it last year as well. The events showcased the students' musical abilities and their performance skills. All aspects of Education Queensland's art curriculum were involved on the night: art, dance, drama, media, music and instrumental music. The huge audience certainly enjoyed the evening. The overarching objective of the Beattie government's education commitment is to improve the quality of the education experience in state schools for all students. Certainly the reaction from the huge crowd of parents showed that this goal is being met. There was standing room only and it was certainly a very enjoyable night. Parents, grandparents and friends gathered together to applaud the young people. Zoltan Kodaly, a pioneer in child music education, said— The characteristics of a good musicians are a well-trained ear, a well-trained intelligence, a well-trained heart and a well-trained hand. All four parts must develop together in constant equilibrium. That is what we saw that evening. We saw children not only playing musical instruments and performing to their very best, but also thoroughly enjoying themselves. Mr Terry Sullivan: It makes you proud of our kids, doesn't it? Ms KEECH: It certainly does and they are doing a great job. It makes us not only proud of our kids but also of their teachers. Research shows that music appreciation and music experienced by children has a positive effect on all areas of their developmental skills. In fact, learning to play a musical instrument helps students to develop physically, mentally, emotionally and socially. As a mother of two children who played the saxophone at Windaroo State School, I can certainly attest to that. It taught my children discipline and enhanced their self-esteem. There is also a strong relationship between high self-perception, high cognitive skills, general self-esteem and an interest in school music. The event was absolutely fantastic and I applaud all teachers and parents who were involved in it.

Blood Donors Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (7.18 p.m.): Blood donors are a valuable resource in our communities, yet in very many small towns throughout Queensland the ability to drop into a blood bank and donate regularly has been taken away. Where once a workman could give a pint during his lunch break, now he is more likely to drink a pint instead. As we are all very aware, that could lead to the need for a pint or two of the good stuff in hospital in the event of an accident. Calls for urgent regular donations of blood are almost continuous, yet it was prior to Christmas 2000 that a mobile unit last visited our area to harvest blood. Since then, there has been no other visit to collect this valuable life-giving donation. Why? It could not be for the lack of donors, because there were approximately 100 eager donors on the list, willing and waiting—and waiting and waiting. When the mobile unit did visit, all donors were booked in for a specific time. Although no-one minds waiting for a little while, up to two or more hours was a bit ridiculous. Many people were turned away because the mobile blood unit could not cope. One of the staff of the unit, whilst taking my donation, said that they had not realised how far out we were. A miscalculation of time had put them very much behind time, hence the turning away. Therefore, the cost per pint given must have risen considerably. For some residents giving blood is a regular 'feel good' exercise which they willingly participate in every three months, because they believe in the need and they hear the constant calls that go out for more blood donors. Unfortunately, many people now feel that their willing donation is no longer wanted. Many of these donors regularly receive letters asking for them to donate and continually outlining the urgency and sometimes conveying the desperate shortage of some of the rarer blood groups. For those donors there is a need now to travel to Gympie, Toowoomba or Strathpine, I am told. We are not talking about a quick trip to the next suburb; we are talking about a trip of over two hours one way, which for many of the regular donors is a very big ask indeed, not only in the cost of fuel—as we all know, it can often in the country be 10c higher than in the city—but also in time. To travel to these towns to donate would take in excess of six hours, because no-one would advise donors to drive very soon after giving blood. 2402 Adjournment 8 Aug 2001

Giving blood was something I used to participate in, but unfortunately it is one service I can no longer perform. But I hope many people will take up the call. During the years I did donate, it was a regular occurrence in a very small country town with a population of just over 600 people. Every three months in the outpatients clinic the doctor and sister would run the donors through and send the blood on its way. Marion, the sister, would be assisted by the community volunteers, who served the drinks and bikkies. It was no hardship and it was never difficult to fill the quotas. So why has this service been stopped when there is this constant call for blood? I ask that the minister seriously consider reinstating regular visits of the mobile unit to these towns or, if this is too expensive, allowing those willing to donate to have regular donating days in the hospitals.

Indigiscape Weekend Expo 2001 Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (7.21 p.m.): On 4 August this year I attended the Indigiscape Weekend Expo, opened by the Honourable Dean Wells, Minister for Environment, and also attended by Mr John English, the member for Redlands. The IndigiScapes Centre in Capalaba is a first-of-its-kind educational and botanical facility for displaying and interpreting indigenous plant communities. IndigiScapes provides research networks to experiment with new and difficult-to- grow plants, field days for student and residents, plant sales and landscaping ideas, plant identification of local plants and environmental weeds, as well as providing flora and fauna advice for the community. Since its opening two years ago, the IndigiScapes Centre has proven to be an outstanding environmental education resource for visitors and residents of the Redlands community. It provides successful, innovative opportunities for the local community to learn, observe and become involved in activities associated with the natural environment. Looking around that day, I could see that the theme for this expo, 'Leisure in the bush', has come alive. Through practical demonstrations and displays we are shown how we are able to enjoy the environment without negatively impacting it for future generations. It has already had great success in improving community awareness as to the range of local native plants suitable for our gardens that will encourage native wildlife to thrive. This was accomplished in part through the large number of people who took part in the recent Bush Friendly Garden Competition. We all have a role to play in nature conservation. Each of us has an individual responsibility to have as little impact as possible. We must look to our homes and everyday lives for ways to help preserve our environment. It is our choice whether we contribute, and it is great to see so many Queenslanders taking a positive step towards understanding and preserving our natural environment. This environmental education expo provides the Redlands community with an opportunity to become involved in activities associated with preserving the natural environment. There was a wide range of displays and activities planned across the weekend that highlighted various ways in which locals could enjoy their natural environment without leaving behind or creating negative impacts. This expo also represents the culmination of a lot of hard work by both the staff and volunteers associated with the IndigiScapes Centre. My appreciation goes to Rosalie and Adrian of IndigiScapes as well as the centre's staff. A special thankyou must also be extended to the dedicated group of volunteer staff who act as tour guides, bush regenerators and gardeners. My personal thanks to Genevieve Gall and Amy Glade of Birkdale Progress Association and the Koala Action Group for bringing environmental issues in Capalaba to my attention. The Minister for Environment, the Honourable Dean Wells, said in opening the expo that environmental education centres such as the Redlands IndigiScapes Centre play a vital role in encouraging, educating and supporting local communities to better understand and appreciate their natural environment. I thank the minister for his support and his attendance.

Casual Cassowary Tea House Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (7.24 p.m.): In a letter from the Department of Tourism and Racing about the Queensland government's strategy for growing tourism in Queensland it is stated that the Queensland government 'recognises that tourism is driven by private sector enterprise'. This letter stated also that one of the key roles of the government is to 'provide an 8 Aug 2001 Adjournment 2403 environment that stimulates and value adds to the efforts of industry'. Why is it then that a new innovative tourism venture in the Cardwell shire is being blocked at every turn? The Casual Cassowary Tea House is an ecological project established in close proximity to the Ingham township. This venture is free to the public and has generated three new jobs in the Ingham district. The government has forced the closure of this establishment due to the fact that there is not a suitable highway exit leading to the property. The Department of Tourism and Racing also states in its letter that 'a number of key issue areas of challenge need to be addressed to realise the industry's full potential, including infrastructure and services' amongst other things. Doesn't the closure of the Casual Cassowary Tea House make a mockery of this statement? It seems that the Casual Cassowary Tea House has been forced to close its doors simply because the government finds it too difficult to find a solution to the problem of the highway exit. Instead, when the owners of the tea house approached the Department of Tourism and Racing for assistance, they were advised that the problem they were facing sat within the portfolio of the Department of Main Roads. The solution that the Department of Main Roads had was to advise the owner of the establishment to find an additional $95,000 to fund the construction of the highway exit. The owner of the tea house has already expended funds to the extent of $630,000 not only to get the project off the ground but also to actively contribute to tourism in north Queensland. Is this government going to stand up and ask the owners of the Casual Cassowary Tea House to find an additional $95,000 to fund a project that is the joint responsibility of the Department of Tourism and Racing and the Department of Main Roads? Is this how the government is going to address infrastructure and services to the tourism sector? It seems to me that this is a genuine case of passing the buck. I have no doubt that if this project was close to Brisbane and was a major project this would have been a minor consideration for this government with the jobs, jobs, jobs mantra.

Childers Multicultural Festival Mr STRONG (Burnett—ALP) (7.27 p.m.): I take this opportunity to enlighten members and Queenslanders about an event or, more precisely, a celebration of community called the Childers Multicultural Festival, which took place a few weeks ago. The people of Childers decided six years ago to hold a multicultural festival to benefit the local business community, to lift the profile of their heritage town to squeeze more out of the tourist dollar and to bring the community together in celebrating the varied cultures represented by its permanent residents and well supported by the diverse nationalities of its transient backpacker workers. The festival has grown not only in size but also in stature. The Isis Shire Council has always seen the big picture, with its strong commitment towards the success of this festival. The appointment of Nancy Calder as organiser guarantees the continuity of the festival and brings a high level of organisation from one year to the next, which we all know contributes to the goodwill involved between shopkeepers and stall holders. The council facilitates the closure of the Bruce Highway so that it can be used as a perfect venue for such a festival. A marvellous assortment of food stalls, craft stalls and beverage stalls, as well as every shop owner open for business, made for a wonderful sight along Highway 1. Over 40,000 people were estimated to have attended this year's festival, all of whom would have been delighted with the fine array of international bands, traditional dancers from North America, singers from South America and the like. Also, local acts were well supported. They gave the impression that they were enjoying it more than their audiences. With such a great venue as the main street, the sounds of different bands and acts echoed off the heritage buildings to give somewhat of a mardi gras type of feel. As my family and I walked up the street, our taste buds were tantalised by the many different aromas coming from the competing food stalls. Colours of all types abounded in children's traditional dress and flags of different nations. Its biggest drawcard is not the stalls which have grown in number and diversity, nor is it the entertainment which changes from year to year in both variety and quantity, but the atmosphere. All accolades should go to the community of Childers for providing an atmosphere for their festival that families will drive for hours to experience. It comes from the smiling faces of the volunteers, the happy demeanour of council staff and the friendly acknowledgments of shopkeepers. It is the atmosphere of Childers that makes the cultural festival a huge success. 2404 Adjournment 8 Aug 2001

Medical Cover-Ups Miss ELISA ROBERTS (Gympie—ONP) (7.30 p.m.): I rise today to speak about this government's plans to protect the medical profession from accountability to the public. Many people laughed at the supposition put forward in George Orwell's book 1984 but, like it or not, we here in Queensland are living and breathing it. The Big Brother syndrome is alive and well here under the Beattie government. It is a reality that the public are being denied the freedom and rights to which they are entitled. Let me give honourable members an example. This government has seen fit to put into place a mechanism to protect the medical industry from litigation and public scrutiny by the withdrawal of our ability to obtain information about procedures, either performed or carried out by a health professional. Consumers are no longer entitled, under the Freedom of Information Act, to be made aware of medical performance or negligence in case we decide to use it to sue the medical person or institution. This protection of potential 'wrongdoers' is totally wrong and completely undemocratic. We do not live under a Stalinist regime but a Labor regime of 'keep the masses in the dark' and 'let's see how much more we can take away from Queenslanders—we've shut down their industries, taken away their jobs, now let's take away their rights'. As politicians we are all accountable to our electorate, the people whom we represent. If we do the wrong thing by them, we pay for this by not being re-elected. The medical industry has got to be the same: if they make a mistake, they too have to face the consequences. Medical practitioners and health workers do have very demanding positions, with their medical blunders in many instances meaning the difference between life or death. But they chose their occupation, they trained for it and they are paid for it. They must be accountable for their actions. Take away their accountability and what sort of medical standard will we have in this state? The public should have the right to choose a health facility based on its performance. Isn't this why medical facilities have to be accredited? I know of one particular gentleman who, along with his solicitor, has been fighting a Queensland hospital for over 12 months for access to his medical records. This particular man sought medical treatment and, as a result, is in a much worse medical state than when he first presented. But he has been told that, because of a clause in the Freedom of Information Act, he is not entitled to see what was actually done to him in case he uses the information to sue. Surely this is not right. It is up to us to work for our constituents, not against them. We need to provide them with the mechanisms needed to assist them to fight back and not to take these mechanisms away. Please do not allow this 50th Parliament to be the one that eroded the rights of Queenslanders. Let's make transparency the key to reaching higher standards in all areas of the community.

Zoe's Place Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (7.33 p.m.): It is with great pleasure that I will be launching the Mount Ommaney Bike Hike on 25 August this year. This event will be held to raise funds for the construction of Zoe's Place, a hospice for children with life-threatening illnesses, in the heart of Centenary. The idea of Zoe's Place was supported by the former member for Mount Ommaney, Bob Harper, and I continue to provide whatever help I can towards the project. Zoe's Place was inspired by Zoe Reed, who was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis and died in 1994 at the age of 11. Her dying wish was that people were made aware of the stress on families when one of their children has a life-limiting illness. Her father, Nigel Reed, literally walked the world to raise awareness, and he started a fundraising campaign to build Queensland's first respite centre for families of these children. The main aim of Zoe's Place will be to keep families together during those difficult times. It will provide support for all family members and the sick child by providing a much-needed break and medical supervision for the affected child. It is easy to see why such a service is needed when pressures can tear a close-knit family apart in such emotional circumstances. Zoe's Place management committee president, Sister Pamela Baker, has been conducting fundraising activities for the last five years. She said that Zoe's Place needs to raise $1 million before it can be built. The state government has allocated 1.8 hectares of land opposite the Mount Ommaney shopping centre to build the hospice. The local community has supported this project from its beginning and many volunteers have asked to be a part of Zoe's Place. 8 Aug 2001 Adjournment 2405

This bike hike is one of many community fundraisers in which people in my constituency have participated. The bike hike will start at the Mount Ommaney shopping centre and will weave its way through a few major streets and into the leafy suburbs for 25 kilometres. There is a smaller course for the children and those who cannot manage the longer distance. Tiny tots will be provided with a course at the shopping centre as well. It will be a day for the whole family, ending with a carnival and stalls and something for everyone. The main objective is to bring the local community together and to raise funds to support this very worthwhile project. Zoe's Place will take pride of place in the heart of our Centenary suburbs in the not-too- distant future. Many people from the local area will work as volunteers and they look forward to being able to contribute to such a worthwhile cause. It is great to see such overwhelming support locally for this special project and to assist families with children who have a life-limiting illness. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 7.36 p.m.